Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-22-2004 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. PIACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani ABSENT: Commissioners Schallop and Uhl STAFF: Planners Livingstone, Oosterhous, Vasudevan &z Welsh, Public Safety Officer Prosser, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 8, 2004. (APPROVED 5-0) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 16, 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. APPLICATION #04-178 (510-09-018, 044, 043) HEIKALI-14410 ~z 14416 Big Basin Way, 20506 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road The applicant requests design review approval to renovate the facades of the above noted contiguous commercial structures. The facade changes include raising the parapet, painting and resurfacing, removal of existing ornamentation on the structures and replacement and opening up of windows and doors. The property is located in the CH-1 zoning district and is designated CR- retail commercial in the General Plan. Continued from meeting on August 25, 2005(AIVN WELSH) (APPROVED 5-0) APPLICATION #04-233 (397-29-012) California Farmers' Markets Association, 20300 Herriman Avenue: -Request approval for a Conditional Use Permit allowing the California Farmers' Markets Association to continue holding a Farmers' Market on the parking lot area of Saratoga High School, Saturdays year round. The previous Temporary Use Permit (#98-OOS expired on April 03, 2004. (STEVE PROSSER) (APPROVED 5-0) APPLICATION #04-140 (386-10-049) Sprint PCS (applicant), Kato Yasuto (property owner), 17777 Saratoga Avenue; The applicant requests Use Permit approval to extend the height of the existing monopole and install antennas. The applicant proposes to co-locate with another wireless carrier, Verizon, which has existing antennas on the monopole. Related equipment will be situated on the property adjacent to Verizon's existing equipment. The site is located in the P-A (Professional and Administrative Office) zoning district. (LATA VASUDEVAN) (APPROVED 5-0) 4. APPLICATION #04-075 (397-15-018, 397-14-022, 397-13-030) Sprint PCS, West Valley College, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue; The applicant requests use permit approval to install antennas and related equipment at the theater building located on the West Valley College Campus. The college campus is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Several wireless carriers are located at this site. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) (APPROVED 5-0) 5. APPLICATION # 04-149 (397-07-002) -YEN, 15040 El Quito Way; -Request Design Review Approval to add approximately 1,028 square feet to the first floor of the existing 4,232 square foot single story house for a total floor area of 5,260 square feet. The gross lot size is 57,115 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 23 feet. (JOtIN LIVINGSTONE) (APPROVED 5-0) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - Staff response to oral communication given by Ms. Muriel Mahrer at the August 25, 2004 Planning Commission meeting regarding her neighbor's house addition at 13571 Myren Drive. COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN Letter from Nancy &r Robb Kundtz regarding 21974 Heber Way ADJOURNMENT AT 10:00 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance 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 ctclerhC~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 September 16, 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.sarato ag ca.us [f you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 -12:00 noon PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot,13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Site Visit Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #04-233 - CA. FARMERS MARKET ASSN. 20300 Herriman Avenue 2. Application #04-140 - SPRINT PCS 17777 Saratoga Avenue 3. Application #04-149 - YEN 15040 El Quito Way Item 3 4. Application #04-133 - BURNS / POLLARD 14265 Burns Way 5. Application #04-075 - SPRINT PCS 14000 Fruitvale Avenue Item 2 Item 5 Study Session Item Item 4 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 encouraged for the applicant and/or owner to be present to answer any questions which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the Public Hearing. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION • STUDY SESSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, September 22, 2004, 5:00 p.m. PLACE: Senior Center,196SS Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TrnE: Adjourned Regular Meeting ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 16, 2004 STUDY SESSION AGENDA APPLICATION #04-133 (503-23-006), 14265 BURNS WAY, BURGOS/POLLARD; -The Planning Commission will conduct a Study Session reviewing the proposed residential project on a preliminary basis and providing • input to the applicant, neighbors, and staff. The proposed project includes the demolition of an existing single-story residence and the construction of a second- story main residence with basement and detached single-story secondary dwelluzg unit. The study session is an information meeting for the Planning Commission to get their questions about the project answered and for the Planning Commission to express any issues or concerns that they may have regarding the proposal so that the applicant can revise the plans and address their concerns prior to the hearing. Also, the study session will allow the applicant to have feedback from the Commission prior to finalizing their proposal. No decision will be made at this meeting. ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - Wednesday, September 22, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic ?heater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • STUDY SESSION • TO: FROM: DATE SUBJECT PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION REPORT Planning Commission Christy Oosterhous, Associate Planner ~ September 22, 2004 14265 Burns Way, Design Review Application #04-133, APN 503-23-006 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission review the proposed residential project on a preliminary basis and provide input to the applicant, neighbors, and staff. PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant filed Design Review Application #04-133 on May 6, 2004. The proposed project includes the demolition of an existing single-story residence and the construction of a two-story main residence with basement and detached secondary dwelling unit. The proposed floor area of the main residence is 3,975 square feet. The first floor is 2,640 square feet and the second floor includes 1,335 square feet of floor area. The proposed basement is an additional 1,506 square feet. The proposed secondary dwelling unit is 985 square feet. A covered, unenclosed footbridge connects the main residence to the secondary dwelling unit and pool areas. The project as proposed meets the zoning ordinance requirements. Geotechnical review is pending. A craftsman architectural style is proposed with wood shingles and horizontal wood siding. Identifying features of the proposed residence and the craftsman architectural style include porches with square columns supporting the roof, decorative beams or braces under the gables, and low pitched gable roofs. Arborist Report: In summary, the arborist report dated May 25, 2004, states four trees (#8,10,12,26) are in direct conflict with the proposed project and five trees (#5,13,14,20,23) though not in direct conflict would be severely damaged by construction. One tree (#27) is proposed for removal on the landscape plan. This tree has poor structure and is at risk of splitting apart. Replacement trees are suggested. Two additional trees (#3,15) should be removed as they are unsafe and present a significant risk to public safety. ~Q~Q~. Planning Commission Study Session Report 2 Design Review 04-133, 14265 Burns Way Neighbor Notification: Staff has received numerous neighbor notification templates and comments on the subject Design Review Application #04-133. The neighbor comments are attachment 3 of this memo. Public Noticing: Notices for the Study Session held on September 22, 2004 were mailed to property owners within 500 feet. PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site consists of a 29,025 square foot parcel located at 14265 Burns Way off nearby Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Burns Way is a dead end street. The property is located at the end of the street. The property is zoned R-1 15,000 and the General Plan designation is Medium Density (M-15) with a maximum density of 2.9 dwelling units per acre. An existing single-story residence is located on the subject property. A ravine is located on the property in the rear yard. BACKGROUND: The history of design review applications involved different owners and different architectural plans. In summary: • In 1991, the owner proposed asecond-story residence. Staff Walgreen and the Planning Commission could not support the application at that time. The application was referred back to the applicant for restudy. The owner withdrew the application. • In 1998, the owner proposed a second-story residence. Staff Walgreen recommended approval; however, the Planning Commission could not support the application. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's denial to the City Council. The item was placed on the City Council agenda; however, the applicant/appellant asked for a continuance. At a subsequent meeting, the Council made the following motion to referred the item back to the applicant/appellant "to consider a substantive redesign, not necessarily abandoning two stories, but with the changes discussed and additional possible changes, with the applicant to continue to meet with the neighbor to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood, and with a possible future planning commission study session. " The applicant/appellant later withdrew the application. • In 2004, the applicant proposes a craftsman style two-story residence and second dwelling unit. A Study Session was scheduled by staff prior to public hearing. (~t~(~02 _ Planning Commission Study Session Report 3 Design Review 04-133, 14265 Burns Way. • Background materials are included as attachments to this memo. Background documents include meeting minutes from the 1991 and 1998 meetings. The 1998 Planning Commission Resolution of Denial is also enclosed. Full size architectural plans will be available at the study session for both the current application and the 1998 submittal. Reductions of the 1991 architectural plans will also be available. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: The applicant has requested a 15-minute presentation period and the adjacent neighbor has requested a 10-minute presentation period at the Study Session. Staff estimates that approximately 15 neighbors may attend with the interest of speaking for several minutes on the proposed project. Hal Netter, a representative from the Fire Department will also be available to respond to questions and concerns. Staff would also like emphasize the importance of the Planning Commissioners comments on the project and would encourage you to also leave ample time for discussion by the Commissioners. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Arborist Report, dated May 25, 2004. 2. Neighbor comments. 3. Saratoga Fire Department comments, email dated June 16, 2004. 4. Meeting Minutes 1991 and 1998. 5. Planning Commission Resolution of Denial from 1998. 6. Statement from the Architect, George Wittman and Property Owner, Angela • Pollard and Ivan Burgos. 7. Materials Board and Solar Study. 8. Exhibit "A," reduced plans. 000003 Attachment 1 C ®®~04 - `~ ARBOR RESOURCES : Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT 14265 BURNS WAY SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: BURGOS/POLLARD APPLICATION #: 04-133 APN #: 503-23-006 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 • May 25, 2004 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #7967®O~OQ~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 25, 2004 SUMII7ARY • Twenty-seven trees were inventoried for this report. Trees #8, 10, 12 and 26 are in conflict with the proposed design. Given their size, species and/or condition, their removal is appropriate and replacements are recommended. Though not in direct conflict, trees #5, 13, 14, 20 and 23 would be severely damaged. The loss of tree #23 is acceptable due to its condition and replacements are recommended (whether retained or removed). However, plan revisions are necessary to achieve the survival of trees #5, 13, 14 and 20. Tree #27 is proposed for removal on the landscape plan. This tree has a poor structure and is at risk of splitting apart. Replacements are suggested. Regardless of the proposed project, trees #3 and 15 should be removed as they are unsafe and present a significant risk to public safety. I anticipate the trees anticipated for retention can survive the development activities provided all measures presented in the `Recommendations' section of this report are carefully followed and incorporated into construction plans. Per City Ordinance, a bond equal to 100% of the appraised value of trees planned for retention is required. My review indicates trees #1, 2, 4-7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16-22, 24 and 25 would be retained. Based on the proposed plans, the total value of these trees is $74,200. INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with demolishing an existing residence and constructing a new one with a basement at 14265 Burns Way, 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 SD7-1 thru SD7-6 (by George Daniel Wittman Architect, dated 4/9/04), Topographic Survey (by DeBolt Civil Engineering, dated 2/9/04), Sheets 1 thru 4 (also by DeBolt Civil Engineering, dated 4/30/04), and Sheet CL-1 (by DJA, dated 5/3/04). The trees' locations, numbers and canopy perimeters are presented on an attached copy of Sheet 2 of 4 (Grading and Drainage Plan). The appraised tree values shown on the attached Tree Inventory Table are calculated in accordance with the • Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`~ Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Burgos/Pollard Property, 14265 Burns Way, Saratoga Page 1 of S Ciry of Saratoga Community Development Department 0006 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 25, 2004 • For identification purposes, metallic tags corresponding to the numbers presented within this report are attached to the trunk of each accessible inventoried tree. Trees #1, 2, 15-19, 21, 22 and 26 are not shown on plans reviewed. Their locations presented on the attached map are estimates and should not be construed as being surveyed. I suggest each tree's surveyed location be shown on all future plans. FINDINGS The 27 trees inventoried for this report include one Big-Leaf Maple (#21), one California Bay Tree (# 18), two Califon~ua Black Walnuts (#8, 26), three Califontia Buckeyes (6, 14, 21), eleven Coast Live Oaks (#1, 2, 4, 5, 9-13, 16, 25), two Coast Redwoods (#5, 19), one Coulter Pine (#20), two Green Wattles (#15, 17), one Japanese Cedaz (#27) and one Silk Tree (#3). Trees #8, 10, 12 and 26 will require removal to accommodate the proposed design. Given their size, species, condition and/or location, I find their removal is appropriate and must be mitigated by installing new trees equivalent to their appraised values. Tree #5 would be significantly jeopazdized by constructing the proposed home design. The plans show a basement wall proposed seven feet from its northernmost trunk. When • considering a typical soil cut of five feet beyond the wall, this places excavation two feet from the trunk. This cut would remove major support roots and significantly impact the tree's health and longevity. As a result, the tree would be extremely vulnerable to decline and failure. The stability and survival of this tree will depend upon no basement excavation or grading occurring within 10 feet north of its northernmost trunk, and 20 feet on all other sides. This will require establishing the basement wall and/or first floor foundation beyond 10 feet (such as 15 feet away). Please note that some time ago, the tree was reduced in height at approximately seven feet below its existing top. This type of pruning exposes the top of the tree to decay and weakens the attachment of surrounding branches. As a result, I suggest periodic inspections aze made (such as every three years) to minimize the risk of branch failure. Trees # 3 14, 20 and 23 would also be adversely impacted by implementing the proposed grading and home design. I recommend plan revisions are made to achieve the survival of trees #13, 14 and 20. Revisions to the proposed design are not suggested for protecting tree #23; replacements for its loss aze recommended (whether retained or removed). The driveway will adversely impact tree #2. To minimize root damage, I suggest it is redesigned to be no closer than 10 feet from its trunk. The driveway should also remain at least 10 feet from tree #1's trunk. • Burgos/Pollard Property, 14265 Burns Way, Saratoga Page 2 of S City ojSaratoga Community Development Department Q~0®Or7 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 25, 2004 Tree #3's trunk is cracked where the tree's two leaders originate. As such, the tree is unsafe and at significant risk of splitting apart. Its removal is recommended for public safety reasons. Replacements aze not suggested. Tree #27, a Japanese Cedaz, is proposed for removal on the landscape plan. This tree has two trunks of equal size that originate at grade and grow with an extremely tight angle of attachment. As a result, the tree is at high risk of splitting apart and its removal is appropriate. Replacements aze recommended. Tree # 15's trunk grows neazly horizontally towazds the south and is lying on the existing chain link fence. Due to this tree being located on the western neighboring property, I am unable to fully determine whether it is uprooting or growing in this manner. In either situation, the tree is unsafe and presents a risk to public safety. As such, I recommend its removal. Please note a signed letter by the tree's owner authorizing its removal should be secured before removal occurs and submitted to the City. Trees #1, 2, 4, 6, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21 and 25 aze situated on neighboring properties and were inventoried for this report due to their close proximity to the proposed project. They all are expected to survive. There aze approximately seven Oaks of Ordinance-size situated south of tree # 13. They were not inventoried for this report as they aze located a considerable distance away from the proposed building envelope. However, protection measures aze expected apply. • RECOMMENDATIONS 1. To maintain the stability and survival of tree #5, the plans require revision so no basement excavation, grading or trenching occurs within 10 feet north of its northernmost trunk and 20 feet on all other sides. 2. The plans should be revised to comply with the following grading and trenching setbacks (including drainage and irrigation) from the trees' trunks: eight feet for trees #13 and 14, ten feet for tree #20, and twelve feet for trees #7 and 25. 3. Swales proposed beneath the canopies of retained trees must not require excavation deeper than four inches below grade. Soil fill can be placed on top of existing grade to achieve the required Swale but not exceed 6 inches in height or 18 inches in width. 4. The proposed driveway should be revised to be no closer than 10 feet from tree #2's trunk. Any grading required for the portion of driveway beneath the canopies of trees # 1 and 2 shall be performed manually. 5. Tree protective fencing shall be installed prior to any demolition, basement excavation, 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, Burgos/Pollard Property, 14265 Burns Way, Saratoga Page 3 of S City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~n~~8 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 25, 2004 galvanized 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 shall be established at or beyond the outer canopy edge (where possible), no further than one to two feet from the existing and future hazdscape, and four feet from the new homes' footprints. Fencing is also necessary for the protection of trees south of #13. Please note protective fencing is not shown on the attached map due to the recommended design revisions; it can be delineated upon review of future plans. 6. Unless otherwise approved, all demolition and construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced azeas (even after fencing is removed), as well as outside beneath canopies of trees inventoried and not inventoried for this report. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading, surface scraping, trenching, storage and dumping of materials (including soil fill), and equipmentWehicle operation and parking. 7. I recommend protective fencing remain installed throughout the landscape installation phase. Small openings can be created at that time (i.e. only immediately before landscape construction begins) to only allow for foot traffic and wheelbarrow access. 8. Prior to using an excavator to dig the basement, athree- to four-foot deep trench shall be manually dug (i.e. use hand tools) where within 25 feet of tree #5's northernmost • trunk. Digging shall begin one-foot towards the trunk from where the basement wall is proposed. All roots that become encountered during the process and have diameters of one-inch and greater shall be cleanly severed near the soil vertical soil line using loppers or a handsaw. The freshly cut ends of roots two inches and greater in diameter shall be immediately wrapped in a plastic bag secured by tape or a rubber band. 9. Great caze must be taken by the equipment operator to avoid excavating soil during the removal of the pond and lazge boulder beneath tree #4's canopy. Any roots that become exposed during the process shall be immediately covered with soil. 10. The trunk locations of trees #1, 2, 15-19, 21, 22 and 26 should be surveyed and shown on all future site, grading and drainage, and landscape plans. 11. At the start of demolition (during the months of May thru October), water should be supplied every two weeks to each retained tree. 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. 12. Downspouts shall be directed away from trees being retained and placed at least 15 feet to the side of each trunk. 13. All underground pipes and imgation lines planned for removal beneath the canopies of retained trees should remain buried and be cut off at existing soil grade. Burgos/Pollard Property, 14265 Burns Way, Saratoga Page 4 of S City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~QV®09 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 25, 2004 14. Upon availability, plans showing irrigation and underground utilities should be reviewed by the City for tree impacts. 15. All underground utilities (i.e. water, gas, sewer, electrical) should be designed outside from beneath canopies of retained trees; I should be consulted if this is not feasible. 16. Irrigation trenches should be designed no closer than 10 times the trunk diameter of trees being retained. Where this is not feasible, the irrigation system must be placed on top of existing grade. 17. Irrigation should spray no closer than five feet from the trunks. Lawn or other plant material requiring frequent watering must comprise no more than 20-percent of the azea beneath a tree's canopy. All other plant material must be compatible for planting beneath Oaks and be drought tolerant. 18. Mulch, stones or other landscape features must be placed no closer than one-foot from the trees' trunks. Bender boazd should not be installed and tilling of the soil should not occur within 10 times the diameter of the nearest trunk. 19. Herbicides should not be used beneath tree canopies. Where used on site, they should be labeled for safe use near trees. 20. The removal and pruning of trees must be performed under the supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to ISA standazds. Information regazding Certified Arborists in the azea can be obtained by referring to the following website: http: //www. isa-arbor. com/arborists/arbsearch. html. 21. New trees shall be installed that aze equivalent in value to those approved for removal. Based on my review, trees #3, 8, 10, 12, 15, 23, 26 and 27 would be removed and have a combined value of $6,120. The replacement values aze shown on the bottom of the attached table. Acceptable replacement species include Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Black Oak (Quercus kelloggii), Blue Oak (Quercus douglasii), Scrub Oak (Quercus dumosa), Big-Leaf maple (Ater macrophyllum), California Buckeye (Aesculus californica), Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga mertaiesit~ and Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). The replacement species, location and size should be shown on the future planting plan. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (Copy of Sheet 2 of 4) • Burgos/Pollard Property, 14265 Burns Way, Saratoga Page S of S City of Saratoga Community Development Department Q®01,0 i TREF NO. C I Z ' ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE INVENTORY TABLE . .. o ~ a .. ~~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ p w v A~ .-. ~ ~ ~ j PQ b ~ PQ ~ b o V c ;~ ~ ~ .~ J ~ ~ ~ c ~~ ¢ ~ ~ ~ c v ~ ',~~ ~ ~ po > ~ •~ ~~ ~ u ^' U ~ o TREE NAME ~ '" ~" ~ Coast Live Oak -uercus agrifolia) 18 35 35 100% 100% Good Coast Live Oak ?~.a.,rie norilnlia 1 18 30 35 100% 100% Good 3 ~ - ~ X ~ X ~ S7. 3 - X X S7 Coast Live Oak 'olio 10 25 30 100% 75% C,ood High 2 - - X 51,950 q ( er+cus a Coast Live Oak li ' 16, 10, 3 5 40 35 100% 75% Good Hi 3 - - - 57,000 , o o 9 ( ercus a 10 Coast Live Oak (Quercua agrifolia) 6.5, 6 25 20 100% 50% Good Moderate - X - - S1,220 Coast Live Oak ~ (Quer~cus agrijolia) 21 5 40 40 100% 100% Good High 2 - - - 510,300 site: lsz6s Barns way, saotoga pyeparsd jar. City of Saratoga Coninwni~y Development Deporrinart J~fay IS, 20W Prepared by: David L Bobby, RCA 1 oj2 ~~~~ I ' ARBOR RESOURCES - Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE IlWENTORY TABLE ~ .. ~ ' ~ .. ~~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ v ~ ~ .+ b G q ~ . ~ '~ O ~. 73 A .-. v ~ V ~ ~~ o O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~° O ~ O ~ c ~ ' ~ '~' o ~ .~$ ~° ° ~ g ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~~ a NO. TREE NAME H ~ I I Green Wattle I I I I ° I ° I I I I - I I I I I 15 (Acacia decurrens) 8, 5 25 30 75 /0 25 /o Fair Low 4 X X SO Coast Live Oak 10,8,8,7, 16 ( et+ctts a 'olio 6,5,4 35 40 50'/0 0% Poor Low 4 - X X SO Green Wattle 17 (Acacia decurrens 9, 6 25 40 100% 25% Fair Low 5 - X - 5120 California Bay Tree 18 Umbellularia tali arnica 18 55 40 100% 75% Good Hi 5 - X X S3,540 Coast Redwood 19 (Se uoia sem rvirens 6 30 15 100% 75% ('food Hi 5 - X X 5760 Coulter Pine ~' 20 (Pinus coulteri) 18 50 40 100% 100% Good Hi 1 - - - 54,7 California Buckeye 21 (Aesculus tali arnica 6, 5, 4, 4 25 25 100% 50% Good Hi 4 - X X 51,280 Coast Redwood 22 (Se oia sem rvirens 12, 10, 9 40 20 l00% 25% Fair High 4 - X X S2,450 Big-Leaf Maple Z3 (Ater macro llum 12 30 30 75% 50% Fair Moderate 1 - - - 51,240 California Buckeye 9.5, 7.5, 24 (Aesculus call arnica 4 25 45 75% 50% Fair Moderate 2 - - - 51,530 Coast Live Oak 25 ( ercus a ' olia 20.5 40 30 100% 75% Good Hi 2 - - X S8>~ English Walnut 26 (Ju lans re 'a) 16.5 45 60 100% 75% Good Moderate - X X - 51,640 Japanese Cedar 27 (C tomeria 'a ica) 8.5, 7 35 10 50% 50% Fair Low 4 - - - 5810 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 15 flan = 5120 24-inch box =5420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = 55,000 52-inch box = 57 000 72-inch box = 515,000 S Sae: LI265 Barra Way, Soraitoga Prepared jar: City of Saratoga Communay Development Deparrme»t ((~~jQ~j Preparsd by: Devid L Bobby, RCA 2 of 2 M~~rVO~~~ ~i • • -- - ..~`k -- _ .. - ~ - n~ .,.-, ~ i ~ ~{t E . ' a ~ldM SN21f19 it ~ ~ i :i a „• ` ~ ~ .a, "r I'. `.~ VJ a f L ~ ., ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ I ' 1 ' ,' ' 1 '/ ~. p ~ N wi -- N _ ~~ .. 4. ~4y ~ I ~ ~ ~a~~ ~ ~~ ~` ~ ~ p. .. ~, I~ ~` ~ SlC , _ I ~ ~I ~ ~ ~~ ~s~~i. ~ ~C, N O i i1A~ ' ~ ~ I., ~ FJJ ~ F~ y p , u-63iS ~ ~ ~ i y .~.J ~ ~ _ ~ ~ . ~ YQ'{M IgYOd O]tliAO'J ~ 1 S Y _. _.. i ~ r ~ :.a1n ~! . ~ ~ R ~. }'~ ~~~ I ~ri~ . ~ S ~ ~'~ i' .! ~ ~ 'r ~ ~ ~ ~ LL o w ~ ~~. oi;ai 9 ~ s ~ ~'-~.~ 3 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ D ', i ^ Y Y Rl i ~l iil ~ ~ fV ~ ~'~~~. "I'~ 6 ~ I W Q ,. ~- I _ Ir __ ~ z -+ " ~ .. - - -.. ._ -- a ,~,. ~ L .r. __ N ~.: m 00 CW1 J~,. 4 - < $ ~i ~FRYI ~/ E r ( n:I 17a _ LPL i O ~~ f I .X Min J ~~ 'b OS K'1 W J_ I~: I~. ~ ~ ' ,y~.~~~yh( /~ Ys ~ ~ ~ _ W Illfw3Y ~.~ I ~ r i- I "PfildYrNN~~ '"f-~ .~ . ~ b ~ ~'... 1 ~7 i N J I ~iT / i _ „ p.y ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~T` ~. ,~ .ten ~~, :.1,' ~ t ~ i ~,~ [~ ao ' ^ , ~ , ©U413 • Attachment 2 • ~®~®~4 Kurt and Bazbaza Voester 14251 Burns Way Sazatoga, CA 95070 August 25, 2004 Planning Commission City of Sazatoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Sazatoga, CA 95070 ~ ~~~~~~ AUG 3 0 2004 CITY OF SARATUGA .~T., ^FV~L(1P~er~. RE: Application #: 04-133 APN #: 503-23-006 Burgos/Pollazd 14265 Burns Way Dear Commissioners, History: This is the third time since 1991 that an application has been made by three different owners of the above referenced property to build lazge two story homes that aze bazely less than the allowable area. In 1991 the application was for a residence with an azea of 4,836 sq. ft. while the allowable area was 4,674 sq. ft. (Not a typo.) At that time the recommendation of the planning commission (PC) (09/25) after hearing neighborhood opposition to the plan was that the applicant should return with a plan for a one story residence. Applicant withdrew his application (PC minutes 12/11/91). In 1998 a second application was made by new owners for a residence with an azea of 4,043 sq. ft. while the allowable azea was 4,044 sq. ft. Again there was neighborhood opposition. Heazd by the PC the application was denied (05/13). PC decision was appealed to the City Council which on 07/15 sent the case back to the PC with a recommendation that the plans be revised. Application withdrawn by applicant 09/23/98. Existing house became rental until sold to Burgos/Pollazd on 05/24/2002. The third application (referenced above) is for a residence and a guest house with an azea of 4,960 sq. ft. vvhile the allowable area is 4,970 sq. ft. This area is exclusive of the basement which has an azea of 1,506 sq. ft. Therefore, the total azea of the living space is 6,466 sq. ft. while the allowable azea is 6,476 sq. ft. Neighborhood Compatibility: There aze three houses on Burns Way in addition to the applicant's property. My wife, Bazbaza, and I have lived in the house to the immediate north of the applicants for over 36 yeazs. Three of these houses were built in the late forties and one, in the middle fifties. These homes aze modest in size and we believe that a lazge two story residence on Burns Way is incompatible with the other houses on this street. If we extend the neighborhood to include Mazion Road we find that there aze three two story houses. One, on the register of Sazatoga historic houses, has an azea of 780 sq. ft. and sits on a lazge lot. Another has an azea of only 2,600 sq. ft. and has a substantial setback from the street. The third, which is at the end of Marion has a lazge setback and trees that help it to blend into its surroundings. There is a total of OCDUOIS 27 houses in the neighborhood and 24 aze single story. This is a single story neighborhood. Let's preserve it. There azen't many single story neighborhoods left in Saratoga. Ordinance 207 adopted August 7, 2002 for the Sazatoga Woods Neighborhood addresses this situation by stating, "Any single story addition or replacement construction shall be limited in height to the height of the contiguous single story dwellings". If this standazd works in Sazatoga Woods let's also apply it here. The applicants plans aze incompatible with the extended Burns/Marion neighborhood. We encourage them to develop a one story plan. Fire Hazard: The entire neighborhood is at risk of major fire because the water pressure and the flow from the hydrants is faz below the National Safety Codes. The bulk of the proposed residence adds significant risk. The proximity to neighboring structures adds risk. The guest unit is inaccessible to the fire department and is surrounded by trees that could start a conflagration. A real safety concern! Solar Access: If the proposed residence were built we would expect that for at least four months of the year we would have reduced sunshine on our house, patio and back yard. The computer generated renderings, while helpful in a very general sense, cannot be relied upon because our house has quite a different configuration than that shown. Hence, there could be other inaccuracies. Loss of View: From both of our bedrooms and from our patio and backyard we enjoy a view of trees both close and distant. Much of this view would be lost with a house next door with a 25 foot roof line and built only eight feet from the property line. Instead, we will be looking at a large wall. Loss of Privacy: Ordinance 207 § 1(B) states, "The adoption of a Single Story Overlay District will implement various policies and techniques of the Residential Design Handbook by protecting the privacy of all existing dwellings, by minimizing the height, bulk and mass of any addition, remodel or reconstruction ..." On the second story of the proposed house north facing windows as well as those in the stairwell and the view from the second story deck would compromise our privacy. Soil Stability: The basement of the proposed house is only eight feet from the property line and our house is five feet from the line. In the Arborist's Report on page 2 under FINDINGS Tree #5 we find, "When considering atypical soil cut of five feet beyond the wall"(for a basement). This places excavation only eight feet from our house. We are concerned about our foundation cracking and/or our house settling. Safety Issue :Burns Way is a twenty foot wide right of way without sidewalks. If cars pazk on both sides of the street a fire engine can't pass. The greater the number of bedrooms a house has, the greater is the likelihood for more cars. This project is for eight bedrooms. Where will all the cars be parked? Now and in the future? • ~QOU01~ Summary: During the thirty-six years that we have lived in the Burns/Marion neighborhood we have seen ten new houses constructed while almost every remaining house has undergone major remodeling. These constructions were done with care and sensitivity and preserved the charm which attracted most of our neighbors in the first place. We believe that the proposed project would be precedent setting and would contribute to undesirable change. We ask you, therefore, to deny this application and to urge the applicant to return with a single story proposal. Kurt Voester Barbara Voester • • oooo~~ • September l0, 2004 City Of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: Planning Commission Ref: 14265 Burns Way (503-23-006) I have seen the plans for the proposed home and object to it for the following reasons: 1. The proposed house is 2 stories in a neighborhood of single story homes 2. The size in square feet is out of proportion to all of the houses around it 3. The potential traffic on Burnn Wt eetsa he raff~c wouldoneedBo th aeurse both and Marion Road are dead e • streets. The house as proposed would dramatically change the character of the neighborhood. Sin , C - `~J Phillip Doppe t 20659 Marion road Saratoga, CA J L5l~l5u~~ SEP 1 5 0 " 2 04 CITY OF SAItATOGA • '~~~t~I Prv nrVCi ~ ¢¢,,,,~~ ®~~~~J • • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date:~'Pl~.l L ' PROJECT ADDRESS: I `'I' Z 6 5 ~ U,~~'.5 U!A`~ Applicant Name: r VA N B t1~ G OS ~` I~ N 6 E L /k P 0 I-LA2.~ Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, ,you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): PI.~~S~ see p-rrr~,~l ~~ Neighbor Name: kUf~l ~ 6~R,13A~~ 1(~F,51'ER _ __ Neighbor Address: i~+z51 $yRNS ln/M' NORt'1F5~Li PROPF21'~ NAT Dof1R, TO kP~uc.>•laTs PR~P~+e.~t'r Neighbor Phone #: $~~- 2~{ Ll- Signature: Printed: J ~ KV2t ~~ ~ s; ~P` City of Saratoga MAY 1 4 2004 U CITY OF SARATUGA "~1uIlINITV nF\/FI n^' Planning Department ~®U~~:~ The following concerns have been discussed with the applicant who says that they have been addressed. He cannot, however, assure me, to my satisfaction, that my concerns have been alleviated. I have been shown the plans on my dining room table and on the hoed of his car but need to make measurements, notes and sketches. Requests for further use of the plans to determine how the new buildings would affect my property have been denied. At present I have these concerns: 1. Loss of privacy 2. Loss of sunshine (light) 3. Loss of view .. 4. Soil stability when digging a basement only a few feet from my house foundation. ~ ~~~0~~ IIl.I ~IAY 1X12004 ~' CITY OF SARATOGA . ~~A111J1'N np~IF~ ~~. ----- ~ , s ~~~ V ~~ • U Kristen Borel Planning Department City of Saratoga ~a y ~~ Z,Gr' Saratoga, CA Subject: The Burgos-Pollard plans for Burns Road Dear Ms. Sorel, I am writing in regards to the Burgos-Pollard plans (Burns Way property) that have been submitted for review to the Planning department. My husband and I are long time residents (15 years this summer) of the Marion Road /Burns Way neighborhood. Our property, 20640 Marion Rd, is part of the same "block parcel " as the Burgos- Pollard property; we are two residences away and one over (see attached diagram.) While we support the rights of property owners to improve their homes and related property, we respectively object to the plans that have been submitted for your review. We object on two grounds. First, we believe a two story home is out of place in our area of the neighborhood. The homes in our "block parcel" are all single story homes with smaller yet private yards. From my back yard I can see the roof lines of 5 of the six homes (not including my own) that are in the "block parcel". If any of those homes was to add a second story my privacy, views, and potentially my sunlight would be afffected. At present I have complete privacy in my yard. This is one of the reasons why we purchased our home and continue to live here. I understand that this is definitely an issue for the Voesters, who have the property directly adjacent to the Burgos-Pollard residence and would be the most immediately impacted. Longer term, I am concerned that allowing a two story property to be built will set a precedent for future development of the existing neighboring properties. While two story homes may be appropriate in other areas of Saratoga, the homes in the Marion- Burns road area are too close to allow the building of two story homes while maintaining one's privacy and the expansive open feeling that is a part of the neighborhood's character. Second, I believe a home the size of the residence proposed by the Burgos- Pollard plan does not fit with our neighborhood. Most of the homes in the area are in the the 2000-3000 square foot range. The need for a sufficiently sized house to accommodate one's family is important; however a house that is 2+ times the average neighborhood residence (not counting the proposed guesthouse) does not seem compatible with the existing types of structures on our street. ~ ~~~ d MAY 1 9 2004 V X00 CITY OF SARA • ~Mt ttarn' nFVF~ ~^' On a side note, there are two related issues affecting the Marion Road area which should be taken into consideration when reviewing proposed new development. First, Marion and Burns are dead end streets that together contain at least 25 residences--with a sole exit onto Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. This is a tree and vegetation rich area that is part of a designated fire zone. It is my understanding that the fire department has decreed that no additional residences may be built on the street due to the fire hazard associated with the vegetation and single exit situation. One must ask the question whether larger homes and secondary guest house residences are relevant to these fire hazard concerns. The second issue has to do with water pressure and flow. Our neighborhood is notorious for its low (and deteriorating) water pressure. The pressure at my house is below 30 PSI. Does water availability factor into the decision to allow larger homes and the resulting greater density of housing into our neighborhood? In closing, I want to communicate that the Marion/ Burns road neighborhood is a wonderful place. It has as a mix of small and larger properties, a large orchard, a working farm and historical homes that date back to the turn of the twentieth century. It is a child and neighbor friendly community. If you visit our neighborhood you come away with the feeling that you've visited a special place with its own unique charm and character. This charm is too valuable too lose, especially in light of the loss of Saratoga's open space and the "suburbification" of our older neighborhoods. Care must be taken when remodeling or rebuilding so that our neighborhood character remains intact. While I support their efforts to remodel their existing residence, I feel that the proposed Burgos-Pollard plans are not in keeping with that character. Is it possible that they could consider a one story home that does not encroach on other's privacy or affect the overall ambiance of the neighborhood? Many of us have remodeled our homes over the years and have taken that consideration into account as we expanded and updated our homes. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Anne Bachtold ( ~ Jim Renalds \ Address: 20 40 Marion Rd Home Phone 408 1-4928 ( ~ Email: abachtold @app~com jrenalds@att.net • • • ooo®~z 4 v N 0 Gr ~~05 -Pdl~a~d ~~t~~~ h ~- ~o~~~ ~ (~~` ~" i~~~;~~ ~~ ~,v~s~ ~,~ ~,.,L, ~ ~ ~Jt}~~~ ~u-- ~ ~~v ~~ ~ ~~ -~o N /I/lA-~'ioN ILl~ ~~C~~~ ~i,~ ~ o~ 3 N N~~ .Nit- -~7j 'j CQ.~ ~._-~ G/000023 JUN 1 5 2004 CITY OF SARATOGA '~MlMrrv nFVFi n~~ Saratoga Planning Department Attn: Ms C. Oosterhous June 15, 2004 20731 Marion Road Saratoga, California 95070 Subject: Details on concerns for proposed development at 14265 Burns Ave. Applicant name: Ivan and Angela Burgos The following comments on concerns for their proposed development have been discussed in a friendly, constructive manner with the applicants with alternatives suggested. Unfortunately, the applicants did not give neighbors a chance to offer comments during a preliminary phase as recommended previously by the Saratoga City Council at the conclusion of the last permit review for development of this property. I am a professional Civil engineer in State of California with over 30 years experience in design of facilities including extensive experience in design for fire prevention and fire fighting. My family has lived several generations on Marion Road for over 80 years and we respect the heritage of our community and the well being of our neighbors. Let's keep this review in perspective to two previous development proposals by different applicants. All had major impact to the neighbor on north side of property. The present proposal is bigger than any of the other proposals and did not learn from the lessons on former reviews. By bigger, I am referring from a fire evaluation point of view to the total square footage of two stories and full basement in the proposed house plus a proposed structure and covered bridge across the ravine. The structural total appears to be order of magnitude 6,000 sq. ft. exposed to fire not counting house area of closely adjacent neighbor on north side nor the dense woods that could catch fire. Two major concerns were discussed with the applicants during our review of their proposed drawings. My comments concerned fire impact from the limited existing fire water hydrant system and my comments mentioned concern for major impact on the neighbor on north side of property. The latter could have been greatly mitigated with alternative layout of facilities if time had been allowed for early review. Fire impact issues: 1. Hydrant fire flow at 20 psi pressure on this branch line only averages about 400 to 450g~~M, This is a serious matter and does not even meet the code minimum recommended flow of 1,000 gpm required for single family houses less than 3,600 sq. ft. 2. The proposed house is bigger than 3600 sq ft when counting full basement for fire considerations. If house is less than or equal to 4800 sq ft then code requires 1750 gpm. Fire Dept. may consider half of this if full approved sprinkler • C~UUU2~ • system but this still requires 875 gpm. Only one half of this is available through hydrant so how can a permit be issued for this size house? It should be smaller. 3. The proposed drawings showed less than 8 ft. on north side wall to neighbor's fence. The roof extended past wall to near fence. Concern is for fire carrying over to neighbor's house. There is not enough hydrant fire water flow to cover one house let alone two houses. This puts neighbor at risk. The set back spacing should be increased to mitigate fire danger to neighbor. 4. The proposed development includes a building on West side of ravine in a densely wooded area. This building adds fire risk to closely spaced trees than can carry fire a great distance quickly up or down the west side of ravine. No access is available to Fire Department. This building should not be there. Major neighbor impact issues on north side: 1. The proposed layout completely cuts off the southern view of mountains by neighbor on north side. The proposed 2 story layout puts a gable roof facing north which puts neighbor's back yard and garden into shade from about 10am through rest of day. The impact of this could have been reduced if applicant had considered alternatives in layout. The garage could have been on opposite side to lower profile. The gable off main roof should not extend to property line on north side which cuts off sun. 2. The depth of excavation to provide basement is of concern to neighbor on north side because of close spacing to neighbor's wall. This excavation may cause settlement or cracking of neighbor's house. 3. The proposed house has limited size garage which does not seem consistent with 8 bedroom house. Concern is for vehicles parked on narrow street. Relevant issues for applicant: 1. The ravine width has increased considerably over the last 30 years because of deep scour and because of changing curvature of creek during storms. Applicant was advised of this. The rear of their proposed house is very close to ravine and may be in danger of undermining during severe storms. 2. The same comment applies to the foundation for proposed bridge that crosses the ravine. It is my opinion that applicant could have learned from past permit reviews if they had followed City Council advice to meet with neighbor on north side and "work it out over the kitchen table" before permit review. I hope the above comments may be considered constructive and that we can maintain a good relation with applicant as neighbors. . Cc: Hal Netten, Saratoga Fire Dept. Gary Campbell ~®~®25 Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications ~ • PROJECT ADDRESS: 14.1 6 S~ '[3 ~~c~/S <F/E ~ SA~r1 TO ~~ ~ CA, 9So7a Applicant Name:_ SvArJ ~~,~ ~L.~J 6EL~ ~ v26 o S Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Stafjand 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 es'low certi s the follow' g: I have re wed the pr ' ct plans; _ understand th co a of w k• and I do OT have a concerns o issues w ' h need to be addr s by the a licant prior the City's blic hearin n the pro sed project. ~/' My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I . understand the scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed My concerns are the following (please p~ E~ S! SEr ~ attach additional sheets if necessary): i t,J p M .~ ~ o Z wN C E R N S C ~?-rwr~D ~-r-rE~~ E~ctS'T'~^-y F~~F +FYD-L~.., T SySTf^1~~oT i-,~ T GaDE' (2E4~~tY21H~~-T, ~y Fh~TJ/Z ~F~ TJ C'~6~} ," FIRE in/ SfZE of PRd1`oSED ~~~-Oj''~~" (1 J P~aPoS~"'~ ~~vEzoP",~"''_ •c.Ja~~a c~,JSe~ ~wJo~ i^,~wCT o~J p.~ J4c~N ~ ,v~QWjQa~ o,.+ Noa7H siaFBy ?T~ccr~•~~ Suti ~ w~ou.~7Ai vlE`"t ~3~ ~'!- AUD••~ 4 R~SK~~«•s6~y f~'grED fl+~S~ IF Fi~teT . Neighbor Name: ~A•~Y ~D ~+~'~ cR M x'11 mac, ~ Neighbor Address: Zo7 3~ Ma/tio..l ~20~) SA a.~'d Gr1 ~ Cs}, Neighbor Phone #: $6 7 ~ 3 3 2 7 Signature: Printed: G~1~Y ~ • cAMPB~'c,~. ~i City of Saratoga Planning Department o~~42S Neighbor Notification Template for • Development Applications Date: ~ ` ~~ - ° ~ PROJECT ADDRESS: << ~~~~ ~'J Applicant Name: ~~'''t ~' oS '~'L P ~( Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone 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 scone 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): _. _, /l / .. n \~ Neighbor Name: ,,o~A /~-< ~ S ~ ~~~~z `~ ~~ `>~ ~ Neighbor Address: ~ f 0 ~J L~ X ~ i ~ G~ ~~ 3i f ~~ia~~' ~ ~ ~ ~J ~~~: / ~ ~-~ Neighbor Phone #~~' ~ ~- -~ ~U ~ Printed: /~~a~" y ~~ J ~ ~ Planning Department ~~~©Q~ f~~l ,{ ~~ ~ fI Signs i l 5/18/04 Response to the Neighbor Notification for Develpment Applications Proposed new home • 14265 Burns Way, Ivan Burgos and Angela Pollard The proposed 2 story home with guest cottage and basement level is not compatible with the Marion Rd/Burnt neighborhood. where we have resided since 1988. 1. jhere are no two story homes on Burns Wav. (There is a small, historic water tower containing one room on the corner lot of Burns Way and Marion). 2. There are only 3. two story homes (out of a total of 21). on Marion Rd., one of which is very small and of a historical nature,Victorian style. 3. The immediate neighbors, the Voersters, may be affected adversely with their home being over shadowed much of the day. We were told by Ivan and Angela, that the proposed home would be 70-80 feet back from Burns Way, and "behind", the Voerster home. Because there no numbers on the plans we were shown, the setbacks may or may not have been to scale. The proposed guest cottage may also impact the Renalds family's home. Has the architect done a plan that shows the angles of the sun during the different seasons, and the effect on the Voersters and the Renalds light? 4. The Burns Way/Marion Rd. neighborhood would be adversely affected by a two-story home. Everyone currently enjoys the view of the hills while driving, walking, etc., on the streets. A two-story home would impede the vista that is currently enioved by everyone and op ssibly lead to increased development in our idyllic neighborhood 5. The guest cottage, being across a creek is not quickly accessible in the event of fire. The architect is refering to the creek as a "ravine". It is our understanding this is a creek that flows with water run-off from the hills. Is the area behind the creek considered a buildable area by the city? 6. The Burgos have expressed to us, they do not intend at this time, to rent out the cottage. But, is there any additional parking required for a guest cottage? We did not see any additional parking in the rear by the cottage, and how could that be accessed? Can Burns Way support the increased traffic a potential rental unit could generate in the future? 7. Could the lower level, (basement) that is being proposed, be expanded to meet the homeowners needs? We realize they are allowed a substantial amount of square footage. However, it may not have to be a 2 story that is not compatible with other homes in the neighborhood and on their street. 8. Our neighborhood has had many remodels, additions, and rebuilds by residents who were sensitive to the special quality of our neighborhood. We do have a unique mix of styles, ages, lot sizes and square footage of homes in our neighborhood. Perhaps the one unifying factor in our neighborhood is the "one-story" syle We ourselves took that into consideration when we planned the rebuilding of our home. We knew of the previous 2 story home proposals in 1991 and 1997, have been strongly opposed by many of current residents on both Burns Way and Marion Road. 9. We realize that the Burgos family needs their home rebuilt. We have expressed our concerns with both Evan and Angela and still believe that cone-story plan could meet their needs. Has there been a rendering of a single story home by their architect? Has the one story option been seriously considered? Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. James Payne PO Box 2126 / 20631 Marion Rd Saratoga CA 95070-0126 408-741-5401 Please use the new mailing (PO Box 2126) for all correspondence. ®®UU28 cc: Saratoga Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template for • Development Applications Date: ~/,/ S`~~~`~ PROJECT ADD SS: i~ "1 ~-to.~ ~' Applicant Name: J ~~ CLi ~. ~ ~/~-r'~ Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. My signature below certifies the followi reviewed' the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and have issues or conce s, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been a are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name:~m'~ . ~ _ ~Y' Neighbor Address: ~~ Gila 9SfL7l~ Neighbor Phone #: ~,$- ~~7-3'7.'x.2, Signature: Printed: ~~~~~~ City of Saratoga 0u MAY 1 4 2004 Plannin De artmY OF SAftATOGA g p NITV f1FVFl n 4®029 • What is it that appeals to people when they contemplate moving into a new neighborhood? -- pleasant surroundings, the proximity of neighbors, privacy, etc. Construction of a large two-story home at 14265 Burns Way in excess of 5,000 sq. ft. does away with the conformity of all of the existing homes on Burns Way. As a concerned neighbor, I feel that building this large home would interfere with the pristine views of the surrounding hills and trees, in addition to adversely affecting the privacy of surrounding neighbors. \,'~ ~~~~~ J U SAY 14 2004 CITY OF SARATOGA . e~11111~t1'fV nFVF~ ~~' . • 000030 Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~i'I- PROJECT ADDRESS: 1 `~" 2 6 5 $ t1 f a'.5 UlA-~ Applicant Name: I V~ N B U£ ~ OS ~ ~t ~ 6 E L ik P 0 LLAp~7 Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta, fJ'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 scone 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): ff ~/ li~~ ~tiL~1+~ li.t~ 1~.~.t+c~-!~ ~ P(w,LO ~ ~C-,cs~r ~a.C~.:~/ ~+ ~~fsr~ dG~J rsft lscCl ~ st ~v ~~..~ ii~.%.c~X.~.uc l(J,L [3~t ~-~'r'~ tp%'a Std' ~ Q ~t.Qt~.J ~i.~0 j~~..~s.~~~ ~ ~ i Ica. ~•s.a.~a. Neighbor Name: ~ b ~ ~ V ! W ~ Y ~--~ ri1 Neighbor Address: ~2D~G, I ~~~Ae~~onJ ~t7 S~K:9 ~ o Efi y~~ ~ ~ • O~ ~ty~ r.._~-mod Q w ~ b" L~~. ,J~ ~~~~~~ ~I, uu MAY 2 4 2004 U CITY OF SARATOGA `"MI INITV nFVRI n~~ Neighbor Phone #: `~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ -~~ 3 ~' Printed: ~~ y ~,-., yr ~Y /-u ~~ City of Saratoga Planning Department ~~~®`~~. Neighbor Notification Template for _ Development Applications Date: 5 d , PROJECT~ADDRESS: i I Z(D~ .~S ~~ Applicant Name: ~ ~~~ v ~ Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta, fJ'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 scone 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 scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed My concerns are the following (please a h additional sheets if necessary): ~. cap ~ / ~ ~c ~ S ,~ ,, ~~ ~~,~ ~~~ S ~. ~ ~ I- Nei bor Name: ~ `t ~ L ~.~ ~ Neighbor Address: , City of Saratoga Neighbor Phone #: Printed: Planning Department • ~UU®32 Neighbor Notification Template for • Development Applications Date: ~ ~, PROJECT RESS: r 265 ~v~5 tn1~o~' ~, wn- ~ e-l~"- Applicant Name: ~v t~~ ~J26 4 J ~ n ~ ~ ~~ ~~ v 1 Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staf,~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 scone 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 scone 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): '' '` ' 4 Neighbor Name: / ,~~/'~: -7` --~ ~ ~, ' ~ ~ MAY 2 4 Z . ~~~- 004 Neighbor Addressi _ > .' ClTYOFSARgTOGA ,(~ ~1 ~ ~ ^~~e,rrrrrrTV ~F~ELOPM~~ ~- - ~ ~ `~ ~`- Neighbor Phone #: ~~ ~ --~ ~~ , << ~' `~ Signature: ~, • ~ «1111 Printed: C1ty Of SRTatOga Planning Departme~nt~®~33 Neighbor Notification Template for ~ Development Applications • Date: S 6 ~ 0 PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ y 2 ~ 5 (~~r,ns Wc~~{ . S c~~a~-e~~ r CA ~ 50 Applicant Name: ~ v~1 N ~ v r~~ ~Ang ~ ~a ~a 1 ~a (c~ Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone 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 scone 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): I~ ~C~ ~ i~e_~~r ~S Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: 1Lt2~C ~.~.9 ~a ~ t~o Neighbor Phone #: Signature: Printed: ~'~7-~9zb City of Saratoga Planning Department • Q4~~34 • • DAVID A. BELSHAW, MD .IANINE BELSHAW PO Box 456 SAIZATOGA, CA 95071 408-867-9443 June 10, 2004 To: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Proposed plans for 14265 Burns Street Applicant names: Ivan Burgos, MD, Angela Pollard, MD We hereby, as joint tenants of 14240 Springer Avenue, an adjacent property to the above sited address under application #04-133, have no objections to the proposed improvements to the property assuming the following: There are no unusual property line variances, encroachments, uses beyond the normal or any uses that will require special permits and/or applications. If there are any circumstances that require any public or private discussion, this agreement shall cease to be valid. This letter is to be used as a substitution to the pre-printed "neighbor notification template for development applications" that was signed by David A. Belshaw, previously. This memo is being submitted appropriately as a joint tenant response. i rel , D vi .Belshaw ,-- J Ine Belshaw Joint tenants ~ [~(~L~D~I~ II U JUN 1 4 2004 CITY OF SARATOGA `"MIMITV IIFVFI n~• 000~3~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications • Date: 3 d PROJECT ADDRESS: /~/ L~ ~ G'':;~. rc c ~~' ~~ S~~~S ~ Applicant Name: ~'dd~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~(G~~'r,~-~ Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. StafJ`'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 scone 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: ~Oyk~`'~Q ~ ~-~. Neighbor Phone #: ~~ - ~ ~~ Signature: Printed: ~, ~n~ l-. ~rln. City of Saratoga Planning Department ~Q~®a~~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: 3 ~ Z ~ PROJECT ADDRE S: ly ~ ~ S VYY15 Wa ~ Sarat~~ ~ C'A Applicant Name: ~Jt4iJ ~ ~ ~ 6 QS i~ ~~ Pe ~ ~ ~ d~ Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staj~`'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 scone 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 projec My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone 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: H ~ ,r fah`~~ Neighbor Address: ~4~ b/ ~~iEO~Jt`n/b6L7 L. ~r/rf • City of Saratoga Neighbor Phone #t y° ~~ ~G ~'' ~~g~~ Printed: Planning Department pQ~®3'7 Neighbor Notification Template for j Development Applications • Date: 3 2 ~ ~ PROJECT ADDRE S: ~ ~ 2 ~' S ~~ fn5 ~~`"''1 5`"-r~-"-1 ~ ~ ~ `~ 5<~ ~..~ Applicant Name: ~~lRn1 ~~;(d6c>~ ~ ~n~~(si ~c~~~r~d Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone 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 scone 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: rP.-~ e~ •r `l o h ~ s f v ~~ Neighbor Address: ~(.~ ~ I l f3 rb d ~ ~,• o G v( ~,~ ~ Signature: ~ ~ / ~y. City of Saratoga Planning Department Neighbor Phone #: ~ `f U ~~ ~ ~ -~ - 2 3SS Printed: C'~~~38 • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: 2 `I ~e PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ ~ 2 ~' S ~C1rrl~ W~.l T- Applicant Name: SVcvr~ y~~ 'A~^9~- ~Q L Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing, Sta,~j''and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. 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 scone of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which aced to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project, M si M y gnature below certiSes the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work• and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applkant, have not been addressed My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ~~~~iR~~~U~_ Neighbor Name: ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ` S 0 ~( Neighbor Address: X06 Z~ ivtf~K ran( ~ ~ _ s~~~~G~ g~7 ~ S Neighbor Phone #: Signature: Printed: ~ ~~&~ ~+~v~~ ~9cc,~o~~ City of Saratoga Planning Departmenb~~a,~9 Neighbor Notification Template for ;~ Development Applications Date: PROJE ADDRE~: ti Z ~ ~ ~ crmJ Applicant Name: ~V kh1 '~v2 (df ll~-r1 aI ~ a Po l~~ Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta,~'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 scone 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 scone of work• and I Gave issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicaat, have not been addressed My concerns are the following (please attach additional shcets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~~ {/1~ C~~vb~"~ ~y~ Neighbor Address: ~~ Neighbor Phone #: _ Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Planning DepartrnentQ~~~~Q Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~ ~ ~ PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ y ZG5 ~JrrLS ~^~ Applicant Name: J..~1Gnn Iy i'~fOS ~ k~Y~R~C~ 1"d (~Ov~ t~ Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staf,~'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please e»sure 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 scone 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 scone 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: _~G - ~' ~ehPrrn~-~~ C~~1YO~S~fJ Neighbor Address: ~-O ~3 o YY~a~ ~ ~~~ ~~ S~ r 4+~ ~ q ~~ ~ o Neighbor Phone #: l / ~J ~~ ~' ~~5~ Signature: City of Saratoga Printed: 1 / i c`l~oro~S'D~ Planning Department ®~©~~ Neighbor Notification Template for 13 f O ~ Development Applications Date: l ~ 2 Gcj f~C~ti''Y~J PROJECT ADDRESS: _ _~ ~c/ I~JG~ Applicant Name: -~-yr3TJ ~~V~ I ~y`~ ~ `` '~~ f (`'`Z Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve t to and comtttunicate it to the 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 b.,~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 scone 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: ~' y ~QN~ ~ A, 0{ ~~,(~.~ Neighbor Address: ~ ~~ Neighbor Phone #: ~~ ~ ~ ~ ` Signs / Printed: 1 ~ ~ City of Saratoga Planning Department ~~~©~Z • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: Z~ 0 PROJECT ADDRESS: _ ~ ~I e2 ~ 5 ~~ ~~( Applicant Name: Z'~ ~ ~ e} ~+^~P~ ~ `~~ . Application Number; The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Stafj'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 scone 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 scone of work• and I Gave issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicaat, have not been addressed My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Nei bor Name: ~l ~~ ~ ~~~'~ ~ Neighbor Address: ~~~~- ~ ~ Neighbor Phone #: ~~ ~ sS~C ~ - `l L~ k ~ S Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department ~~®~43 Neighbor Notification Template for i Development Applications Date: ~ l d • PROJECT ADDRESS: (~ 2 6 S ~'~i1~ ~ Applicant Name: ~~ ~ ~ ~ t1 ~~ ~ ~ l ~~ ~~ -~~ '~Pd~ ~'~ Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Stajf 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: Neipgh~bor Address: ~ C/ ~> ~~ s~ (~ City of Saratoga Neighbor Phone #: Printed: -~ Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template for j Development Applications • Date: ~ l ~ PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ ~~'~~ ~~ ~ Applicant Name: ~~ ,n ~ ~~~ a ~~ ~~~e d ( C°"~ " Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. / My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I ~ ~ understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I • understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): G Neighbor Name: n'I ~ ~ ~' `~ Fa f e wt e ~ SL1 ~ ~ b a Z i Neighbor Address: i~lv~3t (3UrhS Jiva~~ .5ara~ogq ~ C1~ ~S~7a Signature: Neighbor Phone #: Printed: ~fo~'- $~L-/~cY 2- ~~5~ City of Saratoga Planning Department ®®®®~~ Attachment 3 ~~~®~~ Christy Oosterhous ~o; hal@saratogafire.com ubject: burns wy -----Original Message----- From: Harold [mailto:halc~saratogafire.com~ Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 1:50 PM Here are the comments I gave for your plan review: 1: Property is located in a designated hazardous fire area. 2: Roof covering shall be fire retardant and comply with the standards established for Class A roofing. Replacement less than 10~ total roof area shall be exempt. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.080) 3: Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to Saratoga Fire District for approval. (City of Saratoga Code 16-60) 4: Automatic sprinklers shall be installed for the new 5,481sq. ft. dwelling including any garage, workshop, storage areas and basement and the 985 sq ft secondary dwelling. An NFPA 13R sprinkler system with a single 2.5" Fire Department Connection (FDC) and minimum 2 head calculation is required. The proposed wooden foot bridge to access the secondary dwelling across the avine shall also be sprinklered including the exposed underside of the tructure. Alternatively, the foot bridge can be constructed of either a one hour rated construction or non combustible materials.There shall also be required a single 2.5 inch outlet wharf hydrant supplied by the FDC and sprinkler system, to be located near the main house entrance to the foot bridge.The designer/architect is to contact the appropriate water company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to Saratoga Fire District for approval. The sprinkler system and underground water supply must be installed by a licensed contractor. (City of Saratoga Code 16-20.165 for designated Hazardous Fire Area, all new buildings except accessory structures #500 sq ft) 5: Access to the foot bridge from the driveway area shall be around the outside of the house, to be clear of obstructions and accomodate a medical gurney and personnel. A minimum of 44 inches is required for width. The surface shall be compacted and capable of withstanding erosion from weathering (a hard surface but not necessarily asphalt or concrete). 