Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-23-2004 Planning Commission Packet~`y,5iEC1 .* ~ ~ I ~ ~~~ ~ 6S9I-ZL8`80b (~' IOL03b MN?I03['Id~ `NJ03.d~' ueam~eww,a~a ___ QdOZi $~~I~d 8ZZ£t w ~,;.~,w„w„d„~, ~'LL~iH ~IOHSd ~ 1~I~2II~I ~2I3I1t1(, "~ '~"""~,,•~w'" ~ ,-' l~l~ll l Tt1 V ~S OH ~ S uiwiMO~ae}~wwanGO~Ir~m NYMdIL '1~ 1 /YE ~ ' ~ .L~ ~ 11 i Y LL1 17t11 _._...._... _ ... __. __ - _ _. L7 ~ MU MpiJl W! 7M60lIlb 3p18 TVO'SdDYl/0'BRJ09tl 3r-.nu~oiwnsm iwo.nnn. ~ k _ ' ~ , ' • r urb L BL98•L9B•(901) 659I-ZL8-80~ ~ OLOS6 dll~RIO~'Id~ `dJO.Ld~IdS OL05E Y~ ~VpOlYHM3 3fiN3AV 131NHVJ OtLOZ 9ZU"910"£US#I1dd Qd02I 3~2I~d 8ZZ£I ~ ONINN11ld 3Hf11~311H~FiV dI.LdHg ~IOHSd ~ 1~Id2II~I ~2I3I~IM0 ~ __ __ _s~rpossr r nn 'H srwoEU rIOI.LIQQd 3Sf1OH 'IdI.LrI~QISfl2I ~ x ~ ~ ~ a ~~ ~~ W O~ V W aR ~~ a J a W 2 W _ ~ y~y f U ~~ ~~~ .~ ~~ N t ~ ~~~~~ Z a~ ~ ~~ . ~ ~~ ~~ ,~ ~~ a~~ a , ~~~ ~~,~~~~ ~~F' ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ O ~ ~ ' .~ .$: .~ ~t ~ta~~ ~e ~~~9~ ~~~ ~T~ ~~ ~~W ~~~ ~,~: ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ V ~~~~ ~3~ . ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~i~c N ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ o '~ 3 ~~~ ~ ~W~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ti. -.~C3 ~ ~Z ~~~~s ~~~~~, ~b~'kS~ ~~~~~' I V u 0 u r z ~~~~ ' ~g~~~sst y~~~ ~EyE ~~ ~~•~ ~~e~~ ~ ~ ~r ~ ~a~ ~~ ~~ p ~. M a ~. u ~~Ee ~~0 E S o++ ~ "~, •~ .. ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~e~ .. ~' ~g~~~ e" E~3~ a~a ~~9 8~~ .A B ~ y ~ ~ ~ # .M a ~ ~ ~~aE~ ~• A y ~~ ~~ ~ a ~g ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~E~ a x~~ ~a~~ ~~~ e J A~~ ~~~8~~ a ,OOZ ~ .l _ ~+~ i t l_ J o , 0 W u o ~;~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~ f ~ •~~C ~~~~ ~,~~~ g~~~~~ ~'~~~j ~4~~~~ .~~~~ W~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ S a' s} m n a ~~ G 8` s~~ fly ~~ :~ ~~ O e O r ~~ `~ ~ ~ s H~~ ~. $ u ~ ~ ' Ci ~` ~~s' ~ ~ ~ sit ~ ~~~ ~ ~ $~ ~ I ~ ~ ' / ~ ~ r ` ~ ~' r~ ,~ V ~p ti~ ~ • e ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ a ~ ;~ w~~ ' . ~~ ~ ,,,~ ~ • : ~wM WY~t'1 Mr+~~ ~~~9 ~«~ ~~ 9~a ~ ~~ i~~~g ~ ~~ ~~g 3~ .M ~ry~ a~ ~ E~~g ~~r~ ~~s~M a ~ . ~s ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~• ~ ., I~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~3E~~ E .~~~ GSM ~~ ~~: k ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~iRa ~ ~~ :~~t g r G ~'+~~ ~M~ ~ ~~ E ~ ~ ~ M 3a1~~~ ~A ~ ~ M :~ 3 ~~~ s~ ~~ ~~~'~ 3 ~~9 ~~ ~E~a~ ~~ ~ a ~. ~~ ~.7~ p ~7 g w b~A r~ a a M,Ra ti & -~~ ~~ r ~ Z~ ~~~~ ~ a oz~ ~ '~ ,\ ~~~ ~ 0 ~~~~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ .~ a i ~ ~ a ... w ,~~ ti ~~ \ ~ ~ e a ~ ~ ' ~ ~ • • _ T ~ ~ i j ~~ 0~ ~ Z O ~~ 0 7~j ~ ,~~ i ~ ~i ~ ~~~~ se\° ~~~~ ~4~~ ~~ • ~ ~ ., ~~~~ ~~ ~~. ~~~ r ~ _ ~<~ ~~ ~ aceo-cee-(eo-) 6S9i-ZL8-80b (H) OLOS6 ~'IN2IO3i'I~'~ `~'JO,L~S anN3nvia~ a~irao~ 9Z0-9T0-£OS#l~Idd QdO?I ~~~I~d 8ZZ£i $ ~~ ONINNVId 3!lf110311H~tlV diidHg ~iOHSd ~ ~i~iX ~2i~riMO ~ S31rgOSSr 4 nn ~ SrrrOHl KOI.LIQQd ~Sf10H 'IdI.LK~QIS~2I o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a p~~l ~ ~~ ~~ i ~z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _____~._ _ __. _. ~ ~ N 0 ~ V ~ ~ ~.J ~~~ ~ ~ ( ~^Y.~'~ ~l 'Ae car,:>7, ~A) -1.' ~ ~ 1 \ ` ~' . ~ ~ ~~ i i ~ t ~t ~f ,- ~ I I ' ~ ' ` ~~ ~9 ~ ~ G ~~~ d,.~ I I ~ ' ~ ~ ~ `~~` / ~~ I I ~ ~ 3 ' ' ~~a ~ ~ I -t-r• .. i j ~ ~ ~ ~ O s~..~ r., _ ~' ~ ~ t i 1 f ~t ~~ ~ . '; µ;.~:; '~ ~ Q ~~ ~ ~ ~R 9 ;,x d'~ ti r ,, r ~~ I y ~ ~. ,~ ~, 71 p : ~n ~ I 11 ' . -~ ~ \ ~~ ~` % ~ < z~`; n~ 'n~~1 N i 4- ^ , i z tv` Y •~ ~ ~ .2 N Z ~; ~ ~ r 9 1 ~ ~ o4 ~l..I ` I y Wit ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - 1 i -, R ' . .x '~.~.._ ..~.__ ._..__ ,. {, ( ~ _1. ~ ~. ~ L t ~ ~ it r ' ~~ ~;.~ ~ ~ ~ III ~ ~ 1 ~1 ' ~~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ r~, ~ ~ ~.~ I ~ 0 \\ ~ f ~ ' 1 M0~1 f1) ~... -~ 11~~1ti l: • • • C ocea-tse-(eor) 6S9i-ZL8-80b CH) OLOS6 dII~RIO~'Id~ `~'JO.L~S 3f1N3~AY 31Nd1/O100Z 9ZO'9iO'£OS#H~ QdO~I ~~2I~Id 8ZZ£i N '~" ~JNINNVId 3df11~311HOHV 53111pOSS11 ~ nn ~ ~'LLdHg ~IOHS~' ~ rI~'2II~I ~2I~1~IM0 ; ~ '~ - ~~~ 1~IOI.I.IQQd 3Sf lOH ~LLI~I3QIS~2I # # a ~ # a ~_ 1 ~°' z 0 d- - - - ~ ' Z 4 I y ,~ I€ ~ I; ~ ~~ ~ t ~~ ~ i\ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ iil ~- ~ i ~ _ ~~ ~ -~ -~-~ ~s ~_ i I ~~ ~- i ~ ~- ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ - -_- y. ~~ { im ~~. ~, ~~ ---- ~_ ~-- z • • • ~ tcee~tse-(eor) 6S9i-ZL8-80~ ~H) OLOS6 ~'II~IO~'I~'~ `dJO.Ld2iVS oco~e ti~ ~v~olvdvs 9Z0-9i0-£OS#1~Idd QdO2I d~2IdId 8ZZ£I ~ 3fIN3AV 131NHV~ OtLOZ di,j,~$ }jOHSd ~ H~Ix ~~~NMO ~ ~JNINNVId 3lif110311HOdY s~vaossr r nn 'H srr+rofu KOLLIQQd ~Sf10H 'IdI.L1~I~QIS~2I ~ : a ~ ~ a Z D -4 ? v _. ~ u ~ 4 v ~ U t 'i a' ~ 4 ~ a dJ aL it t~ : ~ '' ~~ ~~ a a' N .N -i~ °~ i1 _ _ ~ ~ 1 N .. M a u ~ ~ ~ ~ x 1 !- X _ k ~~~ x ~' d ~ ~~i+ a `~ r S -M M o ~c ~C`in .~n~~`l~(.k1 0 _~ ,~ • • • ~ aces-cse-(eoa) 6S9I-ZL8-80ti ~H) OLOS6 ~'II~I~OdI'Id~ `dJO.L~tlS ~- OLOSB'tl~ ~tloottldtls 9Z0-9t0-£OS#Hdd aNO?I a~x~a szz£I ~- ~ 3fiN3Atl 131Natl~ OtLOZ A °JNINNtlId 3H(11~311H~tltl `G'i.L~H x~HS~J '~ 1\t~tX ;~~~iMO ~ s3lvi~ossr ~ nn 'H SIIWOEU i\IOLLIQQ~' ~SilOH 'IHI.LI~I~QIS~2i o x a ~ ~ s ~^ rz ~ --- l I ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~`~ '`~ ~ ` ~ '' ~ ~~ ~~ ~ \ y ~ ^ '~ f O d~-t~IVN ~ ~Ilii2y„ St S ~9 ` J iQ ~ ;, I , ~ ~ ' ~ I __ I _. II ~ ~ ~v' L 11 ~ '~ ~ I r--~ i._ J r - -,~ .~ LJ (1 _~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ Q~- Q ~- o~ ~~ ~ • I 1 I ~ xr \` I I ~~ ( i` 111 I~ _ _ I ~__~___..___ ___~1 I II 'I li jl II II li II II II ~ it II I i~ it I ~ ~ ,~, Ij ~I ~) I I i II II ~I ~~ } ~~ at: O M~ ~ ~ ~ tQ .J1 ~9 4 S- N V I1 \1 ~, r+ N 2 X x X ~ V: ~9 x T .n r z 0 IJJ fn 0 n • • • ~ ~ 6LBB-L98-(804) 659i-ZL8'80b (H) OLOS6 dII~I2IO3I'Id~ `dJO,Ld2IdS OL048 YO ~V~JOld!li/S 3f1N3AV 131NHd~ OtLOZ 9ZO"9TO'£OS#Kdd QdO~I ~~~I~d 8ZZ£T ~ ~. JNINN1/~d 3lif11~311H0lid ~v'I.LdHfl ?IOHSd ~ l~'2II?I ~2I~NM0 N s~vaossr ~ nn 'H SrwoHl I10LLIQQ~ ~Sf10H 'I~'I.LrI3QIS32i ~ ~ a ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ a 3 Nr rZ ~' o V \ m ~ ~~ D ~ z O_ ~- v- on ~ 3 ~ $ ~ ~ b N o 3~ ±~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ "~ ~ Z ~ ~ $ r °` s ~ - ~ ~ m r n .~ ~~ ~ , ~, ~ ~-~ ~ i N J v _~ i ~ 0 1 v '1nMo A d ~ w ~ J ~ _ 111 1~1 ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ = yt. 4 ~(e Z v ~,, l °~ ,fl r r. > l v0 °° ~~ J ~I 4- /'+ O~.-3 ~- ~3 i~ 0 ~~ _, ,.~ ~ Z` ~(ll l i.." CI =.~.~~ s ~a ~~ ~` i - ,~ ~'~ ~ 't" ~. ~``'~.1 ~ ~ Z ~"' ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ -~ o ~ -----~'- s ; Z'.i '.] , ~ ~ 1 , ~ V, • • = azee-cae-(aoo) 6S9i-ZL8-80~ ~H) OL056 dII~RI03I'Id~ `~'JO.Ld2idS 0L0s° wo ~v~olvdvs 9Z0-9I0-£OS#ridd QdO~I ~~2i3Id 8ZZ£i ~ d~ 3f1N3~11131NlIV~ O~LOZ JNINN1nd 3Hf11~311H~W dI.I.~1HH ?IOHS~' ~ I~2iI?I ~2I~I~IMO ~ ' s~vpossv ~ nn 'H SVNIOHl rIOII.IQQd ~Sf lOH ~I.LI~I~QIS~2I ~ ~ a ~ ~ a i '4 _~ ~ /'~ ,~ .• 'A ,. 0 N ~~ ~ - - -I-~-- - - - - - ~ ~/ I --- ---T r----___ M~ ~ -~ ~ I _~ ~ Z Z o ~ `` t s ~ s o -t IA ~ ~~ ~4 •~CVW ~ ~ ~_ D i `` ^^'`` V' _. _..._.}_ . i ~ I i `` I ~ Q 1r I ~ /~ I i 1 1~ Z /'~ Z ...~ p Z d v l , v • ~ 9L9B•L9B-(80Y) d2idS I'I~'~ `dJOJ ' . 6S9i-ZL8-80~ ~ OLOS6 dII~IIIOd o v~olvdds ocose ~ro 3f1N3AVl31NtlV00~LOZ NYId 3dfLL0311H0!!d ~ 9Z0-9t0-£OS#rldd Qd02I3~?I~d8ZZ£I ' `a ~~ JNIN • 181~Id2II~I ~2I~1~ItY1O d11 dHg ?IOHS~' in y.. H srwoEu sstrbossr r nn , ' ~ ~ ~ ~ IdI,L1~I3QIS~2I LIQQ~' 3Sf1OH I~IOI ~ a , ~ ~~ - - ~ ~~ - --~--L--- - i ,~ D ' - - -~ _ 3Y - ~ . v o-~Q ~ ~o-~ Z - --- p ~ ~ ~ ---- - ~ ~ ~ ~ ---- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-. ? ° ' ~ .~ ~ s ~ v ~ I ~ _~ ti ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ - - L - - - ~ Z / ~ A" ~ +~ } t -- ~ i aL ~ { - +- - - ~ ~ ~ ~-- ___ ~ ~_. _ __ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ i ~ t T = ~~ ~ ~~ ? ~.., ~ op • ~ ` ~ • f Item 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 04-034/ 15145 Sobey Road Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: D&rZ Design Associates/ Overland Development Ann Welsh, AICP, Associate Planner June 23, 2004 397-08-091 Department -N- ~' • 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 m i 15145 Sobey Road OO~O~ File No. 04-Q34 - ISI45SobeyRo~ad CASE HISTORY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2/24/04 5/13/04 6/09/04 6/09/04 6/02/04 This Design Review application involves construction of a new 5,681 square foot 26 foot high single story dwelling with an 845 square foot basement on a vacant lot, which takes access from Sobey Road via a shared access drive. The style of home is Country French which is typified by steep pitched roof, dormers and stone facade. The lot is 46,082 square feet in area however due to an average slope of 15.62% the net lot area is reduced to 35,944 square feet. The maximum allowable floor area for the site is 5,688 square feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution 04-021. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Arborist Report dated March 8, 2004 3. Fire Department report dated March 9, 2004 amended June 16, 2004 4. Geotechnical Clearance Memorandum 5. Affidavit of Mailing 6. Neighborhood Correspondence 7. Justification of Height from DMZ Design Associates 8. Plans, Exhibit "A" • • ®~~~~ File No. 04-034 - I5I45SobeyRoad STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PIAN DESIGNATION: The General Plan designates this area as Residential Very Low Density, which requires low-density single family dwellings with a maximum density of 1.09 dwelling units per acre. This house is located in Area "G" Fruitvale-Sobey Road Area of the General Plan. The proposal is consistent with the Area Plan policy of maintaining the single-family character of the area. PARCEL SIZE: 46,082 square feet gross AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average slope of lot is 15.62% GRADING REQUIRED: The grading plan indicates that the project will require 400 cubic yards of cut for the basement, 600 cubic yards of cut for the house, and 200 cubic yards of fill. A grading permit will be required for the project. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of constructing a new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the . Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists of remodeling and renovating one single-family residence. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The plans depict a charcoal brown class "A" concrete the roof with "suede drystack ledgestone" veneer front facade. Hand hewn header trim, corbels and trellis beams are proposed. The side and rear facades are "rolling stone" stucco with "pebblestone clay" trim. • ©+CjU~®3 File No. 04-034 -15145SobeyRoad R-1- 40,000 Proposal Lot Size 46,082 sq. ft. gross/net site area Code Requirements 40,000 sq. ft. • Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable 35% of net site area Driveway/Parking 3,460 sq. ft. Walkways, Patio 1,661 sq. ft. Pool 608 sq. ft. Sport Court 1,125 sq. ft. TOTAL 12,495 sq. ft. 16,128 sq. ft. Floor Area: First Floor Maximum Allowable w/Garage 5,681 sq. ft. 5,688 sq. ft.~ Basement (845) sq. ft. TOTAL 5,681 sq. ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirement Front 30 ft. 30 ft Side 20 ft. 20 ft Rear 50 ft Soft. Height: One Story Maximum Allowable 26 ft 26 ft. * Due to 16% slope, lot size is reduced by 22% for the purpose of calculating floor area. For purposes of calculating site coverage a net site area of 46,082 square feet is used. • a ®®~®®~ F~/e No. 04-034 -15145SobeyRoad PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review Height The style of home is Country French, which is typified by steep pitched hipped roof, gabled dormers, arched stone lintels, stone facade and recessed arched entry. The volume of the proposed structure is much greater than a typical 5,681 square foot home due to the pitch of the roof which is equivalent to the height of a standard two story dwelling. response (see "Height Justification" Attachment # 7) is that the style of the house dictates a high pitched roof which translates into the maximum roof height. Neighborhood Input Setbach -East The project generated comments from two neighbors. The neighbor to the east of the proposed home originally objected to the location of the home. In response to these objections, the applicant agreed to setback the home and driveway an additional 8 feet from the eastern property line. Additional landscaping was also agreed upon at their mutual property line. However, after the story poles were constructed and the location of the proposed structure was identifiable on the ground, the neighbor to the east was dissatisfied with the proximity of the proposed home. In response to their concerns staff proposes to condition the approval of this home on additional setback from the eastern property line. Access Drive Another issue raised by the abutting neighbor to the west, was the access drive. The concern here is that the proposal to add another home taking access along the driveway would create a traffic hazard. Also the additional access onto the driveway was thought to be inconsistent with the Subdivision Regulations. Section 14.25.030 (g) of the Subdivision Regulations requires that minimum access road standards be required for lanes providing access to up to four lots. The design standard is for an 18 foot paved road with a 20-foot right of way. The existing condition of the access drive is a 14-foot wide driveway and a 20- foot right of way. In discussion with the Public Works Department and the Fire Department it became clear that since this application does not involve subdivision approval, that mandating widening and improving the access lane, which is not under the ownership of the applicant, is not the policy of either the public works department or the fire department. ~~~~~ File No. 04-034 -15I45SobeyRoad In addition, since this application is for Design Review approval, the Zoning Ordinance is the regulatory document that applies to this application. There is no subdivision currently under consideration. In contrast to the subdivision regulations, the Zoning Ordinance defines a driveway (Section 15-06.230) as a private roadway servicing up to four parcels, the use of which is limited to persons residing or working on the site and their visitors. The Building Code provides standards for driveway widths, which are 14 feet wide with 1-foot wide shoulders on each side. Thus, the access drive that currently exists, since it is not part of a current subdivision, is consistent with zoning and building code requirements. For this rPacnnTctaff r1nPC nnr rPr-nmmPnrl ~'m~nrnve~yPAtS t0 t11P eXlStlrig-access drive which starts at the northeast corner of the property and extends to Sobey Road. Necessary Findings The Zoning Ordinance, Section 15-45.080 identifies the following findings as necessary for granting Design Review approval. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. (b) Preserve natural landscape. (c) Minimise perception of excessive bulk. (d) Compatible bulk and height. (e) Employs current grading and erosion control methods. (f) Utilizes Residential Design Guide policies and techniques. Actual Findings The following findings have been made regarding the proposed new construction. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privary. The height, elevations andplacement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. Although the subject parcel does not have frontage on Sobey Road, the impacts of the proposed development on adjacent parcels is an issue of concern. In order to minimize the impacts of the structure on the parcels to the east of the subject property, staff recommends that the applicant provide additional setback from the eastern property line as well as locate the driveway sufficient distance from the property line in order to provide additional landscaping to screen the garage activity from the eastern boundary. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; ~~~~~~ File No. 04-034 -15145SobeyRoad grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. The proposed design conflicts with eight trees and their removal is required in order to construct the home. In addition due to the 16% slope, the site contours will be altered, and a retaining wall installed in the rear of the house in order to create a level rear yard. The applicant will be required to plant replacement trees for a combined value of $14,120. In addition staff recommends additional landscaping be provided at the eastern property line in order to mitigate the impact of construction on adjacent neighbor's privacy. - e p an epic s re amuig over per e -- Given that one third of the parcel is to be developed and that the staff recommends additional landscaping at the eastern property line and the arborist recommends replacement trees, the impact of this development with these mitigation measures will not constitute an unreasonable impact on the natural quality of the landscape. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulb. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the environment. The proposed home does follow the design guidelines in terms of minimising • excessive bulk. The structure follows the contours of the slope. The facade is softened by use of different materials. Such material include stone veneer front facade, stone arched and hand hewn lintels, hand hewn timber trellis over the garage and hand hewn corbels, and board and batten shutters. These elements of Country French architecture do minim~e the perception of bulk. However, additional reductions in the perception of bulk could be made by reducing the height of the roof line. This recommendation was made to the applicant and their response was that the Country French style of architecture dictates the height of the roof line. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (iii) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacentproperties to utilize solar energy. The proposed 26 foot high single story home would not be incompatible with the surrounding homes if the mitigation measures identified in the project discussion are incorporated into the revised plans. The Sobey Road neighborhood contains a mix of single story and two story homes. Given the secluded nature of the subject parcel setback approximately 200 feet from Sobey Road on an access easement driveway, the impact of the proposed development is realized primarily by the immediately adjacent neighbors. The concerns of these neighbors should be address in the revised plans in order to satisfy the design review findings. ~~~~~~~ File No. 04-034 -15145SobeyRoad (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan . incorporates currentgrading and erosion control standards used by the City. The grading plan indicates that the project will require 400 cubic yards of cut for the basement, 600 cubic yards of cut for the house, and 200 cubic yards of fill. A grading permit will be required for the project. The applicant will be required to minimize the impacts of grading in the vicinity of protected trees and preserve as much of the natural topography as possible. (fl Design policies and techniques. The proposed home will conform to each of the applicable esign po icies an tec niques set ort in t e Resi entia Design Han o0 The proposed project may conform with Residential Design Handbook Policy #l, minimize the perception of bulk if the increased setback along the eastern property line is incorporated into the plans. Technique #1, retaining natural topography is addressed with selective grading..Technique #3, reduce perception of bulk is addressed by use of different materials, such as stone veneer front facade, hand hewn lintels, and board and batten shutters. Technique #6, use architectural features to breakup massing, is addressed by the use of gabled windows in the roof, recessed entry and varying height of roof elements. Policy #2, integrate structures with the environment, Technique #1, use of natural colors and materials is addressed through use of neutral colored stone and stucco and brown file roofing material. Technique #4, integrate all structures on the site is addressed by combining the garage and house in a single structure. Policy #3, avoid interference with privacy, Technique #1 is addressed by planting of additional trees and landscaping to ensure privacy and creating additional setback in the area of the garage. Technique #3, maintain landscaping to enhance privacy, is addressed by requiring tree planting, minimising tree removal and requiring additional landscaping. Policy #4, preserve views and access to views, Technique # 2, which calls for ma~m~ing views while avoiding privacy conflicts, is addressed by planting trees in areas of potential conflict and increasing setback. Policy #5, design for energy efficiency, Technique #1, design for maximum benefit of sun and wind is addressed since the rear patio and windows are southwest facing in orientation. Technique #3, allow light, air and solar access to adjacent homes, is addressed since the proposed home with additional setback will not encroach on the solar access of neighbors. Thus the above analysis concludes that the findings required for granting design review approval can be met if the plans are revised per the conditions outlined above. The Ciry Arborist, the Santa Clara County Fire District, the Public Works Department and the City Geotechnical Consultant have reviewed this application. Their comments are included as conditions of approval. • ~©~~~~ File No. 04-034 -15145SobeyRoad Cornmvnity Development 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" "Sobey Residence, Overland Development prepared by De'rv' Design Associates, dated 2/9/04 with revisions to 6/1/04. Revisions outlined in this staff report shall be incorporated in the revised plans. 2. The site plan shall be revised to create a minimum of 15 feet of additional setback along the eastern property boundary. The driveway location shall be revised to increase the setback from the driveway to the property line in the vicinity of the garage. Additional landscaping and screening trees shall be planted additional trees identified in the arborist report shall be incorporated into the site plan. 3. The driveway access at the boundary of the 20-foot easement at the northeast corner of the property shall be revised to be located entirely within the area of the 20 foot easement. The driveway shall not encroach on the Coe property beyond the 20-foot easement at the northeast corner of the property. 4. The grading and drainage plan shall be revised to depict retention of all storm water on the site. The grading plan as submitted appears to allow the runoff to flow to the south east and north east corners of the property with no means of retaining the water on the site. 5. The circular drive as depicted in the plans shall be revised to comply with Fire Department standards for an acceptable turning radius. 6. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating required revisions and this Resolution on a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 7. The complete construction plans shall include a final landscape plan, which depicts all proposed screening vegetation, replacement trees as well as tree protection fencing as depicted in the Arborist Report. All trees identified in the Arborist Report shall be identified on the landscape plan. 8. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. 9. Fireplaces: The plans depict three fireplaces. A note should be added to the plans indicating that only one, if any, is wood burning. 10. The address of this parcel shall be revised to allow ease of identifying the parcel along Sobey Road. The current address does not follow sequentially from the adjacent parcels along Sobey Road. The current address creates a hazard in terms of emergency response due to the difficulty in locating the property. File No. 04-034 - ISI4SSobeyRoad Fire Protection District The Santa Clara County Fire District reviewed this application on March 9, 2004 and revised their review on June 16, 2004. Their requirements are included as conditions of approval: 1. The fire flow of 2,250 gallons per minute is not available due to the travel distance to the nearest fire hydrant. A new fire hydrant is required. The spotting of that new fire hydrant is negotiable but will need to be adjacent to the driveway entrance from Sobey Road at least. -, ,-~,P-bu~r~~~~ pre~~de~~4t~~~~~m,;,,,~ e~.,,.,,, S~s~e~-ger-Ci*~-ef L. ~~ Saratoga requirements. 3. The building shall be provided with an approved residential fire sprinkler system due to fire flow shortfall. If the applicant is able to provide the required fire flow via the correct number of fire hydrants (two within S00 feet of the most remote portion of the building) the fire sprinkler requirement will be for the garage only. 4. A complying fire department driveway of 14 feet with one 2 foot shoulder shall be installed. 5. A complying fire department turnaround shall be provided. Per site inspection, it appears that the turnaround will occur on the site itself. The circular drive- around turnaround as reflected on the most recent plans does not comply with fire department standards. 6. The building shall be properly addressed with appropriate markings acceptable to the fire department. CityArborist Report The City Arborist reviewed this project and prepared a report dated March 8, 2004. The recommendations of this report are included as conditions of approval. In general the project exposes twenty-four ordinance-sized trees to the risk of potential damage. 1. Eight trees are to be removed to accommodate the proposed development. The combined value of these trees is $14,120. Mitigation for these removals shall include installing new trees on site that are equivalent to their combined value. The revised landscape plan shall identify the proposed location and species of replacement trees. 2. The combined appraised value of trees planned for retention is $16,910. In accordance with the City Ordinance, a bond equal to 100% of this value is required to promote their protection. ~o ~~~~~® File No. 04-034 - ISI45SobeyRo~ad Geotechnical and Public Works Review Geotechnical Clearance is approved for the above referenced project. Conditions of approval are as follow. 1. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plans (i.e., building setbacks, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls, etc.) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. surface drainage measures associated with the proposed cut slope and retaining wall (i.e., concrete v-ditches and related culverts). 3. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the Ciry Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 4. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project demolition and construction. These inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. 5. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described in letters and submitted to the Ciry Engineer for review prior to Final Project Approval. 6. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the Ciry Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 7. 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. 8. Traffic safety review shall be conducted to assess the ingress/egress driveway intersection with Sobey Road. • ~i ~~~~~1 File No. 04-034 - ISI45SobeyRoad Conclusion The proposed residence 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 if developed with the recommended conditions. The residence will not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape and will minimize the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal if developed with conditions and revisions, will satisfy all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the Resolution for application 04-034. • iz ~~~2 • Attachment 1 • ~~®©®1~ File No. 04-034 - ISI45SobeyRoad RESOLUTION N0.04-021 APPLICATION N0.04-034 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Overland Development/15145 Sobey Road WHEREAS, the C'it~of Saratoga_Plannin ~nmmiscinn has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,681 square foot 26 foot high single story dwelling with an 845 square foot basement on a vacant lot. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and Whereas the project 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 site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves the construction of one single family home and associated out buildings; 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 the perception of bulk The proposed home does follow the design guidelines in terms of minimizing excessive bulk. The structure follows the contours of the slope. The facade is softened by use of different materials. Such material include stone veneer front facade, stone arched and hand hewn lintels, hand hewn timber trellis over the garage and hand hewn corbels, and board and batten shutters. These elements of Country French architecture serve to minimize the perception of bulk. Policy 2, Integrate structures with the environment The plan depicts retaining over 65 percent of the lot area in landscaped natural area. Given that one third of the parcel is to be developed and that the staff recommends additional landscaping at the eastern property line and the arborist recommends replacement trees, the impact of this development with these ~~3~f~~,4 File No. 04-034 -1514SSobeyRoad mitigation measures will not constitute an unreasonable impact on the natural quality of the landscape. Policy 3, Avoid interference with privacy In order to minimize the privacy impacts of the structure on the parcels to the east of the subject property, staff recommends that the applicant provide additional setback from the eastern property line as well as locate the driveway sufficient distance from the property line in order to provide additional landscaping to screen the garage activity from the eastern boundary. With these mitigation measures privacy will be maintained. Policy 4, Preserve views and access to views With proposed revisions, the project will protect the neighbor's privacy by appropriate landscaping and additional setback in areas of potential privacy conflict. Policy 5, Design for maximum benefit of sun and wind The orientation of the house maxirrL_es the southern exposure since the rear family room, kitchen and outdoor areas are southwest facing. i Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Overland Development for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" "Sobey Residence, Overland Development prepared by D~r~' Design Associates, dated 2/9/04 with revisions to 6/1/04. Revisions outlined in this staff report shall be incorporated in the revised plans. 2. The site plan shall be revised to create a minimum of 15 feet of additional setback along the eastern property boundary. The driveway location shall be revised to increase the setback from the driveway to the property line in the vicinity of the garage. Additional landscaping and screening trees shall be planted in the vicinity of the garage driveway and the eastern property line. The additional trees identified in the arborist report shall be incorporated into the site plan. ~~~~~~ File No. 04-034 -15145SobeyRoad 3. The driveway access at the boundary of the 20-foot easement at the northeast corner of the property shall be revised to be located entirely within the area of the 20-foot easement. The driveway shall not encroach on the Coe property beyond the 20-foot easement at the northeast corner of the property. 4. The grading and drainage plan shall be revised to depict retention of all storm water on the site. The grading plan as submitted appears to allow the runoff to flow to the southeast and northeast corners of the property with no means of retaining the water on the site. 5. The circular drive as depicted in the plans shall be revised to comply with 6. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating required revisions and this Resolution on a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 7. The complete construction plans shall include a final landscape plan, which depicts all proposed screening vegetation, replacement trees as well as tree protection fencing as depicted in the Arborist Report. All trees identified in the Arborist Report shall be identified on the landscape plan. 8. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. 9. Fireplaces: The plans depict three fireplaces. A note should be added to the plans indicating that only one, if any, is wood burning. 10. The address of this parcel shall be revised to allow ease of identifying the parcel along Sobey Road. The current address does not follow sequentially from the adjacent parcels along Sobey Road. The current address creates a hazard in terms of emergency response due to the difficulty in locating the property. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Santa Clara County Fire District reviewed this application on March 9, 2004 and revised their review on June 16, 2004. Their requirements are included as conditions of approval: 1. The fire flow of 2,250 gallons per minute is not available due to the travel distance to the nearest fire hydrant. A new fire hydrant is required. The spotting of that new fire hydrant is negotiable but will need to be adjacent to the driveway entrance from Sobey Road at least. 2. The building shall be provided with early warning Alarm system per City of Saratoga requirements. • ~~~~~~ F!/e No. 04-034 -15145SobeyRoad 3. The building shall be provided with an approved residential fire sprinkler system due to fire flow shortfall. If the applicant is able to provide the required fire flow via the correct number of fire hydrants (two within S00 feet of the most remote portion of the building) the fire sprinkler requirement will be for the garage only. 4. A complying fire department driveway of 14 feet with 2 foot shoulders shall be installed. 5. A complying fire department turnaround shall be provided. Per site inspection, it appears that the turnaround will occur on the site itself. The comply with fire department standards. 6. The building shall be properly addressed with appropriate markings acceptable to the fire department. CITY ARBORIST REPORT The Ciry Arborist reviewed this project and prepared a report dated March 8, 2004. The recommendations of this report are included as conditions of approval. In general the project exposes twenty-four ordinance sized trees to the risk of potential damage. 1. Ei ht trees are to be removed to accommodate the ro osed develo ment. The g P P P combined value of these trees is $14,120. Mitigation for these removals shall include installing new trees on site that are equivalent to their combined value. The revised landscape plan shall identify the proposed location and species of replacement trees. The combined appraised value of trees planned for retention is $16,910. In accordance with the Ciry Ordinance, a bond equal to 100% of this value is required to promote their protection. GEOTECHNICAL AND PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW Geotechnical Clearance is approved for the above referenced project. Conditions of approval are as follow. 1. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plans (i.e., building setbacks, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls, etc.) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. • ~'-®~~~ ~ File No. 04-034 - ]5145SobeyRo~ad 2. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall specifically address the adequacy of • surface drainage measures associated with the proposed cut slope and retaining wall (i.e., concrete v-ditches and related culverts). 3. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 4. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project demolition and construction. These inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site surface retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. 5. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described in letters and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to Final Project Approval. 6. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 7. 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. 8. Traffic safety review shall be conducted to assess the ingress/egress driveway intersection with Sobey Road. 9. 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. CITY ATTORNEY 1. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the Ciry 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. 2. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. File No. 04-034 - iSl45SobeyRoad Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga Ciry Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. State of California, this 23rd day of June, 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NAYS: 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 Ciry Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date ®~~~~9 • Attachment 2 ®®~~~® .~ "~= ARBO RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE AT 15145 SOBEY ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA APPLICATION #: 04-034 APN #: 397-08-091 Submitted to: Community Development Department . City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A • March 8, 2004 P.O. Box 25295. San Mateo. California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.64.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 ~~~Q~• David L. Babby, Registered Consng Arborist • March 8, 2004 SUMMARY The proposed project exposes 24 trees regulated by City Ordinance to potential damage or removal. By implementation of the proposed design, eight trees will require removal (#3-5 and 18- 22). Their removals aze appropriate due to their poor structural condition. Replacements equivalent to their combined value of $14,120 are recommended as mitigation. The removal of tree #2 is encouraged and should be allowed. No replacements for this tree are suggested. The tree protection bond is required to equal 100% of the appraised value of trees planned for retention, which equals $16,910. INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the proposal to construct asingle-family residence on a vacant lot 15145 Sobey Road, Saratoga. This report presents my findings; provides protection measures for retained trees and • mitigation for those being removed; identifies each tree's condition, species, size and suitability for preservation; and presents tree appraisal values. Data compiled for each inventoried tree is presented on the table attached to this report. A previous City Arborist report (dated June 19, 2002, Barrie D. Coate and Associates) was prepared for development of this site and contains an inventory of trees #1 thru 22. Trees # 14a and 16a were added to the inventory and aze included within this report. Please note much of the survey data presented on the attached table was derived from the previous report. Aluminum rectangulaz tags were found attached to the trunks of most inventoried trees. They contain numbers that correspond to those shown on the attached map and table. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheets C1 (Westfall Engineers, Inc., dated 9/21/03), and L1 (Greg G. Ing and Associates, not dated). A copy of the Conceptual Landscape Plan is attached that identifies the prescribed locations of protection fencing, as well as each tree's number and location. Trees #6, 8, 10 and 16 were not shown on the plan and were plotted by me; their locations should not be construed as being surveyed. • 15145 Sobey Road, Saratoga Page 1 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~®~~2~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist • March 8, 2004 • FINDINGS The proposed project design exposes 24 trees regulated by City Ordinance to potential impacts. They include eight Coast Live Oaks (#1, 3-7, 17, 18), one Valley Oak (#16a), three California Black Walnuts (#20-22), one English Walnut (#19), ten Monterey Pines (#8-14, 14a, 15, 16) and one Red Ironbazk Eucalyptus (#2). Trees #6 thru 9 are located on the neighboring southern property. They are inventoried for this report as they aze exposed to potential damage from development activities. trees are in direct conflict with the proposed design and include #3-5 and 18-22. trees have been assigned either a low or moderate swta i my or preservation an their removal is appropriate to accomplish development. Replacements are necessary. Tree #2 is a Eucalyptus that has been severely reduced in height some time ago. As a result, the tree has and will continue to have, throughout its life, weakly attached branches. Plans indicate retaining this tree. Due to the potential risk this tree presents to public safety, I recommend its removal rather than retention. Replacements for this tree are not necessary. Trees planned for retention are anticipated to survive the development provided recommendations presented in the next section are cazefully followed and incorporated into the construction plans. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to any grading, surface scraping or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of five- to six-foot high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized steel posts that are driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 12 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. Its location shall resemble the precise location shown on the attached plan and be placed at or beyond the canopy edge (i.e. the furthest overhead branch from the trunk) and no further than two feet from any proposed hazdscape. 2. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced azeas (even after fencing is removed) and off unpaved soil beneath tree canopies. These activities include, but aze not limited to, the following: grading (both soil fill and excavation), surface scraping, trenching, storage and dumping of materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 3. Utilities should be planned outside from beneath a tree's canopy. Where this presents a conflict, I should be consulted. 4. All trees presented in this report should be shown on all applicable plans. 15145 Sobey Road, Saratoga City of Saratoga Community Development Department Page 2 of 4 ~~0023 David L. Bobby, Registered Consng Arborist • March 8, 2004 5. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. Herbicides and pesticides used beneath canopies must be labeled for safe use neaz trees. 6. The pruning and removal of trees must be performed under supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to standazds established by the ISA. Information regazding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained by referring to the following website: http://www.isa- arbor. com/arborists/arbsearch. html. 7. Lan taping az scope, p antmg an unga on p ans an ose s owmg any n w underground utilities should be submitted to the City for review of tree impacts. Approval should be provided prior to their implementation. 8. Stones or mulch should be placed no closer than one-foot from a tree's trunk. 9. Irrigation trenches planned parallel to a trunk shall be no closer than 15 times the diameter of the closest trunk. Irrigation trenches installed radial to a trunk can be placed no closer than 5 times the diameter of the closest trunk and at least 10 feet apart at the canopy's perimeter. ]rrigation spray shall come no closer than five feet from a tree's trunk. Please note trenches dug for electrical lines should be installed by the same guidelines. 10. The combined value of trees proposed for removal is $14.120. Mitigation for their removals shall include installing new trees on site that aze equivalent to their combined value. The replacement tree values and sizes are presented on the `Replacement Tree Values' chart shown on the attached table. Acceptable replacement species include Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Black Oak (Quercus kelloggii), Blue Oak (Quercus douglasii), Scrub Oak (Quercus dumosa), Big Leaf maple (Ater macrophyllum), California Buckeye (Aesculus californica), Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). The tree sizes and species shall be shown on any landscape or planting plan. In the event that the necessary amount and size of replacement trees cannot be reasonably installed on site, the outstanding value amount shall be provided to the City for deposit into the `Tree Fund' (City Tree Ordinance, Section 15-50.150). 15145 Sobey Road, Saratoga City of Saratoga Community Development Department Page 3 of 4 • . David L. Babby, Registered Consng Arborist • March 8, 2004 TREE PROTECTION BOND The combined appraised value of trees planned for retention is $16,910. In accordance with the City Ordinance, a bond equivalent to 100% of this value is required to promote their protection. The appraised tree values presented within the June 19, 2002 report were calculated by others and were used for this report. The values for trees #14a and 16a were calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`h Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Copy of the Conceptual Landscape Plan • 15145 Sobey Road, Saratoga City of Saratoga Community Development Department Page 4 of 4 ®0025 ARBOI~ESOURCES ~ Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE INVENTORY TABLE , . ^ ~ ., b ~ G o ~ 3 ~ . ~ b ~ ~o • b ~c ~ ~ o ~'~ " '^ ~ > A ~ ~' V PG m GQ U ~' •a E iy ,~ • ° ~ S TREE ~ ,ao ~ ~ $ ~ ~ $ ~ ' ~ ~ > ~ NO. TREE NAME E.. x v x ~ ~ v~ ., Coast Live Oak 1 ( ercus a folio) 11, 8, 7 20 20 100% 25% Fair Low 2 - S1,870 Red lronbark 2 (Eucal tus sideroa 8 20 20 75% 0% Poor Low 2 - Coast Live Oak 13,9,8,8,6 3 ( uercus a ' olio (3 20 35 100% 25% Fair Low - X 53,310 Coast Live Oak 4 (Quercus a 'olio) 13, 7, 7, 3 20 20 100% 25% Fair Low - X 52,820 Coast Live Oak 12,10(3),6 S ( emus a folio) ,6,5 25 35 100% 25% Fair Low - X $4,710 Monterey Pine 8 (Pinus mdiata) l8 35 25 100% 50% Good Hi 4 - X $1,000 Monterey Pine 9 (Pinus radiata) 12 40 20 75% 50% Fair Hi 4 - $360 Monterey Pine 10 (Pinus rodiata) 12 40 20 100% 50% Good Moderate 4 - X $450 Monterey Pine 11 (Pinus rodiata) 18 40 40 100% 50% Good Moderate 3 - $1,080 Monterey Pine 12 (Pinus radiata) 9, 6 30 20 75% 50% Fair Moderate 3 - S190 Monterey Pine 13 (Pinus rridiata) 16 35 35 75% 50% Fair Moderate 3 - $730 Monterey Pine 14 (Pinus radiata) 12 35 20 75% 50% Fair Moderate 3 - $450 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 15- llon = 5150 24-inch box =5420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = 55,000 52-inch box = 57,000 72-inch box = 515,000 Job: 13113 Sooty Road, Saromga Prepared jar. Coy ojSaramaa Coaunwaiey Devdopintnt Dept Prywred by: Darid L Bobby, RCA I oj1 3/8/1061 ~~~~~~ •i - • ARBOI~ZESOURCES ~ Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE INVENTORY TABLE Monterey Pine 14a Pines rndiata 11.5 15 35 75% 25% Fair Low 4 - S350 Monterey Pine ;Pines rodiata) 21 45 35 75% 50% Fair Moderate 4 - S Monterey Pine 16 Pines mdiata 25 45 45 75% SO% Fair Moderate 5 - X 51,670 Valley Oak 7.5,6,5.5, 16a er+cus lobata) 3 25 30 l00% 25% Fair Moderate 4 - 52,600 Coast Live Oak 17 en-us a 'olio 9,9,9,7 15 30 l00% 25% Fair Low 4 - 51,790 Coast Live Oak l8 er+cus a 'olio) 8,7,6,6,4 20 35 ] 00% 50% ('food Moderate - X S English Walnut 19 Ju lans 'a) 16 20 35 75% 75% Good Moderate - X 51,100 California Black Walnut 20 (Ju lans hindsii) 14 15 30 75% 50% Fair Moderate - X 5220 California Black Walnut 21 (Ju lans hindsii 16 15 30 50% 25% Poor Low - X 5290 California Black Walnut 22 (Ju lans hindsii 11, 10, 10 15 20 50% 25% Poor Low - X S90 ~. ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p„ ~ ~ ~g ~ b ~~ ~ b u~ ~ ~ ~ o `' w ,~ ~~ u ~~ ~ ~ ~ A ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~jGQ 9t ~~ U c ~ ~ ~~ .~ ° ~ ~ Q o TREE ~ .~ ~ ~o ~~ ~ ~ >~ ~ U NO. TREE NAME ~ -~ ~, a • REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 13 allon = 5130 24-inch box =5420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = 53,000 32-inch box = 57,000 72-inch box = 515,000 Job: ISJIS Sobey Rood Soarogu Prep~sd jor: C5ry ojSmaroaa Co~niry Devdopmewt Dept Px~ocdby: DaviJL Bobby, RCA 2 oj~ .4/d/1I61 ~~~~~2'7 ••~!7w.~+wae•wna!~ icccya(ocal~ N coma • v~'m.w ~ • coca me o ~ .r.,~ a..l i lwNlwr••J Hr.77walulaY i..w7ru! 4 r~ ~ •. 9 ~, sa~xnosag xo~ 8 `L • g :~e wl~ # • .' ~ 6 pUT ~ ~ ~,z ~ .: ~ -, • •- ~ruou~~ uoli~~ioaa ~~xi ~ T T ~ . ~. • ~ ~ ~f ,' ~.£T • • t~T Sj ~ ~ ? a ~ ~ ~ r ~ • ~ . / ~~ r .~ ~ >r , v • I .~,i• cn ~-s e "~ ~ f ~ Q ~` ~~ / m ~'</_~ ''/ ~AiI~t~I~3, I~iOIy~~.L02Id ~ ~~ ~n ~ TZ ~ __ '! i i p i ~ ~\ I ~ i t 1 I I ~~ ~ I ~ I ~. 3530.• I mL i I ~ ~ ZZ ~ •~ ~ ~ I wvi~ ~\ ^ ` D r I ~ y ~w.ctino \ \ ~ ~ 1 O°~ ~ / / d~~ ~1' ?. . d X00 0 % , . ~ cfJ ~•~ ~ i ~ ~~ \ • 1 ~ 600Z •9 9yW ~~ 6 - m ~ •ataac of loo c~ p• azic m paanpa~ °••9 wq d•yy • ~ 'ozic aouvmplp )o roaA K nypwpt d•W :~ ~ • lua•47sdaO ryawdotanap pnmuwaJ a8olue$ )o pq eEolanS psoy 1.9oS s-ISl ~~PPPDI ~ ~55~Ib .68 N ~Lb'6mZ • ~ ~~~~~~ Attachment 3 ~~~~~9 ~~~c~*xa cOG ~~ ~ FIRE '~ COUPlESY i SERVICE CODE!SEC. JFc appendix II-A JFc 103.2 JFc 103.2 i. 2. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org PLA~IEW NUMBER 04 0412 BLDG PERMR NUMBER CONTROL NUMBER r FlLE NUMBER 04-034 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS REQUIREMENT New 6,485 sq. ft. single family dwelling including unattached garage and basement. water supply as they pertain to 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 construction permits. ;equired Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 2,250 gpm at 20 psi residual ressure. The required fire flow is not* available from area water mains and fire ydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. *Fire flow requires 2 fire hydrants, only one available in required travel distance. Required Fire Flow Option (Sin¢le~Family Dwellins~ Provide the required fire flow from fire hydrants spaced at a maximum of 500 feet OR, provide an approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building, designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13D and local ordinances. The fire sprinkler system supply valuing shall be installed per Fire Department Standard Detail & Specifications SP-4 (See attached). Required Access to Water Su~plTvdrants): Portions of the structure(s) are greater than 150 feet of travel distance from the centerline of the roadway containing public fire hydrants. Provide an on-site fire hydrant OR, provide an approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building. CNy PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST.TYPE AppllcantNam• DATE PAGE STG ^ ^ ® ^ ^ R-3 V-N D & Z DESIGN ASSOCIATES 3/9/2004 1 2 of SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY 6,485 sq. ft. Residential Development Chase, Melanie nw~xe yr rnwe~ ~ LOCATION SFR- SOBEY 15145 Sobey Rd anized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District • • Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell. Cupertino, Los Altos. Los Altos Hills. Los Gatos. Monte Sereno. Morgan Hill, and Saratoga ~~~©~O • t,AR~ • PuNAEVIEW NUMBER 04 0412 . ~,~~~° °oG FIRE DEPARTMENT ~~ SANTA CLARA COUNTY BLDGPERMRNUMBER ~ FIRE '~ 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org CONTHOLNUAABER `°"""'""`""" 04-034 FRENUMBER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS COOEISEC. SHEET NO. REQUIREMENT i4M- s.llo 4• Early Warnin¢ Fire Alarm System Required: Provide an approved Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, installed per City of Saratoga Standards. Prior to installation, a licensed C-10 contractor shall submit to the,fire department, plans, specifications & listings, a completed permit application, uFc 901.4.4 • 5. Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. To prevent plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Developmental Review Conditions shall be restated as "notes" on all pending and future plan submittals and any referenced diagrams to be reproduced onto the future plan submittal. Clry PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE ApplluMNsrtr DATE PAGE STG ^ ^ ® ^ ^ R-3 V-N D & Z DESIGN ASSOCIATES 3/9/2004 2 2 of SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPr10N BY 6,485 sq. ft. Residential Development Chase, Melanie ~r rnv~eci LOCATION SFR- SOBEY 15145 Sobey Rd Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell. Cupertino. Los Altos. O®~~~~ Los Altos Hills. Los Gatos, Monte Sereno. Morgan Hill, and Saratoga • .. ,,. STANDARD DETAILS & SPECIFICATIONS SUBJECT: Specifications for Fire Sprinkler Systems in single family dwellings in excess of 3,600 square feet SCOPE Spec No ~~ Rev. Date 06/03/99 Eff. Date 08/ /97 Approved By Page 1 of _~_ This standard applies to single family dwellings, as classified by the Building Code, in excess of 3,600 square feet where fire sprinkler systems are installed as an approved are required under a specific local ordinance. DEFINITIONS Alternate Method of Compliance: An approved method of compliance that, in the opinion of the Fire Department, meets the intent of the provisions outlined in the Fire Code. NFPA 13D: National Fire Protection Association Standazd 13D, Fire Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two Family Dwellir-,gs and Mobile Homes. REQUIREMENTS The sprinkler system installation shall comply with provisions of the most recent edition of NFPA Standard 13D with the following exceptions: system Design • The number of design sprinklers shall include all sprinklers in the most remote room or area up to a maximum of four (4) sprinklers. If the most remote room or azea contains .less than four (4) sprinklers, hydraulic calculations shall be provided in accordance with NFPA Standard 13D (2 head calculation). Additionally, calculations shall be provided for the largest room that is the most remotely located from the supply riser to verify operation for all fire sprinklers within that space up to a maximum of four (4) fire sprinklers. Location of Sprinklers The exceptions listed for the locations of sprinklers as per NFPA Standard 13D shall be applicable except as follows: • Fire sprinklers shall be provided in any attached garage, carport, basement or foyer(s). ~~rc~ °°~ti~ FIRE DEPARTMENT • SANTA CLARA COUNTY FLR,E '` 14700 Winchester Blvd • Los Gatos • CA 95030-1818 • (408) 378-4010 ~~~~~2 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani ABSENT: Commissioner Zutshi, Commissioner Uhl arrived at 8:10 pm STAFF: Planner Welsh, Director Sullivan &z Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 9, 2004. (APPROVED 5-0) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The lawgenerally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 17, 2004. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. APPLICATION #04-087 (503-16-026) BHATIA,13228 Pierce Road; -Request Design Review approval to construct a 1,739 square foot second floor addition to an existing 2,814 square foot single story structure for a total floor area of 4,553 square feet. The height of the structure will be 24 feet 6 inches. The gross lot area is 21,052 square feet and the parcel is zoned R-1-40,000. (ANN WELSH) (APPROVED 5-0) 2. APPLICATION # 04-034 (397-08-091) OVERLAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 15145 Sobey Road -Request Design Review approval to construct a 26-foot high single story structure on a vacant lot with an average slope of 16%. The size of the home is 5,681 square feet with an 845 square foot basement. The lot size is 46,082 square feet and the parcel is zoned R-1, 40,000. (ANN WELSH) (APPROVED TO CONTINUE TO A DATE UNCERTAIN 6-0) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Regular Meeting on June 2, 2004 and Special Meeting on June 9, 2004 ADJOURNMENT AT 9:50 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, July 14, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerh at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerh@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102- 35.104 ADA Title II). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on June 17, 2004 at the of fice of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@sarato ag ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR DATE: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 -12:00 noon PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot,13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Site Visit Committee WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2004 C Rou. CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #04-087 - BHATIA 13228 Pierce Road Item 1 2. Application #04-034 - OVERLAND DEVELOPMENT 15145 Sobey Road Item 2 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. :7 • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, June 23, 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 June 9, 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 regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Govenunent Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 17, 2004. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 ~)• CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. APPLICATION #04-087 (503-16-026) BHATIA,13228 Pierce Road; -Request Design Review approval to construct a 1,739 square foot second floor addition to an existing 2,814 square foot single story structure for a total floor area of 4,553 square feet. The height of the structure will be 24 feet 6 inches. The gross lot area is 21,052 square feet and the parcel is zoned R-1-40,000. (ANN WELSH) • 2. APPLICATION # 04-034 (397-08-091) OVERLAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 15145 Sobey Road -Request Design Review approval to construct a 26-foot high single story structure on a vacant lot with an average slope of 16%. The size of the home is 5,681 square feet with an 845 square foot basement. The lot size is 46,082 square feet and the parcel is zoned R-1, 40,000. (ANN WELSH) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Regular Meeting on June 2, 2004 and Special Meeting on June 9, 2004 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, July 14, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerh at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerh@saratoga.caus. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to mahe reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102- 35.104 ADA Title II). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on June 17, 2004 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us • If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to plannin sarato ag ca.us 00 ~n MINUTES /„~" 5ARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION «</// ___ G~ DATE: Wednesday, June 9, 2004 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Garakani called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Hunter, Garakani, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Zutshi Absent: Commissioner Uhl Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous and Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of May 26, 2004. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of May 26, 2004, were adopted as submitted with a minor correction to page 3. (6-0-1; Commissioner Uhl was 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 June 3, 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 June 9, 2004 Page 2 *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #04-019 (397-09-009) GUDAPATI AND MEKA, 19170 Monte Vista Drive: The applicants request Design Review Approval to demolish the existing structures on the lot and construct a new one-story 6,156 square foot home with a 2,434 square foot basement. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not exceed 26 feet. The net lot size is 49,840 square feet and the property is zoned R-1-40,000. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval to demolish existing structures on site and construct a 6,156 square foot, one-story home with a 2,434 square foot basement. • Described the architectural style as Early Californian Spanish eclectic incorporating two-piece clay the and beige stucco. Around tower element breaks the horizontal elements of the facade. The maximum height will be 26 feet. • Added that varying roof heights result in only a small portion of the house being 26 feet tall. There is a 14-foot tall entry gate element. • Said that the home is proposed for the center of the site and includes athree-car garage at a side facade. The home represents a pleasing style that will blend in well with this neighborhood. • Informed that the applicant has shown the plans to neighbors and that no negative comments were received. • Stated that the across-the-street neighbor (at 19135 Monte Vista Drive) has verbally indicated • concern regarding the placement and final growth height of the replacement trees. • Said that the applicant is willing to plant trees not to exceed 24 feet in height at maturity as a result of that neighbor's concerns over loss of view of the hillside if taller trees were to be planted. This condition has been included in the draft resolution. • Recommended that this condition actually be amended slightly so as to allow one tree that is taller than 24 feet in height at maturity to be planted at the northwest corner of the site. The tree species and sizes would be subject to staff approval. • Informed that the Arborist had recommended revisions to the house plan to protect Tree #4 (Oak) and #8, #9 and #13 (Cedar). However, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and decided that Tree #4 could be removed. • Said that the applicant has included a Tree Preservation Plan and proposes to remove Tree #4. • Stated that an added condition is proposed requiring the Arborist to review plans prior to issuance of building permits. • Said that the necessary findings to support this proposal can be made and that staff recommends approval of the project with the revision to the conditions to allow one 24-foot plus tall tree while the rest of the replacement trees would be no taller than 24 feet tall at maturity. Commissioner Hunter asked if staff is comfortable with the 24-foot height limitation when the neighbor wants an 18-foot maximum height for the replacement trees. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that one neighbor, Judge John McInerney, wants the 18-foot limitation. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 3 Commissioner Nagpal asked if staff is proposing any height limitation for the one tree that is greater than 24-feet tall at maturity. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied no. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Marty Oakley, Project Designer and Builder: • Said that staff has clearly outlined the proposal. • Added that he is available for any questions. Commissioner Hunter said that the home is very presentable. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Marty Oakley if he has seen the letter requesting an 18-foot tree height limitation at full maturity of the trees and what he thinks of that request. Mr. Marty Oakley said he would defer this to the property owner, Mr. Gudapati. Judge John McInerney, Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga: • Apologized to the Commission for the late filing of his letter. • Advised that he and his wife reside across the street. • Assured that he has no objection to the proposed home. • Admitted that he had thought that a separate hearing would occur later regarding the issue of landscaping. • Expressed concern about the proposal for four new Oak trees along the dnve as this species of tree grows too tall and said there is no need for four large trees along Monte Vista Drive, which would destroy his view of the mountains. • Said that this is already a heavily forested property. The northwest corner already has three very large Cypress trees that have been there a long time. • Expressed concern about the idea of adding another large tree there. • Mentioned that he has two large magnolias on his own property. There had once been three but one was removed to allow a view of the mountains. • Explained that his home was constructed in 1952. Commissioner Hunter reported that the Commission had occasion to make two long visits to this site. Judge John McInerney said that 24-foot tall trees are higher than necessary and that 18-foot tall trees would be more than adequate. He asked the Commission to impose a 18-foot maximum height limitation for these replacement trees as failure to do so would impact him and his family in future years as it would obstruct the views of the mountains that they appreciate. Commissioner Hunter asked Judge McInerney if he has any suggestions and would he be willing to work with the applicants to select something acceptable to all. Judge John McInerney assured that this is not an adversarial situation here. He knows Mrs. Gudapati better than Mr. Gudapati but is simply asking them to select low-lying trees like the others along Monte Vista. The height of 18 feet maximum was proposed because that is the height of the utility wires. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 4 Dr. O'Donnell, 19135 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he resides across the street from this proposed new residence. • Said that he is surprised by the proposed tree height of 24-feet. • Said that Mrs. Gudapati has been very cooperative. • Advised that he has no problems with the plans for this home. • Stated that the view of the mountains is very important. They have panoramic views of the hills from his home. • Said that he has spoken with Planner Lata Vasudevan regarding having the replacement trees no higher than the lowest utility wire when the tree reaches full maturity and that he has no problem with that height. • Added that whatever tree species the Gudapatis want to choose is fine but that the proposed Coastal Live Oaks would be a disaster to his view. • Reiterated his preferences for trees that do not exceed 18 feet in height and that he is fine with the proposed home. Mr. Marty Oakley said that in order to be allowed to remove Tree #4, replacement trees are required by the City's Tree Ordinance. Said that they are recommending four 36-inch box trees to satisfy that requirement. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Marty Oakley if the Arborist has specifically required replacement trees. Planner Lata Vasudevan advised that in the draft resolution is the requirement to have the Arborist review the grading and landscaping plans. She added that other trees would also be removed from the site to accommodate this new home. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that when an Oak tree is removed, a property owner is generally asked to plan a replacement Oak somewhere else on the property. Mr. Marty Oakley said that they propose four replacement Oak trees for the removal of Tree #4 and three 24-inch box Redwood trees along the eastern property line. He questioned if those are no longer considered necessary. Commissioner Nagpal asked if it is he who suggested replacing Tree #4 with four new trees. Mr. Marty Oakley replied yes, based upon previous experience in the City. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that it is not required that the replacement trees be located at the front of this property. Mr. Marty Oakley said that they picked the front to place these trees because there is no room for them at the rear of the property. Chair Garakani disagreed, saying that there is room on this site to plant 100 new trees. Mr. Marty Oakley clarified that they want to retain a useable yard space. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 5 Chair Garakani asked how the property owners feel about the 18-foot maximum height limitation for the replacement trees. Mr. Gudapati, Property Owner and Applicant, 19170 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga: • Expressed appreciation for his neighbors' attendance and the fact that they like his proposed new home. • Said it is not his intent to upset his neighbors. • Explained that the 24-foot proposed maximum height was decided upon because Dr. O'Donnell had indicated that he was okay as long as the new trees fell below the wire heights at maturity. The lowest wire is 21 feet and the next above it is 24 feet, hence the 24-foot proposal. • Pointed out that the northwest corner of the property has tall cedar trees that are already 65 to 70 feet tall but that there is space for one more, located 40 feet away from Tree #1 and 50 feet away from Tree #3. He is suggesting that they place a tree there. This doesn't obstruct anything from the neighbors. Chair Garakani suggested that something other than Oaks be considered. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Gudapati if he would be willing to comply with the 18-foot maximum height for these replacement trees. Mr. Gudapati replied yes. Commissioner Hunter agreed that placing one more tree near the Cedars would not cause a problem. • Jud a John McInerne said that the view is alread blocked by the existing trees so why block them g Y Y more with additional trees. Commissioner Hunter suggested that no tall trees be added to the left of the Cedars. Judge John McInerney said that this area is less of a priority since there are already three tall trees there. Mr. Gudapati said that he had believed that the Judge was okay with one additional tree near the Cedars. Chair Garakani said that this represents a unique situation, as usually more trees are wanted. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Hunter: • Stated that the house design is very nice. • Expressed appreciation for the opportunity to visit the site twice. • Said that she appreciates people who love trees but understands that the neighbors across the way want to see the hills. • Suggested that trees about the same height as the existing oleanders or a bit higher would be very • workable for all involved. • Declared that this will be a lovely home. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 6 Commissioner Rodgers said that there are a nice variety of trees on this property and some flexibility to allow the owners to plant trees than enhance the property should be allowed. • Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that this home has a beautiful design. • Pointed out that there is already a lot of screening on this property. • Supported the placement of Oaks elsewhere on the property or lowering the maximum height if planted at the front of the property. Chair Garakani: • Said he too appreciates the natural hills and can understand that the neighbors enjoy their views. • Said that it is a good suggestion to select lower growing trees for the front of this property. • Stated that he does not want to see a loss of views of the hills for either the Gudapatis or their neighbors. Commissioner Zutshi: • Stated that this will be a beautiful house. • Said that she is flexible on the number of replacement trees, as the front appears to have enough screening as it is. Chair Garakani said if the owners choose to add some trees, they should maintain the 18-foot maximum height. Commissioner Hunter said that when the oleanders are removed that area would be bare. She suggested the retention of these oleanders. Commissioner Nagpal asked what the suggestion is for the northwest front corner. Commissioner Schallop said that it should be clarified if the recommendations in the Arborist's report are being altered. Chair Garakani said that using the height of the utility wires is a good idea whereby the maximum height of these new trees is not to exceed the lowest wire height. Director Tom Sullivan assured that the number and species of replacement trees could be worked out between the staff, Arborist and applicants. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission approved a Design Review request to demolish existing structures on a lot and construct a new one-story 6,156 square foot home with a 2,434 square foot basement on property located at 19170 Monte Vista Drive with the added condition that the replacement trees in the northwest portion of the property are not to exceed the height of the bottom telephone wires or a maximum of 18 to 20 feet in height, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 7 *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #03-132 (510-01-004) -KIM, 19870 Mendelsohn Lane: Request Design Review Approval to demolish and rebuild a significant portion of the existing house and add 904 square feet to the existing 3,429 square foot house for a total floor area of 4,333 square feet. The height of the structure will not exceed 21 feet. The gross lot size is 18,750 square feet and zoned R-1-20,000. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to demolish and rebuild a significant portion of an existing house and add 904 square feet for a total of 4,333 square feet and a maximum height of 21 feet. • Added that the gross lot is 18,750 square feet and the zoning is R-1-20,000. • Said that the demolition represents about 44 percent of the existing exterior walls. • Stated that staff had recommended that this applicant apply for an administrative Design Review approval but that the increased roof height to 21 feet required Planning Commission approval. Residential structures less than 18 feet in height are handled over the counter. • Explained that the architectural styles vary in this neighborhood. • Described the building materials as stucco and stone in light beige with a grey slate roof. • • Advised that this proposal is consistent with Design Review findings and that there are no view impacts. The home is proposed as a one-story home with a maximum height of 21 feet. Existing mature trees will remain. No trees are proposed for removal. • Said that there are varying roof lines and the stone facade adds character and interest. The home sits far into the lot and that no negative correspondence has been received. • Informed that this proposed is consistent with the General Plan and the City's Residential Design Handbook. • Recommended approval and advised that the applicant is here this evening. Chair Garakani asked about the proposal for four chimneys on this home. Director Tom Sullivan said that some of these elements are skylights. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that per code only one fireplace would be wood burning. Any others would be gas. Commissioner Zutshi asked if there are a total of three chimneys proposed. Chair Garakani said that there is one existing chimney. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the applicant could discuss the design concept. • Commissioner Zutshi said that this is almost like rebuilding a new house. She asked if the setbacks stay as they are. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 8 Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal asked if any Variances are required. Associate Planner John Livingstone said no, adding that if the home were to be completely demolished, they would have to bring the structure back. However, it is staying intact. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Hubert Larga, Project Architect: • Explained that they are expanding the house from the front side and that there are no changes from the back and sides. • Advised that there is one existing wood burning fireplace and they are proposing three new gas fireplaces. Two are located side by side for the living and family rooms. The third new fireplace is for the master bedroom. Commissioner Nagpal asked if it is possible to have one stack to serve both the living and family room fireplaces. Mr. Hubert Larga replied if necessary. Commissioner Nagpal sought clarification that the proposal currently includes four fireplace stacks. Mr. Hubert Larga replied yes. • Director Tom Sullivan advised the Commission that it appears that two different sets of plans have been distributed. One set of plans has the fireplaces back to back to serve the family room and living room. Another set of plans has the fireplaces more separated and requiring separate chimney stacks. Chair Garakani said he would prefer to see the home limited to three chimneys rather than four. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Zutshi: • Said that she is fine with the project. • Said that she supports the proposal to have the two fireplaces placed back to back to share a chimney stack. • Reminded that one stack is also required for kitchen exhaust. Commissioner Hunter asked if there is a restriction in the number of stacks a home could have. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. There is only a restriction for a single wood-burning fireplace per structure. Commissioner Nagpal said that she would like to see just three stacks. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the kitchen exhaust would simply be a vent and not a chimney. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 9 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval to demolish and rebuild a significant portion of the existing house and add 904 square feet for a total floor area of 4,333 square feet on property located at 19870 Mendelsohn Lane, with the added condition that the fireplaces for the living a family rooms be placed back-to- back in order to share a chimney stack, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 APPLICATION #03-245 (517-22-073) MASSIF, 15301 Peach Hill Road: The applicant is requesting Design Review Approval for a detached secondary dwelling unit. Design review is required because the allowable floor area on the site exceeds 6,000 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed structure is 14 feet, 6 inches. The proposed floor area of the structure is 602 square feet. Total floor area on the site, including the main residence and garage, would be 6,598 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 construct a 602 square foot detached secondary dwelling unit with a maximum height of 14 feet, 6 inches. The unit will include a slate roof and cobblestone accents. The color is sand, which matches the main residence. • Explained that in July 2001, the applicant received Design Review Approval for a new home and pool. • Added that the Planning Commission is reviewing this secondary unit this evening only because it results in a total floor area on the site in excess of 6,000 square feet. Only the design is up for consideration as the secondary dwelling unit is allowed by right. • Informed that the Code limitations for one wood burning fireplace is per structure rather than per property. • Said that the neighbor to the north has concerns. To address those concerns, modifications have been made to the plans, including a reduction in height, a shift in the positioning of the footprint and additional landscape screening. • Advised that geotechnical review and clearance has been issued. • Said that this proposal is consistent with required findings and recommended approval. Commissioner Hunter pointed out three letters and said there appears to be some confusion about why secondary units are allowed by right. Asked if the Commission has the authority to pick the siting of the unit on this property and suggested that staff explain the State Law pertaining to second units. Director Tom Sullivan: • • Explained that legislation was adopted and took effect a year ago whereby the State took away any City or County right to hold hearings to approve secondary dwelling units. They are permissible as aright and cannot be reviewed at public hearings. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 10 • Added that if a proposal reflects a conversion into a second unit, that request is handled over the counter. • Said that if a proposal is for a new second unit, it comes before the Planning Commission for Design Review only and not the use itself. The City has no authority to say yes or no to second dwelling units. • Clarified that if there were no kitchen facility, this would be a guest house rather than a second dwelling unit and would require a Use Permit approval. • Added that a deed restriction is proposed that states if this unit were to be rented, it would be rented as a BMR (below market rate) unit. This is an incentive to meet the Housing requirements assigned to the City of Saratoga. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the deed restriction lasts forever. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. He added however that most likely these units would never be rented. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that this unit is in the general area of the previous second unit on this property that was demolished prior to construction of the new main house. Commissioner Hunter: • Pointed out that the previous unit was visible from Peach Hill Road. • Said that there have been two letters submitted expressing concern about the visibility of the new garage. • Asked if staff had heard from these neighbors at the time that the original house plan was reviewed. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that she asked the project planner that handled that application but he didn't recall. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the proposed screening is sufficient to help alleviate the concern of the neighbors across the street. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the screening was more for the neighbors to the north driveway. There are some Oak trees along Peach Hill Road. Chair Garakani asked if the cherry trees would be removed. Commissioner Hunter said their removal is not proposed in the landscape plane. Chair Garakani questioned why this unit was not considered at the same time that the main house and pool were considered. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the change in the law that took effect last year now allows this unit while previous requirements had onerous conditions. There were very few legally established second units in the City under the old ordinance. The City had to unadopt its old ordinance and create new requirements. Commissioner Hunter asked if cabanas could be changed into secondary living units. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 11 Director Tom Sullivan said that there are no design review issues for second living units. They must simply meet setbacks, heights, materials and parking requirements. Commissioner Nagpal clarified that the Commission would not be looking at this at all if it were not for the fact that the site exceeds 6,000 square feet in total floor area. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Bob Flurry, Project Designer: • Introduced himself and said he was available for any questions from the Commission as was his client, Mr. Massie. Chair Garakani asked about the mitigation of the corner of the property. Mr. Bob Flurry said that no conclusion has been reached since the site visit with the neighbor. Commissioner Hunter asked where the screening landscaping would be planted. Mr. Bob Flurry said the location was determined to screen Mrs. Johnson's property. Commissioner Hunter said that she spent a lot of time on site today and pointed out that two neighbors who had concerns could not be here tonight. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the retaining wall in the area in which it was not installed. Mr. Bob Flurry said that the original plan had been to put it all around but that he was not involved with the project at that time. The retaining wall will remain as currently built. Chair Garakani pointed out that the applicant has two children and questioned their safety. Commissioner Hunter asked who the man was that was there during the site visit. Mr. Bob Flurry said that the man was the project manager. Commissioner Hunter asked if the neighbors had attended the original public hearing. Mr. Tony Massie, Property Owner and Applicant, 15301 Peach Hill Road, Saratoga: • Replied no. • Added that they had come to agreement regarding screening. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Massie about the plans to ensure the safety of his children to prevent them from falling off the slope. Mr. Tony Massie replied that the area is not that steep. Instead the area of concern is the west side of the property and they will put railings in there. • Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Tony Massie if he would be willing to remove the concrete pathway at the edge of the property. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 12 Mr. Tony Massie advised that they originally did not install the retaining wall at that portion because Mrs. Johnson didn't want it there. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Tony Massie if he has any problem letting the grass grow to the edge with the removal of the path and installing the retaining wall there if necessary as well as putting in additional screening. Mr. Tony Massie advised that Mrs. Johnson wanted a view of the hill but that he prefers screening himself. Dr. Serita Johnson, 15277 Peach Hill Road, Saratoga: • Said that it is satisfying to see the work done by the Planning Commission. • Opined that the staff report is biased. • Said she submitted a letter against this project. • Stated that the desert tan paint color appears yellow or gold. • Said that the secondary dwelling unit would be located next to the large garage and that the house and garage already appear bulk. This cabana will provide more bulk to the area. • Advised that the reduced height and extended setback does not adequately satisfy her concerns. • Provided copies of the City's Design Review Handbook, reading a portion that states that landscaping is not intended to mitigate design mistakes. • Said that the previous secondary unit was a one story structure with a flat roof. She could only see a small portion from her property. • Expressed her disagreement that this unit will be an improvement. • Said that she had two visits with staff and felt that her concerns were glossed over. • Stated that she is fearful of landslides. • Declared that 6,000 square feet in structures for this property is larger than what exists on surrounding properties. • Stated she has a problem with privacy, views, noise and heights. • Asked that the Commission not rely on landscaping to reduce the appearance of bulk. • Added that privacy should be addressed in the design phase per page 18 of the Design Handbook. Additionally, the handbook suggests avoiding siting at the sides of lots, not to block views. Her view is being blocked by this cabana. • Stated that several provisions of the Design Handbook are being ignored. • Questioned why the City is so eager to approve this secondary dwelling unit and the reason behind the deed restriction for low-income housing. • Suggested that this is an abuse of the intent of the law, which was not created to build cabanas. • Said that this makes no sense and that she is offended that this can be done with her concerns so minimally addressed. Commissioner Hunter asked Dr. Serita Johnson if the terrace area at the front of her house is a chief outdoor area or is another portion of the yard used more frequently. Dr. Serita Johnson said that they have a deck that they use often. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 13 Commissioner Rodgers said that the Commissioners had tried to hear Dr. Serita Johnson's concerns out during yesterday's site visit. She asked staff if the intent of the modified State law is not to allow cabanas. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that this unit has a kitchen with cooking facilities, which makes it a secondary dwelling unit. Commissioner Rodgers said that there are differing opinions on interpretations of the State law, which allows secondary dwelling units as a matter of law. Dr. Serita Johnson replied that she thinks it is a sham. Commissioner Rodgers said that she does not like to see a structure there as she does not believe it complies with the spirit of State law. Dr. Serita Johnson suggested that it be relocated elsewhere on this property. Commissioner Hunter asked where the original pool used to be situated on this property. Dr. Serita Johnson replied down a flight of stairs in back of the property. She added that during the site visit with the Commissioners, they discussed trees, views, etc., but not about the requirements of the Design Handbook. Commissioner Rodgers said that there is a conflict between the desire for privacy and maintaining views. Asked if there is some sort of screening device that could be implemented, perhaps one that is moveable. Dr. Serita Johnson replied that this does not take care of noise impacts. Mr. Fred Frederick, 15277 Peach Hill Road, Saratoga: • Identified himself as the husband of Dr. Serita Johnson. • Asked if it would be possible to get a copy of the geotechnical report in order to have it reviewed. • Clarified that they would have 15 days to appeal any decision made this evening. • Pointed out that their patio is their evening cocktail place. Director Tom Sullivan said that Mr. Fred Frederick could visit the Public Works Department where the Associate Engineer has a full geotechnical file and from whom Mr. Frederick can obtain copies. Someone from the audience asked for a definition of low-income housing. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that low income is based upon average income levels and changes regularly. In Santa Clara County, it is fairly high and includes lots of public service employees. Commissioner Hunter said that it equals approximately $40,000 a year. These BMR units could go to elderly parents on Social Security or to teachers or firefighters that may be at the lower end of their pay scales. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 14 Director Tom Sullivan concurred with the information provided by Commissioner Hunter, saying that she is right on the mark. Mr. Tony Massie said that he understands his neighbor's concerns and is willing to put in necessary screening. Commissioner Hunter questioned the paint color. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Tony Massie if he had evaluated the possibility of locating this second unit elsewhere on his property. Mr. Tony Massie replied yes, he had but came to the conclusion that this was the most reasonable location. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the location of the original pool as an alternate site. Mr. Tony Massie replied that this area is neither sufficiently stable nor large enough and would require additional geological study. Commissioner Hunter added that the neighbor on the other side would then be concerned. Mr. Tony Massie said that there is a retaining wall on the west side of the property and that the neighbor there did not want a structure there and he didn't like the location of the original pool. Chair Garakani stated that he has a problem with adding to the original plans approved for this site. Commissioner Hunter said that there is already permission for the pool and main house, which are almost completed. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the Commission can deny Design Review for the structure itself but not for its use as a secondary dwelling unit. Commissioner Hunter said that if denied, it would have to go back to the drawing board. Commissioner Rodgers asked why this unit is needed. Mr. Tony Massie said they desire this unit to relate to the outside yard. Admitted that they plan to utilize it as a cabana and assured that they are not constructing it as a rental unit. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Tony Massie why this unit was not included in his original plan. Mr. Tony Massie said that they chose to use the allowable square footage for the main house. Commissioner Hunter asked how large is this property. Mr. Tony Massie replied 1.5 acres with about three-quarters of an acre being flat. Commissioner Rodgers asked about landslides. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 15 • Mr. Tony Massie advised that there was one in back, west of the large Oak tree. It was corrected about 18 years ago. Commissioner Rodgers asked if there is a retaining wall in that area now. Mr. Tony Massie replied pretty close to that area. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Hunter said that it is very difficult as there is not just one but three neighbors who are expressing concerns about this unit. Commissioner Zutshi: • Said that she didn't find the main house to be bulky. • Pointed out that everyone is allowed to have the maximum use of his or her property. • Stated that the concerns of Dr. Serita Johnson are valid but wondered if she values privacy or views more. • Stated that she has no objections to this project. Commissioner Schallop asked about height restrictions. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that just a little portion is viewed from the Johnson property and that • Mr. Massie can put in the retaining wall. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that Mr. Tony Massie is willing to put in screening landscaping. Commissioner Zutshi added that Mr. Massie is also willing to remove the walkway at the edge of the property. She pointed out that most property owners don't have parties all the time but rather just occasionally. Commissioner Rodgers: • Expressed her concern for the perception of bulk from Peach Hill Road, from which it appears there is lots of a straight wall. • Agreed that trees and landscaping could not be used for justification for bulk. Chair Garakani stated that there are several issues in the Design Handbook that are not met by this project. Suggested that the secondary dwelling unit be incorporated as a part of the new garage structure. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that to do so would result in a huge single structure, which would appear more bulky than two separate buildings. Chair Garakani suggested that the articulation of the roofline could deal with that fact. • Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that she appreciated a lot of what Dr. Serita Johnson had to say. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 16 • Pointed out that this unit will be used as a cabana rather than a secondary dwelling unit per the applicant himself. However, the Design Review for the secondary unit is what is before the • Commission today. • Added that existing screening is remarkable along that side and that it doesn't appear as if there is a better location available on the property for this unit. Commissioner Rodgers reminded that staff had the applicant move the unit back by seven feet to help alleviate concerns. Commissioner Nagpal stated that the view is shielded. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that she drove around the area five times and can see where the pool house is going to be. • Reminded that 16 trees are proposed and that it would not really be seen much when these trees mature. • Said that she thinks that Peach Hill Road area is as good as it gets and has always thought so. • Agreed that it can be a huge shock to neighbors when older homes are replaced with huge new ones. • Conceded that there really is no place else on this property for this secondary unit. • Instructed the applicant to do a very good job with the screening. • Stated that the Commission has to let this unit go in there as it is a reasonable place to put it and the Commission's hands are pretty much tied. • Said that she hopes the concrete path is removed and that good screening is placed there. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the Planning Commission has the authority to deny Design Review • approval for design-based reasons but not for its intended use as a secondary unit. Commissioner Hunter said that the design is nice but the placement is in questions. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that placement is part of design. Assured that the Commission does have the authority to deny. Added that he is not specifically recommending that action but wants to be sure the Commission understands its rights to deny for design reasons. Commissioner Hunter asked if the Commission could do a conditional denial. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. Commissioner Schallop asked about the building color. Commissioner Hunter said that she agrees it appears gold and does not blend in that well. Commissioner Rodgers supported the idea of completing the retaining wall facing Peach Hill Road. Chair Garakani said that this proposal does not fit with what is there and that he cannot accept it unless it was to be integrated with the garage somehow. As it is proposed, he cannot support this request. Commissioner Schallop: • • Stated his concurrence with Commissioner Hunter's comments. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 17 • Said that there are ways available to address the privacy and bulk issues and that screening is the • best compromise. • Announced that he is comfortable approving this request. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the issues relating to the building color. Commissioner Zutshi said that Director Tom Sullivan would take care of comparing the actual to the approved color board. Commissioner Hunter said that she is totally against wood burning fireplaces in hillside locations due to sparks and potential hillside fires. Director Tom Sullivan said that Ordinance allows one wood burning fireplace per structure. Commissioner Nagpal asked if a requirement for the completion of the retaining wall could be supported. Commissioner Hunter said if Dr. Johnson wants it. Chair Garakani asked about potential fencing in the future. Commissioner Zutshi said that the issue of fencing would come back for review. Director Tom Sullivan advised that fencing could not be placed on top of a retaining wall but rather would have to be set back two feet from a retaining wall. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission approved a Design Review request for a detached secondary dwelling unit, which results in a total floor area on the site at 6,598 square feet on property located at 15301 Peach Hill Road with the following additions to the conditions: • No wood burning fireplace allowed in the secondary dwelling unit; • Staff will work with the applicant regarding the retaining wall, screening and removal of the concrete pathway along edge of the grass; • Screening will be provided for Peach Hill Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: Garakani ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None *~* PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 . APPLICATION #03-246 (386-10-043) -GOLDEN GATE DOUGHNUTS, LLC, 18562 B Prospect Road: The applicant is requesting approval of a Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit to demolish the existing 3,960 square foot commercial building and construct a new 4,090 square foot Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 18 commercial building for a Krispy Kreme Doughnut Store. Maximum height of the structure will not exceed 20 feet. The parcel is 99,434 gross square feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) • Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that several actions are required including adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of both a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Approval to allow the demolition of an existing 3,960 square foot commercial building and construction of a new 4,090 square foot commercial building to house a Krispy Kreme. • Stated that decorative fencing and additional landscaping in the public right-of-way would be installed. • Said that this project required an Environmental Impact Assessment, which rated the project as having a less than significant impact. • Described the operation of this proposed Krispy Kreme as being 24 hour with both adrive-thru window and walk in services with indoor seating and views of the donuts being made. • Stated that this project meets the design criteria for commercial buildings and is compatible with the rest of the shopping center and other nearby commercial centers. • Explained that there are architectural details included that provides a pedestrian scale to this building. The building colors would be three different colors to help break up the building mass. The paint would be non-reflecting earth tones and a the base would be used to define the entry. • Added that the signs would incorporate the standard Krispy Kreme corporate colors of white, green and red and will meet the 40 square foot maximum allowed under Ordinance. Additionally, there will be a backlit green awning and a red neon band around the building. • Described the landscaping as including flowering plants and four 24-inch box trees and one 36-inch box tree. • • Stated that parking required is one space for every 200 gross square feet of space. There is a total of 20,000 square feet of space for this center and 112 parking spaces provided whereas 103 are required. Additionally, 10 queuing spaces would be available at the drive thru aisle. • Stated that four trees would be removed. Three are Magnolias and one is an Oak. The Oak was ranked as fair but per the Arborist's report could be removed with replacement trees. • Explained that the 24-hour operation requires a Conditional Use Permit, which allows the Planning Commission to impose conditions. • Stated that staff is supportive of this use as it is within an established commercial area off major arterial roads and provides services for the residents of Saratoga in an area with a concentration of commercial services. • Advised that no negative correspondence has been received. • Recommended approval of the Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Approval. Commissioner Hunter asked if effort has been made to match the existing center. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the stucco finish proposed is common throughout the existing center. Commissioner Hunter asked if the proposed colors match the existing. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied no. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 19 Commissioner Hunter asked about matching the existing roof tiles. • Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the applicants opted not to use the same roof tiles but rather to use a different style. Commissioner Hunter asked why the four trees are to be removed. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that these trees must be removed to allow the reconfiguration of the site. Commissioner Nagpal asked where the trees are to be removed. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the trees are circled and number in the Arborist's Report as Trees #9, #10, #11 and #12. Commissioner Hunter sought clarification that the business would be open 24 hours. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal asked which tree is the Oak. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied Tree #11. • Commissioner Nagpal stated that it does not appear to be located within the proposed building footprint. Commissioner Rodgers asked where the decorative fence is to go. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the fence would run along Lawrence Expressway to the trees and stop there. Commissioner Rodgers asked if this fence would have spikes at the top. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied no. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Ms. Diane Zimmerman, Real Estate Representative for Krispy Kreme: • Gave an overview of the company, which started in 1936. The first store in California was built in 1999. The first in Northern California was in Union City in 2000. The Saratoga store would be the 18`h in California. • Explained that there are three facets to the Krispy Kreme store. There are retail sales to the public, wholesale to other businesses and fundraising efforts. Krispy Kreme works with non-profits (non- political organizations) that have tax identification numbers in a number of fundraising efforts. • Added that each new store that opens selects achild-related non-profit to sponsor. . • Stated that her goal tonight is to answer any questions and reach consensus. • Said that she also brought the project architect, local operations manager and a representative of the property owner to answer any questions that might arise. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 20 • Clarified that the 24 hour operation includes lobby hours from 5:30 a.m. to midnight, 1 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays, and 24 hour drive thru hours. • Commissioner Hunter asked Ms. Diane Zimmerman if there would be any low carb donuts. Ms. Diane Zimmerman said she didn't think so, adding that Krispy Kreme would simply stick to what they do so well. Mr. John Zarian, Project Architect: • Said that his associates were on site for the Commission's site visit the previous day. • Stated that as a result of issues raised by the site visit, they have modified the color board and the sample and removed the awning that was considered not to be consistent. Instead they propose to install a Spanish the mansard roof and have incorporated more of a Mediterranean style cornice. They have set back the entries three to four inches and added a low screening wall for the seating area. Additionally, they are searching for more Mediterranean-styled light fixtures. Commissioner Hunter asked for clarification that the awning is gone. Mr. John Zarian replied yes. Commissioner Zutshi asked if there is a new color rendering to look at. Mr. John Zarian replied no, adding that they did not have sufficient time since yesterday to accomplish an updated colored elevation. Commissioner Nagpal asked for clarification that the the on the wall was also changing color. Mr. John Zarian replied yes. Chair Garakani suggested that having the curvature of the site matched by the same curvature in this building. Mr. John Zarian said that this suggestion was not pointed out to him. He advised the Commission that Krispy Kreme has a standardized prototype designed building rather than a custom building for each location. Commissioner Hunter disagreed that changes from corporate architecture are not done and gave as an example the Home Depot in a nearby community that looks more like a Colonial Mansion than a typical Home Depot. Mr. John Zarian said that the patio area has been modified to allow the screening wall as well as a water feature. With the four trees to be removed, four specimen trees are proposed as replacements. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. John Zarian to save Tree #11 if possible. Commissioner Schallop asked if there would be a "Hot Donut" light. • Mr. John Zarian replied yes. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 21 Commissioner Zutshi asked if the parapet is still white. Mr. John Zarian replied that the precast cap is white. Said that he had not heard that there was a problem with the color of the cap itself. Other colors could be considered. Commissioner Nagpal asked if Trees #9, #10 and #11 could be saved. Mr. John Zarian replied that Tree #10 falls within the parking space and drive aisle. Tree #9 is within the redesigned circulation path. The root base for Tree #11 is so large that it is impractical to do any improvements in the area without damage to that tree. Mr. John Machado, Property Owners Representative: • Said that he has managed the Westgate Corner Shopping Center for the last 15 to 20 years. • Advised that their tenant, Warehouse Records, went out of business last year. • Stated that they are fortunate to attract Krispy Kreme to this location. • Said that the new building placement is better than the existing as it opens up the rest of the parking field for the rest of the shopping center. • Said that the added square footage is just 120 square feet from the current building size. • Said that this project will provide a service to the city and offers a pedestrian feel to the center and ties into the rest of the project. • Informed that the property owner has authorized him to repaint the rest of the center to match when Krispy Kreme is done. • Reported that they were unsuccessful for over six to eight months in finding a replacement tenant for this space. • Advised that the Oak in question is diseased. Efforts have been made together with an Arborist over the last few years to care for it. Commissioner Rodgers asked if they are comfortable with the parking layout. Mr. John Machado said that they had input in the parking layout. Added that they would not allow a curved building to be built as they need buildings that can be flexible for future uses. Therefore, building shapes are kept as generic as possible. He added that a new low carb store has been added to the center. Commissioner Rodgers expressed concerns about the parking spaces at the entry near the drive thru. Mr. John Machado said that the Traffic Engineer for Krispy Kreme has looked into this configuration as has the property management team and no significant issues were raised. Reported that the peak hours for Krispy Kreme are early a.m. when other uses are not yet open. Chair Garakani asked Mr. John Machado to verify that the property owners would not allow a building with a curvature element. Mr. John Machado clarified that they need to keep their buildings as rectangular in shape as possible to keep uses flexible. They look at viability for the property owners for the long term. Added that Krispy Kreme knows how to make a building work for them and that this will be a very nice environment. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 22 Commissioner Nagpal asked about the potential for using arched windows and doors. Mr. John Machado said that this could be considered as long as it does not interfere with operations. Again, they are looking for a building that is as flexible as possible as the current building is now obsolete. Chair Garakani said that this way if Krispy Kreme leaves, the owners can lease the space to another business. Mr. John Machado agreed that this building shape is more flexible. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the doors and windows proposed are aluminum. Mr. John Zarian replied yes. Chair Garakani suggested sending this proposal back to the Planning Department. He asked if the applicant is open to this suggestion, adding that the Commission can either vote tonight or continue. Mr. John Zarian said that they have brought forward what was requested by the Commissioners during the site visit. Said that they are willing to work further with staff to refine the details but that he did not think that having an additional hearing is fair to Krispy Kreme. Commissioner Rodgers asked if off-site traffic flow is taken into consideration. Pointed out that entry to the site off Prospect, customers must immediately turn right to access the drive thru window, driving • past four parking spaces. Questioned the impact on those four spaces as far as ability to back up to leave while cars are accessing the drive thru and whether stacking might also impact Prospect Avenue. Mr. John Zarian said that there is a minimal safety issue. However, this is a slow turn and not a fast turn. Acknowledged that there are always hazards in any parking lot and that this is the logical area for a few more long-term parking spaces, likely for employees from the other stores. There is more than adequate stacking space for the queue per the Traffic Engineer. Commissioner Rodgers asked if these particular four spaces are needed to meet the minimum requirement or is there flexibility to waive them. Mr. John Machado said that the spaces could be restricted for employee parking only. Mr. John Zarian said that reducing the number of spaces would require a reduction in building square footage. Commissioner Zutshi asked how many cars could queue for the drive thru. Mr. John Zarian replied 10. Commissioner Hunter said that the biggest problem she sees would be how to get back from the site onto Lawrence Expressway. Mr. John Machado: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 23 • Pointed out that they are not changing any traffic circulation on Prospect. • Reported that Krispy Kreme has been extremely accommodating. • Said that once this new building is constructed, the rest of the center wou • Stated that they would appreciate an approval tonight, allowing the det staff. Delays would result in an economic hardship for the owners. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. ld be repainted to match. ails to be worked out with Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the Commission make the determination as to whether they have had adequate time to review materials. If not, a continuance is in order. If the concerns have been addressed, staff is willing to work with the applicant to refine the details. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the Negative Declaration could be adopted and the remainder of the project continued. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the whole project should be continued if any part of it is to be continued. If the Commission is comfortable, they can move on tonight. Commissioner Hunter said that this project is vastly improved with these recent changes. Thanked the applicants for providing the changes this evening. The colors are much better. This project is fine and her only concern is the removal of trees. Asked for the size of replacement trees. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied 24-inch box. Director Tom Sullivan added that 24-inch box is a fairly minimal size. Commissioner Hunter said that she did not think that a continuance is necessary. Director Tom Sullivan agreed that there appears to be consensus to that opinion. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission accepted the Negative Declaration for the proposed project on property located at 18562-B Prospect Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission approved a Design Review and Conditional Use Permit to allow the demolition and reconstruction of a commercial building for a Krispy Kreme store on property located at 18562-B Prospect Road, with the added conditions to: • Use the updated color board and revised design; and • Require the replacement trees to be 36-inch box; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 24 ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Commission Hunter expressed concern that five historic buildings on Big Basin Way have sold recently and that she could see the potential for substantial change. Director Tom Sullivan: • Reminded that any modifications to exteriors would have to be evaluated by an historic architect, the Heritage Preservation Commission and possibly Commercial Design Review. • Said that he had spoken with one new owner who plans to restore his building. • Advised that there are exemptions available to Building Code requirements for historic buildings and that he has reminded the Building Division of that fact. • Informed that Historic Consultant Leslie Dill has determined that the Corinthian Corners building is not historically significant. COMMUNICATIONS i There were no Communications Items. AD TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Garakani adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of June 23, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk Item 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 04-087,13228 Pierce Road Applicant/Owner: Ashok and Kiran Bhatia Staff Planner: Ann Welsh, AICP, Associate Planner Date: June 23, 2004 APN: 503-16-026 Department T -N- I J\ , u~ aN w ~.~: ~.u ~ m • 13228 Pierce Road ~~~0~ File No. 04-087 13228PieireRoad EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4/06/04 5/18/04 6/09/04 6/09/04 6/02/04 This Design Review application involves adding a 1,739 square foot second story on to an existing 2,716 square foot single story dwelling. A 98 square foot addition is also proposed for the first floor for a total floor area of 4,553 square feet. The height of the proposed two-story structure is 24.6 feet. The site is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district, and the parcel contains 21,052 square feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Arborist Report dated May 14, 2004 3. Fire Department report dated Apri120, 2004 4. Affidavit of Mailing S. Neighborhood Correspondence 6. Plans, Exhibit "A" • • • ®oc~o~ File No. 04-087 13228PiemRoad • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The General Plan designates this area as Residential Very Low Density which requires low density single family dwellings with a density of 1.09 dwelling units acre. This house is located in Area "B": Congress Springs -Pierce Road Area of the General Plan. The proposal is consistent with the Area Plan policy of maintaining the single-family character of the area. MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 21,052 square feet gross/net AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average Slope of lot is less than 10% GRADING REQUIRED: Since the proposal is primarily creation of a second story very little additional grading is required. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of renovating an existing single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code . (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists of remodeling and renovating one single-family residence. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The exterior finish proposed is bone stucco with oyster white fascia trim and charcoal brown Class "A" composition shingle roof. I~ U 0~~®3 File No. 04-087 13228PierceRoad • R-1- 40,000 Proposal Code Requirements Lot Size 21,052 sq. ft. 40,000 sq. ft. Lot Coverage: Building Footprint Driveway,Walkways ,Patio TOTAL 29.1% 2864 sq. ft. 3270 sq. ft. 6,134 sq. ft Maximum Allowable 35% Floor Area: First Floor w/Garage Second Floor TOTAL Setbacks: Front East Side - ls` floor 2nd flOOr West Side - ls` floor Rear - ls` floor 2°d floor Height: Existing one story 14.5 ft 2864sq. ft. 1739 sq. ft. 4,206 sq. ft. 7,368 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable 4,596 sq. ft. Minimum Requirement 30 ft. 30 ft (e) 9.18 ft 9.87 ft (nonconforming lot width) 15 ft. 9.87 ft. + 5 ft =14.87 ft. (e)12.29 ft. 9.87 ft. (e) 36.77 ft. 50 ft 60 ft. 60 ft. Two story Maximum Allowable 24.5 ft 26 ft. • a 4®~D®4 File No. 04-087 13228PiemRoad • PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review This design review application involves adding a second story to an existing 14.5 foot high, 2,716 square foot single story structure. The resulting structure is to be 24.5 feet high. The applicant proposes to add a 1,739 square foot second story and a 98 square foot addition to the first floor for a total floor area of 4,553 square feet. The site is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district, and the parcel contains 21,052 square feet. The proposed style of home is Mediterranean with a balustraded balcony along the front facade and a lower profile front entrance with two pillars atop a stone veneer base. The character of the surrounding neighborhood is a mixture of architectural styles and single story and two story dwellings. Therefore the proposed home is not inconsistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Necessary Findings The Zoning Ordinance, Section 15-45.080 identifies the following findings as necessary for granting Design Review approval. • (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. (b) Preserve natural landscape. (c) Minmuze perception of excessive bulk. (d) Compatible bulk and height. (e) Employs current grading and erosion control methods. (f) Utilizes Residential Design Guide policies and techniques. Actual Findings The following findings have been made regarding the proposed new construction. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The home is relatively buffered from adjacent properties since there is an existing 20 foot wide right of way on the east side of the lot and a wooded buffer to the south of the lot. Given the wooded nature of the area, the addition of a second story to the existing structure would not unreasonably impact views or privacy In order to minimize the impact of adding a second story and to address the • concerns of the eastern neighbor, additional landscaping is required as a condition of approval. ®Q~®S File No. 04-087 13228Pie1reRoad (h) Preserve Natural Landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. The design preserves the natural landscape since the project does not increase the existing footprint of the home. The area on the first floor that is proposed for addition would be built over an existing patio area. For this reason the project has little impact on the existing natural landscape. The proposed design exposes seven trees to some level of potential damage. However, the plan does not propose to remove any of the existing trees. The applicant will be required to implement tree protection measures during the construction process to minimise the impact on the surrounding trees. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulb. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the environment. The design uses materials and color to reduce the perception of bulk. The style of home is Mediterranean with a balustraded balcony along the front facade and arched porch and entry. The desi uses architectural features to break up massing. The hip roof and gabled • entry serve to reduce the mass of the roof line. (d) Compatible bulb and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (iii) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. The proposed two-story home is compatible with the surroundings since the adjacent home to the rear is a two story home and the neighborhood contains a mixture of single and two story dwellings. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates currentgrading and erosion control standards used by the Ciry. The proposed design retains the natural topography since changes to the grade surrounding the house are minimal. (~ Design policies and techniques. The proposed home will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook The proposed project conforms with Residential Design Handbook Policy #1, • minimize the perception of bulk. Technique #1, retaining natural topography is ®~~~s File No. 04-087 13228PierceRoad • addressed with minimal grading. Technique #3, reduce perception of bulk is addressed with use of natural materials &t colors. Technique #6, use architectural features to breakup massing, is addressed with two story, hip roof line and lower profile gabled entrance. Policy #2, integrate structures with the environment, Technique #l, use of natural colors and materials is addressed through use of neutral colored stucco and brown the roofing material. Technique #4, integrate all structures on the site is addressed by combining the garage and house in a single structure and retaining existing trees. Policy #3, avoid interference with privacy, Technique #1 is addressed by retention of existing trees and planting of additional trees to ensure privacy. Technique #3, maintain landscaping to enhance privacy, is addressed by requiring tree planting and minimizing tree removal. Policy #4, preserve views and access to views, Technique # 2, which calls for maximizing views while avoiding privacy conflicts, is addressed by planting trees in areas of potential conflict. Policy #S, design for energy efficiency, Technique #1, design for maximum benefit of sun and wind is addressed since the rear patio and windows are south facing in orientation. Technique #3, allow light, air and solar access to adjacent homes, is addressed since the proposed two-story home does not encroach on the solar access of neighbors. Thus the above analysis concludes that the findings required for granting design review approval can be met. The Ciry Arborist and the Santa Clara County Fire District have reviewed this • application. Their comments are included as conditions of approval. Neighborhood Input The neighbor to the east of the subject parcel is concerned with the issue of preserving the view shed. They requested that the applicant plant trees to eventually screen the second story from their view. In order to address this concern, staff has added the condition that a portion of the paved area that is proposed as a parking area be planted with sufficient trees to screen the second story from the view of the concerned neighbor. Community Development 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" "Residential House Addition for Ashoh and Kiran Bhatia prepared by Thomas Liu and Associates", dated 5/2/04, dated stamped June 15, 2004. The conditions of approval identified in this report shall be incorporated into the revised plans. 2. The site plan shall be revised to eliminate a portion of the paved area proposed for the garage entry. This area shall be planted with sufficient screening trees to create a visual buffer between the proposed second story and the property to the east of the Bhatia property. ~~®®~~ File No. 04-087 13228PierceRoad 3. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating required revisions • and this Resolution on a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 4. The complete construction plans shall include a final landscape plan which depicts all proposed screening vegetation as well as tree protection fencing as depicted in the arborist report. 5. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. 6. Fireplaces: The plans depict two fireplaces. A note should be added to the plans indicating that only one is wood burning. Fire Protection District The Santa Clara County Fire District reviewed this application on Apri120, 2004 and their requirements are included as conditions of approval: 1. Required Fire flow: the fire flow for this project is 1,750 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. The required fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrants(s), which are spaced at the required spacing. 2. Garage Fire Sprinkler Required: An approved automatic fire sprinkler system designed per National Fire Protection Association Standard #13D and • local ordinances, shall be provided for the garage. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. A state of California licensed fire protection contractor shall submit three sets of plans, calculations, a complete permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. CityArborist Report The City Arborist reviewed this project and prepared a report dated May 14, 2004. The recommendations of this report are included as conditions of approval. In general the project exposes seven ordinance sized trees to the risk of potential damage. 1. The report which is included as an attachment to this staff report recommends a root zone buffer beneath tree #3 and a six inch layer of wood chips beneath the canopy of tree #4. 2. In terms of trenching the report recommends specific setbacks for trenching for utilities, drainage, and irrigation The grading and drainage plan shall be revised to comply with the arborist's recommendations. Specifically the location of proposed area drains located in the front and rear of the property shall be revised to comply with the setback requirements ®~~~~ File No. 04-087 13228PierceRoad • Conclusion The proposed residence 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 if developed with the recommended conditions. The residence will not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape and will minimize the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal if developed with conditions and revisions, will satisfy all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the Resolution for application 04-087. • 9 ~~~~~, U Attachment 1 • ©~~~.0 File No. 04-087 13228PiemeRoad RESOLUTION N0.04-020 APPLICATION N0.04-087 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Bhatia/ 13228 Pierce Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to add a 1,739 square foot second story on to an existing single story dwelling with a 98 square foot first floor addition for a total floor area of 4,553 square feet. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and Whereas the project 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 site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves the construction of one single family home and associated out buildings; 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 the perception of bulk The design uses materials and color to reduce the perception of bulk. The style of home is Mediterranean with a balustraded balcony along the front facade and arched porch and entry. The design uses architectural features to break up massing. The hip roof and gabled entry serve to reduce the mass of the roof line. Policy 2, Integrate structures with the environment The design preserves the natural landscape since the project does not increase the existing footprint of the home. The area on the first floor that is proposed for addition would be built over an existing patio area. For this reason the project has little impact on the existing natural landscape. ~~(~11 Fffe No. 04-087 13228PietceRoad The proposed design exposes seven trees to some level of potential damage. However, the plan does not propose to remove any of the existing trees. The applicant will be required to implement tree protection measures during the construction process to minimize the impact on the surrounding trees. Policy 3, Avoid interference with privacy The orientation of the house controls view to adjacent properties. Those portions of the house, which contain outdoor living space are oriented toward the rear of the house. The house is designed to reduce noise impacts on adjacent dwellings. The garage is located toward the front of the property with access from the cul- de-sac. Policy 4, Preserve views and access to views The home is relatively buffered from adjacent properties since there is an existing 20 foot wide right of way on the east side of the lot and a wooded buffer to the south of the lot. Given the wooded nature of the area, the addition of a second story to the existing structure would not unreasonably impact views or privacy In order to minimize the impact of adding a second story and to address the concerns of the eastern neighbor, additional landscaping is required as a condition of approval. Policy 5, Design for maximum benefit of sun and wind The orientation of the house maximizes the southern exposure since the rear patio and windows are south facing. The location of the house does not block the sun of any neighbors. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Ashok and Kiran Bhatia for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" "Residential House Addition for Ashoh and Kiran Bhatia prepared by Thomas Liu and Associates", dated S/2/04, dated stamped June 15, 2004. The conditions of approval identified in this report shall be incorporated into the revised plans. 2. The site plan shall be revised to eliminate a portion of the paved area proposed for the garage entry. This area shall be planted with sufficient ©®~~~,~ File No. 04-087 13228PieireRoad screening trees to create a visual buffer between the proposed second story and the property to the east of the Bhatia property. 3. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating required revisions and this Resolution on a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 4. The complete construction plans shall include a final landscape plan which depicts all proposed screening vegetation as well as tree protection fencing as depicted in the arborist report. 5. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. 6. Fireplaces: The plans depict two fireplaces. A note should be added to the plans indicating that only one is wood burning. 7. 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. • Fire Protection District The Santa Clara County Fire District reviewed this application on April 20, 2004 and their requirements are included as conditions of approval: 1. Required Fire flow: the fire flow for this project is 1,750 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. The required fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrants(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. 2. Garage Fire Sprinkler Required: An approved automatic fire sprinkler system designed per National Fire Protection Association Standard #13D and local ordinances, shall be provided for the garage. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. A state of California licensed fire protection contractor shall submit three sets of plans, calculations, a complete permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. CityArborist Report The City Arborist reviewed this project and prepared a report dated May 14, 2004. The recommendations of this report are included as conditions of approval. In general the project exposes seven ordinance sized trees to the risk of potential damage. i ~~~~~.3 File No. 04-087 13128PierceRoad 1. The report which is included as an attachment to this staff report recommends a root zone buffer beneath tree #3 and a six inch layer of wood chips beneath the canopy of tree #4. 2. In terms of trenching the report recommends specific setbacks for trenching for utilities, drainage, and irrigation The grading and drainage plan shall be revised to comply with the arborist's recommendations. Specifically the location of proposed area drains located in the front and rear of the property shall be revised to comply with the setback requirements 3. No Ordinance-size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. CITY ATTORNEY 1. 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. 2. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this Ciry per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, Ciry and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. U • • -®~1.4 File No. 04-087 13228PiemeRoad • PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 23rd day of June, 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • ~~~~~~ Attachment 2 • ~~~~~.~ ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care • A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NEW ADDITION AND REMODEL AT 13228 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: BHATIA APPLICATION #: 04-087 APN #: 503-16-026 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered ConsultingArborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A May 14, 2004 P.O. Box 2295, San Mateo, California 9440 % Email: arborresourcesr~earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.335=' • Licensed Contractor #796763 ~~~~~,~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 14, 2004 SUMMARY • The proposed project exposes seven trees regulated by City Ordinance to potential damage. They include one California Black Walnut (#1), two Saucer Magnolias (#2 and 3), two Southern Magnolias (#4 and 5), one Japanese Maple (#6) and one Glossy Privet (#7). All are planned for retention. The proposed drain line must be revised to be no closer than eight feet from the trunks of trees #2 and 3. Additional protection measures are presented in the recommendations section of this report and must be carefully followed and incorporated into construction plans. The combined appraised value of the inventoried trees is $9,780. Per City Ordinance, a bond equal to 100% of the trees' value is required to promote their protection. INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the proposed second-story addition and remodel to the existing residence at 13228 Pierce Road, Saratoga. This report presents my findings and recommendations. Data compiled for each • inventoried tree is presented on the attached table. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheets Al, A1.1 and A3 by Thomas Liu & Associates, dated April 2, 2004. The trees' locations, numbers and canopy perimeters aze presented on an attached copy of Sheet Al (Site Plan). The recommended locations for protective fencing and the root zone buffer aze also shown on the attached map. Trees #1, 6 and 7 were not shown on plans reviewed. Their approximate locations were plotted on the attached map and should not be construed as being surveyed. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Tree protection fencing must be installed precisely as shown on the attached map and established prior to any demolition, grading, surface scraping, construction or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of five- to six-foot high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter steel posts, driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 12 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. Fencing on 'The appraised tree values shown on the attached Tree Inventory Table are calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`h Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Bhatia Property, 13228 Pierce Road, Saratoga Page 1 of 2 Ciry of Saratoga Community Development Department ~'~~~~~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 14, 2004 the north side of tree #4 shall be established no further than five feet from the existing foundation. Fencing on the north side for tree #3 shall be established no further than four feet from the proposed balcony. 2. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced azeas (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading, surface scraping, trenching, storage and dumping of materials (including soil fill), and equipmentlvehicle operation and pazking. 3. Prior to demolition commencing, afour-foot wide root zone buffer shall be established beneath tree #3's canopy where shown on the attached map. It shall consist of a four- to six-inch layer of/Z- to 3/,-inch size wood chips manually placed on grade. The wood chips should be covered with full sheets of '/4-inch thick plywood that is secured together to create a sturdy walking surface. The buffer shall be manually removed after construction is complete. 4. A six-inch layer of wood chips (chips from a tree company are acceptable) is recommended beneath the entire canopy of tree #4. 5. I recommend the following setbacks from the trees' trunks for any trenching to occur (such as for drainage, underground utilities, irrigation, electrical): fifteen feet for tree #1; eight feet for trees #3, 4, 6 and 7; and eleven feet for tree #5. This involves redesigning the proposed drain line beneath the canopies of trees #2 and 3. 6. All underground pipes and irrigation lines planned for removal beneath the trees' canopies should remain buried and cut off at existing soil grade. 7. The trunk locations of trees #1, 6 and 7 should be identified on future plans submitted. 8. The irrigation design for this project should be reviewed for tree impacts. Imgation should spray no closer than three feet from any trunk. 9. Approved trenching beneath a tree's canopy shall be manually dug. Roots two inches and greater in diameter that become encountered during the process shall remain intact. 10. At the start of construction (during the months of May thru October), water should be supplied to trees #3 and 4 every two weeks until construction is complete. I suggest an application rate of 10 gallons per inch of trunk diameter. The water can be effectively applied by placing soaker hoses on the soil surface beneath the mid- to outer-canopies. 11. Any tree pruning should be performed under supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (Copy of Sheet A 1) Bhatia Property, 13228 Pierce Road, Saratoga Page 2 oft City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~~~1~ " ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE INVENTORY TABLE -, ~ 3 ~ 3 ~~ ~ o ~, ~~ ~ ~ ~ °3 ,~ ~ o i ~ $ i; i .~ c a ~ ~ u A ~ a b^ .~ w ~: ~ ~ ~, ~~° A ao ~ ~ °0.1 w~ ~ U ~'~ a.~ ° ~ ~ ° ° ~ ~ ~ .~ .a 'v c ~ c ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ '." °D w x d v . a ~ ~ Q 8~ NO TREE NAME H ''g ~ U ~ x C ~ r/1 O '~ °' v~ -" a o 0 0 California Black Walnut 7, 6, 1 (Ju lans hittdsii) 5(3), 4 25 35 75% 25% Fair Moderate 5 - X - S190 Saucer Magnolia 2 (Ma olio soulan eana) 7, 4, 2 15 20 50% 75% Fair Low 3 - - - 51,120 Saucer Magnolia 3 (Ma olio soulan eana) 6, 5, 4 15 20 100% 75% ('rood Moderate 2 - - - $1,580 Southern Magnolia 4 (Ma olio grand jZora) 10 25 25 100% 100% Good Moderate 3 - - - S2,110 Southern Magnolia 5 (Ma olio nd~ora) 13.5 35 25 100% 75% Good Moderate 4 - - - $2,820 Japanese Maple (Acerpalmatum) 9, 4 15 20 75% 100% Good Moderate 4 - X - $1, Glossy Privet 7 (Ligustrum lucidum) 6, 5, 5, 3 20 20 75% 25% Fair Low 5 - X - $190 REPLACEMENT' TREE VALUES 15- lion = 5150 24-inch box =5420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = 55,000 52-inch box = 57,000 72-inch box = 515,000 Sire• 13228 Pierce Roam Saratoga Prepared for: City ojSaratoga Community Development Department Prepared by: David L Bobby, RCA ;7 .i May 14, 2004 04~D00~0 • • • 'a ~ b ~ rb A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ N 6 o ~ o Cr1 ~~ n a ~ ,n N ~ l A n o w ~O°~ 'GNZ ~ ~'d~ 135 ~d1$ -D r ~ m O ~ .D m m z r z ~:,:, ~; - Od ~~1 ~~~ ~' ~ ~ '~ %/ IO ; i IZ ° 'O ^ t_ ~kk ~~ ~ I . . ~ a ~ ~ A m ~ ~ b ~ O o ^ ~ ~' ~ _ NN i _ p N `G Qa ~ n N . ".t' 1 ii '3 ~ ~ ~~x O y 5 O o ~ ~ a ~ ^ 5 ~ 70 p ~ v c , y ~ 3' Q ~, S AR A= 0.362 ACES s s O p _ n tl A A ~v ~y /~+ `Z ~~C~~21 0 0 C~ Attachment 3 • ~~~9~22 Jun 15 04 10:46a SCC Fire Dept MENU PLAN LOG FIND Name of Business SFR Number Dir. Street PLAN LOG 13228 PIERCE RD NUMBER Pro•ect eorS stem 04 0814 Site Plan 408-378-9342 PRINT Y - WfTH CODE/SEC. I SHEET I NO. I REQUIREMENT o4/os/o4 1- o4/n/o4 1 p.2 .eview oI a proposed 2,468 square foot addition to an existing single family ~sidence with an attached garage. The new total floor area will become pproximately 4,553 square feet. The addition is in excess of 50% of the original oor area. ' Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to 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 construction permits. A pendix 2 Required Fire Flow• The fire flow for this project is 1,750 gpm at 20 psi residual n~A pressure. The required fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. 16-15.070 v ara rir kl z s em Re fired: An approved, automatic fire sprinkler system designed per National Fire Protection Association Standard #13D and Iocal ordinances, shall be provided for the garage. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. A State of California licensed fire protection contractor shall submit three (3) sets of plans, calculations, a corn leted permit a plication and a pro riate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. ., DATE PAGE THOMAS LIU & ASSOCIATES 4/20/2004 1 GOAD DESCRIPTION OF- I BT ___ Commercial Development Hokanson, Wayne LOCATION SFR 13228 Pierce Rd ~~~~23 • Attachment 4 ~~~~~~ • • • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) j ; I, ~~~!~ ~i~/'. ~ ~ ~ ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the ~ day of ~-~~~?~ 2004, that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) • that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. . i `, /~ !~ ~_~ .- Signed ~®~Q25 ~~~ ~ t. • • .~C~ ~.. z t ` _. t ~- ~ S t O~ ~~.. x - ~ ,~;: t'_.L.i f~1'~..'?~i07U (=~08i 8(~5-i'?Iiti Stan Bogosran Kathleen Kiny Norman Klire Nick Streit Ann W<~Itonsmith NOTICE OF HEARING BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SARATOGA'S PLANNING COMMISSION announces the following public hearings on Wednesday, the 23rd day of June at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details and plans are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Thursday, 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. If you have questions, Planners are available at the public counter between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon. 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 notice, 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 communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. APPLICATION #04-087 (503-16-026) BHATIA,13228 Pierce Road; -Request Design Review approval to construct a 1,739 square foot second floor addition to an existing 2,814 square foot single story structure for a total floor area of 4,553 square feet. The height of the structure will be 24 feet 6 inches. The gross lot area is 21,052 square feet and the parcel is zoned R-1-40,000. ~~ ~J ~~ SESTRIERE LLC or Current Owner '13605 SURREY LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-4258 • EVULICH, ROY & ANGELA TRUSTEE or Current Owner 13616 SURREY LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-4257 LADONNIKOV, MAXIM & TATIANA or Current Owner 13388 SURREY LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-4217 BRONZICH, JANICE M TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner 14 CORRALA VISTA DR WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 MORRISSEY, BARBARA A or Current Owner 13240 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4215 ~AN, SIDNEY D & NANCY B TRUSTEE or Current Owner 13198 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4215 MATHIS, KATHRYN K or Current Owner 13180 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4212 JONES, BARRY W & BRENDA or Current Owner 13251 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4235 MINTEGUI, ANGEL L & CONNIE S TRUSTEE or Current Owner 13144 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4212 LRECHT, HANS H & INGE USTEE or Current Owner 13200 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4215 ~SU, CHUAN-JEN C & LIN-L1N P or Current Owner 13625 SURREY LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-4258 JUANG, RUDY Y & SHAU C P or Current Owner 13600 SURREY LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-4257 CHANG, LILY L or Current Owner 13386 SURREY LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-4217 JAN, CHIN-LANG & PAY-JANE or Current Owner 13270 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4240 CARACCIOLO, GIRARD F & MARY A or Current Owner 12280 SARTOGA SLTNYVLE 112 SARATOGA, CA 95070 CARTER, ANDREW L ETAL or Current Owner 13194 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4215 KENNEDY, KATHRYN or Current Owner 13180 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4212 MCCOLLUM, JOHN C & HELEN W TRUSTEE or Current Owner 13290 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4240 HSI, DON & PHEBE or Current Owner 13138 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4212 TERRILL, JOHN E & DOROTHY J TRUSTEE or Current Owner 13277 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4235 ~ORELITZ, JOEL & KAREN or Current Owner 13630 SURREY LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-4257 LE, HUE N & BERNARD J or Current Owner 13570 SURREY LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-4257 BERMAN, GARY S & KELLY O TRUSTEE or Current Owner 13360 SURREY LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-4217 BAMDAD, RAFI & KATAYOUN or Current Owner 13250 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4240 WESTPHAL, ALFRED J TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner 13216 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4215 MOROCCO, RALPH J & JOAN K or Current Owner 13190 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4215 KENNEDY, KATHRYN TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner 13180 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4212 THOMAS, WILLIAM E & MARTHA F TRUSTEE or Current Owner 13282 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4240 BEAUDOIN, HAROLD A TRUSTEE or Current Owner POBOX55 SARATOGA, CA 95071-0055 SCHNEIDER, PRISCILLA B TRUSTEE or Current Owner 13291 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4235 JACOBS, PAUL E & RENEE M ~HAH, DEVANG & SUNITA ~ONRADO, PAUL R & TRUSTEE or Current Owner TRUSTEE or Current Owner ELIZABETH L or Current Owner 13093 PIERCE RD 18800 BELLA VIVA 18820 BELLA VIVA SARATOGA, CA 95070-4211 SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 • VERDOORN, RONALD D TRUSTEE or Current Owner 18850 BELLA VIVA SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 HANSEN, RUSSELL C TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner 18890 BELLA VIVA SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 POELLOT, J MICHAEL & BEVERLY R TRUSTEE or Current Owner 18860 BELLA V1NA SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 ALLEY, DONALD J & KATHLEEN A TRUSTEE or Current Owner 20673 RICE CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-4226 YONEDA, DAWN MIYEKO TRUSTEE or Current Owner 18880 BELLA VIVA SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 GODBOLE, VISHWAS R & ARATI V or Current Owner 20695 RICE CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-4226 • ~~~~~8 • Attachment 5 • ~~~~~~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~ 0 ~ PRQJEC DRESS: 3 2 2 ~' ~r ~~~~~ ~~ f.~~' Applicant Name: Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding develot~ment applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. Th ~ 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 anu'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 ibis 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; ~ understand the scope of work; and I do NOT Dave any concerns or issues which need to'be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ~JMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; ~ understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after: discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. VIy concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: '77~G~ 5 ~~P ~l ~~ ~' Neighbor Address: ~~ ~~ ~-- Neighbor Phone #: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ,~ Signature: Printed: ((~~ "~ 7"/ (1~ ~q S ~I , ~~~f~'' ~'C' Lam" `t"~ -- City of Saratoga Planning Department ~~~~~U • To: Saratoga Planning Commission Saratoga, 6/2/2004 Re: 13228 Pierce Road Second Story Remodel Issues: 1. The proposed 2'~ story obstructs part of our view of the Saratoga foothills in the west. The west view is the primary view from our residence on 13200 Pierce road. Our residence is already several feet lower than the 13228 residence. This emphasizes the impact of a second story. 2. Currently the house on 13228 is partially hidden by trees and brush in the landscaped right-of-way divider between the two residences. Thisright-of-way divider belongs to the residence located to the south of our property on 13204 Pierce Road. 3. Two trees and several bushes were planted in the divider area during the last few years to replace large Monterey pines which had died .However the proposed second story would rise above this added landscaping. (see attached photograph) Possible mitigation: 1. If a second story is needed, the height of the roofline should be the minimum allowed by building codes in order to minimize the impact on the view of the foothills. 2. The impairment can be further mitigated by hiding the added structure with some additional landscaping. 3. The landscaping in the divider should be enhanced in order to hide the added story as much as possible. 4. In addition, trees should be planted on the Eastern boundary of the applicants lot for the same purpose as above. This can be done after the full impact of the new construction can be evaluated. Sincerely, Hans Stellrecht ®~1~31 -a ~- ~ - - „3' ~ r'.^ i '~',z r~ d: _. ~r J „r~- _l. i i' i ~~ ': f' ~.. ~? ~~ '~~ `~' r '-4i ~4. -~ ~ r t Y 1{ 1r W ' G .,ri 1 . ~ '~. k ~' L L~ \~ 31_? ~~ ( i1± - ~' ~.~_. 1 ~, tk _ ~T: ~~ N ~ 6 ~ _ g 1 :, ~1, F~a1;,. i~¢,.. . E'er . . i i ,1~... a r ~~- ~,. ~ 1'~ 42 ~ 1. t 1 ) F ' ,, ~~ . , i 1: t {; \. / ~. 1 ®~ V' ~~ ~ighbor Notification Template. Development Applications Date: ~ S r~ ~ `S e~~~SZ_l~-~ `' c~ • PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ ~.7 Z ~ ~J" i ~- a~ ~ '~ ~~~~~ .~ Applicant Name: ~ ~ K~ r~ "1~ i3 I--i ~ T ~ -`~ Application Number: ,~ ~~~' ~/~ 7 The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I • understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: J~ ~ L`~ ~ S~ ~ ~ H Neighbor Address: ~~~az ~ 11~ ~r~ ~~ sl~-~l ~.A ~~~1 ~ Neighbor Phone #: ~- ~ SS ~`~ 7~ C ~~ I Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga ^~~ Planning Department ~~~~~3 ~ighbor Notification Template Development Applications ~' Date: t, 5 g ~ ~. PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ ~~ -~-- ~ ~ ~1 '~ ><. c ~... ~ ~~, ~_.L%Z_' ~.. ~ e Applicant Name: ~ 11` ~' ~l ~.~ 1~ ~ ~ T 1 Application Number:~'~~~ ~c:.7~ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: CC r J L(. {!~ ~ '~ t`~ ~ ~eighbor Phone #: ~~ Signature: Printed: ,~ i~ • • City of Saratoga Planning Department ®~' } ~a • .~ -, ~ ~. `fir Y ~}, % ~} ,3 r,_. ~, ~x. a ` ~.: '~. • F.~ ,.1. _~ t ', ,~"; i •~ ~,~_ .: o ~~ ~~ '., " T w ~' .z ri~ LA~~ 1. ;. ~~ ~?-~ 'ti. ! ~~ S Vil Y _ ,~~ -r-~__ ~:~'gatr ' l,~ ,~„-,~~, ... 11 ` _ ~~. ®~~~a5 ~- . fi;y„ - ~} '. ~ 7 :' ~ . r 4 ~ 'Ci µ + K ~ ~~ ~ ti" t - 1 i ~~ .~ t. _ ~' ~ 4*3~ :~~ ~ ~~~ r ~~ Y {~ ~~ FY-`. i {~ ~ ~ ti~ f~. ~~ J ' ~. Wr" ~Y~at'f?~ - f !~ ~ ` ~-. _. ~ ~ ~ ~t Y ~ ~~ 1 ~Y .. . ~. _ ~ k~ yyqq S6 r~ A ~' SS ~ ~ ~ S`?~ (~ ~~TR~ ~ ~~ 4 ~ r{ M_ z, i ~ r- ~k'a+ ~` z i t ~ ~ri`r f ~. 3fi -_ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~- - `~~ r ~ ~ ~, 3 a~~ ~ ~~ fit: 3 ~" i Y .FZ ~~~ '~ ~ l , 's s,, ~ ~ _Y -- ~~ ~ ,r; s'; ~~~ 1' R '~~f-i ~~ v. _ '-~,;~~~,5+.. may, l- acv .'~ y ~~e` X ~'S7~~€ ~ ~ ~ ~i['~~[•S~f~~~ ~1~ "r.'~j~vy~~ ~ 2. ~. 'Y.. ~M .- ~~~~ s 3 ,.~~ '3° „J7 ., ~ ~ ~` c t i~ Y ~~ , , 'ia'~ .. ,? f ~=1 .~ R ,> ~l. Y. P 1 ~~, Y` .i f f r~ ~J it ,I 7 :k - 3,. t. 1 1 -. i •.. i. f'. ~. ; m e r 5.7; ~~'. t:„ ~~.. I %~ S'~•_~.: j~ . .` 44' :+ 45{ {31 V...~ . . is ~-'~ ~~ _. i l • F .i •i •i v < ~; _ _ . . ~.- ~' :; ,. ' 8%.: .. ~# ~C t .. j ~.. ~~: t~+ ~ `~ ~ a ~: ,t • ,, ~ `? .~~, ~.•ti -~ i ~ro~": • l,' ~';' 'i .~ ~ R y N _ a r ~ ti 'ia lf, t t '!nf, _; .~ y L ~r ~_ Y3'. t • • • • • SD & S SP-4 Page 2 of • Attics, crawl spaces, or concealed spaces, with a greater than 22 inch by 30 inch standard utility access opening and/or, if provided with access stairs and/or, if intended to be used for living or storage purposes, shall be provided with fire sprinkler protection. • Attic spaces that contain mechanical equipment such as furnaces and water heaters shall be provided with sprinklers limited to the protection of the equipment itself. • Small closet spaces that contain furnaces, water heaters or other mechanical equipment shall be provided with sprinkler protection regardless of the size of the space. Alarms • Exterior audible water flow alarms shall be provided. Additionally, water flow shall activate either a separate interior audible device that can be heard in all sleeping areas . or, through interconnection with the smoke detectors, which will sound an alarm in the sleeping areas. control Valves Section 3-1.1 of NFPA Standard 13D requires, "each system to have a single control valve .arranged to shut off both the domestic and sprinkler systems, and a separate shut off valve for the domestic system only." To provide visual depiction of the valve arrangement, Appendix Section A-2-2, and Figures A-2-2(a) through (c) reflect possible arrangements for the underground supply piping and valve(s). ~Nhat has not been shown on these figures is the location of the valve with respect to the structure. To establish consistency and meet operational needs of responding emergency equipment, the following specification shall be incorporated into the design and installation of residential fire sprinkler systems and associated underground supply piping. Valves controlling the water supply to residential fire sprinkler systems installed in accordance with NFPA Standard #13D shall be distinguishable, accessible, and located adjacent to the structure, proximal to the domestic shut off valve. The main system control valve shall be distinguishable from the domestic valve by means of a permanently attached tag and be of contrasting color (i.e.: red handle for main system, versus black handle for the domestic supply). ~~~Q~3 Jun 16 04 02:54p SCC Fire Dept 408-378-9342 p.2 ~~rot.~t coG ~~ ~ FIR.E '4 FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org • June 16, 2004 Ms. Anne Welsh, Associate Planner City of Saratoga Planning Department l s i i i rrultvate Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: 15145 Sobey Rd., Plan review comments Dear Ms. Welsh, Following our discussions today, I have reconfirmed my original conditions of 7/16/02. Those conditions shall supercede the subsequent developmental review comments issued 3/9/U4 by this department. While the more recent review comments acknowledge a smaller home than the original, the original conditions still do apply regardless of the building size. To reiterate our original conditions: 1) The fire flow of 2,250 gallons per minute is not available due to the travel distance to the nearest fire hydrant. Anew fire hydrant is required. The spotting of that new fire hydrant is negotiable but will need to be adjacent to the driveway entrance from Sobey Road at least. 2) The building shall be provided with an Early Warning Alarm System per City of Saratoga requirements. 3) The building shall be provided with an approved residential fire sprinkler system due to fire flow shortfall. 4) If the applicant is able to provide the required fire flow via the correct number of fire hydrants (two within 500' of the most remote portion of the building), the fire sprinkler requirement will be for the garage only. 5) A complying fire department driveway of 14' with one 2' shoulder shall be installed. Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Soma Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga • E }Y i~~ ' ~~•J Jun 16 04 02:54p SCC Fire Dept 408-378-9342 p.3 Ms. Anne Welsh Page 2 6) A complying fire department turnaround shall be provided. Per a site inspection, it appears that the turnaround will occur on the site itself. The circular drive-around turnaround as reflected on the most recent plans does not comply with our standards. The applicant should be directed to our Standard, Detail and Specification D-1 for proper dimension and circulation radius. It is noted that should the center feature of - er o a nvea a sur ace, a equate area remains available for the turn-around. 7) The building shall be properly addressed with appropriate markings acceptablc to this department. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact myself. Sincerely, 1 W yne A. Hokanson Deputy Fire Marshal II Fire Prevention Division • ~~~~~5 • Attachment 4 r~ ~J ®~~uu~ MEMORANDUM TO: Ann Welsh, Associate Planner CC: Applicant FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: Geotechnical Clearance Conditions & Public Works Conditions for Overland nP~Plopment, 15415 ~obe.TRoad DATE: Apri127, 2004 Geotechnical Clearance is approved for the above referenced project. Conditions of approval are as follow 1. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plans (i.e., building setbacks, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls, etc.) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall specifically address the adequacy of surface drainage measures associated with the proposed cut slope and retaining wall (i. e., concrete v-ditches and related culverts). The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 2. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project demolition and construction. These inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described in letters and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to Final Project Approval. • -1- ~~~~~~ 3. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 4. 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. Sobey Road. • -2- ~~'~v"~ 8 Attachment 5 • ~~~tir'~~ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I l~y bein dul sworn de oses and sa s: that I am a A1U~ ~ ~f~-- g Y ~ P Y citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the ~ day of 2004, that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. ~~~~'~~~ Signed • ~~~~~ir~ COIS SEBASTIANO & ' FRANCESCA or Current Owner _~ 1 SOBEY RD TOGA, CA 95070-6238 BERRY RONNIE TRUSTEE or Current Owner 15225 SOBEY RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-6255 SRIDHAR ANJALI & MADHU or Current Owner 15201 SOBEY RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-6255 BERLINER SANFORD A & JAN BERGER M TRUSTEE or Current Owner 15237 SOBEY RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-6255 SHARMA RAMESH & SHINKU or Current Owner 15211 SOBEY RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-6255 STOCK BARBARA A TRUSTEE or Current Owner 15249 SOBEY RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-6255 BOEHM ROBERT & MARY K COE THOMAS U & NORMA J FOLLMAR KENNETH E II & TRUSTEE TRUSTEE DEBORAH A TRUSTEE or Current Owner i C'1 D V DTl or Current Owner 1 G71 7 ~o~EV DTl or Current Owner 1 G~~'oD~V Dll _ILI_TJV ~E SARATOGA, CA 95070-6255 ~ SARATOGA, CA 95070-6255 _ _ SARATOGA, CA 95070-6255 KIM JIN DUCK & KYUNG SIK LEWIS ROBERT P & VIRGINIA L BRAND VERA H & BERNARD ETAL TRUSTEE TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 15277 SOBEY RD 15279 SOBEY RD 15283 SOBEY RD ' SARATOGA, CA 95070-6255 SARATOGA, CA 95070-6255 SARATOGA, CA 95070-6255 FUJIMURA AKI PROPACH DAVID & NATASHA RONALD M TATE/REGENCY or Current Owner or Current Owner MONARCH DEVELOPMENTS 15220 SOBEY RD 15200 SOBEY RD or Current Owner SARATOGA, CA 95070-6239 SARATOGA, CA 95070-6239 22 S SANTA CRUZ AV 2 LOS GATOS, CA 95020 ~NS SCOTT TRUSTEE ETAL KRIENS SCOTT TRUSTEE ETAL CHEN JESSE J & WANPYNG or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 18974 MONTE VISTA DR 18940 MONTE VISTA DR 18975 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6201 SARATOGA, CA 95070-6279 SARATOGA, CA 95070-6202 OBOT JOSEPH & MARY A or Current Owner 18721 MONTEWOOD DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6221 LOHR CAROL W & JEROME J or Current Owner 18755 MONTEWOOD DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6221 LO WEI-JEN & MEI-LIEN or Current Owner 18787 MONTEWOOD DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6221 MAYO CESAR M & CORAZON G TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner 18801 MONTEWOOD DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6221 LIPTON HAROLD P & ELEANOR TRUSTEE or Current Owner 15420 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6277 VATH DAGMAR M rrent Owner 15209 BLUE GUM CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-6268 ANASTASIA JOHN & GLORIA A or Current Owner 18811 MONTEWOOD DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6221 GUPTA RAMP & SAROJ K or Current Owner 15000 BLUE GUM CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-6268 BOBROWSKI DEAN V &JAIMIE D or Current Owner 15225 BLUE GUM CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-6268 SIMONSEN TOVE or Current Owner 18433 MONTEWOOD DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6221 HORVATH DAGMAR M or Current Owner 15209 BLUE GUM CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-6268 BOBROWSKI DEAN V &JAIMIE D or Current Owner 15225 BLUE GUM CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-6268 ®~'~~Qc~ OVERLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP or Current Owner 18025 MONTEREY HY A MORGAN HILL, CA 95037 O'HAREN PATRICK J & SILVIA M or Current Owner 18935 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6202 FOLEY MICHAEL E ETAL or Current Owner 18927 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6202 JOHNSON WILLIAM A & ROBERTA J TRUSTEE or Current Owner 18955 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6202 SWEENEY JOSEPH J or Current Owner 18929 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 ~~ • • ~~~~~~ . ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ s • i 1;;77 FPI_'I'i F^_!~L .:`,~' ~ ~~._ r ~?P`>~ UGA; C'AL.I~ f~~I~lr~ g;~0i0 • (40~) x'65-1°?00 C'OL'NC1L A1EDT13F,RS: Incorporated October 22, 1956 S!an Bogosian Kathleen King Norman Kline Nick Streit Ann Waltonsmith NOT-ICE-lDF ~EAItING BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SARATOGA'S PLANNING COMMISSION announces the following public hearings on Wednesday, the 23rd day of June at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details and plans are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Thursday, 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. If you have questions, Planners are available at the public counter between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon. 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 notice, 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 communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. APPLICATION # 04-034 (397-08-091) Overland Development, Inc. 15145 Sobey Road -Request Design Review approval to construct a 26 foot high single story structure on a vacant lot with an average slope of 16%. The size of the home is 5,681 square feet with an 845 square foot basement. The lot size is 46,082 square feet and the parcel is zoned R-1, 40,000. C~ ©~Q~~ Attachment 6 • Q~v~~~~ C~` June 14, Dear Council Members, My name is Bnrbnrn Stock and I have lived nt 15249 Sobey Rd. for the past 38 years, I nm concerned regarding the new house nt 15145 Sobey Rd. that is being bui t by Over an Deve o meat. I t ink t of my issues are real ns I believe that my privacy is being invaded. The poles and orange ties are now up, and I see how very close the garage and driveway wi I I be to my house. We all have acreage and there is really no need to be that close to one another. Their is no advantage having an acre lot if your peace and quiet have been usurped. I am requesting that the driveway and garage be moved further back on the lot. They have already pruned some of my bushes that we had planted without my knowledge. This is a speck house that they will sell and than move on. I am planning on living here for the rest of my life. Thank you for taking core of this matter. Truly Yours, Barbara Stock s C ~~O~~S ~~ ~~ Attachment 7 ~~~-~~6 I~ Des ~~. .~ ~ ~.~ . t i ~. ~ ~.=~~ City of Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Associates, Inc. ~. ; w: d ~s ~§~ ~~ ?+~~ 700~' j ~ - !~ ~@S '~ ' fi t: ...~.• ~°,~Q June 1, 2004 Saratoga, Via. X5070 Design Review #: 04-034 To whom it may concern: The architectural style of this proposed home is "Country French." Some typical design elements of a "Country French" design are, steeper roof pitch, slate roof texture, eyebrow roofs, dormers, rustic wood details, and stone veneer. The home we have proposed incorporates these elements into the design. We feel that it is important to maintain the 7:12 roof pitch to achieve the "Country French" look that we are striving for. The roof as shown with it's charcoal brown blend color, will help break up the mass and bulk of the stucco walls. The varying plate heights and ridge lines also help to mitigate the perception of bulk and mass created by vertical stucco walls. The design of this home is consistent with the Saratoga Residential Guidelines, while trying to achieve the "country french" architectural style our client desires. If you have any questions regarding this project please call me at (408) 778-?005. Sinc - ely, `' ~... Greg erman • ~~~~~~ • • ewo;!lei 'e oie.~eg C S t 8 m,,..,ti,.~~°°~.~`~';,' ru an a.assaww of ucnu ma.+x~v woo na -' ~v:.i~„ ~~ ~ ~- Uot ~ c ' p~~ ~aQoS S'6 i S i ~ ~ ~ ~ xiia~uauvwu tuy~ryw as mms e.ru awHi w ~6vA~0AN'®O®.1M"YIl\YI0661'tA159O ZRl dO i.®m.uL~nw..~,..arawauxw.unuosru x..u,oud,.wv ~au.,x~ wow zra au i.~ro ' t+ ~F4. e4-1 • 4F+~ 51M41~ W~-1~ °~°~#t .~ 15 Y~.. L~'O~,eR71011~::}'fl~1 ~~]W ~, e~rr+s 'anua~~r eaew~~cci ` N•mr SOP ~uap~sa~ Lagos I ~ o ~ ~ Nuuu m~Lm au uwwN Sara r uo xky~H w <.~,m„~,p~.~~.,,..,~a,.~~.,.~~ nW .a ~ ~,~.~,~.an ova ~u~winoavwma sa~~r~ossd u$saa~I IICV ~1Y'F/OIOBILYN Alp fB23W HW 0.1'180LL U l ~~ •~ AI+!~ iWl rrrNo 0 ~~ ~ ~ ~~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ LQ r dINN0~1"i~'`J `~'J01.VNdS adON 1C~gOS Sfi i S I ..... m .I.I~i~Y~idO"I~1~Q QI~Id"•I~i~O _ ~~1~I~QIS~~I ~~g0 x S b~0 poN ap N~ ~ _.` C w.. N ~? an0 O W S S H E'" Qot`~C`~~yg_OM~~~ N~='MU~ M ~p~Qr~~~s~~ac ~y~ ~ ~ ~ /~i~ V A MUSad~MNM N ~~C ~ to vl vii Vi uhf rTl y ~ ~~~ 1~1 O v ~' v~ cry ~ ~ m N v::.: Nt c~ ~ d' n aoo a o ui ~ 8 G C ~ ~ C~ V ~ ~~~a'o' N ~vi eh g m aNO ~ - ~ a N ~ rrrr Q~ ~O ffi ~ nN~tll tll N ~~~p ~p W W O {>0 ~ ~ CAM ~ ~ N yp N.d} ,Q~ ~ys C ~ ~ ~'~' ~ R'i ~ GIN p U N OON(OU~i " ~ ~~~t~iL '0 ~ (~~ ~ ~~~ ay ~y N^Nd'M O ~ ~~ :a ~ '~ am`~ m cn o0 ~ ~ oo~ a ~ ~ ~ a U no ~ ~ is ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h H N H ., .~ -• v ~ ro ~ con ~M~~ O tS~~~r~Q~Q,~~ ~ ~ o ~. ~ °' ~ _o _o ~,~ ~ O ~~g~~~ F- UIU ~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~] <~m~C~Scnz~~ < in cn t~~~~`8.`8.~$S~ T a aui m ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~m~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~p ~ 3 ~ ~ ~~ _ z o fr ~ 7i ~. ~ S_ ^~ ~~S ~i ~ ~ Ft7< f0 ,y SS ~ y~ < C ~C N C .- ~•s ~ ~F °~ LF S F O~ ~ di W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~qq~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ c~ c~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ YqYq~~~~4 Q I C -{€ ~ ~-1 5 ~-1 ; ~ ~I ~I o ,.] ~~ ~O.:riri7ihe~ ~{ ~<~~ ~ F~~36Fsn'1 Z3 ~~ ~~ ~ ~E~~$~U~~ ~~~ uS af~ti~Q~~~~i~2 c1<~~ F F ~ ~Nl~~~< G ~dN'f~°~ r~.N~ ~~ „ ~ ~ o ~ ~ W ~ Z ~, ~~; ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ p o~~ ~~ 01 J ~ ~ O ^i~ LLLL ~ I I ~I i ~ ~ ~' Y ~, ~ ~ ~~~g~~~~~~~$~~~~g~g~~ ~g~ ~ ~~~ f~] . i ~i Y~~~~3~~t~~~~x§b§~~ ~~~ rP'f KN %O OrO xEI^x xr OS ~ aP x x% X x ~~~~ ~ T z p r f ~ qe k ~ I~ ~ I ~ ~ ~~ ~3~~ ~~ ~ ~I p ~ t o U O v r E 2-~ Y ~ L 2 0 L O K S r r~ O ~F~I~~~~~&~~ ~~~~~~~ ~ R6EE~ ~ ~k$ ®® 6 y i z f~ef!l~Pa~~3ta 4@~~a~~8~9~sg@C~EM~ eke€83g3~ae~ ~~ ~ :~~~~:t~ 0 0 ~ qq ~ Y ~ ~~ F ~~~~~~~ ~1 ~~~k ~ II~ tl3~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ................... ~ a d ~~~~C~~[~~t<~~[~~~~f ~ X a1 a~oSdB€ ~~~~~f~~Y~ ! S~~C 9i 59a ~3; $~9~~~39~ a~QY aso€a ~.~~t~t[ t ~~~3$33$~ax~R~~~~~ae 5 ~ o ~~~ a ~~ ~~ ~ aE .'~~ ~ 6~~5 ~6~@ a ~~~~~~~~ a9~a~ II~~~aa~s~~~~~~~s ~asaaaal S9~I~aa6a ~Egce~~aaEt€ • • • ~t' FOES YA 3 3i~s ; Y ~- 4 5~~ ~ ~ $:;~ ' F E ;~ z i _ s! t, fi c 1Fxe L 2 a~ys 3 _a '~ _ .a ~Y< ~ \ ~I Y't ! ~ 5 il.~ _ ant "5 ~;~~ .:§ i .r _ Y:,a33; .~„4~~fa3~ ~ -, .. .. _ V.~ +~~ '~ f = i.S'a+ 3~~i e'~. sus -n sx i6 4 p~i5~ ~. Y~ _ a ~a3ra i ~F ~"_~ I~ ~ ~~~.~: ~ p~~ E4e 6r~3tl s*z~~ ~ys~~x~: xr i3 <_~ ~~ ~~ R~ AAA~~ ~~ Fg} ~€ ~~ ~ F~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ;.~~a t ~~ :Y~ f ~. LC ~tYa,. iL~~~~~.. ~~ !g. tt- ~ ~~ F `iS 8' igF _~s ca ~ r F. e ~ ~ I ~I •~~~H y ~~ ~~ESr~C~r d~t, ~ F' ~.. ~~ -~ -.J ~Gx. ~ kh, i'~ ~ ~ ~'sF t= i ~ ~'• a ft F r ~" p ~: ~ + j~ ~. ~ t - ~ ~, _ g ° ~y I i~ ~ z ~ ~ '-;jai SIB. Y~ia~ ~yt 4tr 12a - ~Ya ~ ~. I' ~ ~i~ ~~~} ~~::ya ~~E ~pF ~ J ~ ~yyy~ KEG r~ ~~3F~ 44 ~ '~ i x j 'r ~~ C ~~~ Iq ~~ ~3~ ~rq .~~ "p ~~~t~ir ~p~r~:~IL ; ~ 1~. a Cr - . ,~ ~ ~.+ T ~ s~ ~ ° r a - - .... .. "~E ,~~.l., +S <:~ F~yiII ~Ci" ~e k ^ri i. E. W's. '. _. _ ~ I~ ~ .~~~'a., j ey-i ~t :+~ Fr` ~ ~.~ .><: .'."i• .J~ .~ ,?x: ?. #,6 .t.y - .s s i= .ar' .. .- .. I, lO /1 x ' t f° .'''. > 7 ~~ r -'-^v~; I A ' ' ' n 'b k ~ F' ~ iii, ~r t I .max ~ ~ .x x ~ 1 ° ~f~A ~ ~~ 4rt ~. 111 lii~lg F r ~ ~ ~ ~. .'~ a >" r r~ ~ L ~` it .~ sr ~ t r ~-a1 ~-X }.. ' ~ ~ ~ ~ I r ti~ ~ ° ,~,aa" o'."~ e o 'i . 1 ;~ t.. ~~~ E2,F ¢ ° yy ~yyyi / KNN I ` ,_ ~~~ 5 I~d~4'S 0 ~~~ ~ a ~ ~i4~~ `_. ` 0 0" 1...( °•i~ f ~ JY`•.w J`T'"Y. •M ~ •y ~ ,~ r a .._ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ aA • ~ ~~ ;, I .~'~ is ~ p j I. ~ G_ I~. . ~ ~:F o a ~p .~l M 'G I W N ~ I '. I; ~ I~ ---- ~, ~ - I i. ~ ° -- \ ~' r - -- ~ ~ --- - -~ ~- - - --- ~ ~ ,~ T ~ ~ F ~ .n~ ~ ~~ `°' '', ~ ~, `~ ~~ ~t,,+ f i ~~ a J y 1 Z ~ ~,' j . ~~ }~ V o ~~~~ i - ~ ~.:.` 3 ~~ 6 9 '~ ~ ~a 'S ~~ ~.~~~3 . ~~~,~. 78 n ~~ o~ A M I ~/ ~` ; ~ ,1' ~~. ,~ /' ~. } ~ b T f~ • \ -~ •j ~Y I no .f ~' p I n i' ~ `~'`/! ~~Z i , . , ~~ I ~ i a ~. .~ ~ ~,. 4 ~ ;S ~. x ~~ ~ 3~ ~~ ~ ~ >~ ~~ ao zm ~' w~ N `, 8 ,. ~w o~ ~ ~~ ~: S~ KU1 \ o$ `_ J~ z b v. ~ W ~~ s V ° 1 ~ N Z aQ Oo ~~ W ~ rots p V NON 1.l Zw m Z ~ r ~i n =~a ~ I 8 ~ h I ' N ~ il~ ~:\ h = W i u. G' 2 I W I"!;~~ •- N~ .W O' ~> o'n!u i i ~ ~~1 I I I ;~ ! t i ' I _~~ _ ~~5 ~~a~ 4 ~I ~ .. ~~ °~ I i I ' o~d o~~n ~; ~ ~ ~ =s~_ ~ I ~I fc_ti ~~~~ ~"~~ Y:? ~ u'.Iu icon s s3~S `si ! I I r.:n.::.-.... .. ' I' . 1 ~. _ I '~ ~,,~ ~ ~. ~ ~y ~ • • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~=WO~ •p'~I'+^~•J INLTMNNOlieO1NLINN~TNy'NOII~ID~ N~ ~ ~ s ,. ~ ~. UD(iLQR1 bQCt IYON ~11d P~a~agosS'6t$I o~roaro .,.iDJNeN~.~DOL1bWWLW0f~1~OJ.O •D NIIWLLVINL OL.U~g1..,M..N,..faLLliD z t ~ S r . ' <~~~~ 1~-ttis_'v ~} aao~Oa~oAaM~~ountwoowv~aeaosaro ,~..~.~. ~„~.~.,~.~.~.,,.,. eauu+oeJnJNV~voawvNavaos.oaoJNaam N.{l.lM Oeeeli11O7 NLL IOOMYM JYW N 1q eiuwN ~ ~ ~~m~ '~~v ete~a t ~~~ u~f-Y ~~~J' ~( aqua isa p. 2~ /~aC(o$ i11LL ~ ~ e ~ m11O41W roaeJw~/JON AVw dMwWYILOl1~p NNeil a.~au pn eN/Y.ew.7L,~O0.w N]MO iaroA~..aNw..N.onaraoo...,nw.Naew, , ^ "f14 M •~(,(I 'sa~erJoss~ u8~saa ~ ue a [d 3IS 2 4 YW W IMpD MLYQIA71DOfLNIN1IV MVLIOY. .tu-.ewo s ~ ~o n ~ p rl ~~ ~ ~L R W ~ o ~~ Z ~ ~~ ~~ '' ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ 3 .50x91 .0 8 ~0~91'L } \`. ~y r ,t tt` C- ro - _ ~ ~a \ w . _ ~~ D _= o __~`_ s _ __ ~.- .» ~- - D 4 D ,~-,~~ .» W ~ a - "' ~. D 0 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ - ~ z a ~ e ~ ~ ~ Y - ~ - - ~ ~- -' .--' ~ d .r - - { ~~ -' ~ ~ ..e ~~ ' ~/: - ----~-` _ %~ - wa p w° _------- ~ ~~ } (~ Y ~ `~~ e+~e __-_ ~ - w 3 ~i ~ ~ • w § ~~~~ i ~_._.~ m .50.91 .0 N .00'561 sza -ooz most st Jw {JJ n+a'tn.cocz:o\we~,~.o-ca~zto~caoz\a • • • . avaTm.saa+aNwrMrv wu~loNaw. i1J.q LY~100 01.11N..J~ NO®O 1~O MUt~JJ lw-1'~WV1 900t9tt 1fO~1 ~H ~`~"SF' pe0a t~~OS Sig l S T f~mll nor b NOONILLV iLL OlLOf101iiTIN..1YLifill ND ~ D lt. ~XEOS~ ~Olll~J- 111HY ~` ~.~o~wa.~aao.u.wv e,.v.~osrN~roio.o J.Jam.uJnaJU.~OUroN.euNwowoww lillOD ~1 'O C10r 7002~OOJ . v 4Ha~m~gnYS~ei;~,y(3LLt' .... a~uaplse2i,(ago$ i0i1LO) .WV lY Y N / NY.JYM OYMWJI..LLJ001YW J11W N.)Y1014NN ~.l'JON AVI~OlY tMY1YOYI~OD ®f100YW YD ®. ~ Wt yj~~~~pr,~ ""M a}Y'~iJll~'/ V ~IYI O' a > ~ r i~O~IJ,JYWO~'~'O'Wi'J4i OI~'1 ar YO~~iW~LL'1dW /~ 'J~ 'saie~~osSd u$ISaa~ ueid aoo1~ Iana~ ~Calu3 4 11Dd ~1.'Nl..p.LLNIi XW OiRAW W V M'Y1~L ^IILL ~NMY1p ~ ~ ' e - ~ ~~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ N a~ ~ ~i ~ .L•.IL i 1 ,, _ 1 1 N! ___ > ---- ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ! 1 1 1 -- r T 1 1 --_ --- N ~~ __- L c _ i~ ~ ~ ~ p ~------ -------------~ 3 3 ~ ~~ ` ~ m 1 !~ i~e~~-~~ ~ ~~ ~~ 3 ~ ~ F` 0 R ~~,.; ! L------ -------------~ $, ~ .; °~ --- ----- <„ n ~; n: ~ ,. ~. ---- :: 1== _____= I - 1 r-------------~i ,, ,:,, 1 ' II I 1 I 1 1=====____ ~ ~~ I~ i i ---- 11 1------- 1 ~~ 1 I 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~~ i i i I 1~ ~! ~~ I I I 1 \ 1 1 1 1 --------- ~ i3 i ~ ~ ~ _ I I ~ ----- ~---- ~ 1 ; ; - - 1 11 , ~ --_- ..,., .. ,. I - ~------------ ~ ; ; c; ,. 1-- ---- : ~ ~-----------, ; -- ----- 1 ~. ; ; ~ .: '--------- ~l 1 1 I L ~ --------- ~ --..,.. 1 y 1 • 1 ~ r--- -- I I ,:. I 1 I 1 ' L---------------~ ~: 1 1 1 j 9' 1 ~ i i d~ C-------_- _ ~ .. ,.... .. .. . . I T I 11 ~ I ~ 1 _- --- -- ~/~f7~/~ 1 1 1 L -IT- Tf'-' J- ~..... ~~((`///~~~}1}1'ii~~\J~l ~ i r 1 a ~ t===7f= f=.=~ 1 I ! ~~ 1 I II II 1 I L 1 - I 1 1 II ~_!1 1 1 y ,., I I II 11 I 1 ~ 1 1 I I 11 1 .. _.. 1---- I I I ---~---1L---' ~ --_ ~t I I I --------------- 1 --- I I 1 i I~ ~1' ~ v@~ I ~ ~ A~ 1t~ ~ S~ ~ ~\ _-_ ----___--_ +~~ U~ ~ '_: :: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ i to 1\G g~~ ~ o ~ ~~ N ~ ~~~ .. ~ ,~ .~.~ 1 ..... ~~~~° a ~ ., .. ~~ ~ -~ > ~ I i ` -I~ J5 N N d' ~ m ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,,/, ~~ D _ / '~ti ~~ ~/r a -_11 aii _~ro ~_ L' ~{ ~'~ i "'- __~ry _,,, __to ,, `~~ ~~~~ __,, -ro ,, ~~~~ ,, ~~~~ __,, ,_to ., ,, U .r.a • • •wuw.o~mu~mrvp~~ ~R4`~'~`~,i ~ :, 6(UIO,{ne;J'~SOI~s mi•rm~wu~~o Ni1JlIIMTV•Na~avnoNwww `• ~oo<-uu'motl'~ vogc~ec.t rooH ~a~ayb } s- p~0211~0g0$ Si~IS1 ~~mv ~r suroLA'Qd~Ytn]OL1tlYAWLVOOiWNI®02~0 //CC((~~~~ ~r ~~~~{~~~~~y"A~~ •ON]11AWAV iLL OLLOf101NiiTMi WVYWLLNI ~ (~YlE.t6 "!"""' utn ~"'^"` 6 NM'NgA~1NY10~0 ANV'pLVOONV Dp/i02~0 AO ~~~~o~~~~ bH aims •arwanval~i.SPl~~. ~ aauapisaa Aagos iiu.q YN1 NN'/i1VlJO~V N11YO 1M ~D ~NipdO~ ~~ry~ ~(y~ NW~Mf®OiOV 7LLllfOW1M1W~M110?1dWN ..vt+~lY'K V ^11LLQ ®fl00YW 1q ®iW i Jbi AVR W V iNV1LOYX1~ ~p~ee•~ru.u1NWVYL7LL'fINO0iVN71® •au~ `sa~ei~ossd a csaa~ Uejd ]oo[~ ;uauaasea inro AliYl(MY SUan wv Wlll®O ~NAiLL N7~IM "'ZZZ ~a w•rvrOnaurw xeouomlNan ~iw aau iYLL M~Y1YW e m ~ 9 ~ e ~~ N ~ M .L~.K y r--------------- -~~ ~--------~ I I I ~+---J I I I I I I I I I I L_-, I ~? I I I I ~~ ~ I m i i I I ~ r ~ I I I l I ~ I -------~ I I I r----~ rJ I I = I I Y I L I I I --~ .(~--- I `~' I i I I I ~----~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I rJ W -- I I ~ I --~ ~ I I I ~ r_J I I I 5 I .•-.e I .e-.,r .~-.,: I I ~~ ~ ~~ I ~ 1 __ __ - _ _ . ~~~ I I /~ - ~~ ~~~~~ i ~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ i ~ ~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ i.. ~ ~ --- - ~ i L ~ ~ 0 C ~~ r w C G ~~ ~ ~ ~ / / Q~ • ~ / ~" S r `~ i i i . ~ ~ i i ~ i ~ ~ i i m ~ i i ~ ~ i i i i i r ~ i i i i i i ~ i i i i i i i ~ i '~ ~ i '- , r ~ ~- ~ .~.~ . • . • ~~.~~.~ ~ enuo3lle~ •e8oae~S .~. IDNiTMi MOM9'~aNWMM TV'Il01{Yd1DNN1M fLLdO L~'Ip1.0~'070L N1W fYlWOfiV Nlii0SR1 ,~_x -a+~:~ t *ooiyFc wort ~vu ~.~, ~ .~ , ~ ~~ w~_ fi- Pia ~(agos s~61sI .~,.a pN1Y~L1V PLL GLLO'101i YYTMNONYNtiLLN1 Nr1Q7C0 A7NAlONO U,v vurmww N]INOI~OdD aou+oaonurv suwocwNawnxaronaam NWYN~ltLJfIWI1M JYY~NJD TOIIMN Fv~+. ~~~ emu ""."^"], ~ q ~~ t. ,1u, SH 81R~S 'a(IU~Ad ~f'SOLL 1 - ` fit. aauapisa~ (agog ~~ 1 © ®rww.Yw~i1WJ[)IAVNQNWV'ILO//m ~~~e..s~...,,,,,NVYLiLL'®LVDOi1V Nl~ iooA,rooi..u.a Q.Y a•or.n iaM AiiI NNW 11OI Yr TYl0~g1LL YOI A'1g4QiW 1N ONY fYLL sa~etaossd u8lsaa~ suoi~ena~ .~or.~a~ ~~ *ge .v e 0 -> ~ N p~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~F ~ gn 4 s • ' • • • ENAOI~IE~ 'E~03E.-Es ~,orsra~~~,o~.~w mna~rmwro~oao wur+~'nv ~wxianb N gore warn rr~wonwwoa ~eeawowvN>®as~u •~ ,ooi-~ ~~ -~ ~ ;. Y rou-r;xr, float.-w, .areo+r~a~a . peon r(auuos s~~s~ ..o~,.a ~ ~~ ~....~. vauoaa.ornwaommwsrvtif~aw s,.ro~naHV~vno.,rNammroyam NLLW~\a/BINO ~U.J1101111MLIVAN1p Q1pWN ~ sF-i a,ms •~~,~,,~ a-~-~~a~, ~ a~uaPlsaN ~(adoS ruu nor 0 Z 4 ®I,G011.YIp ~iliaw avn wv wv~Jlol+w] NIfM W~Y9W NIVM'Yl-NL~~1NOOivNiiO raro,urewawuwun~iornu~aaavuNSw iqi ~Ir IMOIOfLL~O1KM mOiU1 WYwKY]gLL ',Q Sale-aossd uvlsaQ ~[ SUOTI~na~ .~or.~alx~ l~~rr~ ~~ ~ e 0 o ~ ~ 3~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 Q E ~ ~~ l ~1 I q= 4 ~ ~ /'~ , ,~ i I __ b •4 ' _ ° p' I ~ ~~ ~ "° S ~ ~~ ~- O <S S 2 F d ~~ ~~ i r I O 1 z ~ a D ,i~ 1 , ~ i ~ i 4 r°-- -- - ° i ~., i = ° 1 L_____ ~ / I v ~~ 1 1 ~ ' I ~~ ~ 1 v y 1 ~ Q 1 1 , 1 -; __-- _ ~_~ .LS3M 1 _i__________., 1 ~` 1 C 1 3~ ~~ 1 1 , 1 ~~ ~~ b~ ~ r"1 tl ` tR ~ i ~~ ~1 t [ F i~ i~ ---- ~~~~_ ~ ~~~E~~~~~ ~ a ~~~ 1 ~ ~ 1 _~~ ~~ r 1 _ ~ ~~° L ~ ~~ 111 i1 1 1 ~, 1 1 w ~vM rs 1 1 / 1 I • 1 1 1 ~ ' X11 1 r II .r.s .tea t 1 u ~ 1 1 j 1 i 1 1 1 ~i 1 t 11 to .rw 1 I 1 1 ~ 1M W'Y'7.FA 1 1 ` 1 I ~~11 1 ~11 tt 1• 1 1 ~I 1 1 I 1 ~~ ~~~ ~ ` 1 11 ~~ O 1 ^ a ~~~ 1 r= 1 u y ~y ~ii~ a~ ~ c 1 ~ai,~ 3 i ~ ~~ ~~ 'G .~ ~ ~~ L1 NWIf».,. /`~V /1 /~ ~ ~ 1 ~ w~ •1 1 ~>~ . .~ I~ 1 1 ~ ~ 1-- ~ ~ 1 1 ~' ° ~ ~ '~ 1 ,~ ~~~~ i ~~~ ~ ~1 ~~ ,~ ~~ ~ ~,~~ ~~~~ia~~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ;~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ ~1~•~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ $~~i~~~~~ ~~!~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ sza -ooz -zao:rr sr .1m' r~i ew•---eaczlo~ou.la-eo-caczzmeooz~a • • • ~w~~a ~rrmnota.~~ unv~wB~.+A~vaw~,a_ ^~°~+..+,... e~wo~ ~e80jeae$ dvi~nrww..~.o,aaur.~~nv,n~a.a~n.~ +eoi.-~ukos~ ~ sooc4ccreo+t uwy~ POOH /~~1~5 S'61SI waar~or .u.lo yammm~lloou mvooav nom as ~ ~onnuauv.uuliwrnwmmmr.+r~a~uuo ~ ° , c~os8-.r~ {~ ~ PI a aq~s ~~m.O A'i1Vm.G hHY'W.v~afYV nom i~G p r' ~~ ~~ .n.NOO.uL1o11nM~a.~.Ol.ruowwvH gHa,R~5 deli-1SOLLF 'a~U'a S9 /~ 23 ...u.oanun~~uvoaw~wmraao,n®ao - ~~{~~;p~~~~pr.~ auu~oe ALJYN ~YO..LLJn011W1 JYW N W Y1f111N N (~~~/ "t`~"+fll"/ Y mn~,1..1110~.,,.1~.an~v.1~.1,n,1..1A.~ a se ~ aos I.WIaLil011.NV.NI. AIL 1i.,'OO.VICm uI ` 1 [ sd u$ISaQ~ suoilaas ssod~ 4 ~ i~11p N1./WI.LL MV O1V ~ppOiYN Ai1LH~M 101 YJ• lgOlO.LL 101 A'100Di1N111V OIYLa.LL ~~ 6 a p ~ ~ ~ ~O E Ca~ w ~+ w ~I ~I • • • • NI NI NI NI NI NI NI Vll NI ~I •I ~I ~I ~I mI YI VI VI ~I eRuo,~e~ 'eSoleles ena~rnnr~+ara~armuawrv wuwdr~rnx .LL n,..®.~.~~~,...~.~,-,~~ +o~c~csc7not) ~+ voptvt4(oo» ~oini~d - ~ ~ e0 t~ P N ~S S'6iSl hwcor.or +owwuv.aoaymaw~~rNwsiw~ouw ~ ' ' G£QSe~~~]!fe°.] '~ ~ ' ~; ~: Y` ~mAaorn A7NVaOiG ANV rumosv~nraanaJO ~.,..,,~,~~...~.,.,~.~.N,~ BOiI A1f1 AfN'aN00®V ~DI®03MD 116@IW ~N ~,ms ~~~~_,~r.r ~ - a~uapisa~ ~(agos j ~ ~ ~u.w~.m aLL JI,OIYM,.YV.Mwriaaxw mfgoLLilYO4Gw'JONAWI ON fMY13iONd00 ~1~~ e4U.b111~`:~ Y „Y-.a ( + ,~,,,~.~.~.,W,~.,~..LL ~,~..,.,~ ~iDAlirWiYLL1YVON~d~OOM~AiLLfONM ' •auI sa~e~ossd u8isaa ~ ve o0 ~~ ~ ~ 4 ~ YOI ~!r'IgOq Wi YOI ATD SAW W V MYY liLL /Wlw.wo ~ a e ~U a • • • - um~~~ ~llle'J 'e8ole~eS .n.~Q,~.~a.m.~ avazw~Nrowoiaurr~nviau~iorNn.~ soottiu fowl:x~t~ sootvtt lroM ~u (~D2! ~'aQ~S S'b I S I Lwow nor ~uouaaywmoawr/~wo~r~c~um ro~owauvwo-uaw~t~NSnr~aw L£098 ~11~ ~Op-[ a•rm~ati~nr~o~aawv~uvoo~v~c~oa~ao ,.~oo.nano~uwuvw.~.u.ruow.n.. iLLA t1 aW'~WOO~v 10~01piDL~IOD IataYM~Id MLJIIO1114J111NN1gilOWN . . otlw~s •WK17~Ava181'I m.. [. p~ ~y~~pr~ ~uaP[~~1 ~~ ~W10 d mIIOW~IYD~N1~lOMAM ON WVILWIIm Ioi1'~"~' •••~1YlNY~LL'~LVOU~Y1~ fp AJHWOY~1LLNIVON~C11~7MMaNa1p4N •~1~ ~M~~~VV"" V ^ "v`l~ ~.'P~J`9~1`~../~+V/~/~ J .70 ,Mf7Y(=E ~~ ~~~y~ 10~ f I~ T'~pD 1LL YP1 A71D 47~IM DIY M V L pLL y` a ~~ ~~ 4 ~~ i H ~Z ~ ~ o F ~ S20 M02 A1.E E{ 10 ~ ~Yl dM'{l-EOE2=CWMI~~O-EOk220~EWE~~A • • • MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL JUNE 2, 2004 The City Council of the City of Saratoga held a Joint Session with the Hakone Foundation in the Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, at 5:30 p.m. Lon Saavedra introduced himself as the Executive Director & CEO of The Hakone Foundation. Mr. Saavedra thanked the Council for the opportunity to meet with them this evening. Mr. Saavedra highlighted the Foundations' recent accomplishments asfollows: • uccess y recrui e an ms a e a irs airman o e oar • Successfully launched Hakone's first major donor program with the main event hosted by 49`h Consul General of Japan in San Francisco. The Foundation is now composed of just over 40 couples with the hope of having enrolled 100 couples by this time next year. • Hakone was selected by the National Trust of Historic Preservation and will receive the prestigious "Save America's Treasures" Awazd. • On June 15, 2004, The Hakone Foundation will be featured at the National Gala in Washington D.C. at the National Building Museum. • Hakone Foundation will be featured on the Cable TV Network HGTV, Home and Gazden Television. • Three times in the last seven months, Hakone has been featured on Bay Area Back Roads. • Held 150`h Anniversary Peace Treaty Reception with the 50`h Consul General of Japan in San Francisco and a public address at Hakone. • The Foundation successfully secured $200,000 in restoration and renovation funds for Hakone. • Successful recruitment of 6 new Board Members. Mayor Waltonsmith thanked Mr. Saavedra for attending tonight's joint meeting. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Liti atg ion: (Government Code section 54956.9(a)) Name of case: Cecil Roy Jones & Gundrun T. Jones v. City of Saratoga (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. 