6: Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided for all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. (CFC 901.4.4) One comment from Chief Duncan came to me after the meeting. He strongly requests that no wood burning fireplaces be allowed in the secondary dwelling. Also the plans show an outside barbeque that appears to be under the roof overhang near the foot bridge. I would require sprinklers to cover ~ny outside area that is impacted by such appliances or provide a listed and pproved ventilation system to exhaust the hot fumes away from the building. I believe this covers the project so far. Please let me know if anything else is needed. Hal 1 ~®~~~ • Attachment 4 ~~~~~8 • • Planning Commission Agenda page 2 9/25/91 pUHL C HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR cont. 3. DR-91-021 - B,,~~ackwell, 20011 Bella review approval i Vista, r uest for to con uct a new gn /•fles 175 sq. ft. one-story 6 resid a on a 1.075 ne , acre parcel within. the 1-40,000 zo the City Code ~' ~J district per Chapter 15 lication expires % (cont. to 10/23/91; ~ 12/16/91). ------------ --- ------- 4. DR-91-044 - or la Vista, request f Lin, 20170 Rancho B al to construct a new design review app 440 sq. ft. two ory 4 residence on a 20,033 e , sq, ft. parcel ithin the R-1-20,000 zon f the City Code district per apter g 91; / / t 15 o application expires o (cont. PUBLIC stF~~tINaB •~ (THE PLANNING COMMISSION THE APPLICANTS PRESENT. OTHER SPEAKERS WILL BE 5. G~v~, 6. ICY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEARINGS IS THAT ON SHALL BE LIM1[TED TO 10 MINUTES, AND ITED TO 3 MINUTES). SD-91-002 - olworth, 15425 Monte Vista Dr., request for entative map approval to subdivide a from acre site into four new parcels ranging 40,220 to 46,540 sq. ft., each within the R-1- 40,000 zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. The four lots would be accessed by a private cul-de-sac (cont. from 8/28/91)_-__ Ruehle, 21097 Comer Ave., request for design DR-91- 26 - review approval to construct a new 5,22 sQ• 95 acre site ft. two-story residence on a 1. within the NHR zone distr ar Per Chapot 1 house ~,~` the City Code.. A rear y ool, p and associated decking are also proposed (cont. from 9/11/91). _______________ DR-91-048 - Sandijeh, 14265 Burns Way, request for design review approval to demolish an existing one- story residence and construct a 4,836 sq. ft. two-story home on a 28,020 sq. ft. parcel within the R-1-15,000 zone district._-_------ ~'~~®~~ lots 2 and 4 to allow for a l0' landscape strip, and replace " box ees of a drought tolerant species for four oaks. M/S T er/Forbes Commissio Tucker expressed concern with the drivew next to .lot #2 asking it would be feasible to plant along ere to buffer it. She st ed it seems there are no windows inq lot #2 and does not feel hat putting a house on lot #2 w ld be an impact. Planner Walgren eported that there is current only 6 ft. to work with but it woul a possible to move to a gr ter distance to have a landscape strip. Commissioner Durket i 'cated he wou like to see support for adding lots 1 and 2 to co 'tion numb 26 (height restriction). and stated he favors Exhibit s far the driveway is concerned. Commissioner Caldwell stated. was agreeable with Commissioner Tucker's suggestion of a 10' r between lot #2 and the Ernesto property; she prefers Exhib' - om a safety standpoint it makes more sense; however Mr. 0' Hell s } s amenable to Exhibit D as it takes care of some of h' concerns. CALL FOR THE QUESTIO Ayes 3 Noes 1 (Durket) Absent 6. DR-91-02 - Ruehle, 21097 Comer Ave., r~ est for design review approval to construct new 5,221 sq. ft. two-story residence on a 5 acre site within the NHR zone district per apter 15 of the City Code. A rear yard pool, of house and associated decking are also oposed (coat. from 9/11/91). Continued October 9, 1991 meeting of the Planning Commissio 265 approval story residence two-story home within the R-1-: B•,~rns Way, request for design to demolish an existing one- and construct a 4,836 sq. ft. on a 28,020 sq. ft. parcel L5,000 zone district. ...Planner WT en presented the staff report, stating that staff is unable to make the necessary design review findings at this time with specific regard to' the findings that the project avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy.: the project minimizes the perception of excessive bulk and that the project is compatible with bulk and height with homes in the existing area. Staff is recommending that the size of the home be reduced to approximately 3800 to 4600 sq. ft., and that the second floor 5 oo®oso • C • square footage be greatly reduced if a two-story home is to be considered. Mr. Walgren reported that staff is recommending that this matter come back to a public hearing on December 11, 1991 with the noted revisions. He further reported that if the Planning Commission does not concur with staff's assessment, staff would recommend denying this application without prejudice to allow the applicant to come back with a one-story alternative. Chair Caldwell opened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Mr. Sandiieh, the applicant, reported that there is currently a cottage style structure on the property but he needs a larger home; does not believe the proposed structure is too large for the area; and believes it will have the least amount of impact possible. Planner Walgren reported that staff received two additional letters, one from Lana Notly, 1413.1 Marian Road, and Mr. David Hcrn, 2.646 Marian Road concerned, with the size and compatibility of the proposed home. C~ Mark Mitty, 1624 Orchardly Drive, San Jose, designer, addressed the Commission, indicating he would make himself available to receive. input from the neighbors to try to please them and that Mr. Sandijeh.will be more than happy to work with the recommendations of the staff in regard to scaling down the size of the proposed home. He further stated they would be happy to conduct a light study to address neighbors concerns with loss of light to adjacent properti.P_s.. Mr. Voester, 14251 Burns Way, stated he is concerned with the compatibility of this home with the neighborhood; the privacy issue; and loss of view and sunlight. Melba Erbine, 14624 Burns Way, expressed concern with the loss of the view from her property.. Donald Bernardo, 20544 Marion, stated he feels this home would dominate the other homes o*~ Burns Way as the existing homes are smaller and of a more rural architecture. A resident at 20640 Marion Rd., spoke in opposition of the proposed home. MOTION to close the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. M/S Durket/Tucker Ayes 4 Noes 0 Absent 3 MOTION to continue DR-91-048, Sandijeh, to December 11, 1991 according to the staff recommendation with the exception of going to a one-story alternative. M/S Durket/Forbes Ayes 4 Noes 0 Absent 3 The Planning Commission took a break at 8:50 p.m. 6 AND 0~0~51 Planning Commission Minutes ~ ~ Page 3 May 13, 1998 The architect said that the applicant would agree to increase the height of the retaining house 5 feet to the south would be problematic. that moving the Murakami liked the design and the step-down, and was glad to see the hors in agreement. He appreciated the view from Tollgate Road and noted that this house appeared lower than existing structures. The lot is constrained and he felt it would be difficult to move the ho Patrick was concerned about impervious covers t was willing to approve the project, based on resolution of the height of the retaining wall. She felt that n ' ors should not demand an odd placement of the new house, and she did not sense there was a privacy issue. a said she was able to support the project. Martlage appreciated the work architect had put in for the Study Session and will support the project. Pierce suggested that eighbors work together to resolve the issue of the retaining wall and was able to support the project. 'I~AICAMI MOVED TO APPROVE DR-97-062 WITH THE MODIFICATION THAT STAFF . THE APPLICANT ON HEIGHT OF THE RETAII~TING WALL; MOTION PASSED 4/0. DR-98-007 (APN 503-23-006) - JAYAKIJMAR, 14265 Burns Way; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new two-story, single family residence, 4,043 sq. ft. in size, 25 ft. in height, on a 29,020 sq. ft. lot in the R-1-15,000 Zoning District. A single story residence currently exists on the property. Walgren presented the staff report. The applicant's architect presented color copies of renderings of the second story. He stated that an effort had been made to respect neighbors' privacy by placing tlae second story away from the nearest neighbor and using low- pitched roof lines. Patrick asked the architect if they had considered putting in a basement, and the applicant responded that a basement had not been considered. Murakami wondered why such a large balcony had been placed in the rear of the house, feeling there might be privacy issues. The applicant stated this would be an eating area and a place for outdoor enjoyment. Neighbors appreciated efforts to reduce the bulk of the house and to create a sensitive design, but expressed concern about the precedent such a large house would set and submitted a letter with 11 signatures in agreement. They felt the house should be built on a smaller scale, more in line with existing homes, and raised questioi!'s about the compatibility and bulk of such a large 2 story house, including loss of sunshine and views. The applicant maintained that the design is a good and sensitive one. Martlage asked if neighbors had seen the colored renderings, and the architect responded that they had. Martlage liked the design but not the deck, and wondered why no consideration had been given to a basement. She felt the design was sensitive, but she was not sure that a 2 story home is appropriate in this neighborhood. Patrick liked the neighborhood and felt she might agree to a smaller 2 story house. She felt that the design gave the ®~©®52 • .'7 Planning Commission Minutes • • Page 4 ' May 13, 1998 • applicant a great view at the expense of the neighbors. She was unwilling to impinge on the neighbors and wondered why there had been no consideration of a basement. Murakami noted that most of the opponents to the project live on Marion, not Burns Way. He felt that anything would be an improvement from what is existing, especially since the applicant has worked with staff and neighbors to mitigate privacy concerns. He felt the size could be reduced, or that a basement might be utilized. Pierce liked the design of the house and felt it was considerate of the neighbors, but questioned whether the design is appropriate to the lot. He did not want to take away from the uniqueness of the neighborhood, and felt that a 1 story house with a basement might be more appropriate. The Commissioners advised the applicant that there were not enough votes to approve the project, and they offered the applicant the opportunity to re-design for presentation at a future public hearing. In lieu of a continuance, the applicant asked for a vote. PATRICK/MARTLAGE MOVED TO DENY DR-98-007; MOTION PASSED 4/0. ~~ 5. UP-98-005 (403-24-001) -CELLULAR ONE, East of Quito Road and Adjacent to Hwy 85; Request for Use Permit approval to install 3 cellulaz panel antennas on an existing PG&E transmissi tower with an associated radio equipment shelter (approximately 160 sq. ft.) to be located directly th the tower. The site is located within an R-1-10,000 residential zoning district. An Initial Stud Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the requirements of the Calif Environment Quality Act. • Walgren presented the staff report. Jennifer McCook of Cellular One, applicant's representative, said project would provide service to Saratoga residents and that the aesthetic impact would be minimal. Martlage questioned the paint colors on the antenna and th cture. Murakami raised questions and received confirmati that there would be no interference with radio transmission, that additional cell sites were needed largely bec a of an increase in the use of phones in cars, and that application for a site at West Valley College was a few mo s away. Pierce said there was a similaz configurat' on Pollard Road, and the applicant confirmed that it belongs to Sprint. He asked if co-location on this site mi be a possibility, to which the applicant said that the landlord has requested there be only one carrier. The applicant requested that th ommission make an exception in the process for submitting building plans, as they wished to submit before end of the appeal period. Walgren said this might be a possibility and that a fonm is available covering assum on of risk. Cheriel Jensen, 13737 ito Road, spoke in opposition to the project, raising issues that the Initial Study was inaccurate and violated e City's and County's General Plan, also challenging the aesthetic and health impacts. The applicant's repr entative responded that the area will be kept clean, that Cellular One is regulated by the PUC, • and that the Engin is report is within the FCC Standards for cellular antennas. Martlage felt th~ jocation for this utility is a logical one but that the area needs landscaping. She suggested t.."~..D~®Sa~ city council Minutes 2 June 17, 1998 Appear of Genial of request !or Design Review approval to construct a aer tM0-story, single family residence, 1,043 • aq. ft. is else, s5 ft. is height, oa a Z9,OZ0 sq. ft. lot at itZ65 Burns 11ay is the R-i-15,000 Soninq District (APIi 503-23-0061 DR98-007) (Appellant/applicant, Jayakumar) Mayor Wolfe noted that the appellant/applicant had requested a continuance to July 15. City Manager Perlin briefly described the appeal and noted a number of ,-~ communications that had been received after•the Council's information ~~ packet had been delivered to them. City Attorney Riback explained that those who wished to speak tonight could do so, but they could also wait until July 15 to speak. The public hearing was opened at 8:00 p.m. Jim Renalds, Marion Way, opposed the project. He felt single-story ranch homes were appropriate for the neighborhood. Jim Payne, Kurt VoestQr, and Dorothy Stamper said they would speak at the July 15 meeting. Gary Campbell asked the Council to read his letter. Councilmembers reported meeting and speaking to the appellants receiving communications from interested parties. AT 8:20 P.M. MORAN/SHAW MOVED TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO JULY Passed 4-0. and • 15 . ~~ 8. Appeal of IIae Permit approval to install 3 ce lular panel antennas on an esistinq Phis transmissio orer Mith as associated radio equipment shelter (ap imately 160 aq. ft.) to be located directly beneat a toner. The site is located east of Quito Rd. and sent to Spry. 8S rithin an R-3-10,000 residential ao district. An initial study sad negative doalarat have bean prepared foe thi• project pursuant to the equirements of the California 8nviron~aental Quality ct. (APg 403-24-OOit OP98-005) (Appellant, Jenseat licant, Cellular One). City Manager Perlin introduc Community Development Director Walgren, who reviewed the staff rep The public hearing was opened at 8:30 P•m- Cheriel Jensen, Qui Road, the appellant, reiterated her appeal letter. Cheryl Zatkin-St es, Pierce Road, spoke in favor of cellular phones. She believed th were important in dealings with her patients and with • her family. • George concern concurred and questioned the appellants grounds for the transmissions from the tower. ~~~®5[~ The pubic hearing was closed at 8:45 p.m. City Council Minutos 4 Julp 15, 1998 . D. Appeal of denial of roqu®st for Dosign RoviaM approval to construct a aeM tMO-story, singly family r~siaena~, 4,043 sq. ft. in sf$~, 25 ft. in height, on a 29,020 sq. ft. lot at 14265 Burns Rap in th• R-1-15,000 Soninq District (APN 503-23-006= DR98-007) (Appellant/applicant, Japaku~ar) (continued from 6/17) City Manager Perlin noted that a letter had been received from Norm Matteoni concerning the appeal. Community Development Director Walgren reviewed the staff report. Councilmembers reported ex parte communications received. Norm Matteoni, attorney representing the Jayakumars, spoke in support of the appeal and submitted two elevations. Councilmember Jacobs mentioned a letter from a neighbor stating that a previous application for a two-story house on the site had been rejected by the Planning commission. Community Development Director Walgren stated his recollection was that in about 1991 an application for a two-story house had been abandoned before being reviewed by the Planning Commission. (Clerk's note: See clarification below.) The public hearing was opened at 8:30 p.m. • Mr. Jayakumar, the appellant/applicant, spoke in favor of the project. Mrs. Jayakumar showed overhead projections of two-story homes in the area. Bala Balakrishnan, San Jose, was called to speak but yielded to another speaker. Tony Clark, Springer Ave., spoke in support of the project. In answer to Mayor Wolfe, he said he would not be able to see the proposed house. Mr. Balakrishnan was again called to speak and again yielded to another speaker. Paul McDonald, Springer Ave., spoke in support of the project. Dorothy Stamper, Marion Road, spoke against the project, as did Anne Kolb, Marion Road; Jim Renalds, Marion Road; Barbara Voester, Burns Way; and Kurt Voester, Burns Way. Community Development Director Walgren stated that the plans submitted to the Council were the same plans submitted to the Planning Commission. Concerning the 1991 application for a two-story house on the lot, he clarified that staff had recommended denial. However, the application was withdrawn before the Planning Commission made a final • determination on it. The following people then spoke in support of the project: Nomita ,(~000fS City Couacil Miautos 5 July 15, 1998 Shahani, Harper Dr.; Dan Wagoner; Namita Mehta; Usha Ramaswamy, Ridgecrest Ave.; Usha Arun, Fremont; John Baas, Martinez, who is a • land-use planning consultant for the Jayakumars; Usha Karthikeyan, Oakland, who is an environmental consultant for the Jayakumars; and Ramkumar Viswanathan, Rossmere Ct. Brad Renn, Marion Road, stated that the house must be compatible with the neighborhood and fit on the lot. Jim Payne, Marion Road, spoke against the project. Bala Balakrishnan was called to speak but again yielded to another speaker. Mark Thomas Dumont, Carniel Ave., builder for the project, spoke in its support, as did Bala Balakrishnan, San Jose, employer of Indu Jayakumar. Roya Moazzami, Walnut Creek, owner of rental property on Burns Way, spoke in favor of sending the plans back to the Planning Commission for adjustments. Don Bernardo, Marion Road, recommended that the Jayakumars meet again with the neighbors. Willys Peck, Saratoga Avenue, believed the opinions of neighbors should be respected. Ilene Doppelt, Marion Road, spoke against the project. • Norm Matteoni again spoke in favor of the project. He said the Jayakumars were willing to move the house six feet back, reduce the height to 23 feet, and eliminate the windows on the north side from the bedroom areas. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 10:15 p.m., and the meeting was then recessed until 10:30 p.m. Councilmembers discussed the project. Issues covered included the right of the property owner to design his own house while considering the contiguous neighbors, sensitivity to neighborhood heritage, property rights of neighbors, self-contained character of neighborhood, whether a two-story design is compatible with the neighborhood, need for affordable smaller housing in Saratoga, whether the design should be returned to the Planning Commission, whether the perception of compatibility must come from the neighbors, and whether the Planning Commission should consider it at a study session first. Community Development Director Walgren suggested that the hearing be continued to the August 12 Planning Commission hearing to avoid the necessity of repeating the legal noticing. Councilmember Jacobs asked that the Planning commission be provided with tapes of the Council meeting, particularly the Council discussion. • MORAN/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION _Q©U®5~ City Council Minutes 6 July 15, 1998 MEETING ON AUGUST 12 TO CONSIDER SUBSTANTIVE REDESIGN, NOT NECESSARILY • ABANDONING TWO STORIES, BUT WITH THE CHANGES DISCUSSED AND ADDITIONAL POSSIBLE CHANGES, WITH THE JAYAKUMARS TO CONTINUE TO MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WITH A POSSIBLE FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION. Passed 5-0. ~~ B. Appeal of denial of Design RevieM oval to ooastruot a new 6,89 sq. tt., tNO-story bo on a vacant 4.48 acre lot at 22665 Garrod Road is • Hillside Residential Soninq District (DR9 060, l~PN503-78-038) (Applicant/appellant, Neogy) City Manager reported that an additio 1 letter had been received from Martin Fenster and introduced Commu ty Development Director Walgren, who reviewed the staff report. Councilmember Bogosian inquired s to whether the old quarry drainage had been included in the stu es for the staff report. Community Development Director Walgren tated that the stability of the north slope was of concern, but he geologist said it could be safely developed. The public hearing was o ned at 11:20 p.m. Martin B. Fenster, Big sin Way, spoke as attorney for the appellant. He distributed compute renderings of the house as it would appear and spoke in favor of the roject. • Warren Heid, Big Ba n Way, spoke as architect for the appellant. Rathin Neogy, Sar~oga Vista, then spoke for his project. Community Develo ent Director Walgren stated he believed the computer rendering accur ely portrayed the project. Councilmembers iscussed the colors of the house. Mr. Neogy th stated that he had looked at his site from a site on Pike Hill. a site is visible, he said, but not the area behind the oak tree. H expressed a willingness to modify the colors. No one fur er appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 12:00 midn' ht. Councilme ers discussed the visibility and bulk of the house. There was cons sus that the location of the pool in front of the house was reasonab e. BOGOSZ /SHAW MOVED TO GRANT APPEAL WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE HOUSE BE IN THTONE COLORS TO BE APPROVED BY STAFF AND ANY ROCK USED WILL BE IN MILAR EARTHTONE COLORS. Passed 4-1 (Moran opposed). Counc member Moran explained she felt the Council was not the proper • forum. and the project should be returned to the Planning Commission. Q00~5"~ • Attachment 5 ~'~U~58 ." ~ ~ • RESOLUTION NO. DR-98-007 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA DENIAL OF DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION by JAYAKUMAR 14265 Burns Way WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,043 square foot single family residence with a maximum height of 25 feet on a 29,020 square foot parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following finding has been determined: • • The combined height, size, and massiveness of the proposed new residential structure aze incompatible with lower, smaller, and less massive residences in the immediate azea. 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 Jayakumar for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby denied. Section 2. 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. • ~~~©s~ File No. DR-98-007,142~Burns Way • PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 13"' day of May 1998 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners riarrlage, Mura!cani, P~t~ic~:, .nd Chair Pierce NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Bernald, Kaplan Chairperson, Planning 'ssion ATTEST: • Q ecr tary, Pl g Commission 7 A • • ®~®~® C Attachment 6 ~~®61. Residence for Ivan Burgos and Angela Pollard 14265 Burns Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Design Intent The Project includes demolition of an existing poorly maintained 1950's era single family residence along with miscellaneous out-building, sheds, wood deck and footbridge. The design includes construction of a new two-story single family residence with day-light basement and attached two-car garage. Anew covered footbridge spans a ravine that physically divides the property into east and west. The new bridge recalls the existing bridge along with older more vintage viaducts from an earlier era and serves to connect the main residence to the east of the ravine with the new one-story second unit and pool to the west of the ravine. The new main residence was intentionally located and oriented to the rear of the property, approximately fifty feet further west than the required front yard setback to address the privacy, light and view concerns of the neighbor to the immediate north. This generous front yard setback "concession" of the very flat front third of the property minimizes the impact of the new structure on the existing neighbor and requires the new residence to be located on the more sloped area of the site n~;ar the ravine. This portion of the property is also the more densely vegetated and the design seeks to respectfully engage and fit within this environment to revere and celebrate the natural habitat. The liberal use of porches, decks and wood trellis on both structures not only help to reduce their scale and buffer the living spaces but they also allow the owners to enjoy the natural setting and flora the site has to offer. The design of the building was intended to have cone-story presence along the front toward the street and adjacent to the existing neighbor to the north. Solar studies were conducted to illustrate the minimal impact of the new residence on the existing property to the north. The summer and winter solstice are shown at three points during each of the two days, namely; morning, mid-day and afternoon. As the planning and massing efforts, described above, seek to connect the design to nature so to does the selection of materials which are intended to evoke the craftsman aesthetic. A dry-stack stone base ties the building to the ground while a combination of wood shingles and horizontal siding grace the body of the structure and help to further reduce the perceived mass. Wood windows, doors and trim give additional warmth and provide a tactile level of detail. The gently sloped roofs have generous overhangs and are capped with a standing seam metal roof that is reminiscent of a cabin in the woods. The Craftsman inspiration is further defined by the wood trellis' members and exposed ridge beams. Sincerely, George D. Wittman /Architect • .~®~~2 • C7 Dear Saratoga Planning Commission, J t5 ~1 ~ ~ U~ 15 ~tP 1 5 2004 CIl'Y OF SARATOGA •~ er r~nT„ ncvv, .._ We, the Pollard-Burgos family, are trying to build a house to raise our children, and we aze having a very difficult time doing it. Appazently this is nothing new to our pazticulaz property. There appears to be adeep-seated prejudice against the development of our property. However, we are committed to building our family a new home on this property, and would like to work with you to do so. We moved to Saratoga in 1998 when we bought our first home on Sixth Street. We were both freshly out of medical residencies and had asix-month old son, Gabriel. I was raised in Monte Sereno, and knew I wanted to return to the area to start our family. Many generations of my family have been in the azea, both families contributing greatly to the development of the South Bay. Ivan had lived primarily in Southern California during his adulthood and took a little convincing to move north. However, with his first visit to the area he was convinced. After little more than two years on Sixth Street we had outgrown our house. By then we had a little girl, Siobhan, and I was pregnant with our third child. We began to look for our next home. When we discovered our current house on Burns Way, we had mixed feelings. We absolutely loved the property location, close to town, at the end of a quiet cul-de-sac, and surrounded by large trees. Also my cousins, Kirch and Sharon DeMartini have lived one block away for neazly forty yeazs. However, the house was in very poor repair, the weeds created an impregnable jungle, and the yard was filled with several generations of hazazdous waste. We knew it would take much work to make it livable and safe for our growing family, but thought it would be worth the effort. So, we started to fix up the yard and house, I had baby number three, bouncing boy Daniel, and we all moved in. That was over two years ago. We thought we should live in the house for a while to get a better feel for the lot before building another home. Besides, we have been a little busy. I have been the Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Community Hospital of Los Gatos-Saratoga and have a busy private medical practice. Ivan has been an attending physician in the Emergency Room at Santa Clara County Valley Medical Center, teaching residents from Stanford University and treating trauma patients. He also has been working in the Emergency department of Los Gatos. In addition to this, we had the addition of baby number four, daughter Julia, eight months ago. Early during my pregnancy we realized that four children could not live in one small bedroom forever, and that we needed to move forwazd on the new home. Another reason we took longer than expected to produce plans for the house was that we were intimidated by some neighbors. We did not know anything of the attempts to build on this property prior to purchasing it. Our real estate agent, Steve Cooper of Coldwell Bankers, had failed to disclose any details of the difficulties the Jayakumar family had with their plans for a new house. He had mentioned that the Jayakumazs were planning to build a house, had architect plans produced, but then changed their minds and withdrew their plans, choosing instead to rent out the existing house and to build elsewhere on a lazger lot. He required us to pay an additional $10,000 for these plans. We first found out ,about some of these difficulties several weeks after we moved in and met our neighbors, the Voesters. They greeted us with, "Hello, nice to meet you. I hope you aren't going to try and build a large home like the last owners." This was quite a shock. We hadn't decided what sort of home we planned on building, but we knew it had to be adequate for our burgeoning family. We thought that should be no problem given the size of the lot was nearly 30,000 sf. The Voesters then suggested we contact Steve Cooper and a lawyer to immediately get our money back for non-disclosure. We could not possibly believe that building the home would be as difficult as the Voesters' implied. Since we loved the property's location, we decided to proceed with planning of the building. Based on the Voesters' comments we did research the history on the lot. Based on the documentation from the Jayakumar's application, the most concerning objections of the neighborhood involved the impact of the house in terms of privacy, views, light, and neighborhood incompatibility. Prior to contacting an architect, we sat down with the Voesters for several hours in October, 2003. We walked our property with them and showed them multiple sample floor plans we had found on the Internet. We discussed our ideas about the house in order to mitigate the objections from the prior application. They again voiced their major objections to any new construction near them as problems with light, privacy, views and neighborhood incompatibility. They said that they could not comment on any of the floor plans specifically, stating that they would have to see the actual design. Mr. Voester also stated that he had no intrinsic objection to a two-story house, only to its impact on light, privacy and views. In addition, we showed the designs • to many other neighbors. They all commented on the objections of some individuals to a two-story house, but also unanimously stated that the biggest concerns were about privacy and views. We proceeded to interview 5 architects. Every one of them felt that the best design for the house given the unique narrow shape of the lot was atwo-story. They understood the history of the last application. However, given the concerns for privacy, light, and views, with the substandard set-backs of the Voester's residence, they all felt that atwo-story design which maximized green-space but minimized exposure between the two houses would be the most appropriate. We understood completely that whatever design of house we built would impact the Voesters' the most. Due to our isolated position at the end of the cul-de-sac, the impact of our house on the rest of the neighborhood is minimal. No one on Marion can even see our property. We eventually chose George Wittman as our architect due to his unique approach to the design. He set the house behind the Voester's to minimize any impact on their views or light. The house is set back approximately 87 feet from the street, utilizing a different footprint than the existing structure. The second story is smaller than the first and pushed back and away from the Voester's house to eliminate privacy concerns, and significantly mitigate the light and view impact. We did consided a one story design and played with various footprint measurements. We immediately realized that one story would affect the Voesters more dramatically due to a required larger footprint of the house and side by side adjacent proximity to them. We spoke at length with the Saratoga Planning Department prior to embarking on any design. We were informed that no moratorium on two story homes existed in our area. We also discussed the issue with the Voesters again. Ivan walked with Kurt around the site 2 • explaining the general layout and discussing the idea of pushing the house back and away from them to mitigate their concerns. Kurt seemed somewhat satisfied stating that we had been the first ones to think of that. He, however, was still concerned about the execution/implementation of the project. He again stated he needed to see the final design plans. Only then did we embazk on the design. As soon as we had a preliminary design from Mr. Wittman, Ivan discussed the plans at length with the Voesters'. Ivan even made a photocopy of the blueprints for the Voesters to inspect at their leisure. We approached them on several occasions to tell us their opinions, and they always responded, "Not now, later." They would never specifically state their concerns. Ivan brought our architect over to see Mr. Voester one time when Mr. Wittman was in town. Ivan explained to Mr. Voester than Mr. Wittman was working in Seattle and had only a limited amount of time in the area to address concerns about the plan. Mr. Voester, however, refused to speak with Mr. Wittman. In April, the Voesters called a meeting of the entire neighborhood to galvanize protests against the plans. We were not invited to the meeting. However, prior to the meeting, Mr. Voester asked Ivan if he could borrow a copy of the plans. Upset that we had not been invited to the meeting Ivan declined. Instead, Ivan showed Mr. Voester the plans and walked the site showing the layout of the footprint. He extended an open invitation to walk the site, see and discussed the plans as often and for as long as he wished. After the meeting and after noticing a pole placed behind the Voesters house deceptively . indicating the height of our newly design house, Ivan questioned Mr. Voester's tactics for raising protests against our plans, objecting that we had the same rights to build a house as he did. To this Mr. Voester replied, "No you don't. I have lived here for 35 yeazs!" We spent many hours showing our neighbors on Burns, Marion, Springer, and Brookwood Lane the house plans and answering their questions. We know that the Voesters also spent a great deal of time criticizing our plans with the same neighbors. When I visited Mrs. Dorothy Stamper with our plans Mrs. Voester called over as I was arriving in an attempt to prevent my visit. Dorothy was kind enough to allow me to show her the plans, despite the attempt. To this date the Voesters have never shared any specific objections to the house plans with us. They told us that we knew their objections from the last application, and they remain the same. The last time Ivan spoke with Mr. Voester was in June. Again Mr. Voester refused to shaze any concerns about the plans. Ivan said to him that we loved the azea and were going to build a house. Mr. Voester replied, "You may not. Two people before you left." We truly feel that we have gone to much time and expense to include the neighbors in the conception and implementation of a design which will both fit our needs as a busy and growing family as well as be an asset to the neighborhood. We also feel that certain very vocal neighbors will attempt to block all our efforts to construct a new house due to the inconvenience to them. The documentation from the previous application indicates that their current behavior is not unusual. The vast majority of our neighbors is in support of our project and has no objection to the plans as long as they are • in accordance to Sazatoga codes. 3 OBJECTIONS TO THE HOUSE PLANS We have addressed the major objections to our plans in the following ways: 1. Loss of privacy We are especially sensitive to the privacy issues generated by our new home. For two years we have seen the Voester's bedroom window looming down into our bathroom window. Our privacy has been impacted by the Voester's house being located only five feet from our property line. We realize that any house we design will need to take into consideration our neighbor's close proximity. Aone-story design would have to be located entirely adjacent to the Voester's house, compromising both ours and the Voester's privacy. Atwo-story design, by requiring a much smaller footprint, could be set back almost entirely behind the Voester's house. In our current design, the living space of our house begins behind the Voester's house. The front porch is the only portion of the house which lays along side the very back end of their house. The only window facing in their direction is in the stairwell, located above eye level. The deck off the master suite is facing the secondary structure well away from view of the Voester's property. The placement of the house in the center of our lot sets the house out of view from all but two homes on Burns Way, and makes it invisible from Marion. We would not impact the other homes surrounding us on Springer due to the large distances between the homes and the dense vegetation. • The concern by Ms. Bechtold that our house, located well over 250 feet away and through very dense trees, could invade her privacy is only ludicrous and does not deserve in depth comment. However, I am surprised that Ms. Bechtold, who recently completed a second story addition in her remodel and has a large window of her study facing down on her adjacent five neighbors, is not concerned on the impact of her house on her neighbors' privacy. (Please see pictures.) 2. Loss of light Any house we build will have some impact on the Voesters' light exposure. Our current home already casts shadows onto their home and visa versa. With their house located only five feet from our property line, a one story home which must run a longer distance adjacent to this line will have a much greater impact on their light exposure than atwo- story house set-back behind their house. The Voesters' biggest concern was the reduction in Southern exposure light into their master bedroom during the winter mornings. We have gone through the expense to produce a light study investigating the impact on light exposure to the Voesters' house (please see enclosed studies). These shadow studies indicate minimal impact from the two-story design. In fact, the movement of our house to amore western location dramatically increases the amount of southern winter light into their bedroom window. • 4 • 3. Loss of views A major objection of the Voesters' to the last application was their loss of views of the top of the hills surrounding Saratoga from their master bedroom windows. We are quite at a loss to explain this comment. The Voester's simply do not have a view of the hills from these windows. They have a southern view of the tree tops. By moving the footprint of our house to the west, we are significantly increasing the Voesters' southern and eastern views. The front porch is the only part of our proposed house adjacent to the back of the Voesters' house. The roofline of the porch ranges from 10 to 12 feet, which is predominantly shorter than our existing 12 foot roof height running along side their house. We requested that the Voesters' show us the views about which they were concerned, but they declined, stating, "You want to validate our views?" This time azound, the Voesters do not mentioned in their letter to the city views of the top of the hills. They only mention views of the near and distant trees. However, Mr. Campbell in his letter to the city states that the Voesters would lose, completely, the views of the mountains. I wonder how he reached that conclusion. The photos we have taken above the level of our neighbors' high master bedroom windows cleazly do not show such views. We cannot detect any view of hills despite the fact that we have optically enhanced the views, creating a higher line of sight and originating the views from the front of the high bushes obstructing the master bedroom window. (Please see pictures.) We have also had comments that atwo-story house on our lot would block the views of . the hills from Marion. It is possible that a two story house located at the front of the lot could partially obscure these views. However, by setting the house back from the street close to ninety feet, it will be difficult to even see our house from Marion, and it will not block these views. 4. Soil Stability We understand the Voesters' concern about soil stability with the construction of a new basement. We, more than anyone, aze concerned about this issue. This is another reason we set our house behind theirs. The basement would begin 30 feet behind the end of their house, and is set at a diagonal to their back corner, not parallel to it. Our architect and a licensed civil engineer have studied this issue and consider it not to be a problem. 5. Size of house We understand that size of our proposed is larger than the existing one. However, it is not out of scale with other homes in the neighborhood. Currently, 4060 sf and over 3000 sf homes are under construction only doors away from us. Both homes are on lots considerably smaller than ours. There is also a home well over 6000 sf on Marion. Our proposed house is in accordance to the Saratoga code and to scale with current construction throughout Sazatoga. We have one of the lazgest lots in the neighborhood. Having one of the largest homes is permitted by Sazatoga's code. There is no "conformity" to the existing home size on Burns-Marion as is alleged by several letters. The homes are extremely varied. Although it is true that there aze several small homes of • modest size and proportion, these homes are also in general very old and on sma111ots.1 am certain that one by one these homes will be remodeled and expanded. The newer homes are much larger than these older homes. The need for a guest house comes from the requirement to house a quite large extended family. My parents retired to Tucson from Monte Sereno 25 years ago. They are now finding the summers there too hot and would like to live with us for half the year. In addition, Ivan's mother is widowed, has no permanent home, and needs to reside with us for extended periods. 6. Two Story Design We understand very well that the two-story design is the most controversial aspect of our application. We spent a very long time considering the pros and cons of a one- versus two-story design before settling on the two-story plan. For over a year we sketched out possible one-story designs and discussed them with several architects. We discovered that a one-story house had a much greater impact on light, privacy and views than atwo-story would if designed properly. Given that those three concerns were the most worrisome during our conversations with our neighbors and during the last remodeling application, we decided to proceed with atwo-story design. The majority of individuals concerned about asecond-story home are not concerned about the specific impact of our home. They know that our home, being so isolated at the end of the cul-de-sac has virtually no impact on the neighborhood as it is not even visible • from Marion. Also, I would absolutely challenge the Bachtold-Renalds to demonstrate how our home would impact their light, privacy, or views, being located so far away from us and through dense foliage. These individuals are primarily concerned about setting a "precedent" for more two stories in the neighborhood. A very large and beautiful orchard is located at the center of the neighborhood. The majority of neighbors are very concerned that when this property is sold, the orchard will be ripped up and large two- story homes will be built, homes which because they are in the center of the neighborhood would block views of the surrounding hills and trees. My problem with this argument is that the precedent has already been set. Two of the newest homes are two-stories. One of the oldest homes in the neighborhood is a two-story. A recently remodeled house has asecond-story office addition. Multiple two-story homes are visible from the neighborhood. Our home in particular is surrounded by 2-story homes on other streets. Currently under construction, 150 feet in front of our property and visible through the orchard, is a sizable two-story on a small lot. The neighborhood is not only a single story one; the precedent for two-stories was set long ago, and continues to be set. The neighbors have questioned why we did not make a larger basement so that we could put our children's bedrooms downstairs and thusly eliminate the second-story. In the first place, several of my children suffer from allergies and one from asthma, and to place their bedrooms in a potentially moldy and damp basement would adversely jeopardize their health. Secondly, I will not place my small infants in a basement away from my bedroom. It is simply not safe. • 6 7. Parking Our 2 space parking garage with a 3rd parking space located outside is completely in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood and is compliance with Saratoga code: Once again we feel as though we are being held to a separate standard than the rest of the neighborhood. Only two houses in the neighborhood have three car garages. Our adjoining neighbors, the Voesters, have no garage space for either their cars or RV. We feel that our proposed three car spaces and long driveway should be adequate to allow traffic to flow on Burns Way. 8. Neighborhood Compatibility Many of the neighbors lament the loss of the "quaint cottages" of the 40's and 50's. I also remember fondly the more rural landscape of Saratoga from years gone by, and grieve for the orchards of my childhood. However, I currently live in one of the "quaint cottages," and it is crumbling around my ankles. Many of the small homes built in the 40's and 50's were never meant for year-round occupancy and were constructed from substandard materials. As a result, many of these homes are in poor condition and will eventually require remodeling. Our current home, for example, was built after WWII with whatever materials were available in Saratoga. It lacks a foundation under the majority of the house, has no insulation, and was added onto throughout the years. The neighborhood has changed considerably in the last several years, and the average size of the homes has increased. The design and scope of our proposed home is completely in keeping with these changes. There is no "typical" home in the neighborhood. The styles are varied • from small bungalow, to moderate ranch and large farmhouse. Our home, a Craftsman style, attempts to capture the more rural feeling of the area. 9. Fire Hazard We have met with the fire department, and have agreed to all their recommendations to meet fire code. CONCLUSIONS For two years we have contemplated how to design a home which will meet our needs as a large and active family, and which will be compatible with the neighborhood. The history of the property would seem to hold a curse for would-be remodelers. Part of the difficulty in designing a house is the lot's unique shape and close proximity of its northern neighbor. Another difficulty is the neighborhood's fear of future development of the orchard. These challenges make aone-story design in conflict with the neighbor's privacy, light and views concerns, and make atwo-story design fuel the fears of development of the orchard. The majority of our neighbors are in favor of our proposed design. We spent many days explaining the design to 16 neighbors. We attempted to show them to others, but timing did not permit it. 12 of the neighbors favored the plans without any concerns. There is a very vocal minority who oppose its development, mostly for very personal reasons which have little to do with our property. We do understand that any construction on our property will affect the Voesters, and have tried to involve them closely in our plans. They have chosen not to "sit at the kitchen table" with us, not visa versa. The concerns 7 which were verbalized either during this or the former application for construction have been considered at length, and we feel that we have adequately addressed them. We feel, however, that no house we propose will be acceptable to certain individuals. We understand the unique character of the neighborhood. We have no desire to destroy it; some of my ancestors were some of its first owners. However, we also need a home to serve our needs. We are concerned that the Voesters are ignoring ours. Mr. Campbell once questioned Ivan, "Why are you going through the trouble of building? It is only a piece of dirt." Well, it is our dirt. And we are going through the trouble for our family, and to build what we feel is the best house for a neighborhood which has, and will continue, to change. Thank you for your time and consideration of our application. Sincerely, r Angela M. Pollard 9/ 12/04 8 ;~ • ~r_ f '~,~ _::-~- _. • ~~ ~~ ~~ ,~ , ,..~. _ . ., ., .. ~- _ r _~ ~, 20731 Marion Road Tall one-story over 6000 square feet including secondary structure ~: • • 20631 Marion Road 4060 square foot home under construction at the corner of Burns and Marion • • • 20680 Marion Road Tall one-story 4110 square feet • • • 14231 Burns Way Recent remodel two houses away from ours. Over 3000 square feet. • • High roof line on Marion Road • • • High roof line on Marion Road r~ • • House behind our house C7 • Northern view from back part of the lot where secondary structure will be • Northern view from site of secondary structure. Notice 6.5 foot tall fence post • • Other two story structures visible from Marion Road • • Another two story structure clearly visible from Marion Road LJ • • Enhanced neighbors' southern view from their masterbedroom • • • Enhanced neighbors' southern view from their masterbedroom • • Enhanced neighbors' southern view from their master bedroom • 2068 Marion Road two story home 478o square feet L` 20636 Marion Road 'Ibvo story structure at the corner of Burns and Marion • • • 20615 Marion Road 'Ibvo story structure 3779 square feet • • • 14224 Springer Ave. Two story house Adjacent two our house • • 'Ibvo story house Adjacent two our house • r~ 'Ibvo story house being built 150- 200 feet east of Burns way. During fall and winter, it will be clearly visible from all houses on our street. • • 20640 Marion Road 'Ibvo story structure at least 220 feet away from our house. • • 20640 Marion Road 'Ibvo story structure at least 220 feet away from our house. • • View of the Voester's house and the mountains beyond • C, View of the Voester's house and hills behind, partially obscured by their RV • r~ • View towards the Voester's backyard from secondary structure site • ~~•~~ i' I~r~ i i~l.~~ ~, ~ ff ~ 11~ !f~~l~~,I~I~. D ~_ W ~ U ~~ O~ p d cn p wz ~~ U~ Z ~ _ ~-- 0 p O ~~ Qz D ~o z o~ N O w ~ ~_ ~ Z ~ Z p ~ _ (~ p Q ~ ~ ~ °o z D p ~ cn p ~ p z_ p ~ O ~ O ~ O ~~ ~~ __r ~==r ~~~~~~~ ~~~-~ ~_ ~~.I=~ . ~__~.. w ~ U ~ Z w o d ~` ~ ~ ~ U cn W a~ ~ ~ ~' O C ~ ~ ~ Q ,~ ~ m O (~ o ~ ca ~ cv ~ ~ N ~ H ~ ~ Q m ~ Q C ~ ~ ~ .. -- ~ ~ ~ D ~ J J w W ~ ~ ~ Q p z Q d ~ o w ~ Q ~ W ~ ~ Q C~ X w p ~w Q ~ ~ pw Z O ~ ~pC7 w Z J Z Z J =~ ~ Q z m~ Y> U O ~ z U ~ p p w ~ U Q Z _ = Q Q~ O }~ ~p~ ~ ~~ p ~~~ w ~ ~ r ~ ~~ u C~ ~ en;-~._~~.... \ ~ ~ ~ p O ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ HW ~rnc~ w ~ JWp J U W J Q rn ~ A ~ ~~N OzQ z W F- ~ w n- W U Q c~ Z ~~~ ~ ~, ~ QwN N O wp ~ °~ CW7U w~~ C~~~ O ~ ~W ~ ~ N ~Qo ~ ~ ~ Q W U W owN ~ Q = W (~ Q cD cn ~ CD cn cn ~ • • \ ~ °~Oa o ~ Q (n Z N Q ~U ~ ~ ~m~ ~ z Q ~ _ } o O ~ HW ~rnc-~ w\~ TWO JUG J ~ z ~ A ~ ~QN OzQ z W j~~ wwU Q N Z c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ QwN N _ ~~C~ > °~ W ~ ~ rn w O n~ O O~ ~~ N ~ Q ~ Q ~ ~ ~ Q w U W o w N ~ Q S w C~ Q cD cn d m (~ ~ ~ • • ~ ~~N Iwo J M a w w\~ JUG Q I N O Z Q Z _ W ~ Q c j~ w a w U ~ N Z _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ QwN ~~ ~ m W U N w C~ w0 O ~ ~ ~~ O~ ~Qo ~ ~ Q U W owN ~ Q = w ~' Q co cn ~ CO cn cn D • • \ ~ ° ~ p O ~ Q ~ cQ ~ M `~ v ~ ~ ~ Z Q ~ (~ Q ~ C CO ~"~ HW ~~ M w ~ J W O JUG J rn •^ j >~ ~ o ~QN pzQ Q z V• W ~ ~ ~ ~ d W U Q \ _ Z F- ~ ~ ~ rn Q LL1 N N _ ¢ ~ ~ C7 O N ~ U w~~ W E O ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D W ~~ Q p ~ Q Z W ``~wN ~ Q = ~ U' Q cD cn d m (n c/7 ~ • 1 • • ~ Q U `~' v ~ Z ~ d ~ ~ F-W ~w~ ~rn~ w Q ~ TWO JUG J ~ ~~~//~~ ~ ~ ~o ~QN OzQ Q z V• Z ~ ~ ~ ~ D ~ Q LL 1 N _ ~ ~ ~ N w ~ ~~N O wO '^ ' V ~~ N rr~~ r V~ O Q w O ~y ~ L ~ Q O ~ ~ Q z W `~ w (V ~ Q = ~ (~ Q ~ cn ~ CD U1 U) -~ ` ,~ ~, • • \ ~ °~°o o .- ~ Q cn ~ A ~ ~ < ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ } ~ H W ~ rn r~ w ~ J W Q JUw J Q ~ 'A ~ o N OzQ z ~/, 11J ~Q ~~~ WWU ~ ~ Z ~ ~ Q ~ ~ N - Q ~ ~ N ~ Q W N U ~ U w~ N O~~ Q w O~ ~Qo ~ ~ Q Z W o w N ~ Q S ~ C~ Q co cn ~ CD cn cn -~ W Z ~ ~ ~ y~ 1 tJJOlb21dS 1 ~ldM SN2if18 59Zti6 ~ (~-1QW ~W ~ ~ ~~~ a2ldllOd tIl3JNtl'8 SOJ2lfl8 NdAI ~ S2i3NM0 ~ ~$ WQ ~ ~ ~~~ 3~N~aIS~2~ dJO1t~dS a~ ~o3Q ~y~ ~ ------ ~~ - ~f~----------------------- ca ,~vm sr~na ,t6me m .~ ,®- PoL N I $~Il .112i3c#Id I ~~ , I ---'~ ~- --t--~ --- ___ I I 1N34136V3 133aI1S ,01 T _. - - -I - .- - T I"' - - fT __r~__ I-L I ~ 1 /' I .la I r, I I ~ _ -~ ~-r _-~ I I ,I h I X~V'9135 (mIVA 1N~i .SZ T - - - - - - ~ ~ I ;~ gW I 0ee 9 I ~ ! ,~,~ u ~ 3 ~ ~ _-- i~ `~`_J I g , __ r ~ ~ ~~ ~ , ~~ I i ~ 111 I ~ W 9 w ~I, ; i rd >I I II w~ ~ ~ m ~I ~ - ~ a~---~T _- "I z y j ~ ~ -•- \ ~ ~I II y - ~~~ ~ ' y ~ ~',, ~~, i j ~ \ ~~~~w i «~ ~ ~ ' 1 \1~ ~ ~ Q '~~~C ~ ~ W NN \; I ~i \ ~ "'\ »~ I I \v n I ~\~~ y Ll ~a~~111111~i ~i i 'r N ~ ~ ~ i ti I i F ~, ~ ~ ~ 8 d ' / /I 1 ~ r / ~ ~~~ ./ / ,_ , ~J ' /~~~ /_ I Vl"..:- ~- ~ -~/', I ~d~~; 11 rp ~ I W S Q ~~~~~ K o -~~ ~ ti >~ ~~~~3 ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~g~~axa ~ 6 F ~ tY. `~, \` - i-, ._\ii ~~ ~ ~ ~, _ ~ ~~ 1 ~~ -~ r m 9 ®~ ~ ~ x Q ~ ~~ ~ U a z g ~ awi n ~ m ~ o o $ ~ ~ ~ t; 0 Y ~ ~ U O ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ W ~ Q .. .. . ` ~ . . ~ ~ ~ D k' a ~ ,o ~ a ~ ~ a W S ~ 6 ^- 5, w n ", ~ ~ 4 n 66 ~ ~ ~ ~ o x a W ~ o $ $ ~ ~ o ~ ~ " °Oy a 0 9 LL LL • p \ d x i1 Q g ~ a n n 6 _~ ~ ~Q~1 Rp ~ A w o 0 0 9 J 0 ~ ry tt Oi ~l r ~ ~ ~ m 3 A - r r ~ ~ Y ° v a ~ ~ i~ m Q ~ ° " ~ ~ _1 a r °3 ~t_ •1 I s D ~f ~ I ~ a a I u I a ,~ ~ i ~, i ~~~ ACC Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '\ W L ~ ~ ~ uai a 1 1/ „QFj W e a ~ Q C o m n ~ YY - I~ ~ ~ a a k _ O ~~// I O ~ ~ ~ Q N 0 IC IK W a O W I~in." - ~ ~ I~ a w ~ a _ i _ _ __ 1-- - _ ~ _---~ _~ _ i ~ ,mmss m .mm .~ PfL N . J .-_~_ _ -- ---------- -- 3NI1,t1213dOPJd ___-- ~ a I ~~~ ~~ a ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ .~ i I~~t a , ~ ~_' / / / I ~~ Ia ~//~~, -; I/ I V\ )v~ L V /w ~ I ~ ~ fA s5 .M r,l ~ I ,~ . ~ I ~ ~~ ~" ~~ ~~ v ~ ~ A~ ~ ~ I`~. \ ~~ ~ / - ~ . T ` ~ 4 ~ / / I ~_ -~- I ,\~ ~ r ' ' ,~ '~ ~ ~ i j~~ i' ~~~-~~~ ~~~ Y" /` ` I ~5916•d ~ - / / ,~ ~ N ~ ~~~ ~~~ r4 L `~ r _z U } ~ ~ ~ n °'• ~ $ 3 m ~ o u 0 µ ~ F ~y 3 ~ ~ a u a ~ I~ m ,~ 01 W IEWd~ W F LL e% ry ~ `9 n ~ p m •v o $ R O F ~ ~ ~ A u m O LL F ~ " J a ~0 F- ~ ~ 0 4 ~ ~ ~ ` 6 z a ~ W o m U n % ~ ~ O Z ~ Q p 0 Q °; dd ii 10 ~ °' a W r z W~ Q O Q ~~~ ~ ~ a~~ ~_ U~w ~~y~~ Wa m ~~~ u ~ Q ~ ~ ~~~ O~~ N J ~~? LL ~~~ W W ~~ tSttttT ~~~'> 1 r1S~ } yQ~~QQZ~~~ WW3iyry~l~yoy~~ a~Zyya~~03a~~~yyZ~~Y>[ ~U>U E ~W32WJ~ ~Wqq qFFaO ZXF~Z~Z r YZQW~,~~~Z~~OQ ~u~a~Zao~~~~~8 WQZ~m~~QWrQ~E~ ~_ Q ~om~Zg`~_~i~~~~ a ~ f~I77OjOf WOwo~ 3 W93~~3~~~~ZWLLQ~ Qu ~r~ Oar ZW oq ZLLLL Q ~NN ~Uwy~~a} EOm U lL µQ~tUUWIZ~~t' m F3-2 U mQQ ~W 3F ~~U(~~ ~8°~7xQo~W~~~~za~~Q_~ VJ ~3JQr WOQ Q~~~~QQF Oo 0 W LQ~WU~W~?QmZ~rLL au0~!yy~~~iZD IW~w Q ~°~~~~a1~~~WQ ~w m o J~-'Iak Fa~ U 3 J F fJ Z~U ~ Q y r W ~°'~!3~=~~~~~~~os~~ --~ u~~ Wk°~~ >~o°oa~' ~ W~~~g~~~ ~~~ ~Wwa~~~~~} ~y~~0 OZU~~QW~~ QZyQj~ ~> / 1 . _ k \ • _ I ~ ~ `? E!2 D~~3~iI~I1=U-1 \ ~ ~ i ~ ~ _ Z ~ i i ao -_-, ~\ ~~ b ~ ,,mac-'~ _- ~ ~ _- -- \ \`~\ ~ ` ~ \ \ Z ~~I ~~ ~ ~~a ~ _. ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~V iii \\ \\ /~ ~•~\\ \ \ O ~ \ ~~ \ ,1~ k~S6 ~ 3t ~~ ~i ~\ ~~~ ~ ~ ~\ d ,~ ~, ~,' C~ °~~~~ I ~ \ :7 • W Z ~ ~ ~ y~ / dJOlb21dS / ~ldM SN2~f18 59Z~6 C~JQW ~ ~ ~ ~~~ `, ~ W ~ _~ ~ $ LL 42~VllOd dl3JNd'8 SOJ21(18 Nb'~I ~ S2~3NM0 ~ m Ia OZ~'= ~<~ rWQ~~ ~~~ 3~N~aIS32~ dJOlb~1dS a~ « < V~~a ~~a ~ ~~~ ... ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ U to N Z Q Ow ~~ ~~~~~~ ~ o ~~ -~~ «, ~ ~~ ~Z M ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ W 5 ^ ti ~ d Z ~~g~~a ~l~~~~c~3~~ m~~~~~gaxa @ -~-- I L ~, - Z I ~ 3 _ ~E ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ 0. I ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~~< ~ ~ & ~ ~ Qo` ~~~ 1 11 z ~~ 1 _ ~~ 1 ~~ 1 1 1 ~1 ~ ~ , 1 8~ 1 ~1 1 ~~ ~1 ~~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1~ ' ~ .~ ~- > ~~ ,- `~ ~, t ~ ~ 3 ~\\ ~~> ~~ l ~\ ~ ~\~/ ~ ~ ~\ ~ ~ ~\ ,~\ ~' ~ ' ~ ,' ~ .' ~ ,' ----~ I I I i I h~ ~~ -~ ~~ I ~~ c ~ Qz I ~ I J ~ I \~ ~ I ~~ ~ ~~ '~ s ~ ~~~ ~z . Owe ~~ z~m ~m~ • • • /~~ J Q v ~ ~ W d~ 1 d`JOltJ2idS I JIVM SN21f18 S9Zbl ~ W ~ ~ ~ $~ 421d110d tf13JNt/'8 SOJ2if18 NdAI ~ S2i3NM0 ~ Q~O ~W~ W ~~N~aIS~2~ dJOlb~IdS '~ rn ~~ ZsN w a rj wp0 LL ~ ~ ~ ~i~ b N y Z C~ ?2w N ~H~ UNm Q Vina~ ~~1- H~ w~~ U WJ ~~ppp84~p~~~Y~mS~~~~y_=S~m~B ~ 55 ~<gi`~Q~~j =~OBw~ 43 w G YSOTUS~LL U a LL Z toc~vxi~~o c~ o~feoo~ O ~~~~~ ~'~Z~~;~UW~~oW aaS LL a~aaai Haatm7 uxi Qmc~CwLL U' x_-~Y .~ fzOaO ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ „ (a ~ ~~~~ ~ s * P ~~~~$~ ~ ~ ~ ~_. z ~~ _ O ~ L ~L ~t(1 \_ ~_ I z ~ ~ i, zl ~ ~=' I I III ~ II 7 I I,I'i . ~ . --~~J (~ ~I I ~I11 I 0 V i ~°~° I ~ lj ~!jl - __~ ~ ~~~~ 'I I ~ ~I oZ I'',I~ ~d 7 i;i;;I ~ ~ do ~p ,o ~ I , ~6<< Q il~ >_ `~ ~- ~ - ~~; _ ~ ~ - _- ~~I~ ~ ~ ~ a o Q ~ ~$ ~@~~gxa ~4 W ,® j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Q s~ Z -_ -_ ~ -- --o ~ of ~, ~~ i~ ,, ~ \ a i ~ ~Z Z~ o , I f~ z a i- 3 ~ ii 4- ie ~ / ' ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ; l® o ~ ~ ..~. ~ 1' r W A _ ~ ~ ~- o m +- l.t.l ~' ~ o li a,~s ~ '~ ~ q7" o ° i. , lL ~ ~^~ N ~® ~ - ' 0 _ Z N "~: O ~ L r1 / ~ i,'I T I' 11 ,' ~ ~~ ~li~~d~l ~~ f r ~~ ~ i ~ - ~~ ! A I ~ ~= ~ ~ ~ ~ , d1l ~ ~ ~ _ O N ~ ~~ I ~ ~ r- ~~ d Z , L w LL -~ ~ ~ j Q~ ~J1 ~ J Q ~ ~ N LL. IILLI ~LL ALL LIL • • • ~~~~~~ W J Q W ~ ~ `d01 t/JOl`daVS I AdM SN21f18 59Zti6 ~~ « ~ ~ ~ ;~ ~ ~ W ~'" ~ ~ ~ ObdllOd Hl3JNd'8 SOJ2ifl8 Nd~l ~ S2i3NM0 ~ ~ m =~ ~ ~ ~ ~ to ~ O Z ~o ga~ ;~ ~ ~ p~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ Z ~ WQ ~ ~~5S~ ~~N~aIS~2~ dJO1b~dS ~ n ~~`g~gS ~l~/~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~lax7 ~ I LL z ~ u. ; u. a ~ iL t9 u- m u I L u- ~ - ~ ui ~~ <N < ~ N ~ L ;~,~ I ,~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ aNn A1~3do,+d ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~~ ~- V (T N n p_ ~ Till ~ I I i i ~a~ ~I /j-' ~ a li! ~ ~ ~'~ ~ os~ ~I~ ~~ yl <~ 1 ~~ ~ ~ I, ~ I m~ y~ ..o i ~ - o Il~i~ ;o - ~~- i~ ~ ~ :~; N ~' lug ~ i~ dti ~~ i~~l~j ~~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ *~ l~'' ' ----~-,~ ~I i i i. ~' c+ I ~ i ~ i Z ~'ys ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F- ~~ f-- ~ o .U ~ ~' li ,III __ } ~ .pp. .~d ~~~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ® O ~I ~~ QIU y I ,~~ ~ I °~'. ~ - Iii i -- - Z - w = ~ i ~ -r-O° ~ ~ ~-- ~ ~~~ y N~ ~~~~~lii ,;, it ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ -- o O o- ~ i!, , a ~~II ~ i~~ 1, -- - '~ - -- ~,,; 'a, ~~ I' -- i. ~- fl ~~ `n m i ~ - W p -+ ~ ~~~,~~ ~ ~'~'~ I~L~~~ j ~ 3N1-~ A1~1 ~Id 2 = ~~~I~~lilt~l a I' I I Ij;~~ ~I1~'I ~~ di I N~~ III I III I,, i ZI ~ r ~~ y y ~,ii. ~ i i'', i; ~ I I i';~~ o ~ ~ i'i ~ i~ ~ > ,, i , _ . j~ ____ ~;iil ~~ ~I ~~i ~I o- i it , ~ ~., , ~, li'ii;~Illl I ~ i ' I Ili~l ~'i i IiI I `~ n i I , II ~I I 4~l , ( ~1 ~® I'i'' ~ it I; ~ I ~ . I ~; . z ,~,, ~ ~ ~ ~ o Z. ~~ ~ Z o ~~ ~i vi'<~ ~ ~~ ~ I ~~ I ~ ;, ~~ I ~ N W ~ $ _ ~ ~ Wok LL ~ U U LL~ N T3W O Z7 y p ~~ ~N ~aa y ~~~ ~ ~ ~"R~p~5~ a~a~o4y~u1~; ~~J ~ N~LLjGy~YU'~d~~JWNS~mVO f.~0 O ~LL~gOV~ I ~~~~~~~~~~~s~~o~z~ XW c>da W aaaa4! haaCl to io W jl~ <mVOWW C7Z_-~Y ~ fZOaO 4, . J W N • • • J Q v ~ ~ w t/~ I t/JOlb~111S I A`dM SN2if19 59Zti1 ~ W ~ ~ ~8~ 421VllOd b~l3JNV'8 SOJ21(18 N11AI ~ S213NM0 ~ WQ ~ ° ~;~ ~~N~aiS~~l dJO1b2~dS .X ~ u r~ ~ o '~ s L-0 ~ _ iN AI d-.u° ~v ~ v ~ +'! ~ ~ NCI v ~ I ~ ~. f W a Wl z d o ~ o Y tI~ '~ ~~~~~ °t~' ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ a ` ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~; I I uW ,~~ 'a _- - i " ', ~~~ --- ~= ~ poke i~_'I~, p~}4I of M~-p~ iIi H l I. ~ I'- 59 d/1 ~ III ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~,. ---- ~I .I - ~I __ ___ j ~ ~1 ~ - I _ ~ t-_ J Q a --- - _ - . _ _ -I 4 ~ __ ~ - ~ ~ ~ z = -- - ~ _---- ~ ~ ~ U .. i ' __ ~ ~~ ~ I~ I, ~~0 g J ~ I Q ' I I ~ _ ~'~ --- I ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ - - -- ----~ -- --r ---- ~ ~ !~~l i ! I I ~ (\ , ~ ~Q o ~ ~ ~~ a ~ ~-- '~ ~ ~ -- --- - f i ~ of ~c ~ I i I ~- o ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ;, - -- -. r __ _ __ _. W -- ~. ;; ,~; ~w a ~ ~i- ~~ ~ ~ _ ' ~~ J J LL 1 f I ~ i> N ~~ d-= ~- m ~ ~ O ~ N ~' ~ J4 ~A Z F'c- ~r ~ 0 ~d LQ ~ m~ ~~- o d1 ~ j < ui 0 S ill ~ W U ~ ~ N ~ iL~ ~9~ m m~ ~~ • • • G~ V .~ a3 G4 ^~ 0 0 n~ -r._~ •rxu n'-i r.G •.~czM ~u~nEl SUZt a~uapisag p.~~tio~so~.~ng T,i-~~ - ~ ~;~-~ ~ ;~~~, ~_~-~.~-, ~% ..E. _ . e ~ = ___/ -_ . - ! 2 - _ - ~1 f. ,. J _ _ - _ _ _ _ r - _ L . 1 r ~. i .~,i - Y ` c = z= __ __=- ~i< ~ _ _ ~ r. - ~ .. ~ ~ " - _,_ ,. ~, 5 ~ 0 U ~~~ • • • a al aa~~ ~~~ zpq o° @l 3~dMNN(1S ~VJVly o.~ 2 _ / O ~1 ~ a ~; ~~ m 5 O H a z ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~~y ~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ 9t k! q ° 5 ° F v :,i ~ ~~~ ~~ O~ ^ A \i W( ~ i i a ~ ~ ' I ~,I ~~~~ ~~ E ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~ °~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~Y~ ~ 7'S E ~~~ LL~SS ~ ~ V d~ 0 ui Q 2 a O c~ °z m~ ~ <G ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~`` ~~ {~y~N ~ N W H ~ m R U~B ~ LL~ ~~~ ~~° 1F~~j~ ~~ LLWRI ``6 ~ - ~ ~~ v`~$2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ o~ ~ ~Qp zz~~ ~~ ~~ ~i ~ LL ~~ ~ ~ j~~ m ~ I' ~' ~~~~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ 73 N N ~ N N ~}Y{ F iy ~ O ~ m ~ LL ` ~ ~ m ~m ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tC ~ a '. N .n ~i ~ ~~~~ r „~ ~ ~ mm ~ '~ ~~ ~ N P ~~~~ [7a a F w CU~~ ~~ ~m Q D 4 ~.~..~ V y„ wQ ~~ ~~ ~z ~m O (~ cv oC ~ W ~~ t7~~ ~ J~ ~ ~ y y LLLL~ y H ~ ~ u~ ~ 1~y y~ ~ Y ~ Y 4j ~ ~ f5~~ ~ W 11YY- ~ ~ ~ m S ~~ ~ ~ Z W Se ~ Q L ~ ~ ~~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z f rr~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ QZ~ ~ W ~~y, ~`j X88 ~O8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~xS > O ~ ffTTJI ~ F Cp~7 ~ ` O ~ Q Q ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Z ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Cgs ~ ~ ~y~ ~~~ Q Z ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ Z ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~"~~ ~ W ~ ~ ~~y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~g ~ _~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~s~ t ~~ ~ ~ t~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ z fG A W Ol ~ r r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O R N W a O Z • • • t~ i~ S I 3 °° 4 ~ Z ° I ° - 0 ~lb~M ~ SN2~f18 ~, o ~ ~ m .., ~ a ~ ~ o o N o i' S6 ~ _ N . ODD O ~ O I e\ - l i ~ . - w I r__~ -_ -- _ ~-_ r_ ~.- ~--_. / `"~~ r I I I 1 _ ~~ - ~ ~~ . I. ~ df) ;~ 11 II ~ ) ~ !~ j ~ ~ ® ~ 1 _~ I I I , a ~_ ~,_ w ' 1 ~ 1--- J ~ ~ l t~= 7 \ Y ~ 1 ~ J ~ ~----~1 I I /. w ~ x ~ w y ri ~ O ` ~ ~\ ~ i i I I f. n: Q' j. ~ (\ I 1 ~ 1._ .1L.. - - ~ e c T 4 J~ ~ l ~ ~~\~\\\~ _;' ( U 080) i ~i 6 r~ I L V 7R ~ .. I NIW13M Ol S33M1 I (vw„a.) H V Iw I w i.. ~ ~~ ~ (b ~Us z ~~, I l1/Jldll- ~ ? 3 ~, ~ o ~ ~ ~ ` 1 N011~3NN0~ ,~ (`` t 1f10dSNM00 ~ ~~_ h \~ w ~ ~ ~ -LL' _ \- I BO'09h 00 O9h 2!9 ,~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ , ' ~ ~ CCC777 ~ }. \ ` . \ `. `, \~~ I \ 3lVMS Nl2t l i ~~ tbe~s~,b) fide zi)'r I ! ~ . (~+bo .zl) ,. , ,, ;;~ ,, ~ ~. ~ ` ~ i_`~. . ,~ i _ 3nor {a~HS)~ ~~ ~ r (o~ ,`~ i ~ r. 1 - - ~ SOS UBb~ ~~ ~ ~ - 1~~ \~ ...- -~ ~ I ~ . ~~ - h - ~I ~\ ~n \V ~ 4 W a ~ ~ i rl \\ ~ ~~ ~ i ~ ~ , ~ I -i / ~ o O'r'r ~ ~- ¢ , N .e I _ ~~ -' r,, - s ~~ ~~~~ ~~ f" ~ ~ I~j ~ g o o '8 ~ £3 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o c o o U H b b b b b b b b b b b ~ ~ 53 '° ~l 3 t~ ° ~ ~ 18 R 2 N p/ 'f b O A 0 0 r _~ '99 - -_ .-_ __-_ - - ------------ -- _ - -- _ __. ,r X -- __ ~ M I M ~~~~i-, h I `~--~e'l'89b1 OS'l97 °_>~a~~~ ° ' ~ •- -- ~ 6 ~ ~ _ - - - ,. _ _ T-- - 1~0~b96 Ml~ ~ ~ i~ I 3m ;m `~ 2l-. ~ ~,, -- - 00'f977! ~ 1 rZCJ r L L i7 ~ __ -' ~ - - _ __. ~/ ~ Y~'sv\ LL o ~Lo a ,. ~~, Cry. ~ _LItiM' ONINib ~ . ~-J'~~'~-. {to N~Oii H`JIH Z1 - OS'f97 ANI / ~~ ~~~\ ~~ m ~I ~ ~ f ¢, 'a~~) \ \ , ~z~vM OwN.v,~a ~- / ..~IIVM__`JNINIVl3?JI ri ~ ~~~ ~ ~ /I I ~~ 3f \ ~ \~ \~ ~_ _- _ ~ - - ~ - NUOlB HpIH .S Z)I / ~ ~-~~~ _ ~- '-~~ 1`cq;-t "' ___1 i ~~ ~ I ~ _ ~G'Z9> 71) l i'`~~` ~. ',"; ~ i ~4L I as~j o \• ~ ~ r ¢Z; gr_ - . - ~ J :--- - -j~~__= -~~'c;~ "1 9Z'S94 Ml -~ i~i~`O~ // ~ l_ ~ ` i~~ ~ _' ~-- _ ~ HIG W `FF'N~~)REMOVE y~y' _` / 4\\ ~~ 1 '~ + C• ~~ Yd x 6t p ~ ~~ Os O~ ~ .J L • p a -Oi ~ , , ~ ~~ ~ ' __ ~~ c"'.~ ~ a .p ,oL~O ~ ~4~,v a joy ~. ;~\ o a ~ . 1- NOIl1f10d5 ~~ OO IJ// -~ y1q~ O ~Q o~ ~~~^ `\\~ `~~ 2p~ S 1 w ~~. ~ C~~ O J ~- / ~ ~~~ r i ~ ~ ~. ~ va ~ I N ~ ~- -om ~ I ~E~~II N r ~ Fug \ KE CEl _ N/ / ~ ~ O N ~\ N `H~\N `\NK II Y / W O ~ (a8 1H\G 1 ~ ~ ~ U~ ~ \ ~6y r / I ti ~ ~ ~ X \`_ i ~ ~ ~1 ~ / i ~ ~ , ~/ ! ,,hh^ 4' J ~ * / ~ 6~ \ S y ~ Z ~~! ~d 1 ~ 4 .J Y~ ~ RJ \.J ~: ~ ~_ m rj ____-_ ~3 LL _ c+\ ~~ ~~ , J ~~ 1 ~F~ ~~~ ,/ G4 N y66`!3`~ `6 /~ ~~~ ~~~ . ~'~~yy F cS $~~ "~ ~ A qQ 8 V ZQ W 0 H ~.W/ Z 1..` V / O C~ cv Z a -C7 Z H 1.~. Z ~Q V Z ~..• QN~ (4in V • • • s • T ~~; W tl~l 0 .~ Jtl ~s~ ~ 3 ii ~ :42gy ~a~zm~ s J O ~~~~~ -~ 2 ~~Y Ya~°.. ~ d av~+ ~' ~~ ^~ O Q .OO~~aa ~xN? ~ a C>~~~ °~acQ ~' O W °o uFw 0~ boo ~ ~ .. U ~ c~ .. `j~P1 'bbd, :: ',. ~ ~ ,~Q ~ Ob 3lvMNNf15 V001'dL~V~ ~i 0 2 Fq ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A W f ~ fi 3 ~~ U ~ ~ D 5 2 ~ Z V U1 ~ ~ ~ W N y O ~.y ~ ~ ~ Q D -h _ -- e h ~ ~^ s `' s i ~ Q Y Q ~ a 3 Q ~ m g ~ LL v~ ? ~ 8 J ~ O ~ ~ ~ o Z ~ z 3 W i r f W o = ~! O Z ~ ~, w F, Q ~ v ~ 1Q ~ ~ - Z oC a U o O ~ ~ O ~~ z ~ ~ 4~ ~ ~~_ s ~, -- o Q M kW~m _ Q J pp =0O> v WV QmUZ; j 7 ~ y< O -~ f~ S O ti~ 0 Q ~ m Q h W of 3 Q} = U z '''', ~k<<~,W~ Q W J O ~ 1, ~^~~ Z h= Q z ~ ~ ~ ~Q ~~ z C i Z , - I^ WoC ~ V/z ~2_ N~~ o Z =2 ~ cOc = ~ N n, Q~ ~ J ~1I.~~. ~~~ Z W Q o J M ~~ ' 22 0 3 W H W 3 C I ~ O lxi U W 2 4 I y W h ~ ~ ~ W ~ U m H ti Q 0 {z{~ ~ F ~ ~ ~p < W ti W~ ~u ULL v~ ~ ~ W o W O LL ~ ~ lay ~ ~ n ~q4~ 4$ y~ ~ nw yLL~oa ~ > ~rp- (~ ~ W ~= C ~j Z~VJ ~~O ~} ~mU~~ ~Za mW~ O~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ a1l7 .2 ~ ~ ~v ~~ ~ ~~w Z ~ ~Wy~~ ~~ s~ ~~m aLLp W~ ~~~ ~C~•.W f/1 ~~~ ~m~ tlWa~~~ Cj~VvY~F ~~ W~> y~~~OU W~~< U {~1I~O ~~ ~ ~U (~~~~ C;`~1~~ ~11LL~~ ~ Z 1L Z > W K(~. W yLL 3~ ~O Q~ CpZ ~ ~~ yyj W ZL~N v tlJ t7 J p ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ > W p ~ O m 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < O ~ Z ~ s f`i W U ~' W 9 ~ ~ ~ O W ° ~ p~ ~ ~ ~ u~ ~T~ O CoZ7~~ pW~C1~1o ~~ ~rKK~`-bra mW y~~~ ~ $~~ ~~~J m ~ ~Y~~ _~ ~? ~°k'" ~W>Qg> ~~ ~' ~' W ~ o~ m ~< ns~ }v~, W~ ~ ~ ~m~~ ~~o m ~ ~~m ~~ ~f90 ~~z ~50 ~ > ~ O 0 O LL ~~ ~~ p ~ -~pl,bH oZW ~ ~ O -~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ 3 3 ° Z 3 7~ LL f'O a~Op 6 qq G~ ~ p ~ ~ F Z ~ - g ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ w ~ O z ~y ~u ~ s m O ry~ryyW~~ 2 >~~ W~y$o7I~77o ~~~ o~~Z' ~ pyW~~~ `~Z ~1 o LL,~p, way ~~_ ~w~d '~ ~~ °W~T ~ ~ 'm '-' Om ~ Z ~ ~`~~ ~~~ ~~W ~ ~KW ~~ y Z ~~J W ~~ g~pW ~~WW ~s~ M fA U C ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~a 8- 1u~y ~~o i ~' ~ m moo~~~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~~~ ~ 111~~~~Z ~ ~~yq1~ LLo ~ ~ ~ W V ~Qj ~~~My pO ~0~~ ~~ (Wg~p ~ y JC <r~N`~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ZyW ~ F- ~ W W R ~ ^~ Z J J ~ O K~ ~>`> 1 U ; yC ~ 1W~ ~~W~ ~W~V W > ~ W lmyy ~LL J ~ K ~ ~ ` ~ Hµg1 ~~a) ~~mV ~p ~ W W ~ - W 4 W ~W ~ ~ J~J µt1 xUO*pya~~W K s ° W O yOW - >W ~~ F ~ O ~~~LL ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ <W~~~ F-Z ~~ ~~N~S WNIL~ Ffq ~ ~~ o ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~mm ~~ oc z W ~ r ri .i vi ib r~ ad a ° .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ° • • ~ W e LL r'f W S N / /j C! S -~~_ - °° ~eM SN2~f18 ~ x ~~ W ~.. ;~~~«.1 ,~ ~~~IL ~J ~1' ~. ,~ \V ~! ~l \~ ~V \~ ,~ _.<.~~~ ~~ ,~ ~,. ,~ i`, J ~~ ~~ ~1 1 L~-. ~' i i ~ F I P ~ f 1 ~~ ~ '~ \ ~.~~ I• ~ ~\ n' ~ ~`~ ,~ 1~ W~ n ' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ . l ~ ~~•. I a x g B~ ~~~ . ~~~ _~ c~ -_ - " ~.. v ~m ,. ~, o Z ~ ~-'' n~ ~ ~ fir. ~ ; ~ w ~ ~ ~ . o 1 w~- ~"~ ,~ - -- ~ ''AA vI ~ ~ - + ~ ~ ~ g' ~/ O ~ ~ d te . r ,-' / ~ r - - LL I A~ ~ a ~~ ~ ~ 1,\ ~ ~U1~1~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~yy F I~ ~~ . Z ~ Am ~~ ~~ 0 o c~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ . ~ °~~~ w ~ ~~ o ~~~ ~ ZI WN=LL 6) ~ ~ . ~, , , ~' i i / i, %~ i~ % • ti j ~ / ~ ._ /_~ .~~ i X __ _.- - .. ___ i. .. 1 U _ _ _~_. _ _ -- '~_ f-~-~ - - - __ -- _ ~_ - -- ~y ~ ~ =- _-- /~ u~_n-nom ~ _ _ - _ - .- _ _, _ ~Y _ o __ _ _ ,. - - _ ~ ~ Lia ~/ti-- __ ,, c - / / ~ _ ~ ~_ _~---~ r --x~~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ _.~ ~ .i? _ \ ~\ ~'` 11 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ O~ -~,~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ off` ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ `~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ x~~ ~~ ~ ~x ~_ \ X -- ~ -~ ~~ OQ _ X 1 .0 / :: ~ '~ _ _ r -- ~ } iJ +' V =C/" ~y~ _ - - \ ~/ ,~. V ZQ W H W ~ ~`A'~ I O C7 N m Z J O O U ~--~ ~~ ~~ t, O fi ~~ 5~ ~~ W ~~ ~1 ~~, ~, ~~ N O f ~. • • • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani PLEDGE OFALLEGIANCE - MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 8, 2004. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regardingOral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 16, 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 #04-178 (510-09-018, 044, 043) HEIKALI-14410 &r 14416 Big Basin Way, 20506 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road The applicant requests design review approval to renovate the facades of the above noted contiguous commercial structures. The facade changes include raising the parapet, painting and resurfacing, removal of existing ornamentation on the structures and replacement and opening up of windows and doors. The property is located in the CH-1 zoning district and is designated CR- retail commercial in the General Plan. Continued from meeting on August 25, Z005(ANN WELSH) 2. APPLICATION #04-233 (397-29-012) California Farmers' Markets Association, 20300 Herriman Avenue: -Request approval for a Conditional Use Permit allowing the California Farmers' Markets Association to continue holding a Farmers' Market on the parking lot area of Saratoga High School, Saturdays year round. The previous Temporary Use Permit (#98-005 expired on Apri103, 2004. (STEVE PROSSER) 3. APPLICATION #04-140 386-10-049 S rint PCS a licant Kato Yasuto ro ert ( ) P (PP )~ (P P Y owner), 17777 Saratoga Avenue; The applicant requests Use Permit approval to extend the height of the existing monopole and install antennas. The applicant proposes to co-locate with another wireless carrier, Verizon, which has existing antennas on the monopole. Related equipment will be situated on the property adjacent to Verizon's existing equipment. The site is located in the P-A (Professional and Administrative Office) zoning district. (LATA VASUDEVAN) 4. APPLICATION #04-075 (397-15-018, 397-14-022, 397-13-030) Sprint PCS, West Valley College, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue; The applicant requests use permit approval to install antennas and related equipment at the theater building located on the West Valley College Campus. The college campus is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Several wireless carriers are located at this site. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) APPLICATION # 04-149 (397-07-002) -YEN, 15040 El Quito Way; -Request Design Review Approval to add approximately 1,028 square feet to the first floor of the existing 4,232 square foot single story house for a total floor area of 5,260 square feet. The gross lot size is 57,115 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 23 feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - Staff response to oral communication given by Ms. Muriel Mahrer at the August 25, 2004 Planning Commission meeting regarding her neighbor's house addition at 13571 Myren Drive. COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - Letter from Nancy ~sz Robb Kundtz regarding 21974 Heber Way ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), i f you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerh@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). Certificate of Postingof 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 September 16, 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 websiteatwww.sarato ag ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to plannin @s~; arato ag_ ca.us o~ • MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, September 8, 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 Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi Absent: None Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous and Associate Planner John Livingstone PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of August 25, 2004. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of August 25, 2004, were adopted as submitted. (7-0) 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 September 2, 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 September 8, 2004 Page 2 *** Commissioner Zutshi advised that she has received the hearing notice for this item and must recuse her • self. She left the dais to sit in the audience. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.1 APPLICATION #04-161 (397-15-018, 397-14-022, 397-13-030) Verizon Wireless, West Valley College, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue: The applicant requests Use Permit approval to install an emergency generator at the location of an approved wireless facility located on the West Valley College campus. The college campus is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Several wireless carriers are located on this site. The emergency generator will be placed on the ground at the northeast corner of the theater building with other equipment cabinets and equipment approved in the Spring of 2004. Modifications to the original Use Permit approval also include the following: 1) increasing the lease area from 12' x 25' to 15' x 25' (a total increase in area of 75 square feet) and 2) enclosing the lease area with an 8-foot chain link fence. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Use Permit to allow for an emergency generator. • Explained that this wireless facility is located at the West Valley College theatre building. • Reported that a noise study was prepared and the noise levels were measured at 5 dba below the most restrictive nighttime levels. • Stated that this generator will be operated for 20 minutes each week as part of the maintenance program. • Said that two modifications requested include an increase in lease area by 75 square feet and the enclosure of the area within a chain link fence. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Rodgers asked staff if consideration of the measurement of carbon monoxide levels in addition to noise standards should be taken. Director Tom Sullivan said that installation standards would be handled through the Building Department. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Tim Richardson, Applicant and Representative for AT&T Wireless: • Stated that they are happy with the conditions imposed. • Said he was available for any questions. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the noise survey performed used similar equipment and conditions as proposed for this specific installation. Mr. Tim Richardson replied that they had hired an outside consultant to conduct this test. Additionally, results will be double checked following installation. Associate Planner Chesty Oosterhous added that the consultant utilized the manufacturers sound data. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 8, 2004 Page 3 Commissioner Nagpal asked about on-going monitoring. Director Tom Sullivan replied that it is not required for this particular installation due to its isolation from surrounding uses. If such an installation were proposed in a more sensitive area, on-going monitoring could be required. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Hunter said that she was fine with this application. Commissioner Uhl expressed his agreement. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission granted approval of a Use Permit to allow the installation of an emergency generator at the location of an approved wireless facility at West Valley College, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue, with modifications to the original Use Permit approval to increase the approved lease area by 75 square feet and to enclose the lease area with an 8-foot chain link fence, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Zutshi Commissioner Zutshi rejoined the Commission on the dais following the conclusion of Item No. 1. **~ PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #04-168 (517-22-003) - Borelli, 20200 Hill Avenue: Request for Modification of Building Plans and Development Conditions to the previously approved new one-story house. The minor modifications include changes to the floor plan, height and design. The proposed building footprint will remain in approximately the same location. The proposed floor area will remain the same at approximately 7,402 square feet, including athree-car garage. The 3,086 square foot basement will also remain the same. The maximum building height of the residence will not exceed 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 77,003 square feet net and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of modifications to approved Building Plans and Development Conditions. • Said that the changes include floor plan, height and design. The footprint and FAR will remain the same. The maximum height would be 26 feet. • Reminded that the original structure approved was atwo-story. In February 2004 the applicant obtained his first modification, changing the structure from atwo-story to a one-story. • Explained that the foundation has since been installed and the house framed. M • Stated that this is the second modification sought for this project. The major difference is an increase in maximum height to the west side of the structure, the area where two bedrooms are located. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 8, 2004 Page 4 • Advised that the site slopes about three feet in this particular area. The height would increase from 22 feet, 6 inches to 25 feet, 8 inches. This will reduce the grading by approximately 200 cubic yards. • Said that elevation changes are proposed, including the removal of the eyebrow dormer and eyebrow entrance features as well as replace two single-car garage doors with one double-car garage door. • Stated that the project still consists of all quality materials and meets all Residential Design Guideline policies. • Reported that there has been no negative correspondence for any of the three proposed designs for this site. • Recommended approval and advised that the applicant is present and available for questions. Commissioner Hunter asked staff how tall the entrance is now. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied 14 feet, 10 inches with four feet above for the uppermost peak for a total height of approximately 18 feet. Commissioner Hunter recounted her belief that the Commission had previously set a maximum desired height of 16 feet for entrance features. Commissioner Rodgers questioned if the excess height is double counted. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that the double counting occurs for interior spaces above 15 feet. Commissioner Hunter asked what the painted aluminum would be used for. Commissioner Zutshi suggested that this is the window frame material. Associate Planner John Livingstone agreed that he thought this was window trim. Commissioner Uhl asked staff to point out which plan set page includes the front entrance. Director Tom Sullivan replied page A-4-4. Associate Planner John Livingstone added that information is also included on page A-4-3. Commissioner Uhl asked how high the roof was. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the roof above the entrance is now 20 feet, 2 inches per page A-4-0. Commissioner Hunter asked if the reasoning for that roof height is to create an asymmetrical roofline on the other side. Associate Planner John Livingstone said he would defer this question to the project architect. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 8, 2004 Page 5 Commissioner Rodgers said that during the site visit it was mentioned that all six fireplaces proposed • would be gas. However, one is labeled as wood burning on the plans. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that Code allows one wood-burning fireplace. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Vince Borelli, Applicant and Property Owner, 20200 Hill Avenue: • Said that there is one wood-burning fireplace on the plans but that all six would be set up for gas. • Reminded that Code does allow one wood burning although he does not think wood burning is a good idea these days. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the oak tree touches near one proposed fireplace site. Mr. Vince Borelli: • Agreed and assured that this particular fireplace would definitely be gas. • Pointed out that these days, fireplaces are like pieces of furniture. • Explained that their modified entrance would let in more light as it allows for a large window over the front door thus reducing the need for artificial light. Commissioner Uhl said that the entrance redesign looks better but asked if the 18-foot height is necessary to achieve this design. Mr. Vince Borelli said that the height of the living room is 17 feet, 11 inches and that they need a two to three foot window over the front door. Mr. Toby Long, Project Architect: • Said that the intent of the redesigned entrance is to break up the very horizontal nature of the building and create a vertical entry to demarcate it clearly as an entranceway. • Said that there is a uniform roof treatment and that the chimneys project over the roof. • Assured that this entryway is in proportion with other aspects of the building design and is intended to make a prominent statement. • Explained that they are concerned that a sufficiently massive entrance is required to be easily located as guests approach from the driveway. Commissioner Hunter explained that she had found the original design to be lovely. She said that they applicant keeps coming back with changes that she likes less each time. Pointed out that the Carmel- like design aspect originally touted by Mr. Borelli has since been lost. Chair Garakani expressed concern about the size of the proposed dormer. Mr. Toby Long explained that the two-dimensional drawing of the elevation makes it appear larger than it will be. The dormer will be smaller than it appears. . Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Toby Long if he could name the current architectural style for this home. Mr. Toby Long replied the Borelli style. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 8, 2004 Page 6 Commissioner Uhl pointed out that it could be somewhat considered a village style. • Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that a previous application mentioned by Commissioner Rodgers was in a different neighborhood, Vista Verde, and had just a 25-foot setback that was nowhere as rural as this property. He advised that the project was continued. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the site consists of an acre. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. It includes an 80-foot front setback, a reasonable oak grove and landscaping. This is a rural lot. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that this entrance feature is somewhat hidden by the living room. She added that a big house such as this requires an appropriate entrance. Agreed that the flat view of a two- dimensional drawing does not do the architectural design justice. Commissioner Uhl said that this is a beautiful property. Said that there have been no neighbor complaints and that he could support this request. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the tree for which special efforts were required to be saved is still there. Mr. Borelli replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that she likes the middle design best. • Agreed that the plans do not do the design justice to the way the building swings around. • Said that while she prefers it the way it was before, she supports what Mr. Borelli wants to do here on his almost two acre lot. Commissioner Rodgers asked if any more structures are proposed for this property. Chair Garakani clarified that his question is whether this change represents the last of the changes for this project. He stated that he preferred the original design and is disturbed by the now 26-foot maximum height. Commissioner Hunter recounted that someone recently stopped by to tell her how much they liked the new fire station. She said she appreciated that feedback. Said that she would not vote against this. Chair Garakani: • Pointed out that he was bothered by the first modification request for this house as he was on the Commission when the original request was approved. • Said that it is now disturbing to once again have this applicant come back requesting more space and more height. . • Said that the change from two single car garage doors to one double car garage door is fine. • Stated that he is not supportive of this request. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 8, 2004 Page 7 Commissioner Rodgers: . • Stated that she is unhappy with the unbroken stretch of roof. • Said that problems have been expressed with previous projects relative to height of entryways. • Suggested that this entry feature could be reduced in height a bit. • Advised that she is still uncertain how she will vote on this request. Commissioner Schallop asked if it is the height or design itself that is of concern with entryway features. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that she was excited by the original design. • Added that she does not like big entryways and that 16 feet is her own personal limit in height of entryways. • Said that she does not like an 18-foot high entry. Commissioner Schallop asked if this limitation is part of Code. Commissioner Hunter replied no but advised that the Commission has reduced entryways before. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that that particular house mentioned is located on Versailles and it is still too high an entry. . Commissioner Schallop asked if there is any more specific guidance on heights for entryways. Commissioner Hunter said that if other Commissioners like this design, that is fine. Commissioner Nagpal said that consideration of height and the break up of the roofline could be considered. Chair Garakani asked if the applicant is willing to lower the entryway height. Chair Garakani re-opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Vince Borelli: • Said that one reason for raising the height on this side of the house is to accommodate his promise to the Commission to save a tree located on that side of the house. • Explained that it has been found that the house is four feet below this tree's roots. The tree would not survive. However, with the raising of the house by 37.5 inches, there is no damage to tree roots. • Added that they had considered moving that tree. • Informed that he and his wife had originally wanted asingle-story house due to their ages. There will now be five steps to that section of the house where the bedroom area would be. However, there is still a bedroom on the lower portion of the house in the event that one or both of them should ever be incapacitated in any way. • Said that the eyebrow feature over the front entry was a bit confined and the original porch was • dark. • Stated that they perhaps may be able to bring down the entrance height to 16 feet. • Reminded that the house is situated way back on the lot and it is hard to see when driving by. Sazatoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 8, 2004 Page 8 • Added that the large tree retained will help make the house appear smaller. • Said that he had made the promise to take caze of that tree and has done so. Commissioner LJhI asked about the expanded basement. Mr. Vince Borelli explained that there was a 10 percent bonus in squaze footage granted to allow a bedroom, bath and kitchenette unit in the basement that qualifies as an affordable secondary living unit. Commissioner Hunter asked about the painted aluminum. Mr. Vince Borelli clarified that this material is azound the windows. Commissioner Hunter reminded Mr. Borelli that his original submittal was so attractively presented. Mr. Toby Long: • Assured that this reflects quality azchitecture and will be subdued. • Advised that he does not like the McMansion look either. • Pointed out that the entrance does not project much as it is nestled within the rotunda and the drive azound will mask it. • Expressed his confidence that this entrance will blend into the architecture of this house. • Reiterated that the drawing does not do justice. • Said that a flat roofline is actually appropriate for the geometry of this particular structure. • Pointed out that the materials provide a lot of texture, including stone veneer and use of outdoor lighting. • Said that the entrance fits and is distinct from the rest of the building and offers an exciting view of the reaz yard from the entrance. • Assured that the 18-foot height would diminish quickly due to the scale of the property and structure. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Toby Long if he prefers to keep this height. Mr. Toby Long replied yes, he has a bias to keep it and pointed out that 24 inches would not re- characterize the architecture, which is historic and quality azchitecture and in appropriate scale for the facade. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that this entrance height was not part of the original design. Mr. Toby Long replied that things change and that the entrance is more of an opportunity to look out to the back of the property to appear more expansive. Commissioner Nagpal asked if 16 feet in height could work. Mr. Toby Long answered that he could make it work if necessary. Chair Garakani sought clarification as to whether 16 or 18 feet aze now asked by the applicant. • Mr. Toby Long deferred to Mr. Borelli. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 8, 2004 Page 9 • Commissioner Hunter pointed out that Mr. Borelli might already have the four votes necessary to retain his 18-foot high entrance. Mr. Vince Borelli said that it is his intent to get a majority vote even if he has to convince his architect of the 16-foot entrance height. Chair Garakani re-closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Schallop, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission approved a Modification of Building Plans and Development Conditions to include changes in floor plan, height and design on property located at 20200 Hill Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: Garakani and Hunter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ~** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Director Tom Sullivan: • Reminded the Commissioners of the pending Commissioners' hors d'oeuvres reception and the need to RSVP by September 13`s. • Advised that the Commission will have another study session prior to the next regular meeting on a Design Review proposal for a house that has been denied twice since 1991. COMMUNICATIONS City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on July 21, 2004 and from Special Meetings on August 9, 2004, August 11, 2004, August 16, 2004, and August 18, 2004. AD TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Garakani adjourned the meeting at 7:54 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of September 22, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • .7 ITEM 3 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant No./Location: 04-140; 17777 Saratoga Avenue Type of Application Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: Use Permit Sprint PCS/Kato Yasuto (property owner) Lata Vasudevan AICP, Associate Planner,~~ September 22, 2004 386-10-049 Department Head: - ~, - , ~~ - ~ ~ ' ~ .~AWRENL~~ EX V - '~~ .~ ~\ b~ \ ~ ~ ~ \~ \\\~ ~ sA}r+~0' .. \ ~\\ ~ ~ ~ ~Y ~ xAWREACE EX ~\ ~~ ~~ i ET DR. i< ~ ~` \~ ~, - l i 'RjOff3YK1(DR~~~ ~ ~ ., > LOL`L~'~~, s ~, - - ; ~ SARAFOGA AV ~', ! 75 150 275 000 0751t . ~ __._ _ __.'-r ]Buller zone. UITO RD ~ ~ 17777 Saratoga Avenue TOGA AVM "~ w Ahin 500 it of 17777 Sarafof3a Ave. '~ ' ~~ \ JS~Fi.~R ~.' V - ~,`y, , 17777 Saratoga Avenue O®O®41 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 05/10/04 08/20/04 09/08/04 08/31 /04 09/ 16/04 The applicant requests Use Permit approval to extend the height of the existing 61' - 6" tall monopole and install 3 panel antennas. The proposed total height of the monopole, with the new antennas, will be 67' - 4". The applicant proposes to co-locate with another cellular wireless carrier, Verizon, which has existing antennas on the monopole. Related equipment along with aback-up power receptacle would be situated on the property adjacent to Verizon's existing equipment. The site is located in the P-A zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Use Permit application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Photo simulations 3. RF exposure report 4. Explanation from applicant regarding use of back-up power receptacle 5. City Arborist Review letter, dated August 11, 2004 6. Affidavit of mailing notices, public notice, and mailing labels 7. City Council Staff Report from 1996 amending MCS 15-18.030(j) 8. 5-Year Coverage Plan Map and Existing On-Air and Proposed Sites Map 9. Plans, Exhibit "A." • • v ~U~~ _ Application No. 04-140 (Sprint PCS); 17777 Saratoga Avenue • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: P-A (Professional Administrative Office) GENERAL PLAN: P-A MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 10,800 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: level GRADING REQUIRED: None MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The monopole extension and antennas will match the color of the existing pole as shown on the submitted photo simulations. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project, which includes installation of equipment cabinets and antennas on an existing monopole, is categorically exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to new • construction of limited small new facilities; installation of small, new equipment and facilities in small structures. C~ Q~00003 Application No. 04-140 (Sprint PCS); 17777 Saratoga Avenue PROJECT DISCUSSION Background Since the proposed height extension of the existing monopole in relation to the requirements of the Municipal Code is of importance, Staff obtained the following information regazding the history of the existing monopole and pertinent Municipal Code revisions. On February 20, 1991, the City Council amended the City ordinance to allow cellular transmission towers to be permitted within the Professional Administrative (P-A) and Commercial (C) zoning districts at a height of 40 feet, and up to 60 feet upon the granting of a Use Permit. On Mazch 27, 1991, the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit to allow a 45-foot high cellular transmission tower and an equipment building to be located on the subject property (UP-90-009). The Commission determined that the irregulaz shape of the pazcel and its distance from residential neighborhoods proved to be an appropriate location for such a use. • On Mazch 1993, GTE Mobilnet (now occupied by Verizon) obtained Use Permit approval (Res. 93-010) upon appeal to the City Council to extend the height of the monopole to its current height for improved cellulaz reception. In June 1996, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 71-163 requiring Use permit approval to loc to wireless communication antenna facilities in any zoning district and thereby deleting tl~e previous Municipal Code • height restrictions for cellulaz wireless antennas. A copy of th'e staff report amending the zoning ordinance is attached for reference. In adopting the ordinance currently stated in Municipal Code Section 15-18.030(j), the City Council affirmed the Planning Commission's determination that through the Use Permit process detailed review of each application would be on a case-by-case basis. As such, the Municipal Code does not contain a strict height limit for cellular wireless antennas. Site Characteristics The project site is located on a triangular lot on Lawrence Expressway and is on the edge of the city limits with two sides bordering San Jose. Access to the property is off Saratoga Avenue, over an adjacent parcel (in San Jose) also owned by the same property owner. Presently on the site are a cellular transmission pole, a billboazd sign, various storage bins and supplies, all of which aze enclosed by a six feet high chain link fence with red plastic slats and barbed wire. The remainder of the site is used for commercial parking. Sprint PCS proposes to occupy an approximately 346 squaze foot lease area at the northwest corner of the site. Sprint PCS currently has another cell site less than %4 miles away from the subject site at the Westgate Community Bible Church in San Jose. The new location is proposed to replace this existing neazby location. Sprint PCS plans to decommission the Church site as soon as . the new proposed antennas and related equipment have been placed and is on-air. The ~~iU©O~ Application No. 04-140 (Sprint PCS); 17777 Saratoga Avenue purpose of adding height to the existing monopole in this proposed Use Permit application is to substantially increase Sprint's coverage azea. According to the applicant, if the proposed antennas were place below the existing Verizon antennas, Sprint would achieve the same coverage that they already have. Staff has another pending Use Permit application by AT&T for proposed antennas below Verizon's existing antennas. The subject application proposes utility trenching within a small extent of the right-of--way of the City of San Jose and County of Santa Claza (Lawrence Expressway). A condition of approval has been included in the attached resolution stating the inevitable requirement to obtain necessary permits from the other jurisdictions. Proposed Equipment Sprint PCS proposes to install four outdoor equipment cabinets, a GPS antenna, a cable tray leading to the monopole, a power panel with a meter and a back up power (generator) receptacle. The equipment will be placed on a proposed 8' x 20' concrete slab. As the elevation drawings show in attached Exhibit A, the equipment will not exceed the height of the existing 6 foot high fence. Only the GPS antenna will protrude over the fence height by approximately 1 foot as shown on the elevation drawings. As explained by the applicant, the proposed back-up power (generator) receptacle will be used only in the event of a major disaster. The applicant has submitted an explanation for its • use, which is attached. Hence, Staff is not requiring a Use Permit for this receptacle because a generator is not proposed as a permanent fixture at the site and will only be brought in during a major disaster. Pursuant to MCS 7-30.030 equipment engaged in essential activities necessary to save lives or property from imminent danger, loss or harm during emergencies aze exempt from the City's noise standazds. As known, under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC has exclusive jurisdiction over RF emissions from wireless antenna facilities. Pursuant to its authority under federal law, the FCC has established rules to regulate the safety of emissions from these facilities. The applicant has provided a cumulative RF exposure report (attached), which evaluates both the proposed and existing wireless facilities. The report concludes that the cumulative RF energy, at .76% of the public exposure limit, is well below the Maximum Permissible Exposure limit established by the FCC. Panel Antennas on Existing Monopole Three panel antennas will be mounted on a new 4-foot extension to the existing 61' - 6" monopole. Each antenna will be approximately 54" tall, 7" in width and 3.5" in depth. The proposed height of the monopole with the new Sprint antennas will be 67' - 4". Staff finds that the pole and antenna addition will not have a substantial impact on the appeazance of the site. • Q'©~~~5 Application No. 04-140 (Sprint PCS); 17777 Saratoga Avenue Trees The City Arborist has reviewed the proposal and has determined that no tree protection measures would be necessary during construction to ensure the survival of the trees in the vicinity of the lease area. Landscaping Although the existing fencing will shield the proposed equipment, Staff has required that the applicant plant additional oleanders on the property to continue the row of existing shrubs. Staff has added a condition of approval that the applicant shall submit to Staff a two-year landscape maintenance agreement to ensure the survival of the oleanders. Fencing As indicated on the plans, the applicant proposes to remove the barbed wire on top of the existing fence. The use of barbed wire is prohibited pursuant to MCS 15-29.050 Use Permit Findings The proposed project supports the findings for Use Permit approval; therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed project based on the following findings: ' • • That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use in a location which already has another wireless carrier and will have less visually obtrusive equipment than what exists. • That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity because the facility will be operated under the restrictions imposed by the FCC to ensure safety with respect to limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy. • That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter in that the location, height, size and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district. The site already accommodates another antenna facility and the proposal would not be a substantial visual impairment over what currently exists. The increased pole height would not substantially impair adjacent property owners' views. • ~~~~~~ Application No. 04-140 (Sprint PCS); 17777 Saratoga Avenue Conclusion The project satisfies all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code. The antennas and associated equipment are not expected to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare nor are they expected to be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations applicable to antenna facilities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve use permit application number 04-140 by adopting the attached Resolution. • ~J Q~c~f1©Q~ Attachment 1 ~ ~ Q'®~®Q8 Application No. 04-140 (Sprint PCS); 17777 Saratoga Avenue RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 04-140 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Sprint PCS;17777 Saratoga Avenue (Kato Yasuto) WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Use Permit approval to extend the height of the existing 61' - 6" tall monopole and insta113 panel antennas. The proposed total height of the monopole, with the new antennas, will be 67' - 4". Related equipment along with an emergency back-up power receptacle will be situated on the property; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which includes the installation of equipment and panel antennas on an existing monopole is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to installation of small new equipment and facilities; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for use permit approval, and the following findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-55.070: • a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use in a location which already has another wireless carrier and will have less visually obtrusive equipment than what exists. • That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity because the facility will be operated under the restrictions imposed by the FCC to ensure safety with respect to limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy. • That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter in that the location, height, size and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district. The site already accommodates another antenna facility and the proposal would not be a substantial visual impairment over what currently exists. The increased pole height would not substantially impact adjacent property owners' views. ~~~®n9 Application No. 04-140 (Sprint PCS); 17777 Saratoga Avenue • NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 04-140 for Use Permit approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed antennas and related equipment shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" which includes plans and photo simulations, incorporated by reference. 2. Applicant shall submit to Planning Staff a 2-year landscape maintenance agreement to ensure the survival of the oleanders prior to final building inspection. The new oleanders shall always be maintained in good health thereafter. 3. Applicant shall obtain necessary permits for work within the public right of way within the City of San Jose and the County of Santa Clara jurisdictions. 4. Applicant shall decommission the Sprint Westgate Community Bible Church site and remove all associated equipment within 30 days after the antennas at this subject site have been installed and are on-air. 5. If the subject site is decommissioned in the future, all antennas and related equipment shall be removed within 30 days of cessation of operation. 6. The barbed wire fencing on top of the existing fencing shall be removed prior to final building inspection. 7. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Department for Building permits. 8. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Use Permit and may, at any time modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety and welfare. 9. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. ~~Q~®~~ Application No. 04-140 (Sprint PCS); 17777 Saratoga Avenue Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 22nd day of September 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission • ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. L Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date ~~~®~,~. • Attachment 2 r ~ ~J C` a f • proposed antennas \ D r r .~r,~.. ~ _-- ~,. - - ~~. ~ ' -ter _ ~~-~.. ~ ~._ /~ ~: ~ -- .: _ . , ~.y ~; ., _ Saratoga Crown Co-location ~ - 1777 Saratoga Avenue San Jose, CA 94070 site # SF60XC855B Photos~mulalwn by Applietl Imagu~a6on S10 91a-Ui~W ~~:r~~~'~.3 ~_._ .~ ~, ~ ~ . - T ; ~~ .~ i ~,,i 4 . ~ y „ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ f ~4 t ~ '`h ~~' ~~~ ~'d 1t C~t ^ Tf~ _ ~ 4 ~ ` ~* - '~!. ns~ - - I, proposed antennas \ f F proposed equipment J' no: visible 't .