103CV0105450 Conference With Legal Counsel -Initiation of Litigation (Gov't Code Section 54956.9(c): (1 potential case) Conference With Labor Ne otg iators (Gov't Code 54957.6): Agency designated representatives: Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager & John Cherbone, Pubic Works Director Employee organization: SEA Conference With Labor Ne otg iators (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 Ne otg iators (Gov't Code 54957.6): Agency designated representative: Dave Anderson, City Manager Employee organization: SMO MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 p.m. Mayor Waltonsmith reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Mayor Waltonsmith called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmember Norman Kline, Vice Mayor Kathleen King, Mayor Ann Waltonsmith ABSENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, Nick Streit ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk John Cherbone, Public Works Director Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst Joan Pisani, Recreation Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR JUNE 2, 2004 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of June 2, 2004was properly posted on May 28, 2004. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following people requested to speak at tonight's meeting: Lana Malloy noted that she was present this evening on behalf of Citizens for Highway 9 Safety Committee. Ms. Malloy wanted to personally thank the City's Traffic Engineer and Director Cherbone them for taking the time to met with them. Ms. Malloy asked if the preliminary study between the three cities has been started. Ms. Malloy stated that the Committee conducted a survey and stated that at least 300 bicyclists and pedestrians, 2 per day, use Highway 9 between the hours of 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. Ms. Malloy requested that the City proceed with abike/pedestrian lane along Highway 9. Ms. • Malloy noted that the family the dog walker, who was recently killed on Highway 9, is having a Memorial Walk on June 27~'. Ms. Malloy stated that if anyone would like updates on the Committees progress you can visit their website at www.hiQhway9safety.com In regards to Ms. Malloy's questions, City Manager Anderson stated that at the last Council meeting Director Cherbone brought the traffic study forward. City Manager Anderson noted that he visited their website and noted that it was very well done. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS > > highlights from the joint meeting with the City Council. ANNOUNCEMENTS None CEREMONIAL ITEMS lA. COMMENDATIONS FOR OUTGOING YOUTH COMMISSIONERS Recommended action: . Present commendations. Mayor Waltonsmith read the commendations and presented them to James Ballingall, Jessica Claus, Valerie Farnum, Jackie Luskey, Shruti Jayakumar, and Joanna Lee. 1B. APPOINTMENT OF YOUTH COMMISSION MEMBER AND OATH OF OFFICE Recommended action: Adopt resolution and administer Oath of Office. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 04-046 K1NG/KLINE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING TEN MEMBERS TO THE YOUTH COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSENT. City Clerk Boyer administered the Oath of Office to the new Youth Commissioners. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 2A. PRESENTATION BY JACK LUCAS -EQUAL FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES Recommended action: Informational only. Jeff Swartz, Trustee for the West Valley Mission College District, introduced ' himself and Stan Arterberry, Chancellor of West Valley College. Mr. Swartz • stated that he was presented tonight requesting that the Council adopt the resolution on the Consent Calendaz item 3G. Mr. Swaztz explained that community colleges are the lowest funded colleges in the State - UC and CSU campuses receive more funding. Community colleges aze more than twice as lazge as CSU and UC combined by student head count. California community colleges are the largest educational system in the world. Also, the minority and low income student population is larger in community colleges. After Proposition 13 passed in 1978 the state took a snapshot and looked at what each community college district was getting in State funds compazed to the percentage of their budget they were receiving from local property taxes prior to Prop 13. Mr. Swartz explained ~e~au - out of local money, out of tax revenues, and because our tax valuation was very high in this azea, we took very little State money. Ever since1978 the State never increased the community colleges district funding. Mr. Swaztz stated that there is no more local tax funding. This means that different community colleges received different amounts of funding. Mr. Swartz stated that the West Valley Mission College District receives $5 million dollars a yeaz less than San Jose City/Evergreen Community College District. Mr. Swartz stated that every year West Valley Mission College District struggles with their budget. Last yeaz they had to lay off several staff members and had to cut several classes. Mr. Swartz stated that the most important single item in the Governor's budget has given them $80 million dollazs which is suppose to be the first of three yeazly allotments that . will help under funded colleges the ability to catch up with other districts. Mr. Swartz asked that if the City adopts the resolution on the Consent Calendaz call the Chancellors office and they will send it to Sacramento. Councilmember Kline noted that he supports the resolution and noted that that the City of Sazatoga faced the same situation with Proposition 13. The City only receives 3 1/2 cents for every dollar of property taxes. Councilmember Kline noted that the City might approach the College's Boazd for support of possible measures or the proposed Redevelopment Agency. Mayor Waltonsmith thanked Mr. Swartz and Chancellor Arterberrry for attending tonight's meeting. 2B. PRESENTATION BY JOE PIRZYNSKI -VTA REORGANIZATION STATUS REPORT Recommended action: Informational only. Joe Pirzynski thanked the Council for the opportunity to speak this evening. Mr. Pirzynski stated that he is the City of Sazatoga's representative on the VTA Boazd. Mr. Pirzynski briefly explained the background of the item. Mr. Pirzynski explained that in May 2003, the Mayor of the City of Milpitas sent letters to Santa Clara County cities requesting that all of the 15 jurisdictions support public discussion and actions to restructure the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board. Mr. Pirzynski explained that Mayor Estevas advocated that every member 4 jurisdiction should have a permanent voting seat on the VTA Board to provide . local elected officials with the opportunity to participate in the critical decisions • affecting our communities. Mr. Pirzynski explained that the proposal to restructure the Board would provide a voting seat for all jurisdictions and also would maintain the same proportional voting representation for the City of San Jose and Santa Clara County. Restructuring the Board in this manner would ensure all Santa Clara County residents and businesses would be directly represented on the VTA Board. Currently the City of Saratoga is one of nine jurisdictions not represented on the VTA Board. The Board would increase in size from 12 to 21 members. Mr. Pirzynski noted that an AdHoc Committee was formed to evaluate the Board and look at their duties. Mr. Pirzynski stated that the AdHoc found two problems with the Board -the Policy Advisory Board and the city groupings. These groupings were based on population. The restructuring proposal, after looking at a variety of proposa s, w uni Pirzynski noted that the Mayor of Milpitas has pulled his proposal off the table in lieu of the AdHoc's recommendations. The AdHoc has recommend suspending the group for one year and observe the new means of communication between the groups. Councilmember Kline noted that he was looking forward to the restructuring of VTA. Councilmember Kline noted that the structure of the VTA is like no other he has observed. Councilmember Kline noted that people are concerned that they pay their taxes and are not represented on the Board -they have no vote. Currently the City of Saratoga is not being represented; no one is on the Board • from Saratoga. Councilmember Kline noted that VTA has a structural problem. Councilmember Kline stated until VTA has a true system that is not overly complex and has a true connection with the voters he feels VTA will be unaccountable to the voters. Mr. Pirzynski agreed that VTA has some complex issues and noted that he is aware of seven government organizations in the State that are structured like the VTA. Mr. Pirzynski stated that a proposed shuttle system in downtown areas is seriously being considered. Mr. Pirzynski explained that transit busses would stop at a main stop outside the core downtown areas and shuttle busses would travel around the city. Mayor Waltonsmith thanked Mr. Pirzynski for attending tonight's meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR 3A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -MAY 5, 2004 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. Vice Mayor King requested that item 3A be removed from the Consent Calendar and continue to the next meeting when there would be a quorum to approve the minutes. Consensus of the City Council to continue the minutes to June 16, 2004. 5 C~ 3B. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. KLINE/KING MOVED TO APPROVE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSENT. 3C. ADOPTION OF ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT THAT REGULATES THE PLACEMENT OF STANDBY O GENERATORS AND THE PLACEMENT OF HEATING, VENTILATION AND AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Grant second reading and adopt ordinance. TITLE OF ORDINANCE: 231 KLINE/KING MOVED TO GRANT SECOND READING AND ADOPT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT THAT REGULATES THE PLACEMENT OF STANDBY OR EMERGENCY GENERATORS AND THE • PLACEMENT OF HEATING. VENTILATION AND AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSENT. 3D. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION 2004 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 04-040 Vice Mayor King requested that item 3D be removed from the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor King asked if the cost of the election has been funded in the FY 04-OS Budget. City Manager Anderson responded the $65,000 has been appropriated in the City Clerk's budget to cover the cost of the election. KING/KLINE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION 2004. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSENT. 6 3E. HERRIMAN DRIVE/SARATOGA AVENUE PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS -EXTENSION OF EXISTING CONTRACT WITH GEORGE BIANCHI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize an increase to the change order for an existing construction contract with George Bianchi Construction Company not to exceed $40,000. Vice Mayor King requested that item 3E be removed from the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor King asked if this project was to repair the curbs and gutters. Director Cherbone responded yes. KING/KLINE MOVED TO AUTHORIZE AN INCREASE TO THE CHANGE ORDER FOR AN EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH GEORGE BIANCHI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY NOT TO EXCEED $40,000. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSENT. LJ 3F. ABAG POWER WINDUP ELECTRIC PROGRAM AGREEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution and authorize City Manager to execute agreement between ABAG and the City to wind up the electric program. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 04-049 KLINE/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AND AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ABAG AND THE CITY TO WIND UP THE ELECTRIC PROGRAM. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSENT. 3G. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING EQUAL FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 04-041 WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING EQUAL FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSENT. 3H. FEE WAIVER REQUEST - SARATOGA ROTARY "BUILDING BRIDGES" EVENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and adopt resolution. 7 TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 04-042 KLINE/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION WAIVING THE FEES FOR THE SARATOGA ROTARY "BUILDING BRIDGES" EVENT. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSENT. 3I. RESOLUTION DECLARING BRUSH GROWING ON CERTAIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and adopt resolution. KLINE/KING MOVED TO RESOLUTION DECLARING BRUSH GROWING ON CERTAIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION PASSED 3-0- 2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1- PUBLIC HEARING, APPROVAL OF ENGINEER'S REPORT, AND CONFIRMATION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR FY04-05 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing and adopt resolution ordering the improvements and confirming the diagram and assessments for FY04-O5. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 04-047 John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Mayor Waltonsmith opened the public hearing and invited public comments. Seeing none, Mayor Waltonsmith closed the public hearing KLINE/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENTS FOR FY04-05. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSENT. 5. LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1 ANNEXATION 2004-1 (SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD GATEWAY AREA) PUBLIC HEARING, APPROVAL OF ENGINEER'S REPORT, AND CONFIRMATION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR FY 04-OS • 8 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing and adopt resolution ordering the improvements and confirming the diagram and assessments for FY04-O5. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 04-048 John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone requested that Council removed parcel number 386-O1-025 from the assessment list, explaining that it was added in error and doesn't increase the cost of the assessments. Seeing none, Mayor Waltonsmith closed the public hearing and requested that the City Clerk open the ballots. City Clerk Boyer opened the ballots and reported that 5 votes supported the Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District LLLA-1 Annexation 2004-1 KLTNE/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENTS FOR FY04-O5. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSENT. OLD BUSINESS 6. 2ND REVIEW OF CONTRACTED GRANT WRITER UTILIZATION AND GUIDANCE POLICY AND GRANT WRITER UTILIZATION PROCEDURES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Grant Writer Policy & Procedures. Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Bloomquist explained that at the May 19, 2004 meeting, Council directed staff to make several changes and modifications to the proposed Contracted Grant Writer Utilization and Guidance Policy. Analyst Bloomquist explained the changes made to the Policy and Procedures simplify and streamline them, making them easier to implement and follow KING/KLINE MOVED TO ADOPT GRANT WRITER POLICY AND PROCEDURES. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSENT. 9 NEW BUSINESS 7. DEANZA TRAIL PROJECT CONSULTANT SELECTION FOR PHASE I STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Select Design Studios West, Inc. as the consultant for Phase I of the DeAnza Trail Project; Authorize City Manager to enter into a Professional Service Agreement with Design Studios West, Inc. in the amount of $100,000; Adopt budget resolution amendment FY 03-04 Budget. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 04-044& 045 Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Bloomquist stated that three firms submitted proposal. After extensive review, staff qualified two firms, Design Studios West and MPA Design. Both firms were invited to participate in an interview which was held on May 17, 2004. Analyst Bloomquist stated that both firms were nearly equal in all qualifications and each has impressive skills and project experience. Analyst Bloomquist stated that the interview panel chose Design Studio West as the consultant for this project because they have a slight edge and more experience over MPA Design and facilitating controversiaUdifficult public meetings. KING/KLINE MOVED TO SELECT DESIGN STUDIOS WEST. INC. AS THE CONSULTANT FOR PHASE I OF THE DEANZA TRAIL PROJECT; AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH DESIGN STUDIOS WEST. INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $100.000; ADOPT BUDGET RESOLUTION AMENDMENT FY 03-04 BUDGET. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSENT. 8. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO COMPLETE THE RECOMMENDED TASK LIST RELATED TO SARATOGA LIBRARY PROJECT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to expend up to $50,000 to complete tasks. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. KING/KLINE MOVED TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO EXPEND UP TO $50.000 TO COMPLETE TASKS RELATED TO THE SARATOGA LIBRARY. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSENT. • 10 9. SARATOGA VILLAGE & MONTALVO SHUTTLE PROGRAM STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Danielle Surdin, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Surdin explained that for the past three years the City of Saratoga has provided a yearly co-op advertising opportunity for our local merchants by means of the Villa Montalvo and Mountain Winery Summer Concert Programs. Analyst no longer an option because the Mountain Winery has begun preparing their concert program in-house. Analyst Surdin explained that Staff approached Villa Montalvo, Mountain Winery and the Village merchants to reevaluate this advertising mechanism. All agreed that continued promotion of the Saratoga Village was important, and wanted to explore options that would drive more pedestrian foot traffic to downtown Big Basin Way. Out of this brainstorming session, the shuttle was suggested as a mechanism to increase the number of businesses that could participate and increase foot traffic. Analyst Surdin noted that the Saratoga Village/Montalvo Shuttle would have two designated pick-up and drop-off locations on Big Basin Way. All guests interested in using the shuttle would present a shuttle pass at the time of entering the bus and would return the pass to the driver at their drop-off location. Guests would receive this pass by eating at participating restaurants and/or visiting our local hotels (pass presented upon check-in). The shuttle would circulate the Village continuously until the beginning of the concert, and would provide three return trips for participating patrons. The Saratoga Village/Montalvo shuttle would be marked differently then the West Valley Shuttle buses and would have a priority drop-off and pick-up location separate from that of the West Valley Shuttles to avoid confusion. Village parking would be designated for shuttle participants through a public information campaign. Analyst Surdin explained that various ways all parties intent to promote the program including a radio promotion where a monthly grand prize would be given-a-way including 2 concert tickets, dinner for two, and an evening stay at Inn/Oaks. Analyst Surdin noted that $10,000 which is currently budgeted for the summer concert co-op ad marketing opportunity would be redirected to fund the cost of the shuttle bus program for the entire 2004 summer concert series, which amounts to a total of 32 shows. • 11 Vice Mayor King stated that the City received a lot of emails supporting the Shuttle Program. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to move forward with the Saratoga Village & Montalvo Shuttle Program. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Waltonsmith reported the following information: Finance Commission -City Manager Anderson would be attending the meeting since Director Baloca resigned. estroom - oc - erector er one note a e awar o con ac wou a - on the June 16~' Council agenda. Vice Mayor King reported the following information: Arts Commission -would be participating along with the Heritage Preservation and Library Commission in "Saratoga Reads Month". Arts Commission suggested to cancel the "Art in the Park" and co-sponsor a "Vintage Festival" with the Heritage Preservation Commission. City/School Ad-Hoc Committee -recently met with the Campbell Union School District. Discussed traffic flow issues at Marshall Lane School. Parks and Recreation Commission -two vacancies. Councilmember Kline reported the following information: Library Commission -approached by the JPA to start looking at ways to cut funds at the Saratoga Library. Village Ad-Hoc Committee -thanked Analyst Surdin for the work she has done in regards to the Facade Program and the Shuttle Program. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Vice Mayor King stated that the Vision AdHoc Committee recently renamed themselves the "Revenue Review Committee" and reminded everyone that the Community Forum was on June 7`h at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Theater. In regards to Consent Calendar item 3H, Councilmember Kline requested that staff bring back a "Fee Waiver Policy". Councilmember Kline stated that most cities do not waive fees. Councilmember Kline stated that waiving fees for groups could become very political. Responding to Councilmember Kline's request, City Attorney Taylor explained that his request could come forward in two ways; as a separate policy or part of the Fee Schedule resolution. Councilmember Kline stated that he would prefer a separate policy outside of the budget process. 12 • Consensus of the City Council to support Councilmember Kline's request. Vice Mayor King requested that the five City properties for State Landmark designation be agendized. Consensus of the City Council to support Vice Mayor King's request. Mayor Waltonsmith asked her colleagues if they would be interested in having a joint meeting with the Chamber of Commerce and Villa Montalvo. Conesus of the City Council to ask the Chamber of Commerce and Villa Montalvo if they would like to meet with the Council. OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None • ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Waltonsmith adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened to Closed Session. There being no further business Mayor Waltonsmith adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk C 13 • . MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE JUNE 9, 2004 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met with the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office on June 9, 2004 in the Administrative Conference Room, 17777 Fruitvale Avenue.. Mayor Waltonsmith called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. ayor , Councihnember Nick Streit ABSENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, Norman Kline ALSO Dave Anderson, City Manager PRESENT: Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Laurie Smith, Sheriff John Hirokawa, Captain Terry Calderone, Lieutenant REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR JUNE 9, 2004 Catleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of June 9, 2004 was properly posted on May 28, 2004. The City Council met with the Sheriff s Office to discuss the proposed West Valley Substation sites. Mayor Waltonsmith thanked the representatives from the Sheriff's Office for attending the meeting. Mayor Waltonsmith stated that the Council realizes that the Sheriff's Office has done their due diligence to stay in Saratoga but the remaining fact is that the current substation is inadequate. Councilmember Streit stated that up until recently he preferred that the Sheriffs Office remain in the City of Saratoga. Councilmember Streit noted that after recent budget evaluations and the current state of the existing substation, he agrees that it would be in the best interest of the Sheriff's Office to move to the AAA Building in Cupertino. Councilmember Streit noted that the Sheriff's Office should relocate as soon as possible. Councilmember Bogosian was unable to attend today's meeting. Mayor Waltonsmith read Councilmember Bogosian's comments pointing out that he ranked the current site is the most desirable "5", Cox Avenue site " 3", and AAA site " 3'. 1 Vice Mayor King noted that it was important to her that the Sheriffs Office stay together • and not have them fragmented in different cities. Vice Mayor King stated that the Sheriff s Office should move quickly on the lease agreement. Mayor Waltonsmith noted that she concurred with her colleague's comments adding that she would hope that the Deputies could continue to utilize the space at the North Campus to write reports. Sheriff Smith noted that the she would encourage the Deputies to continue to use the North Campus. iscu i Captain Hirakawa suggested directing Deputies to loop through the City after their shift is over. Councilmember Streit asked if there were any draw back to the AAA building. Sheriff Smith explained that the building is a perfect location and the advantages: • Landlord will cover all tenant improvements • Landlord will provide 48 exclusive parking spaces, 32 nonexclusive parking spaces • Within 75 feet of Saratoga city limits • Immediate move-in after tenant improvements • Rent - $2.18 per square foot • Variety of spaces available • 3% Annual Lease Increase A discussion took place in regards to the County's $150k loan for tenant improvements. Sheriff Smith noted that if these funds are used the loan would be passed through to the in the contract the various contracted cities. City Manager Anderson stated that locking up the AAA building for ten years at the price offered is a great opportunity for the Sheriffs Office. In regards to a public announcement of the relocation of the Sheriff s Office to Cupertino, City Manager n asked when it would be appropriate. Sheriff Smith suggest waiting until she has a signed lease agreement and noted that she would work with the City mangers of the contract cities to write a press release. 2 • Mayor Waltonsmith thanked everyone present for attending the meeting. There being no further business, Mayor Waltonsmith adjourned the meeting at 4:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC • • 3 • •