~.:'t. \ Ri +~ 4. 1t \ ~f r .t ~~~-~ ~, -_ ,: +Y.. ~~. F:• a ..iis. , .~. ar .y.. i `~a.`'v~a~a r~,_;_ ~ \,~ ~, ~~ ~'~i~_ i\ ~~ ~~ ''~~ 1 ~y /~%<-- ~, Spriir~ PCS 4/15/04 .: ^~ I ~ a • • • Plwtos~mulation by Appl~etl Imaquialron S 10 y i a-OSiN) -f ~~ 4 L Attachment 3 ~~~~~g5 Sprint PCS • Proposed Base Station (Site No. SF60xc855B) 1777 Saratoga Avenue • San Jose, California Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consuttin En ineers 9 9 The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of Sprint PCS, a wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. SF60xc855B) proposed to be located at 1777 Saratoga Avenue in San Jose, California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency ("RF") electromagnetic fields. Prevailing Exposure Standards The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15, 1997, the FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP"). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes nearly identical exposure limits. A summary of the FCC's exposure limits is shown in Figure 1. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. The most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimi several personal wireless services are as follows: Personal Wireless Service Approx. Frequenc~ Personal Communication ("PCS") 1,950 MHz Cellular Telephone 870 Specialized Mobile Radio 855 [most restrictive frequency range] 30-300 ted duration to radio / Occupational Limit 5.00 mW/cm2 2.90 2.85 1.00 frequency energy for Public Limit 1.00 mW/cm2 0.58 0.57 0.20 General Facility Requirements Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" or "cabinets") that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables about 1 inch thick. Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless services, the antennas require line-of--sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are installed at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward . ~• HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. "s'~ CONSULTING ENGINEERS SP855B596 a<.>`?" - sAN Fa:wctsco Page 1 of 3 ~~~~~ Sprint PCS • Proposed Base Station (Site No. SF60xc855B) 1777 Saratoga Avenue • San Jose, California the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power of such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas. Computer Modeling Method The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully formed at locations very close by (the "near-field" effect) and that the power level from an energy source decreases with the square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law"). The conservative nature of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests. Site and Facility Description Based upon information provided by Sprint, including zoning drawings by MSA Architecture & Planning, Inc., dated February 24, 2004, it is proposed to mount three Andrew Model UMWD-06516- XDM directional panel antennas on a 5-foot extension of a 611/2-foot steel pole located at 1777 Saratoga Avenue in San Jose. The antennas would be mounted at an effective height of about 651/2 feet above ground and would be oriented at approximately 120° spacing, to provide service in all directions. The maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 1,000 watts. Presently located on the same pole are similar antennas for use by Verizon Wireless, a cellular telecommunications carrier. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that Verizon has installed Andrew Model DB844H65 directional panel antennas and operates with a maximum effective radiated power of 1,500 watts. Study Results The maximum ambient RF level anywhere at ground due to the proposed Sprint operation by itself is calculated to be 0.00032 mW/cm2, which is 0.32% of the applicable public exposure limit. The maximum calculated cumulative level at ground for the simultaneous operation of both carvers is 0.76% of the public exposure limit; the maximum level at the second floor elevation of any of the nearby homes' is 0.45% of the public exposure limit. It should be noted that these results include several "worst-case" assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual power density levels. ' Located at least 160 feet away, based on aerial photographs from Maps a la carte, Inc. ~;"' ~ HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. ~:;~' " ~", CONSULTING ENGINEERS .. ~ ~~ ~'~:~' SAN FRANCISCO SP855B596 Page 2 of 3 E~ ~~~~~ Sprint PCS • Proposed Base Station (Site No. SF60xc855B) 1777 Saratoga Avenue • San Jose, California No Recommended Mitigation Measures Since they are to be mounted on a tall pole, the Sprint antennas are not accessible to the general public, and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure guidelines. It is presumed that Sprint and Verizon will, as FCC licensees, take adequate steps to ensure that their employees or contractors comply with FCC occupational exposure guidelines whenever work is required near the antennas themselves. Conclusion Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the base station proposed by Sprint PCS at 1777 Saratoga Avenue in San Jose, California, will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating base stations. Authorship C7 The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2005. This work has been carried out by him or under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct. March 23, 2004 ~. "~'~~ ' HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. ~`~ "'~'"' CONSULTING ENGINEERS SP855B596 sa.N ~anrrcism Page 3 of 3 • ~~~~~~~ FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide • • The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, which are nearly identical to the more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz." These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive: Frequency Applicable Range (MHz) 0.3 - 1.34 1.34- 3.0 3.0 - 30 30 - 300 300- 1,500 1,500 - 100,000 1000 ,^ 100 ~,~ " = ~ 10 ~ U y ~ ~3 a q ~ 1 0.1 Electromagnetic Fields (f is frequencv of emission in MHz Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far-Field Field Strength Field Strength Power Density (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cm2) 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100 614 823.8/f 1.63 2.19/f 100 180/ 1842/ f 823.8/f 4.89/ f 2.19/f 900/ f 180/f 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2 3.541~f 1.59ff ff/106 ~f/238 f/300 f/1500 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0 Occupational Exposure PCS ~ Cell ~ FM ~~ ~ ----~ f ~~ Public E/xnosure 0.1 1 10 100 103 104 105 Frequency (MHz) • Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections. ~~ ~,'+~`~ HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. is ~ ~'d`~'' CONSULTING ENGINEERS FCC Guidelines ~:= SAN FRANCISCO Figure 1 f:;!~~~~..Y RFR.CALCrM Calculation Methodology Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC (see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits. Near Field. Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip (omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications cell sites. The near field zone is defined by the distance, D, from an antenna beyond which the manufacturer's published, far field antenna patterns will be fully formed; the near field may exist for increasing D until some or all of three conditions have been met: 2 1) D > ~ 2) D > Sh 3) D > 1.6~, where h =aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and ~, =wavelength of the transmitted signal, in meters. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives this formula for calculating power density in the near field zone about an individual RF source: power density S = 1~ x O.x Dxnh inmW/cm2 where 6Bw =half-power beamwidth of antenna, in degrees, and Pnet =net power input to the antenna, in watts. The factor of 0.1 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates distances to FCC public and occupational limits. Far Field. OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source: power density S = 2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2 x ERP 4x nx D2 in mW/cm2, where ERP =total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RFF =relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and D =distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters. The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. 'This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to obtain more accurate projections. C7 • • a g ° HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. ~'``~ `` ' CONSULTIIVG ENGINEERS Methodology ~ ~^ ~: snrv FRnrvc-sm Figure 2 ~~'~~~ :~ • Attachment 4 ~~~~ :~. THE ALARIS • GROUP,LLC July 8, 2004 Lata Vasudevan, AICP City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Incomplete Application Item No. 4: Emergency Generator Receptacle Application No. 04-140 Dear Lata: This is written in response to Item No. 4 on our Notice of Incomplete Application, dated June 8, 2004. Our plans show an "emergency generator receptacle", which is basically just aback-up power receptacle. This will never support a generator unless there is some sort of major disaster, one equivalent to the events that occurred on September 11, 2001. To put it a bit more in perspective, in the 1989 earthquake, only about 1 % of Sprint PCS sites needed aback-up generator. Hopefully this better illustrates what we would need the receptacle for. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Kristina oerner .. ISS BERRY STREET,SLITE 5300 S:9N FRA\CISCO, CA 94107 ~~~~~2~ Attachment 5 C~ R~:f ~,t!:~trLt: ~•~ ARBOR RESOURCES ...._ ~ J'rofcx.cionu! Arh~r~cult:rra! Cnns2~I~in,~ X~ l'rec ('are August 11, ?004 Lata Vasudevan Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Aventic Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Review of the Proposed Sprint Cellular F;quipment on the Yasut.o Property; 17777 Sat-atoga Avenue, Saratoga; Application #; 04-140 Dear Lata: 1 have received end reviewed the plans proposed by Sprint for installing cellular equipment al the above-referenced site. My site visit on August 1(), 2004 revealed there is a row of four Deodar Cedars (Ceclrus defxkrru) along the property's north side, Of these, only one is regulated by City Ordinance with a trunk diameter of 13 inches. This tree is located closest to the property's northwest corner and is far enough away from the project components that it would not be impacted. As such, T find protection measures are not necessary durinb construction to ensure its survival. Sincerely, /~~~ `~ David L. Babby, RCA Consulting Arbo~ st ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `, D~~ AUG 1 1 2004 CITY C)F SARA~~~~' r R. P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 944D2 Email: arborresourcc~fp?carthl+nk.nci Phone: GSO.G54.3351 Fay: GS0.65~i.33i2 • Licensed Contractor #'79G763 C7 • • 1:~'0~~~ Z00 ' d dZ8 ~ S L b0 / Z T / 80 ZS88 bS9 0S8 sa~,anosaZ{ .loq,~d • Attachment 6 • ~~~~2~ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, ~,(~~ ~~ ~ ~ S~~C~~' V~-~ ~. ,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 Ciry of Saratoga s~f' ' Planning Commission on the ~ day of ~ Ott %~ ~ 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. ~- ~' // l Signed • City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 22"d day of September 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Thursday from 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. APPLICATION #04-140 (386-10-049) Sprint PCS (applicant), Kato Yasuto (property owner), 17777 Saratoga Avenue; The applicant requests Use Permit approval to extend the height of the existing monopole and install antennas. The applicant proposes to co-locate with another wireless carrier, Verizon, which has existing antennas on the monopole. Related equipment will be situated on the property adjacent to Verizon's existing equipment. The site is located in the P-A (Professional and Administrative Office) zoning district. 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 maybe limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of-date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Lata Vasudevan Associate Planner 408-868-1235 lvasudevan@saratoga.ca.us ~~~~~~ VELLA LEONARD J TRUSTEE ET AL OR CURRENT OWNER 18560 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 KATO YASUTO TRUSTEE ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER 1745 SARATOGA AV C SAN JOSE, CA 95129 CAMPBELL UNIONS D OR CURRENT OWNER 18900 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 PORTFOLIO REALTY MNGMT INC OR CURRENT OWNER 20380 TOWN CENTER LN 170 CUPERTINO, CA 95014 KATO YASUTO TRUSTEE ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER 1745 SARATOGA AV C SAN JOSE, CA 95129 DAMICO TIRE SERVICE INC OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 969 SAN JOSE, CA 95108-0969 WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 7788 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 AGEE JOHN T & DORIS F TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12348 LOLLY DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3515 CROSS ROGER L & JEAN C OR CURRENT OWNER 18670 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3531 HO HAE CHON & JOONG S1M OR CURRENT OWNER 18651 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3531 AL'S AUTO SUPPLY OR CURRENT OWNER 645 E MISSOURI AV PHOENIX, AZ 85012-1369 WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 7788 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF QUITO PARK OR CURRENT OWNER 1735 SARATOGA AV SAN JOSE, CA 95129-5203 KATO YASUTO TRUSTEE ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER 1745 SARATOGA AV C SAN JOSE, CA 95129 KATO YASUTO TRUSTEE ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER 6601 OWENS DR. SUITE 250 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 SARATOGA AV BAPTIST CHURCH OR CURRENT OWNER 1735 SARATOGA AV SAN JOSE, CA 95129-5203 GEOFFREY A FARRAR TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER P O BOX 1701 CHICO, CA 95927-1701 CHO TIK-FAI & TERESA M OR CURRENT OWNER 12336 LOLLY DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3515 MATISON ROBERT C & MARY L TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 18668 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3531 RASTEGAR-PANAH MOHSSEN ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER 18663 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3531 SEGALL JOHN B & REVA A TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 456 CORNELL AV SAN MATED, CA 94402-2204 KATO YASUTO TRUSTEE ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER 1745 SARATOGA AV C SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SARATOGA AVE BAPTIST CHURCH OR CURRENT OWNER 1735 SARATOGA AV SAN JOSE, CA 95129-5203 KATO YASUTO TRUSTEE ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER 1745 SARATOGA AV C SAN JOSE, CA 95129 GAZZERA STEPHEN III OR CURRENT OWNER 1134 W EL CAMINO REAL MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94040 EARL JOHN A TRUSTEE ETA OR CURRENT OWNER 9 FORRESTER LN YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599 RUSSO RAY A SR TRUSTEE ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 41057 SAN JOSE, CA 95160-1057 DESAI GITA & ANIL OR CURRENT OWNER 12324 LOLLY DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3515 PHILLIPS STEVEN M & JYH- HUA S OR CURRENT OWNER 18656 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3531 KAY IDOTA OR CURRENT OWNER 1500 EL OSO DR SAN JOSE, CA 95129 ~~~~~~ YEE ALBAN & ANGELA BECKER DARYL V LOOS DUANE E & LISA A OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 746 VIA GRANDE DR 18699 SAN PALO CT 18711 SAN PALO CT ~ATOGA, CA 95070-4467 SARATOGA, CA 95070-3531 SARATOGA, CA 95070-3531 RUSSO RAY A SR TRUSTEE UELMEN MARTHA A & DENNIS DAVID E & SHARLENE ETAL GERALD F TRUSTEE E OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 41057 18727 CABERNET DR 18735 CABERNET DR SAN JOSE, CA 95160-1057 SARATOGA, CA 95070-3562 SARATOGA, CA 95070-3562 GARY FILIPIC KRISTINA WOERNER/SPRINT OR CURRENT OWNER PCS 200 W MADISON ST 37TH OR CURRENT OWNER FLOOR 185 BERRY ST. CHICAGO, IL 60606 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107 • • ~~~~~~ • Attachment 7 r~ ~J ~ ~(~~30 • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: May 15, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development CITY MGR: SUBJECT: AZO-96-002; Amendment to Zoning Ordinance establishing Use Permit review in all zoning districts for Communication Antenna Facilities. Recommended Motion: Accept the Planning Commission recommendations by taking the following actions: 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration finding that no significant, adverse environmental impacts will result from amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Introduce and waive further reading of an Ordinance establishing Use Permit review in all zoning districts for Communication Antenna Facilities. Report Summary: On April 10, 1996, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended (6-0-1) that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance to require Use Permit approval to locate antenna facilities in any zoning • district. The Commission's recommendation was a result of several months review and discussion of alternatives regarding appropriate locations for wireless communication antenna sites which would be consistent with the City's land use and neighborhood protection goals and policies. There was discussion regarding alternatives including approving "pre- designated" sites which would encourage co-location and discourage individual applications and maintaining the current requirements of administrative approval in Commercial and Professional Office Zoning Districts and prohibiting sites in Residential Districts. The Commission concluded that the best alternative was to provide for the maximum number of potential sites while requiring detailed review on a case by case basis with the ability to impose conditions necessary to provide compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, whether it be commercial or residential. Residential Districts should be included as potentially appropriate sites because many "large land uses (e.g. churches, parks, public facilities, etc.) are located in Residential Zoning Districts. Environmental Determination: An Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project finding that no significant, adverse environmental impacts will result from this project - an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Additional environmental analysis will be • required as Use Permit applications are reviewed for specific sites. Fiscal Impacts: None. Application fees will be required for future Use Permit applications. ~~~~~~ Communication Antenna Facilities City Council, May 15, 1996 Advertising. Noticina and Public Contact: A notice was published in the Saratoga News. Corse ences of Not Actin on the Recommended Motions: Review of all new antenna facility sites will be completed per current regulations; that is, administrative approval in Commercial and Professional-Office Zoning Districts and not allowed in all other districts. Follow Up Actions: The Ordinance Council agenda for adoption and thereafter. The Urgency Ordinance to allow processing of Use Permit provisions. Attachments• 1. Recommended Ordinance. 2. Planning Commission Minutes; dated April 3. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated 4. Initial Study and Negative Declaration. will be placed on the next City will become effective 30 days (i.e. moratorium) will be rescinded applications per the new Ordinance 10, 1996. April 10, 1996. r~ U p;\,..\pldir\execsum\antord.515 ®~~w r~ L ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY;, OF SARATOGA ESTABLISHING THE REQUIREMENT OF A USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO LOCATE WIRELESS COMMUNICATION'iANTENNA FACILITIES IN ANY ZONING DIS'~RICT SECTION 1: The City Council of the Cityiof Saratoga hereby ordains to amend Chapter 15 of the City Code as follows: p, - Agricultural District: Add Section 15-11.030 (k) Antenna facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone and other wireless communications. R-1 - Single-Family Residential Districts: Add Section 15-12.030 (n) : Antenna facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving iellular telephone and other wireless communications. i HR - Hillside Residential District: ~~ Add Section 15-13.040 (p) Antenna facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone and other wireless communications. pA - Professional and Administrative Office District: Amend Section 15-18.030 (~) Antenna ~3.~~ operated by a .. g ~ ::.;:... <.y .; .;..; .:::.:.:.:...:. publ:ic....:ut:i.l.ity, :for transmittin and receiving cellular telephone .~,~,.~::: ~r~~~ ~r~ x,~~..~~~~ communications:::::;; o~?~ ___ Miscellaneous Regulations and Exceptions: Delete Section 15-80.010 (e) V ~~ ~~L C - Commercial Districts : ...::::.:.:.:::...:...:..::..:.::. Amend Section 15-19 020 (b) (14) Antennas ~~'~ operated by a:.:publ:i.c.::ut:il:ity::f.or transmitting and receiving ce~~~.u~ar telephone ., ~ >: ~rri ~:~.~.'~~~ w~~.~'~..~:~.~~ communications>,; -~e~e-~tx ,~__ ~~. • ~ a a ,-. ,- ' ~ ,- ~ ~ L. ~r+i~-~~~arr~c-cry ~~ J _ ~. __-~--i eraTG~TQ'C77ZZU ~u i .~ ~. i i 1 e-a~s-t €e ~-~e ~ ` ~ ~'~ ~ y ~ ,. Y 1 - SECTION 2: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 1996 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk p:\...\pldir\memo.cc r ~ ~J ~~~~~`~ tl 1191HX3 ~.- ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~. Q d E ~ ~ ~~3g'~g h ~ ~G~ e~p~3 ~O~~w~ ~ ~~~ o .$ ~ ~ ®~ ~ O - N w .~ r ~1 ~ LS~ V~ W I- ~~~ Z ~~~ ac Y Q ~~~ U ~=a~ ~ ~ ~~~~ w g ~~em Z ~ ~~~ U ~~~~ ~ O ~ ha ~ ~~~~ Z I- $ 8~ ~ /W~ V U =~ `~ $_ ~~ .J z ~ ~ _~~~~ Z~Z ~~a P ~ • ~ N ~~ ~~~~~ Q ~gW ~7~ ~s w ~~ yg~ W ~" ~e s a sc~ g~~ ~ ~~ z ~ ~ ~g ~ ~a ~Q ~~~~ , ~s~~~ ~8 ~8 ~ U ~ Q ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~J U "~;~~~ ~~~~~ W ~ & ac ~ p ~ ,~ ~ W V ~ ~~ ~~~~~ V ~~~ ~~§~o ~ ~~ ~ $~ a v _~~~~ oW ~ ~ O ~ o O ~ ~ O ~~ Z 6 ~ ~~ aa o F ~ 8r8 ~= a ~ ~s < ~ ~ I` ~ ~~° w ~ ~ g F ~ W rr ~ f``Sj ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 Q OC Q r C a ~ ~ ~ ~ "s ~ g ~ u si~ ~~ m ~,~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~~~~~~~a~Z Z \~s~~~a~~OC V ~ W W W W a ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ V z z 0 o e eo ~ r '~ Y : 7 ~ LLiill ~ ~ Z H ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W a ~ ~ _ H J N J Q Q Q Q • • • m y~ A ~j ~ ~ ~ ti ~ i~~ ~ ~ n N V' OI ~Q ~ ~ ~ F ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~5~ ~ s9 ~ V Q ~~S ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~R ~ ~ O n S ~ ~ a s < tl1QU~~w y~ r ~ cn tT ~ - ~ •~ 3 O ~~ z J o d N FI N t,~~r III I ~ ~ ~ 'o'yv tt ~~~ar~e~~ IIII • • • •~8 mo WR ~j ~ ~ 4 i~' i ~~3~ ' N ~~~ ~ ~ Q ~ I~ ~ ~ _~ ,~ ~Q~~~ ~ z ~ yy ~ U~ ~~~' a~ Q xpJ~jv~i ~ t+ V ~ r Q _ t ~o (/1 `._ ._ ~. ~ ~ .._- I~ ~- --- . _~_ --- f`~ a~ _ ~ f..m - ~~ ... a ~,~ _ r-'i-~T ~ ~' r Y3 {{ ~ 7 + , ,, _ i e -F ~~. ter' 1,~ , ~ ~ ~~ . _ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~. ,~ _~.: Wis. ~ as ;; t , .,;~..: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ _~.^ ~ ,{ .. ~ d ~i~_ ~.~ ~... _.,..4~ ~~ ~~` ~ ~~'70~'...1 v' . , '-' - _:. r I j 11 -- a ~. ...,,. b P d J9~1 W -'-'-- ~ ~.y0.,.~jTT/- ,-~~ ("fin ;:_ ~_~~.~L1_.1..~.ard~~loul~l:r._"' den _ i - I 131'~fa641f r~ Its, ~~~"~ ~ ~~ i~ ~i ~9 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ p ~~~~~. ~~~~ ~~. ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ pppppp~ ~~ + ti~ w r ~~ rt d i i ~~ ~ ~~b ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~$ ;; .. `' ti~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ dal N 3~= ~ ' ~~ ~~ r ~ ~ ~R ~ r ~ i ~ :~ ~ a ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i rAM~11 t ~i ~ f ~R~ • • • O 1~ N ~ I ~ C C ~ • ~ n E ~'~ ~~~~ ~, ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~w~ W ~ ~r v ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~~~ ~ Q 17i ~ ~~, ~~ ~ W ~~,\~,d ~P~ Q ^~Vl ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ., .. ,.~ ~s W' /~ I /, II // /1 /1 /~ v 11 /~ /~ ' II // /1 N II ~~d ~l \ t W 1~ .~l ~~> /' a~o II i I ~. F ~OC ~ 1 I Z~F; < II ~~~ o a ~ ~ l i .,N gg ~ y~~ I i i x ~~'d ~ i~~n ~ ~ i~ ~ r~J II ~ II ~ .~ I I I ~_-- i I `~~~- .. ..--- ~ a ~ 11 II ~ r~ r x ice, 1 ~~ ~.. ~' 1 O ^ v N R ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~,, ei~ 5z CEO ~ N t ~Z N 1 ~~ . ~~~\ ~ ~ r,>J\ t~ i F G • ~i.- ~ ~ _ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ s ~ $ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~+ e~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ s~~ ~oX~V~ ~~ ~ 1 .~ OHO ~ tl~ ~ ~l~r~ /~; ~!~ \~ \`~~ ~~ i ;~j~ /' ~\ ~~\ ,~ - ./a `~. o: o O ~ r~'\~ ~ z 00~ 1' w~ ~$z ~ ~ ~~ ~, •- > r Q~ I ~< o 1 ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~` ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~W~ .~ •, •~ i i •/ -~ i .iS ~..._ W a ~~Q ~~n W v~ • 1j ~iir ~ o yy w e .~ a g ~ d oa~,^^,, °a~,~~ .. .. E ~~~ ~a'~8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^' ~ o ~~'~~ a~ ~ ~~~~~~ F P x 3 ~ '~ a~~~ ~„ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ a a ~~~ ®~~ _ .. ~~~ `€~~ ~~ ~~~ ~G~G~~ a6~ ~~ ~~ ~~ z ° vTS 9f~ ~~~ °v5 z NW W~ W WF ~~ I ~ u~ ~ & ~ a v a d~~ ~~~~ ~ {{q~~ new x~y~ v ~ f/1 O ~ ~ a ~ ~a 8 d ~ 1 W > ~ ~ i ~ vl J ~ d n W °• m Z W s ~ o w ~ z v H < Z Z W ~, ~ V a y F N Q[ 1 WW V1 Z 4 M ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ss nyyy~~~ ~ z X~ ~x G ..n~ ~ W ~~ <~ m ~y ~~ J N ~ (W7 I W ~~ W NW ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ai ~W ~~ ly .^_1 ~_ fit''`' •~ P ~ Z ~ ~~~~ ~W F- ~~, a~~ '~ "S> • d~ ~ z m ~ ~ .. .. O Zm~g~ O ~ ~tW V W '<~~ U Q O~0 FU G < ' ~ O X ~N~ ~ ~ z ~ ^~~ N ~~ Q ~ ~' ~~~ ~~~ FZZ ~U ~~~ ova ~ W S° ~~~ 1N ~g ~~ x ~~ m z ~~ ~_ Z ° ~~~ II1 ~ W ^00 za F U as ~N ~~~ ~~v a 5 N ?7$ C! GGC S2' 5 ~U ~b 8 ~ g~~o ~~~~ e,=,,~~ a~w~a~~ 0 0 MW\f t7 C.i N 4 0 A ~i.1 y ~ a m ~° •~ g ~ ~tl~~ -~~ m ~~ E ~~~ ~~$ U a ~ ~~u ~ Z ~ ~ ~~ a . ~ X ~ ~ 1 Q ~ ~~`3S ~ U ~ F ~~ ~ :~~ ~ ~~ ~ V Qz J~ W(~ Q O O VY CW.7 ZW N~ N~7 m FO !¢m~ ~~ ~ ~ ~g ., r ~ 4 1 t i~ ~i J ~ 1 ~ i~ 1 / I ~ l'- ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ / ~ W ~-. ~~ C / C ~ I \ / w ~ A1R11 1N18dS (d d0 d01 ` J W m E- .l 13A ~~0 0 Q Q ,er U Z 4 Q 4 _O ~ ~,~ I-~' J C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N Q ~~ ~~ ~~ n '~ w~ ~ ~~ ,~ 8~ ~ 8M F m ~ ~ Z O Q U ~~ + d ~.~e " W i a .. (n _~.. e ~ W ~ ., ... ,ii' Z ..; ,~ { c• i4 ~ _ z '~ ~ , .. aW m ~P$O Q W .. _... `~ g ~ v M Q y~~lW t Daa(Q~ app 1(QCy7 Qm W~ nap ~Ui ~~~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ap m~ a< a< vU w o h Oap~ a~ W • ~ ® ~ Ulm - NI V.7 O 0 .0 .l t -,S 3'JOla0 3'19V~ (d)/3~N7d (]) dO dOLL °° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ o N a~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,. 5 8 d o V ~ - + r tl • • • ITEM 4 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant No./Location: UP 04-075; 14000 Fruitvale Avenue (West Valley College) Type of Application: Use Permit Applicant/Owner: Sprint PCS Staff Planner: Christy Oosterhous, Associate Planner Date: September 22, 2004 APN: 397-15-018, 397-14-022, 397-13-030 Department Head: l • Cp ' ~ ~ ~~ ` ,; ~ ~~~ ~ _` -- ~ _ ~ ~ --r - -.1._ ~ -t`~ I _J ` a j. _. -, -_, - ,~ 1 ~-r ~ i ~, _,: ,- ... . ~ I i ~ ti.. :; !~:' I E ~ d : ~ i'_ _ ~,'~ ~ ~Rgect Site V 1 "i';. ~,aT+ 'y~ \~/ I I ~..; ~~.. r~~ a~ r-. Pdreek within 500 ft 1--~ ~ /,~; Nr~: [~ Parcels ----._ -^';J 1. ~ - ~. 5 ^ ~ ~ .r .' I'__~ ~f 111,, '' ' --~~ - r - f ,,`- ._.. ............._J_. t ~ .._ o sta ~ooo ~soo zooo n 14000 Fruitvale Avenue (West Valley College) O~~®0~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed PROJECT DESCRIPTION 03/31/04 08/16/04 09/08/04 09/07/04 09/16/04 The applicant requests use permit approval to install 3 panel antennas and equipment cabinets at the theater building located on the West Valley College campus. The equipment cabinets are to be fully screened in an enclosure which is to be landscaped. The college campus is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Several wireless carriers are located at this site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Use Permit application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Arborist Report, dated August 16, 2004. 3. Affidavit of mailing notices, public notice, and mailing labels. 4. RF Exposure Report. 5. 5-Year Coverage Plan Map and Existing On-Air and Proposed Sites Map. 6. Photosimulations. 7. Plans, Exhibit "A." • • c~~voo2 Application No. 04-075, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue, West Valley College • • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: MEASURE G: PARCEL SIZE: R-1-40,000 Residential-Very Low Density Not applicable Approximately 23 acres. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Not applicable GRADING REQUIRED: None MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: All equipment will be enclosed in a chain link fence with red vinyl slats to match existing equipment enclosures. All equipment will be painted to match the theater building. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project which includes installation of equipment cabinets and panel antennas is categorically exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies tolnew construction of limited small new facilities; installation of small, new equipment and facilities in small structures. 0~~®03 Application No. 04-075, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue, West Palley College PROJECT DISCUSSION • The applicant requests use permit approval to install 3 panel antennas and equipment cabinets at the theater building located on the West Valley College campus. The equipment cabinets are to be screened in an enclosure which is to be landscaped. A cable tray is also proposed. The college campus is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Several wireless carriers are located at this site. The theater building is approximately 60 ft in height. It accommodates several other wireless facilities. Surrounding land uses include City Hall, the post office, Redwood Middle School, and single-family residences. A total of 3 panel antennas are proposed. Two panel antennas are to be mounted on the exterior of the building at roof level approximately 60 feet in height. One panel antenna is to be mounted on an existing tri-pod located on the roof top. The dimension of each antenna is approximately 54.5 inches in length, 6.8 inches in width, and 3.5 inches in depth. One antenna is to be located on three of the four building elevations. The prefabricated fiberglass equipment cabinets are to be located on a concrete pad measuring 12 feet by 15 feet and 6 feet tall. The proposed equipment cabinets are to be located at the rear of the Theater building in an open field area. A 6 foot 6 inch chain link fencing enclosure is proposed to match the existing enclosures at the site. The fencing shall have red vinyl slats to match the existing enclosures. The plans specify green slats for the . chain link fence. In strict keeping with the policy that proposed facility enclosures shall match existing staff is requiring red vinyl slats. The proposed landscape screening is in keeping with the screening of other enclosures at the site. Landscaping includes vines, flowers, and trees. Specifically, moonflower climbing vines and the agapanthus flowers are proposed. Strawberry trees were recommended by the arborist for their suitability for screening. The Arborist Report, dated August 16, 2004 prescribes trees protective fencing and protective measures for surrounding mature oak trees. The applicant has provided existing and proposed photosimulations of each building elevation to provide clarity. Photosimulations of the proposed enclosure and landscaping are also provided. Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC has exclusive jurisdiction over RF emissions from personal wireless antenna facilities. Pursuant to its authority under federal law, the FCC has established rules to regulate the safety of emissions from these facilities. The applicant has provided a cumulative RF exposure report which evaluates both the proposed and existing wireless facilities. The cumulative report concludes that the RF energy is well below the Maximum Permissible Exposure limit established by the FCC at 3.3% of the public exposure limit. • ~®~~~ Application No. 04-075, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue, West Valley College • Use Permit Findings The proposed project supports the findings for use permit approval; therefore, staff recommends the planning commission approve of the proposed project based on the following findings: • That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use that is visually unobtrusive and that the aesthetic impact of the facility will be less than significant. • That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity because the facility will be operated under the restrictions imposed by the FCC to insure safety with respect to limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy. • That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter in that the location, height, size and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district. The site already accommodates several other antenna facilities and the new fixtures will be painted to match the building and the other equipment. ~, Conclusion The project satisfies all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code. The antennas and associated equipment are not expected to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare nor are they expected to be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations applicable to antenna facilities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve use permit application number 04-075 by adopting the attached resolution of approval. • ~®~~Qar! • Attachment 1 • ®~OQ6 Application No. 04-075, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue, West Palley College RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 04-075 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Sprint; 14000 Fruitvale Avenue (West Valley College) WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Use Permit approval for the installation of 3 panel antennas and antennas on the roof of the West Valley College theater building; and prefabricated fiberglass equipment cabinets located on the ground behind the building; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which includes the installation of panel antennas and equipment is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to installation of small new equipment and facilities; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of prdof required to support said application for use permit approval, and the following findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-55.070: a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use that is visually unobtrusive and that the aesthetic impact of the facility will be less than significant. b) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity because the facility will be operated under the restrictions imposed by the FCC to insure safety with respect to limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy. c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable -- provisions of this chapter in that the location, height, size and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district. The site already accommodates several other antenna facilities and the new fixtures will be painted to match the building and the other equipment. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: ~~~®~~ Application No. 04-075, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue, West Valley College Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 04-075 for Use Permit approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed antennas shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. 2. If the subject site is decommissioned in the future, all antennas and related equipment shall be removed within 30 days of cessation of operation. 3. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Department for Building permits. 4. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Use Permit and may, at any time modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety and welfare. 5. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 6. Landscaping including moonflower vines, agapanthus, and strawberry trees shall be installed prior to final. The vines shall be no smaller than 5 gallon. The trees shall be no smaller than 15 gallon. Landscaping shall be installed pursuant to Exhibit A. 7. The existing Sprint equipment located on city property at the public works corporation yard shall be removed from the premises within 30 days of the installation of the equipment at West Valley College. 8. The plans specify green slats for the chain link fence. In strict keeping with the policy that proposed facility enclosures shall match existing staff is requiring red vinyl slats. 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 City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. Q'~~®Q~ Application No. 04-075, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue, West Valley College • PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 22nd day of September 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby aclrnowledges 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 • ~~~~G~ Attachment 2 ~~~~10 . ARBOR ESOLIRCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting cP~ Tree Care • A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE SPRINT CELLULAR EQUIPMENT PROPOSED FOR INSTALLATION AT 14000 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME• West Valley Community College APPLICATION #: 04-075 APN #: 397-13-030 Submitted to: i • Communi Development Department Ty City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A • August 16, 2004 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 ®O®11 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August /6, 2004 SUNIIVIARY • There are eight trees of Ordinance-size located in close proximity to the proposed project components. They include seven Coast Live Oaks (#1, 3-8) and one Valley Oak (#2). Each tree is planned for retention and can be adequately protected provided the recommendations presented in this report are carefully followed and incorporated into construction plans. The Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia) shown along the south and east sides of the equipment area are proposed too close to another to provide a reasonably sufficient amount of growing space. I recommend increasing their spacing to be at least 12 feet apart. Per City Ordinance, a bond equal to 100% of the appraised value of trees planned for retention is required. My review reveals this amount to be $20,750. INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the installation of new cellulaz equipment by Sprint at 14000 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, immediately adjacent to the Theater Building. My review focuses on the area where Sprint equipment cabinets would be mounted on a concrete pad. This report presents my findings and recommendations. • Plans reviewed for this report include Sheets T-1, A-1, A-2 and A-3 by Sprint, dated 7/14/04. The trees' locations, numbers and canopy perimeters aze presented on an attached copy of Sheet A-1 (Overall Site Plan). Specific data compiled for each tree is presented on the attached table. RECOMII~NDATIONS 1. Protective fencing shall be installed precisely as shown on the attached map and established prior to any grading, surface scraping, construction or heavy equipment traveling within the project vicinity. It shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter, galvanized steel posts, driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the entire construction process until final inspection. Please note the fencing shown on the attached map extends beyond the canopies of inventoried trees and should be established no further than two feet from the edge of the existing dirt path. 2. Unless otherwise approved, all grading and construction activities (including the staging area. and access routes) must be conducted outside the fenced areas (even after ' The appraised tree values shown on the attached Tree Inventory Table are calculated in accordance with the • Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`" Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. West Palley Community College Property, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga rage i of ~ City of Saratoga Community Development Department X00®12 August 16, 2004 ' David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist • fencing is removed), as well as remain off unpaved soil beneath the canopies of Ordinance-sized trees not inventoried for this report. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading, surface scraping, trenching, storage and dumping of materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 3. The proposed new Coast Live Oaks along the south and east sides of the equipment area should be spaced at least 12 feet apart. In addition, they should be installed at least six feet from the proposed concrete pad to lessen the potential for future heaving of the hardscape. If the intention is to screen the equipment and fencing, I find the installation of either Carolina Cherry Laurel (Prunus caroliniana) or Strawberry Tree (Arbutus unedo) would be more suitable, in which case, the location of the trees as proposed on the plans is appropriate. 4. Irrigation for the new trees shall be a drip or soaker hose system place on top of existing grade and not in a sleeve. The new tree(s) must be installed prior to final inspection and as necessary for support, be double-staked with rubber tree ties. 5. Herbicides should not be used beneath tree canopies. Where used on site, they should be labeled for safe use near trees. 6. The pruning of trees must be performed under the supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and ccording to ISA standards. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can l~ obtained by referring to the • following website: http: //www. isa-arbor. com/arborists/arbsearch. html. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (Copy of Sheet A-1) • West Valley Community College Property, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga rage ~ o~ ~ City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~®©®13 . , Coast Live Oak 7 ( uercus a 'olio 22 35 40 75% 100% Good 5 _ 1 ~,7~ Coast Live Oak g uercus a ' olia 12.5 20 20 100% 25% Fair Hi 5 - 51,800 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 15 llon = 5120 24-inch box =5420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = SS 000 52rinch box = 57,000 72-inch box = S 13 000 ARBOR RESOL[RCES .. Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE IlWENTORY TABLE Site; 1~000~.a(eAvara4Sararoga A'~~ f~: thy' ofSarato8a Coinntuniey Develop~nau De~asaneat Prepavel by: David L Bobby, l ACA •i Augrc+t 16, 2001 Oti,y00~~ valley oak I I ~ I o f o f I I I _ I I ~ S2,570 Z (Quercus lobata) 14 50 40 50 /0 50 /o Fair Moderate 5 H • PRo'~'~-`~ FENC.iNC~ ~ V _~ i (E) TREES, TYP. n ~ ~~ i~ i WITH VINE. ~ PROVIDE II ~~ ~~-PROPOSED ~ CABINETS CONCRETE \\ 12' ~r15' LE ~~~~~5 O,~ • Attachment 3 • ~~~~~6 • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, V ` r ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of th nited 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 • ~?~~~J~1'?' City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 22°d day of September 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Thursday from 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. APPLICATION #04-075 (397-15-018, 397-14-022, 397-13-030) Sprint PCS, West Valley College, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue; The applicant requests use permit approval to install antennas and related equipment at the theater building located on the West Valley College Campus. The college campus is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Several wireless carriers are located at this site. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Christy Oosterhous Associate Planner 408 868-1286 coosterhous@saratoga.ca.us ~~~~~y8 • Attachment 4 ~~~~~5 Sprint PCS • Proposed Base Station (Site No. SF60xc856A) ' 14000 Fruitvale Avenue • Saratoga, California Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of Sprint PCS, a wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. SF60xc856A) proposed to be located at 14000 Fruitvale Avenue in Saratoga, California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency ("RF") electromagnetic fields. Prevailing Exposure Standards The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15, 1997, the FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP"). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes nearly identical exposure limits. A summary of the FCC's exposure limits is shown in Figure 1. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. The most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimi several personal wireless services are as follows: Personal Wireless Service Approx. Frequenc~ Personal Communication ("PCS") 1,950 MHz Cellular Telephone 870 Specialized Mobile Radio 855 [most restrictive frequency range] 30-300 ted duration to radio ~ Occupational Limit 5.00 mW/cm2 2.90 2.85 1.00 frequency energy for Public Limit 1.00 mW/cm2 0.58 0.57 0.20 General Facility Requirements Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" or "cabinets") that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables about 1 inch thick. Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless services, the antennas require line-of--sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are • HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. ~ CONSULTII~IG INGINEERS SP856A596 SAN FRANCISCO Page 1 of 4 ~'~~®®~6 Sprint PCS • Proposed Base Station (Site No. SF60xc856A) 14000 Fruitvale Avenue • Saratoga, California installed at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power of such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas. Computer Modeling Method The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully formed at locations very close by (the "near-field" effect) and that the power level from an energy source decreases with the square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law"). The conservative nature of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests. Site and Facility Description Based upon information provided by Sprint, including zoning drawings by MSA Architecture & Planning, Inc., dated November 1, 2003, it is proposed to mount t~tree Andrew Model UMWD-06516- XDM directional panel antennas high on the side walls of the Theater Arts Building at West Valley College, located at 14000 Fruitvale Avenue in Saratoga. The antennas would be mounted at an effective height of about 601/2 feet above ground and would be oriented at 120° spacing, to provide service in all directions. The maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 1,000 watts. Presently located or proposed to be located on the same building are antennas for use by AT&T Wireless, Cingular Wireless, Nextel SMR, PageNet, and Verizon Wireless, other wireless telecommunications carriers. Facilities reported for those carriers are as follows: Effective Antenna Carver Antenna Make/Model Maximum ERP Height (AGL) AT&T Antel LPD7907-4 960 watts 76 ft Cingular DAPA 58210 290 75 Nextel Andrew 844H65 & 844H90 1,000 66 PageNet Andrew ASPD977 & DB872 930 68 Verizon Andrew DB874G90 600 58 HAMMETT 8s EDISON, INC. CONSULTII~IG ENGINEERS SAN FRANCISCO SP856A596 Page 2 of 4 Sprint PCS • Proposed Base Station (Site No. SF60xc856A) 14000 Fruitvale Avenue • Saratoga, California Study Results The maximum ambient RF level anywhere at ground due to the proposed Sprint operation by itself is calculated to be 0.00038 mW/cm2, which is 0.038% of the applicable public exposure limit. The maximum calculated cumulative level at ground for the simultaneous operation of all six carriers is 3.3% of the public exposure limit. It should be noted that these results include several "worst-case" assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual power density levels. Areas on the roof of the subject building may exceed the applicable exposure limit. Recommended Mitigation Measures It is recommended that the roof of the building be kept locked, so that the antennas are not accessible to the general public. To prevent occupational exposures in excess of the FCC guidelines, no access within 5 feet in front of the Sprint antennas themselves, such as might occur during building maintenance activities, should be allowed while the site is in operation, unless other measures can be demonstrated to ensure that occupational protection requirements are met. Posting explanatory warning signs' at roof access location(s) and at the Sprint antennas, such that the signs would be readily visible from any angle of approach to persons who might need to work within that distance, would be sufficient to meet FCC-adopted guidelines. Similar measures should already be in place for the other carriers at the site; applicable keep-back distances have not been determined as part of this study. Measurements on the roof of the subject building can be conducted to identify any areas where the cumulative RF levels may exceed the occupational standard. Conclusion Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the base station proposed by Sprint PCS at 14000 Fruitvale Avenue in Saratoga, California, can comply with the prevailing standards for limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, need not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating base stations. • ' Warning signs should comply with ANSI C95.2 color, symbol, and content conventions. In addition, contact information should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of language(s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate professionals may be required. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. SP856A596 ~ CON~NTIN~ENGINEERS Page 3 of 4 Sprint PCS • Proposed Base Station (Site No. SF60xc856A) 14000 Fruitvale Avenue • Saratoga, California • Authorship The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2005. This work has been carried out by him or under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct. .. ivy .s: E-13026 ' " ~ ' M-20874 ill am F. ett, P March 15, 2004 ~ ~• = ~ ~~~~~~ ~e ~CHAN~r~~~ i • HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTII~IG ENGINEERS SAN FRANCISCO SP856A596 Page 4 of 4 ~~~~29 FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, which are nearly identical to the more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz." These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive: Frequency Applicable Range (MHz) 0.3 - 1.34 1.34 - 3.0 3.0 - 30 30 - 300 300 - 1,500 1,500 - 100,000 ~ ~N~ ~~ aA3 1000 100 10 1 0.1 Electromagnetic Fields~f is frequency of emission in MHz) Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far-Field Field Strength Field Strength Power Density (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cm2) 614 614 1842/ f 61.4 3.54~f 137 614 823.8/f 823.8/f 27.5 1.59ff 61.4 1.63 1.63 4.89/ f 0.163 ~f /106 0.364 1.63 2.19/f 2.19/f 0.0729 ff/238 0.163 100 100 900/ f~ 1.0 f/300 5.0 Occupational Exposure PCS ~ Cell ~~ FM ~ ----~ f ~~ Public E/xvosure 0.1 1 10 100 103 104 105 Frequency (MHz) 100 180/f 180/ 0.2 f/1 S00 1.0 Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. ~ OONSULTING ENGINEERS SAN FRANCISCO FCC Guidelines Figure 1 • ~_~ • ~~~~~~ RFR.CALCTM Calculation Methodology • Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC (see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits. Near Field. Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip (omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications cell sites. The near field zone is defined by the distance, D, from an antenna beyond which the manufacturer's published, far field antenna patterns will be fully formed; the near field may exist for increasing D until some or all of three conditions have been met: 1) D>~ 2) D>Sh 3) D>1.6~, where h =aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and ~, =wavelength of the transmitted signal, in meters. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives this formula for calculating power density in the near field zone about an individual RF source: • power density S = 180 x 0.1 x Pnet ~ in m~'V/~2~ l W ~[x Dx h where 6B~r =half-power beamwidth of antenna, in degrees, and Pnet =net power input to the antenna, in watts. The factor of 0.1 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates distances to FCC public and occupational limits. Far Field. OET 65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source: 2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2 x ERP power density S = in mW/cm2, 4xnxD2 where ERP =total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RFF =relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and D =distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters. The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to • obtain more accurate projections. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Methodology snr~ ~nNCisao Fi ure 2 ~~~~3~ • Attachment 5 ~~~~32 L' - ~ M i. 1 ~ t~~~r , , F ~, s .. - .. -~ .. ~ ~.1 .. '• ~. Ir.ti - 4 ~ v .. .taw, c.. .. dgf/IIM~~. ~ r ~. ,. = -»~ }~R: i proposed c~3ble trey proposed antennas .~ ~ ~, .Sprint PGS 5/03/04 ... a~. - ~u ,, eN''•c ,, ~h. L ~~ .~ ,• : , ,. = t _. M y` ~i . ~-;~ - ~~ ,,.A ... .`+ Zf ~ e~. 4 ~ West V. _ , w nM .. i._~r~. _ , Pholos~mulation by A{~I~ed ImaguiaUOn S10 S'4-0:A)0 • • .. -r~. ,~ '''4~ Ir ,,'. *~; es •,+ ~'~ v . ...~.. ~,~ 3 ~ ~ ~'b > rn a ~' ~ +-'" ^~~^fi~{"" ~ ^~ i ~~-~ ~ r ati •y A J A' ~ti it ~.~ .. ~~, ..... ~ .w... u~ f _... ~ .~ .~ 74 ra ,~a ''~ ~• _ i~c ~ ~ rf ~ .~. fa '° +4. ... ' r " ~''" West Valley College H • ~ • ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ , ,. r;~i}~,4 r .::~, '~ 14000 Fruitvale Ave _r~.. n " _ '~~ .1 ~'~ 'S ~"`u'` _~ ~~h '~~ ;,#!.'. P .: ,z, ,.'~ h_ ~ .rr? ``...?~` ~_.s' ~°. Saratoga, CA 95070 _~--. site # SF60XC856A .Spriin PGS 5/03/04 Photos~mulalan by Apphetl ~mag~na~on 5to yia-~.,~x> • • LJ ~i ° E N ~ ~ ~ • ~~ II ~Q U ~ °' x ~ X O ~ g ~~` Q -_ 1 m 2 ~h ... 3~ ht I ~ ~~~" 1 ~ ~ 00 Q ~ a ~~ / ` ~ ~ ~ - Qi LL ~ pa ~ = - x ~ ~~ Q I ~ ; N Z o !'~~') N . `~ ~ eny Jeii~ - - x ~ Fruitvale Ave / ~ ~'~ Q W LL M ~ I ~ y5 ~'d ~_ x ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N cam, ~~ L 1 •~- 3 ,~~ m ~~ > N ~ ~ ~ ` o . ~ a U ~ ,~_T• oM N ~ ~ ~ ( ~ C 'v g E ~ N ~ x t unn ale Rd ~ N ~- I ~ ~ ` \ N y C c ~C co - '3 ~ ~ ' Q N O ~~ ~ 1 1 ~ ~ a x ~_ y 1 W ,~ ..~ y` ' O .+ ~ ai S r- ~~ • ~ ~ , A f0 K K x ~ /~ L ~ g ~°~~ ~~ r ~ ~ m 'u~ `I p~ a ~ o .~ O , ~de~ ~Ja~d ~ O ~ ` r A ~ ~ lL ~ fff ~~~ / ~ \ ~t \ ~ ~ d O~ ~ ~ O p O ~ \ ` ~ ~0 y ~ ~ V ~~~ U ~ N -- __ _ - _ _ U ~ h Q ~ a-.~' Q ~~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ y ~ V ~ ~ ~ ! _ •~ ~ Q Q ~ Z lL ~ k 8 3 I ~ O ~ ~ ~ Of lC O .C . + fA ~ ~n y a ~ N a w ~ ~ ,n ~ O Y Z J ~ _- ___ .~y o E r - X _ _ .. __ __ v x ~~ ~ O ~ {tel. ii LL ~ o C ~ N N ~ l0 ~ v ~ Xa M O N ~. _~ Q Z O ~ ~ 'v Q ~ C7 0O O L 3 0 .y m d r°i E ~ U x C ~ y :~ ''' ~ 3 fnQao 0 ,v N ~ X .~. N ~ N X ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ N ~. ~ Q. ~ M M N U f0 X V X X N m ~ ~ ~ a~~ ~~' ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ o ~ ~ ~ o Q~"' ° ~ LL _ ~ ~ ~ ~p Z p~ .. U 08" ~~' O N ~ ~ C U ~ ~ C d ~ ~ f~/1 m N Q ~ .XE~, ~U W ~ .N ~ x ~ o N ~ Q ~ ~ ~ OZ ~ °' ~i °? 'v~ C pNp ~ N m •` a ~ ~ N Naw O °~' Z a, N r m eny ~epiW 5 ~ ~ ~6 `e~ ~ ~~a Q N 1 U ~~ ~~ ~~ Rd `~~~ - J Q ~' .. ~~ w ~~ P2i eqo x °`~ - ~ x ~ ~ ~ X Fruitvale Ave ~ ~ d7 X 6-~ ~ ~~ N ~~ ~`~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~°3\ m ~ae~ A~ a~Ja~~^ - ~`L - it ~ ` J ,~ ~ W ~ <n E ~ ~a i! , ~ ~~ v ~ ~c~U ~ w ~~~ °~, ~ ~~ a ~~ ~ b~ ~ W x ~~~ v=i d $ A ~-v e ~ ~ ®~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ .~ `~ 1 w c~ w J J Q ~ ~ W ~ X J O a~ >~ ~~ w ~ ~ ~ J R J ~ o ~ q ` e Q • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ui Q w J Q H L.L O O O ~' 0 ti 0 a~ W Q Q 0 U `~ J U O ui Q ~ Q -A' w ~, r r r r r r r r r j W I c~ z 0 r N g~ O O 8 r W r a ~ ~ W ~ _ ~ J ~ _ Q ((yy Q Q ~ ~ Q {/~/ W ~ O ~~ Z g ~~~ ~~gg $~; 06i ~ ~~ ~ V ~~pp ~a ~~ 6~~b Z ~ ~7 ~os V 06 g4~m e ~s O ~~~o 0p Gd ~i ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ M ~~ V~ WWyyaa ~ ~ t~~ ~~ W U 4^g x v ~~~, 1~~ d~ id ~~~~ . ~ ~ a ~ O ~ ~ ~ n t st~ ~ g~~~: ~ ~~ W ~ ~ ~ 8 ~~~~~ ~ t ~ y ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~s~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ CR ~ g~~~R ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ I..t v ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ W t ~ ~ W a ~ ~ ~ ~d , ~ ~6 ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~Q~.~ ~ ~ ~F ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~J o~~ ~ ~~~i~~~ ~V~ RW o ~ ~~ ~ . x ~ ' ~~ ~ c_ ~ 'R B~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ } ~~ A~ a~q ~ ~~ = ! C~ i~~~d~ U ~ ~ ~ ~s •+ ~ ~ ; ~~ O ~~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~I ^ M~~ ~ `n ~ FJ ~V ~ ~ ~= ~ N ~, bn ~ ~~C ~ ~~g . a "~~~ ~ ~ o :~ ~ ~ ~~ 3~ g's '~~~ ~~~~ 6~ Ypp ~~ U W ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s 3 =Z~ a ~t w ~ ~ V W ~~y~ ~~ ~~~ ~s ~~ F~~ F~~~~~F~~I ~ ,Yl ~ u0 ~~ cyY ~C{ ~341~a ~~ ~ :~ ~ 3~ ~S 3Z ~ 3~ ~ ~~ c~ia Z ~ ~ s ~~ < ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ a ~g ~ . n CZ ~~ W ~aEai d °° ~s ~$ Z . ~ ~~ ~~ ~_,~ a V ~ i Q . ~ `~ U_ a ~ o ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ `~~~~ '-a~~~ O ~ ~~ao~ ~~ut~ ~6','s Z / s~~~~ ~.aa, O Y • •1 e • • ~ I • ~ ' ` ~ W s A ~ . Ya1~ ~ ~ ~~ g's 8 x J Q W~ w CIa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b~ ~X ~ g ~ ~ r M ` \`\ `G .~ ~1 ~~ . ~~ 1~ ~~ ~ o I W ~~o~ g Q D 7Q p~ ~ O y 6 Q?~ ~~~ _~1 ~ Wpm ~~ _ t~ ^ZW ~Wz ~ <[ p F {eQ~", ~ p~~. ~ Z~ ~ ~~p ~ ~ ~ a K s q pv X F X X W O ~ ~ W W S d dd R F U W W< d' 7 ` ~'_ o ~ ~ : ~ 3 ~ ~~ ~ ~~^ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ - ~ __~. ~ ~&~ ~~ g ~Y~~ W = W `~ e LL ~ .pPy . ~~~ ~<5t ~~~°v y ~ h `mil ~ W ~ % ~~ ~N ~, Wj • O v> 0 7 K # e / ~ i ~ ~~ ~ _ ~/ V ~ x W ~ U 1 (V ... 1 ~ ~ e J ~~ I o r, ~ 3. ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ ~> G ~ ,, / ~ M ~ r` ~ W ~ •~ • I I . ~~ ~, r..___.~ I I ~ W O p ~ ,~ .. ~:. *.. ~ ~ • .b ,..: ~~ .y • +.,,~~... • : .:, ''. .\ I ai •, •,~. •. ,.~ ~ 1 ~~+ • ~~ • ~ 1 N \~ . \\ 3 ~ g ~ ri (~ ~ ~ ~ b `\ y • • I • ~ • ~ {U', Q ~iQ • ~, ~ W ~ , '~\ 1~,. I I \~\ 1 '~ I ,I •i r ~ .'.L :~i:~.'::{;' I W ;e .t> I l\` t ~~ ~ 1 I ~, 1 i ®• 1 I • ~~~~~~~~~~~~ J 1 • W p a~~~S .-. ~[ • is;~ . , ~ao~ . ° oV~~ • WWQ < p a=~Q • a~n~~ '• • ~• . ~ , ~ .. ~, . • • '~ . • . •, Z g a w H J Jq w O 0 .' 70 • .~ • • ~ ' •~ N ` J e ~ ~~ tl ~ ~ 3 3 ~ ~ ~ ~~~ w .~ ~ x .a U' ~o z Z E '~~ ~Q i! ~ r ~ ~g ~ O cb a~ a - ~ >! ~ ~ J CS U a w} ~ ~ ~ ~ ~! ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~g~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~W ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~~ Z , ~« oj~W ~arl ~ $y}I~~H ~' o I V~j ~ i3v \ ~ ~~ W F. ~_~~ w ~V 3~j W~ ,o ~ y~tt~sSj~ ~ v fv rv~ ~W \ d~~ d` ~ W 4 N \ ` • Q ` ~• \ '. \ \\. \ ~ 'i !: a *.~ .~ m gW Vf<~' \ \ ~ , . ~ ~. O o S O 2 _ ~ \, \. ~ , . .. ~~,~11t o a bs rc fN!7 ~~t ..~ O w .• ~ ~ 11 ~ O • i ~ & ~ ~ .~~~ Ur di ~ ~/. ~ J ~ ~n\ a ~ av W Y ~~. ~ ~~" ~ ~ ~ a p ~ ~ , *~ 1~~~Q 'fi'g ~ ~ a ' W W Od ~ ~~ ('J V' ~ lif l W~~ a~C ~ \ \r ~y ~ ., < ~ '\ '"~~ II ~ !o! x i~ ~. r C~o~ a~avU<~~ Di 1W/¢~ C ~+ W ~ tS a W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g~a~~§~~ O O H Q H O Q Z Z W Z Q 0 .~ :~ N • • + ~~ \ \ \ \ r' c\ < , ~ • ~o ~~ ~~~ = N W VZ~~Zo N F mpp C Wal-~ V IA ~N~~ 4 ~ ~aN ~~n ~ ~ N Z ~W~ JIv yNJ ~ gLLgo ~ • A, ~ A J ~ pCo \ ~ g 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ , ~ ~~ ~8~ • ~ p ~ s ~~ E 8 W ~^ II ~ J ~~ 6 {~ 0 9 a ~~ }~~~ ~ ~ 9 ~i Q ~ `~ ~~~R ~ ~ ~vl~ b ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ , •~ ~ 1M V d ~ -,L s ~~~ y ~1! F" z x Z Nd ~~<~ ~II~ ~G~7FW ~~~~~~ o~ ~~ ~ ~~ a ~6 ~Q~ ~~ y n~ W n• ~< C N v` t7<EZ M ~ fl M ~' R ~~ ~_ ~ ~ Q ~ ~~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ d~~~~~ ~~~ ~ I I I I .~ J Y a}~ F ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~- ~~~~~ n~^ r ~~~~~ ~~ ~^ ~~, ... ~. ~~ ~ ZZfl'~ E~ ~n00•~ '' o r k' ~~b ~^°~~ J Sao ~~;y a;~~~ ~ ~, ~~gg _~ • ~~~ ffm~~ ~Rga~ • '~ bl x o YNN31lJV 43 0 ~- ~ a3iN~ avd yr ~~ ~~ a ~~ ~ ~o~~ ~N2~= ~~ <~1 W M V 1 i m<~ i ~~ ~~~ WN~~ ~n~m ~ N~ ~~+ ~r,..,'~ ~~ <'~a~ auWi~~a~'~'FS dcSl . ~•. • Z 0 Q w J W, 2 H 0 y~~ ~~ _ 'r.~p ~ a `L`id a``q~ee `p~--~ ~yZ N <COZ ~~~ •eNOO~~ 8<pF~M p y~Q+ \ ~ y^ a~a'~j0 ~aN ~g~K2lWa1 ~~W~<7Z73~ v `~d~- WZS da...lrnv~ ~~n1i~a •' i i, . ~q y J ~ _ s _~~_ x ~ $~a~ yt~z<Zv~i< W~o ~~+~ BB m ~- ~QOq~~~ aw~n°~~m Z 0 Q W b J W ~- ^ Q W • • • ~, J N O ~ W ~ ` ~~~~ W n~ ~~ ~ ~ i xa_.8 g ~~~ JQ W fn E ~~ ~~ i! ~ g ~a ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ O ! Y Jx~ a .. v ~ii LL ~ ~ • .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ G i N x VVV777 a 66 r ~ a '~~~~~ ~W a~~~~~ ~~~ `~ ~~7Z O ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ it _ z ~~ ~_~ ~~~~ K 45~~ ~~ F iV g~ o~ ~ ~ W K V rv W ~' 0 a z ~~ a7T~ N~ ~ ~ rr~ W ^ ~r~ vD ~o I {pA.~ ~ } ~~ Fm ~ oZo~~lxV Nm~ N~7 W~'2WN j pppp ~ ~ WE GG s r K ~ ~~ 7~~~3OW =~~ Z y~ ~ ~~ ~ F GO' ~ ~J^~OZ~ <m0 r ~ W q ~~ ~~ ~~ ' ~~c~ ~~bi6s~ ~~ r' V0~ ~K~iz_ e~oz 30 ~O ~~ ~~ (~j WQ ~~~~ a~~~ ~~ Z~G ~W =W~ ~~J W } b W S ~ Y i ~ ~ ~~ W z ~• Y ~ ~~s~ ~ ~ ~'~:~~ ~ ~ J ~ - ~ t Z~&~ ~~ ~~ ~=~K ~~ e~~~ ' ~a~ aB ^ga~~< ~ ~OQ~Q~1(3y~ r . ~ ~~~ 07~pW ~W OR~ZZ WW? aW7a~7N ~O~S ~ Z . w W i 1 i' Z N . W ~ .~ J ~ W n n >~ W N Q • i r / N ~Og V 1{ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ w E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ - qq -.~ ~i ~ ~Y a~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a d ~ ~ ! b~ ~ }~ ~ ~ x ~c~~ ¢ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ^% (~ '~ ~ '~ d ~ s~ ~ ~ L _ ~ ~ ~ ~' a ~ ~' a ~ ~g8~ ~~9R d g Q LL o Q < ~cng~~ -Z ~ ~ V - ~ n ~j ~~ W _ ~ ~ 4 J m ~m ~ • ~ • • .. , • ~. ~ ~ ~ W SK 3; ~~ ~~ ~ 3 OC ~V ~ m J W YZZ y( Z ~ ` ~' ~ K ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ( ~ Fy Oy F W~ Z= W ~. N O-" y m ~m ~ `'' ' '° S ~ ~ ~ j Z Z ~a & ~ ~ s ~ ~~ ~ ~ m a ° ~ z ~~ ~ ~ 3~ L 4 ~~~ ~o 2 ~ N ~ ~ ~~~ M1 a l• S • ~ ~~ j. .Ll. i~_ e~. ..s-, U w u- W ALL ~ ~ d ~ ~ ' ~ Y Z J Z r z ~ c~ ~;:~.~ --r.:r ~ Z 'a Y Z J Z s '~ = ~ S U ~ ry ~ U san~oo 3a3-+n~ o- o o- s -~` ` -~ I 1` s g~ c~< ~~ ~ , v N~ ~~ ~ S - ~ ~` .... GJSe J J "' Q ,~~ r '. . ~ C d e : > , ..9-, t .0-,f ~ Q ' 1 I- ~ C CO ~~ Jo~ ' 8 :. ~ZJ • <~~ . J ~ ~~~~ a`am ~ _ I~ ~ ~ ~X~ ~'~:` ~ W a ~ .~. • ~ ^\!y A h' = ~ ~ L w~ Q Z ~ Y~JFW ~Z<~~ W _ ~ (! ~ <; WY .~ t NZl~ii yy~~~ ~ wY ~ ~ W v0 a77~ ~~~N v~= W6 ~ ~00 W;,1f1 ~~v Q Q Z ~~ ~ ~ B ~ s W ~ : N ~ >~ ~ ~ `n i ~ ~ ~~~ `'~ a ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ e~~ ~~G ~ s ~ x t, ~ , L <h "~O~ ' _ .alt~~YW ~ ~m ~ ~ '.. -P p... 'f ` W M ~ • • ~ . J W ' Q I- Q Q Z ~ ~ ~ 'J X ' ~ ro p Q Z ~ .0-i~ QO ~ ~ y~ , i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 Z W ~- r, = Q ~ ~ ~ ~ Q H ~ ~ , 7 ~~~ ~ Q a« • ~ ~ • r ~s ~ ' N ` J 'C 00~ ~_ ~~ $ ~ _ ~~a O Q W~7~ 66 E ~ ~ 00 ~ "b .:. 0 Z g W~ Zt m~ Q +- ~ U h •e „L-,t Cu Z_ ~ b aa6 ~ ~ O F O h FF a •~ 1 , ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~' y • ' • J , • , • ITEM 5 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Type of Application: App # 04-149/ 15040 El Quito Way Ting-Pwu Yen John F. Livingstone AICP, Associate Planner }~~~ Design Review v Date: September 22, 2004 APN: 397-07-002 Department Head: _. ;., J . 1•. ' ' ~ \ 0 50011 Yne around B Quito Way 15040 OIM45 WY: RANCHO ki5 ~ ~ ~ ,~OUlTO,RU, / \ ®B Quit WaY 15040 Q B Quito Wa 15040, arcels n 500 ft _...._... ~~` ".. ~ ~ ~' ~, ~ % % '~. ' ~ /~ . VIA ~-TES `. _... / ~. / 7 / ~ I I I ~ I I aWY i ~/I ./ f . r ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ / I ~ ' i i II ~ ~ ~ _.____ 1 -: !-- i III I ~' 91GKNELL RD_ _- ~ - i l ~ ~ j y __.. . .... . _ _- C ~~~ I - W, E I I ~ _ , ~~ , C ~._.._ 'i SPF.RAY LN I ~ ..._ s i _ ~ % /. I s i i~ - ar o ; / ~ `,' w goo n owv - - _ -- - Jl ,~.._ ~ / < \ r ~_tMU '-' _........_ _.._. ___ ~~ //~ Y.. ~ AVON FNSatt~fAORD.LT yi ~ 4.. % ~~ ~ - ~ i ORIb`E WY //~~ rI I r - / l -__ ~ / - _..... / ' _.. i // ;... -_ SiRA7FORD OT _.. ~ / ~ , I ~ \ ~, 15040 El Quito Way • ~~®~~a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 05/17/04 08/23/04 05/26/04 09/03/04 05/20/04 Request Design Review Approval to add approximately 1,028 square feet to the first floor of the existing 4,232 square foot single story house for a total floor area of 5,260 square feet. The gross lot size is 57,115 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 23 feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the application for Design Review with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution with conditions 2. City of Saratoga Notice, Noticing Affidavit, and Noticing Labels 3. Applicant's Plans, Exhibit "A" • ®~ ' ~©~ File No. 04-149;19870 El Quito Way/Yen Property • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 57,115 square feet gross AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 18.7% GRADING REQUIRED: The applicant is proposing minimal grading. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable • Building Footprint 24.8!'/0 5,113 sq. fit. 35% Driveway, 5,099 sq. ft. Walkways and sheds 2,692 sq. ft. Pool 1,246 sq. ft. TOTAL 14,150 sq. ft. 19,990 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable Existing 4,232 sq. ft. New Addition 1,028 sq. ft. TOTAL 5,260 sq. ft. 6,020 sq. ft. Setbacks: Min. Requirement Front 60 ft. 30 ft. Rear 70 ft. 50 ft. Left Side 100 ft. 20 ft. Right Side SS ft. 20 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 23 ft. 26 ft. Detached Garages N/A 15 ft. • C:VvlyDocuments~Design Review 04~E1 Quito Way 15040 Staff Repo.doc ~~~~0~ File No. 04-149;19870 El Quito Way/Yen Property PROJECT DISCUSSION • Design Review The applicant is requesting Design Review Approval to add approximately 1,028 square feet to the first floor of the existing 4,232 square foot single story house for a total floor area of 5,260 square feet. The gross lot size is 57,115 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 23 feet. Typically this addition would not require Administrative or a Planning Commission Design Review, it would simply be processed "over the counter". Due to the applicant's interior remodel and change to the existing roof line the project exceeds the 18-foot height limit, requiring Planning Commission approval. The homes in the area vary in age and design with no consistent design pattern. The proposed exterior finish will be stucco. The exterior finish will be a golden tan color with white trim. The proposed roof color is a brown slate tile. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in MCS 15-45.080: • (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbor's views. The house will be a one-story house at approximately 23 feet in height. The existing mature trees that surround the site will be maintained. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The majority of the existing landscaping will remain and no trees will be removed. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. No trees will be removed. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The residence is situated in the center of a large lot and is surrounded by existing trees. The house will not exceed 23 feet in height. The project will have varying roof heights, gable projections and bay windows that will significantly reduce the perception of bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will be 23 feet in height well below the maximum 26 feet allowed. The existing mature trees that surround the site will be maintained as part of the project. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines that will break up the front elevation of the building and add character and interest to the structure. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to • the City's current grading and erosion control standards. C:~ivlyDocumcnts~Dcsign Review 04~E1 Quito Way LS(MO Staff Repo.doc ~ ~~ ~ o A File No. 04-149;19870 EI Quito Way/Yen Property • (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views. The home is also designed for energy efficiency in that it will meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high-energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The applicant is proposing an 816 square foot three-car garage with open parking provided in the driveway. Trees No trees are being removed on the site and the existing landscaping and driveway area that surrounds the existing trees is being maintained. No arborist review was required. Correspondence No negative correspondence was received on this application at the date that the staff report was distributed to the Planning Commission. The applicant has shown the proposed plans to the adjacent neighbors as documented by the applicant. • GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY Conservation Element Polic~.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Land Use Element PolicLO The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed house is consistent with the above General Plan Policies in that no trees will be removed thus protecting the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. The proposed materials and colors will blend the proposed house into the existing landscape and be compatible with the adjacent surroundings. CONCLUSION The proposed project is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15- 45.080 of the City Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves • the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will 17Linim~e the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning C:UvtyDocuments~Design Rcview 04~EI Quito Way L5(MO Staff Repo.doc ~ ^ ^ ~®~ File No. 04-149;19870 EI Qulto Way/Yen Property regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height, and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. • C:~MyDocumentsWesign Review 04~E1 Quito Way ]5040 Staff Repo.doc ~.~®~ ^~ • • Attachment 1 ~~~~®~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION N0.04- CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Yen; 15040 El Quito Way WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to add approximately 1,028 square feet to the first floor of the existing 4,232 square foot single story house for a total floor area of 5,260 square feet. The gross lot size is 57,115 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 23 feet.; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the proposed project consisting of an addition to 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; 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: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbor's views. The house will be a one-story house at approximately 23 feet in height. The existing mature trees that surround the site will be maintained. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The majority of the existing landscaping will remain and no trees will be removed. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. No trees will be removed. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The residence is situated in the center of a large lot and is surrounded by existing trees. The proposed house will not exceed 23 feet in height. The project will have varying roof heights, gable projections and bay windows that will significantly reduce the perception of bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will be 23 feet in height well below the maximum 26 feet allowed. The existing mature trees that surround the site will be maintained as part of the project. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines that will break up the front elevation of the building and add character and interest to the structure. • (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views. The home is also designed for energy efficiency in that it will meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high-energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review, and is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Land Use Element Policy 5.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed house is consistent with the above General Plan Policies in that no trees will be removed thus protecting the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. The proposed materials and colors will blend the proposed house into the existing landscape and be compatible with the adjacent surroundings. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for Design Review has been approved and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit `A' date stamped July 29, 2004, incorporated by reference. All changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes and are subject to the Community Development Director's approval. 2. The following shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building and grading permit plan check review process: Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: i. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted and it shall be equipped with a gas starter. All other fireplaces shall be gas burning. ~~'~:~Q~ 3. No retaining wall shall exceed five feet in height. 4. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. Any existing fences or walls not meeting the zoning ordinance standards shall be removed prior to the project being final. S. 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. 6. Landscape plan shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution. 7. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. 8. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 9. Plant materials selected shall be a ro riate to sites ecific characteristics such as soil PP P P type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. 10. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 11. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 12. The height of the structure shall not exceed 23 feet as defined in Section 15-06.340 of the City Zoning Code. 13. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 14. Required Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 2,000 gpm at 20psi residential pressure. The required fire flow is not available from area water mains and fire hydrants that are spaced at the required spacing. . 15. 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 and Specifications SP-2. 16. Provide an approved fire sprinkler system for the garage, designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13D and local ordinances. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. 17. A State Of California Licensed Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application, and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. 18. Provide an approved Early Warning Fire Alarm System through out all portions of the structure. 19. Provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14 feet vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installation shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-l. 20. Gate installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications • sheet G-1. Locks, if provided, shall be fire department approved prior to installation. CITY ATTORNEY 21. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of Ciry in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 24 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. C7 t;~~~~+u ~1. • PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 22°d day of September 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date ~Q~Q~~~2 Attachment 2 • E~~~~~3 City of Saratoga • Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 22nd day of September 2004, at 7:00 p.m. Located in the City theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. City Hall is closed every other Friday. Please check the City web site at wvvwsaratoga.ca.usfnr the Ciry's work schedule. APPLICATION # 04-149 (397-07-002) - YEN,15040 El Quito Way; -Request Design Review Approval to add approximately 1,028 square feet to the first floor of the existing 4,232 square foot single story house for a total floor area of 5,260 square feet. The gross lot size is 57,115 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 23 feet. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a • decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. Please provide any comments or concerns in writing to the Planning Department to the attention of the staff planner indicated below. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. John F. Livingstone, AICP Associate Planner 408.868.1231 • • • 15040 El Quito Way ~~~~~~ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, John F. Livingstone, being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 3`d day of September, 2004, that I deposited in the mail room at the City of Saratoga, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to- wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the • most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application 15040 El Quito Way; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. -'"~ r John F. Livingstone CP Associate Planner • ~~~~16 JOHNSON, JAMES P & LOLA P TRUSTEE N 39704061 66 SOBEY RD TOGA CA 95070-6236 CHOWDARY, SUBHASH & UMA APN 39704094 14964 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6236 TO, ALLAN AN NGOC & ANGELA KIM-QUI DINH TR APN 39706022 14975 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6263 MCCULLOUGH, NADINE B TRUSTEE APN 39706085 14985 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6263 MCFARLANE, DENNIS L TRUSTEE APN 39706096 18600 RANCHO LAS CIMAS WY TOGA CA 95070-6256 LSON, RICHARD A & NANCY O TRUSTEE APN 39706099 1853 AQUINO WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6204 YEN, TING P & VAN T TRUSTEE APN 39707002 15040 EL QUITO WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6209 PAIK, KI-BANG ETAL APN 39707008 18681 MAUDE AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6215 ROSZKOWSKI FAMILY REV TR AGMT TRUSTEE APN 39707028 15060 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6237 PERSEN, JAMES R & DIANE N 39707064 15055 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6263 POULIOT, RICHARD L & COLLEEN M TRUSTEE APN 39704089 14976 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6236 JEAN, JAMES & BETTINA APN 39704124 14906 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6236 ANDERSON, RICHARD F & DIANA M APN 39706023 14971 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6263 FOX, SANFORD Z & BARBARA K TRUSTEE APN 39706094 18585 RANCHO LAS CIMAS WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6256 HACKWORTH, JOAN D ETAL APN 39706097 18586 RANCHO LAS CIMAS WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6256 i CRUZ, GREGORY T & RACHAEL L TRUSTEE APN 39706100 18500 AQUINO WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6204 COWARD, JOHN H & DENISE E APN 39707005 15095 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6296 HONG, INSIK & KYUNGSOO APN 39707009 15010 EL QUITO WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6209 LIMAYE, RAJIV V & KALA R APN 39707029 15050 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6237 SCIMECA, GERALD R & COLLEEN M TRUSTEE APN 39707079 18661 MAUDE AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6215 SKOV, ANDREA RIIS APN 39704090 14970 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6236 JEAN, JAMES & BETTINA APN 39704125 14906 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6236 MCCULLOUGH, NADINE B TRUSTEE APN 39706051 14985 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6263 MAGUIRE, LAWRENCE A & ROSEMARY J APN 39706095 18601 RANCHO LAS CIMAS WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6256 MCCABE, R K & SUSAN B APN 39706098 18564 RANCHO LAS CIMAS WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6256 PESCHKE, ELIZABETH A TRUSTEE APN 39707001 15020 EL QUITO WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6209 STOTZER, SAMUEL W & MARJORIE N TRUSTEE APN 39707007 18671 MAUDE AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6215 MILLETT, LEOPOLD IAN A & URSULA A TRUSTEE APN 39707011 15131 EL QUITO WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6209 CUNNINGHAM, STEVE & ANNE APN 39707063 15001 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6296 RAO, VALLURI R & RADHA V APN 39707088 15115 EL QUITO WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6209 ~~~~~~ CHOW, RAYMOND W B & CASALE, FRANK & TERESA M CHN, WEN H TRUSTEE ETAL ELLEN O L APN 39707102 APN 39707103 ' APN 39707089 P O BOX 2311 18615 MAUDE AV 15129 EL QUITO WY SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070-6215 SARATOGA CA 95070-6209 LUND, LLOYD H & KAREN F WESENHAGEN, HUMPHREY E HUYNH, PAUL H & HONG TRUSTEE ETAL APN 41040018 APN 39707104 APN 41040017 15120 QUITO RD 18665 MAUDE P O BOX 2714 SARATOGA CA 95070-6229 SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 SARATOGA CA 95070 • ~"~~~~~ z X a~~~ 4~ ..~ ~~ == _ ~~ = ' ~:, ~ :~ 133HS 371/1 aoo ~o tse .nrdr riN~ro~nro `cool r~rrs a dM of ino 73 ovo5~ ~Ol SNO/1/OOr ONr SNO/1 r!/317r a ~ e ~ ~ O g a 2 ~ ~ g ~ h y N U 1 J CCC G~~ V 5151& 5151~h ~ ~ ~ ~O ~ ~ ~ .~ K h~ 51 W ~ ; ~Q Q ~ ~ ti ~W V ~ ~ Z ~.i WO~y1. ~~000 > ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ° W~ jy0~~0~0000 ~ ti ~oyW~WOO~~ ~ ~~ W~ ~ ~~~ W ~ ~~ ~x v ~~W~WW~~~W ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •. v _ z~ ~ ^a~ i$ ~ ~ m>~~ o ~ ~ ~ ~c: Q QQ Q Q Q O~_~Q~Q~ NQOa~ V~ ti~~~~"` W ~ h~h4~ O O O Q O ~ y 2 2 i Q 2 O r Q 0 a W O O g J v O oQc y W e ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~ $ ~ O ~~ `~~ ~~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ '~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~3 ~ ~ ~~ ~ W ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~N~ z O ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~g~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ N~i~~ HRH +5~ vi~~ ~d ~ r~~~ ai~ a~ ° ~L{ NS Q ~_ V O a ZZ • • ' -- ~ ~ pj ~ o~ ,.. .. a `~ , ;; ~_' ... ~: ~ ~ ~ W.l " _ ,~ ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ m W 5~~r.~~5pp~99~~~~pp p9O ~ N W h~ ~ ~ ~ h '~ o~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ Q ~ ~W~~~~~ ".\.\.\.~.~. J II 0 h 7 h ~° ~~ " N h k I N 1~ N^ ~gw h q O 'p`' ~. S ~o~~ ~UVOjO m3 ~y~ ~~~ h < V2$ ? V29S7 N^~ Qee'~~ I cOi~O ~~~~ ~ryN ~~_~~ ~~o ~o~'~ h ~Fb J2t~ 1` \ ~ ~ ~~~ I '~ ~ ~ \ ~ I I '~ ~~ ~y ~ ~ ' 1 ~~~~~ • ~ \ I ~ \ ~`~ \\ . \s h \ \ h I I~ ~I I ~ ~ ~ ~~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~\ ~ o+ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 8' I ~ ~,. ~~ ~ ~ ~ :o a ~ 4 I I ~ ~~ ~~ ~\ ~; I ~ ~ ~ _ - ~ ~~ A ~ ~~~o+ I \ I I ~\ ~s I ~~ I ~ __a _~ ~~` ~' w ~~ i I ~ ~ I ~, I ~ II ~~ ~ j ` t ~ ~ ~~~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ,~~ ,, ~~' ,I:' ~ I~ i I I 1 I \ i- ~'~ 4i ~ i ~ a ~~ ~ ~ I r }. L ~ ~ / _Ym III I , I I ~/ ~ ~~ I ~ --=_-_ ,~ ~,.,~ I \ ~ ~ , -~ ~ _ ~~_ y~~~ i ` ~ ~ ~ I ~ i'~~ i i ~'i _ 'lo; ~ ~ ~ -.~ ~~ ~ ~ I i-- --~ ,. __ __ ~ ~_I;, I ~ ~ ~ ;__~__ I _. ~ ,~~ I ~~ ,, ~ ; ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~I , 2~; ~ ; ~ I" I I i ~ _I / L-- --___~__ y- IF I / 1 I I I I ~ ~~ ~~ I - ~ .. --- - -~ M~f.0~ N of I of N ~I I a I Z I S I ~ I aoo ~o ass nrdr riN~ro.~nro `roof r~rs a dM olint~ ~~ 0~05~ ~Ol SNO/1/OOr ONr SNO/1 r~1317r N ~ Aso \ \ \ ~ ~ \ \ \ \~\ d ~ ~ ~ ~ o,, \\ \ \ \~ 8 ~ \\ \ \ \ ~ \ \ 3 - - y \\\\ ~,`~ ~ \ ~°.c+ \ \ \ ~~ ~~ ~\ ~~\ i~ \\ \~ \ I~ `.~ I ~1 m // \ \ \ o I ~~ ~ ~ I 3 1 ~ \~ \~4 w t --- i \ ~, ~ ~ I . ~ \l, m ~n Inc ~, ~ ~ ~~~ t i Q ~ ~ ~ ~~ h Q h M ~ g 7 O ~ ~ ` ~~ , ~ ~ Q p pp ~ ~ V ~ ~ N ~ y~' I `~ i[i[Y ~' N g 2 d~ 3 $ ~ 2g c ~ ~ m~~~ O~i ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I \ ~~ p'~ I / / Y I I I I I ~ j / I I I ~~++ ~~gl; ~~ ,o- zz ~~~ L-- -~ // .L-._~. -/.-- ~ o , 00'S6l ~~ ~~ N 1 h 111~~~~ ~ K ~n ~ k h q gT ~ M O ., i ` ' £ y ~ N (5 Sy y o 7 y7 ~ ~ ~ r` 2 Su ~ ~ b#~ s R ~ w~ o~ I N .~ I 2~1 ~ I ~I I ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ i O ~ ~ i , NV7d 31/Sl3l NV7d 31/S 03SOd0Ud ~ a ~ o ~ a ~ ~ g ~ N ~ a ,~ e ~ ~ ~ h ~ O t~ ~ NN A O z \ \ • ~ • ~ • .,~ ~~~ ~ .. ~ aoo ~o use ~Ndv ~ ~~ ........... r ~ ~ ~ _ ~ '~~ V/Nd10~/7V0 'VJOl dBVS ~ .!M ~.~, ~ ~ ~,~ SNOl1 di1373(31 a dM olinb 73 ovo5~ rr~~ -- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Nt/7d t/0073(31 ~~1 N W~s"~~''.°~°~~~`'~~ ~Ol SNO/1/00V ONV SNO/ld!/317V ~~~~ ~ ~ a ~ a ,~ s g h d 2 3 0 p 2 ~ h H Q ~ '~° g ~ C ~ ~~ ~ .s-,9i~ ,8-,Sfi .!-,ff7 ,6-,6lF I ~ / I q --J ~~ - - - - I I i ~ I J ~' I I I I 4 0 o +~ ~ I o I ` I ^ 11 ^ i II ~ ~ e I O O I i ~ ~ I ;~ W W ~ Q I I I ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ O o I i I I O 2 ~ - - - - - - ~ I ~ W W ~ N ~ I ~ W I ~ ~I ~ ~ I ~ I N I ~ I I ~ ~ _ _ J ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ \ I o ~ 00~ ~ I I I Nd ~ ~~ ~ ~ I I I ~ ~ I _ ~~~~~ ti ~ I I I I I j, ~, ~ ~~~ ~ ~ I I _ __ I I ~~ ~J .0-,iLF r' ,S-,i/i i-,L! ~ 0 I 0 1 ' III III 2 O O - i Q 1 /~~ ~/ W ~ W W h I h I • • N ~ ~ ~ `, .,,.....,g.. ` lDO-LO-LBS ~Nd r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~..~ W dd0 d/0 d3tld tl007d ruvso~~ro 'roof carts !! o:; ~ ~ ~ SNO/1 d/I S73 OSSOdOtld ~( dM Ol/n 7 L Ni,~ ~ ~~.4~ b ~ Oi~051 ~~s•~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~;~ Nt/7d tl007d 03SOdOt/d col sNO/1/aor avr snralrar317r ~ ~ 3 c ~ a ~ C g ~ ~ ~ ~ }~ .71 K ~1 y r! !![ ' o ~ d ! ~!!! U • • ~ • - -_ _ __-- ,~ rJ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. , a L00-LD-L6E ~NdV a 3 ° ~ .~: ~~ ~ ~a~~ ~:~ _ V/N~IO~/7dJ 'VJOIVEIVS ~ z a ~ g ~ ° !- o ~ ~ ~~~~~ NO/1~~5 SSO~I~ ~t dM Ol/nb 73 Oi~05~ ~ ~ e ~ ° .:~ ~ ~S! ~~ ~~`~~~ ~'''~°~°~~`'1~ ~Ol SNO/1/OOV ONV SNO/1d8317V a ° ~~3H ~,v~nne a3sodaad ,F-,lL~ ~ o~ o~ y Z V v • ~ '~' ~ . COMMISSION ITEM • City of Saratoga Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Lata Vasudevan AICP, Associate Planner DATE: September 22, 2004 RE: COMMISSION ITEM: Response to Muriel Mahrer's oral communication presented at the August 28, 2004 Planning Commission meeting regarding Application 03-152 CC: Ms. Muriel Mahrer and Mr. Xu During the `Oral Communications' segment of the August 28, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, Ms. Muriel Mahrer of 13577 Myren Drive presented a letter and voiced concerns regarding a house addition under construction at her neighbor's property at 13571 Myren Drive. Ms. Mahrer's letter and copy of photos are attached. In that letter, Ms. Mahrer requested that this project be placed on a Planning Commission agenda so that additional conditions of approval maybe imposed on the applicant in order to mitigate her privacy concerns. Unfortunately, the City can not agendize a planning application that has already undergone the appropriate planning review, approval and appeal process. The following is a brief chronology of the review process that occurred for planning application 03-152 at 13571 Myren Drive: ^ On July 5, 2003, application 03-152 is submitted for Administrative design review. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-45.065, an expansion of fifty percent or more of an existing main structure, with an addition height of not higher than 18 feet, triggers Administrative design review. Application 03-152 proposed to add 1,566 square feet to an existing 1,534 square foot single story home. The height of the addition was proposed at not higher than 15 feet. ^ In conjunction with planning application requirements, the property owner, Mr. Xu obtained signatures from several adjacent property owners, except from Ms. Mahrer. Ms. Mahrer visited the Planning Department on numerous occasions and voiced and submitted written concerns to Staff. Staff carefully listened to Ms. . Mahrer's concerns and specific requests for screening trees and relayed them to the applicant. Q~~~® ^ Staff explained to Ms. Mahrer, that it would have to consider the impacts of the proposal and determine whether her requests for screening were a justifiable request in relation to the impacts of the proposed addition. ^ Staff indicated to Ms. Mahrer that it could require the applicant to plant a row of Italian Cypresses that would provide some screening. Staff felt that the shape and screening abilities of Italian Cypresses were appropriate in side yards of less than 10 feet. However, Ms. Mahrer responded both verbally and in writing on December 16, 2003 (see attached letter) that she did not like Italian Cypresses. Instead, Ms. Mahrer specified her preferred tree species in the same letter dated December 16, 2004. ^ On December 17, 2003, Staff made the decision that it would not require the applicant to plant the requested screening trees as a condition of project approval. Staff felt that the requested species of screening trees were not suitable for a side yard of 7 feet. However, after close review of the height and placement of windows along the side facing Ms. Mahrer's property, Staff did decide to add a condition of approval that only one large master bathroom window be required to be frosted glass. Staff conveyed this decision to Ms. Mahrer and explained that she had the right to appeal during the public review and appeal period, which had not yet commenced at that time. For whatever reason, Ms. Mahrer verbally indicated that she was not planning on appealing Staff's impending decision. Nevertheless, Staff clearly explained the public review and appeal process to Ms. Mahrer. ^ On January 23, 2004, Staff deemed the application complete and sent a "Notice of Intent to Approve" to property owners within 250 ft. of the subject property (attached). This notice started a 15-day review period ending February 6, 2004, followed by a 15-day appeal period. This review process is stated in the notice. There were no changes made to the number and size of window openings facing Ms. Mahrer's property subsequent to December 17, 2004. ^ On February 6, 2004, Staff did receive a letter of concern from another neighbor at 13531 Myren Drive (2 doors away from subject property) during the public review period. Staff responded in writing to this neighbor and explained the right to appeal by February 23, 2004. However, no further letters of concern were submitted by Ms. Mahrer during the public review period. ^ Ultimately, no appeals were submitted for this project during the appeal period, and application 03-152 was approved with conditions. ^ On June 17, 2004, Building Permits were issued for the subject application and construction commenced thereafter. At final building inspection Staff will ensure that the addition is built per the approved plans. ~'~'~~~~ • ^ Ms. Mahrer indicates in her letter presented to the Planning Commission that she would have liked a copy of the site plan from the City. Staff had already indicated to Ms. Mahrer that it could not readily give her a copy of the plans unless there was written permission from the architect and the homeowner. This requirement is pursuant to California Govt. Code 19851. However, as you know, any member of the public can easily view the plans at the City. As seen above, Staff followed the proper procedure for the approval of application 03-152 for Administrative design review. Neighbors were given full opportunity to review and appeal Staff's decision on this application to the Planning Commission. The appeal period is not for an unlimited period of time. As such, the City at this time cannot place application 03-152 on the agenda for further consideration by the Planning Commission. Attachments 1. Ms. Mahrer's letter presented at 8/28/04 meeting 2. "Notice of Intent to Approve," affidavit and mailing list • • ~~~~~3 • Attachment 1 • ~J Request for a Hearing ~2~ I ~`~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~,~" 0~ My name is Muriel Mahrer, a. Saratoga resident since 1955. i am here with several complaints, suggestions and requests. T have lived for almosrt 30 years in my present home at 13577 Myren Drive, I feel I have been injured and that my privac unnecessarily destroyed and that the inte y' qu~~*t onl°yment and view have been grity of my neighborhood has been compromised, My house, being a post world war two unit is sat back 7 feet from the side ro neighbor's original remaining house is about 14 feet from our ad~oini p ~~ lme . My Although there ware several alternatives, the planning staff approved loc~aipng my neighbor's new large addition just 7 feet from our joint property line thus creating only a 14 foot space between our units. This has had a great impact on my quality of life and ! am upset that the process did not look out for my interests especially since !tried hard to be cooperative. Since their addition extends longer and higher than my house and fence, ! have a huge wall confronting me from four of my windows that ars located in the area of the house in which we spend the most time, the kitchen, family roam and desk area.. Although it is to late for ma, T urge the commission to amend the code to state that no new home construction that is under 20 feet from a neighbor's existing building be appmved. Any exceptions should not be decided administratively, but referred to the commission for review with all Concerned parties. There wets several equitable solutions to the location of the addition., It would have been easier for you to follow had the city been ably to give me a copy of the plot plan. The addition could have been centrally located and follow the lines of the origins,! remaining house instead of jogging in on one side and jutting 7 feet closer tome, This would have created more space on my side, which has the much larger section of the addition. The approved addition is located almost 12 feet from the opposite property lice, but only 7 feet frvm my property lint creating a shift from the existing utut toward my house by 7 fret.. Neither side follows the lines of the existing unit, but zigzags in and out. .Another option would have to make the spaced equal on each side., A third option could have been to extend the house to the rear ,where there is plenty on space. The stafT' knew of my objections and concerns, even when the plans showoci the addition was 8 foot 3 inches from our joint property Iine. It should have been incumbent ~m them to explore these options with all concxrned and far the matter to have been referred to the commission for consideration, not determined admitustratively. (see my letter dated November 12,2003) ~Q'~'~~~ .. • When I protested, !was told the code allowed a 7 foot side setback and there was not much I could da. 1 feh discouraged from appealing. I, therefore, requested that the neighbors be required to plant 8 row of trees on their side of the fence to provide me with a modicum of privacy. At first the staff agreed and even suggested Italian Cypress. I suggested verbally and in writing 6 dir~'erenl trees. (see my letter dated 12/16/13) .My neighbor liked the specimens I showed him on my praperty. 1 was shocked when the staff' informed me the trees would no longer be required.. In order to afford me a little privacy , I am asking the commission to require a protective row of trees in front of the new construction facing my property. I was originally told the addition would have one small high bathroom window at the back of the addition that would not impact me. Now that construction has begun I see four windows with one looking direetIy into my glass kitchen Joor and into my desk window at an angle. Two others look into my family room window at 8n angle. I ask that these widows 811 be frosted glass which is at best only a partial protection I feel these issues, which have had a great impact on my lire, need further consideration. I therefor I request that the commission place these items on the next agenda. Since explaining the many facets of this problem is difficult, I also urge you to visit out properties to see the problems rlrst hand. . In your packet I have included a map showing the location of and an enlargement of the three pertinent properties as well as some of my letters to the planning department. Also available for you to review are some recent photos depicting some of the problems.. 1"hank you for your consideration. cl Mahrer • ~'~~~~6 I • ~ - yam-- ~~ ~ '~~" 7y.~x~~l ~9~r.33 mob` ~` ~ ~~..+1C-~ ~ 2 ~ 3 ~ 1 ~ 71.02 sr.56 i ~ ~ ~ _ ~$ pR' ~~ ,~ 5 PSG ~ -Q ~~ ~ .~pZ ip' ~,` (q~•o~,-002,x' ~ ~" _! 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ to / ~- Y ~ ~• `~~ :.ZG' p ~ ~ a ~ 3Z6~ ~ ~ ~- ~ t20.Z7 ~~ of ~~ • .- -- ,_. ~= I - ~% ~ ~ G~ '" ~ 139.13 T J ~6y S.TE~79~o10/ ~ ,~ - _ . `~ ~ .,~/ o ~ °~ 7 ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ __ Igo .r': ; : s~•3....,/ ~ 99.kf ~ / r~7.0i 16,14 ~ ~ ry~ is ~`~ ~`~, ts9~o,., ~ g~ <_; Ij-G:i1 ~vC,~ o ~.~ ti ~ ~ ..! ' °, ` ~ ~ d aol~ r~C4. 3~` h ~~ a`, r loa ! ~~ ~ ..~ TRACT N° 822 ~ _.. ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ rl` ~ ~ / SARATOGA GARDENS f n C" ~ ~0 ~ ~o tY $ ~ p ~~ 2~ ~ m ~~ ~' rC~ -- -- ~ ' w ~~ ~ iS+~2t ~ ~ ~ s 1~ ....~~ . - t IOt ~ ~ .. ,. .. 1~ .4 •., tw L !•~ lV ' ~ 2~-2 ~ ~f / ~ ~- .,~ti Q ~ ~ ~~ ~ f 7 a, •c, ,gyp ~~ ~~ ~ ~ fi ~ N ~ ~ ~ ,~ t 3 ~' ~ .. .. 14 . ... •• - .. . ~._~'_ 99 ~ '-,. ...:. ~ -ter N ` ~ ., l ~~. ~d 4 v: f `` ~ t ~ , y .,... .... .. ~! •~ r I'a ip ,~~~ A '~J ,~~ . , ~ ~ .~ a ~! ;~ ~, TRACT SARATOG~ ~~~~ ~'~~ ~ r------ I,~o~. Na,.G yA.s6w ,uy ~ o,~ ~. !~~'a~o~L.: ~u.Ll Aa..e a ~o ~~~7 ~.r¢u. C~ueiv a1 ~i / f y ttLD/~~/*wr a ~ ~ d~,~~GC ,~~,~-u~m ~ ~~c ~ a audf ~ i~ L~ ~r~w~ M _. ---- 1 ~ • 4.1' V"tJ V ~~ November 12, 2003 Leta Vasudevan City of Saratoga Planning Dept. Re; Building addition for Qiang Xu, 13571 Myren Drive I want to register my concerns with my neighbor's proposed addition, all of which would occur bordering the side of my property. I understand that because Mr. Xu's lot is non conforming, the addition would be closer (8.3') to me than would normally be allowed by the zoning code (10' sideyard setback). Because of this close proximity, I feel the bulk and mass of this addition has a significant impact on my privacy, views and enjoyment of this .side of my property, where I spend a great deal of time, I would like to request evergreen tree or hedge plant screening for the length of the additions along the side next to my property, trees or hedges planted every eight feet at least. I would want them to be at least seven to eight feet tall when planted. I feel this will help lessen the impacts of this addition to me. Some plants that might work: (trees) Arbutus unedo 'Marina' Strawberry Tree l.aurus nobilis -Grecian laurel (tree form) Umbellularia califomica - California Bay (tree form) (shrubs) Prunus caroliniana- Carolina cherry -tree or bush form Ligustrum texanum -Texas privet -tree form for height Pittosporum undulatum -Victorian box Thank you for your consideration, Muriel Mahrer 13577 Myren Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 741.2220 • I~ l3 s 7~ ~q y ~.e.-. Dr ~ [~ ~ ~ 9 0I ~ ~~ i, n~ ~ U u_/_I~ .Lod," UU OEC 1 6 2003 U rte. ~ RGI 1 1 ' ~ d~ ~~/~q/D~ CITY OFSANAtUGA ~ ~--ryia~ a~' ~n orc~eY- ~ ~~~~ ~~of lowing ac/d r~l'~s ~~ n boy .Z he9(/~5~'~" 0~ ~/l3~°3 ` ha.~' ~ Nce.. yr ffa-'~eryh xv s 5~e a ~c,~ th ~- ~F~e. ~ $, , h-herwa~s N-~~ m~'~ TI`~.'~" ~~ m ~w~~~ roam w1Y+~~ ,may d ~ w,~r~~ m p~~. y e ~~ t ~r k,~ y~ ~ ~ ~ v57~ be~"~1 ~ ~~ 6 Q--r 7h ~ sib ~F ~ ~v~ xv's h~~" q~rl~ ~ ~ ~u~s un~~`~ Ma,~+na" sew ~y 1Uew 7--~a. (~~vl ~ ~ ~ ~~o~zs ~• ~ TNai- ro 7Tee be.2/al~e~Cy~/~f~ ~ l~ ~' am w~'1~~ny f ~r/~ ~,~i, mf. ne~9k6o^ ~~ ~ yov fir- ye~vr c~sid~ra`hd r ~ •~~%~ •i •i ~~~~~~ .~ • j ~ ~. ~, '' ll'3~ ~~~' ~~~~~ • • ~~~~1~ • • Y~¢w ~rQm ~'(.aH~er d¢sk v~vind o~~ ~~~~~~~ Y{~W ~r4t11 ~a~+r+dr o~)~Ss kf t~hdn av.~._ • V~ e~ ~i'o n~ ~~o ~ t c~ornQr a ~ ~[~h rtr hau~se 1~t ~••~~~orn ?'~ alp s~¢ Ord shawin~ pzr~t.a1 ~'¢„~--t1- aF Xu ~d~ i~ZOr1 ~°~~~zs ~~~~ ~~~ '~naw~l- to~~ a) Yt ~ viv -~rorh yh ~•1 y roo~+ vrir- w _. Vow 3hou/~n~a~! ~, ~~ c,1~e 1~ Tl~hre ~l ~/~ew OT Xv chl~'j-i~ ~1eVye. t- tiQw ~~°~ • Y~«,u s Iww ~~~ ~IPw°,~-a Nqe~ olal -~n~ u~•~' g~q~e, ,1-~ ~ nox ~ •~ ~ `~)r O~ nee w c~ms~{~^~c~c,~ ~ l~'1~1~re1` '~° ^C~ ~~~~~.~ r~ ~~ Attachment 2 ~~~~~~~ u 13717 FRtiIT\~ALF: AVENUE. SARATOUA, CALIFORNIA ~3601G f 4U8) 865-1'?00 COU?~'l'IL ME119BERS: • Incorporated October 22, 195G Stan Bogosian Kathleen Kino Norman Kline NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION FOR Nick Streit A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION AT Ann V/altonsmith 13571 MYREN DRIVE Project Description The Community Development Department has received an application to construct a 1,566 square foot ground floor addition to an existing 1,534 square foot single story home. The building addition includes a new attached and fully enclosed two-car garage, and living area addition at the rear of the home. The maximum height of the addition will not exceed 15 feet. The exterior materials will be stucco painted bone white to match the existing color and material with new greystone composition roof shingles. The proposed project, located at 13571 Myren Drive, complies with all zoning requirements. No trees are proposed for removal. Recommendations contained in the City Arborist Report prepared for this project will be made conditions of project approval. Public Review All concerned parties will have 15 calendar days in which to review the application and provide written comments. The review period begins January 23, 2004 and ends February 6, 2004. Detailed plans of the proposal are available at the Community Development Department located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please provide any comments or concerns in writing to the Planning Department to the attention of the staff planner indicated below. City Hall is closed every other Friday. Please check the City web site at www_sarato ag ca.us for the City's work schedule. At the end of the 15-day review period, a decision will be made on the project. This decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 15 calendar days after the date of the decision. In order to appeal an Administrative Design Review action a completed Appeals Form must be submitted to the City Clerk together with a fee of $150. The proposal will be conditionally approved with minor modifications unless there is evidence that the project is architecturally incompatible with the neighborhood, unreasonably interferes with views, privacy or solar accessibility, or would create an adverse effect on the environment. Date Lata Vasudevan AICP, Assistant Planner AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, ~(, lt,S i~ C ilGvw ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga R on the ZZ "` day of - ~f 20 that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF ~v~EU~- ~ ~~wcw~ ~~~~; a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said ersons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing P pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within S00 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. ~gned • ~'~~~ti~ • YO H CHOW OR CURRENT OWNER 3598 MYREN DR ~RATOGA CA 95070 GRACE AND JAMES SHEN OR CURRENT OWNER 13590 MYREN DR SARATOGA CA 95070 AMITABH & NEETI SETH OR CURRENT OWNER 13582 MYREN DR SARATOGA CA 95070 KUO C & SHIAOCHING TSAI OR CURRENT OWNER 13574 MYREN DR SARATOGA CA 95070 MICHAEL WELCH OR CURRENT OWNER 13550 MYREN DR SARATOGA CA 95070 MINA KIM OR CURRENT OWNER 13526 MYREN DR SARATOGA CA 95070 CHARLES F & GERALDINE CORBETT OR CURRENT OWNER 3524 HOLIDAY DR TOGA CA 95070 OBERT N HILTON OR CURRENT OWNER 13494 HOLIDAY DR SARATOGA CA 95070 RICHARD OSBORN AND BEVERLY BROWN OR CURRENT OWNER 13566 MYREN DR SARATOGA CA 95070 M. O'KEEFE AND J. CAMILLA OR CURRENT OWNER 13542 MYREN DR SARATOGA CA 95070 A. AND S. EMAMI OR CURRENT OWNER 13 518 MYREN DR SARATOGA CA 95070 CHENG-MING & PI LI OR CURRENT OWNER 15965 GREENWOOD RD MONTE SERENO CA 95030 MARJORIE G WARFEL OR CURRENT OWNER 13484 HOLIDAY DR SARATOGA CA 95070 NORMAN NEY OR CURRENT OWNER 13558 MYREN DR SARATOGA CA 95070 BYRAN T SILBERMANN OR CURRENT OWNER 13534 MYREN DR SARATOGA CA 95070 DALE M AND MONIQUE S DRUMM TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 18395 MONTPERE WY SARATOGA CA 95070 EDWARD H MURAWSKI OR CURRENT OWNER 13504 HOLIDAY DR SARATOGA CA 95070 JAMES A & KATHRYN MCBRAYER OR CURRENT OWNER 13474 HOLIDAY DR SARATOGA CA 95070 EDITH HILDENBRAND SHERMAN K & JOSEPHINE HUI QINSONG & SHIRLEY WANG OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 13464 HOLIDAY DR 13491 MYREN DR 13505 MYREN DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 GARTH W & TRACIE SCOTT MICHAEL H & JANETTE PRAM ALI K AMIRI OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 13513 MYREN DR 13521 MYREN DR PO BOX 10223 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SAN JOSE CA 95157 HADI FATEMI OR CURRENT OWNER 13561 MYREN DR SARATOGA CA 95070 QIANG XU OR CURRENT OWNER 13571 MYREN DR SARATOGA CA 95070 TR MARKER OR CURRENT OWNER 13577 MYREN DR SARATOGA CA 95070 L & DEBORAH YATES CURRENT OWNER 13583 MYREN DR SARATOGA CA 95070 KAI C LEE OR CURRENT OWNER 13589 MYREN DR SARATOGA CA 95070 WEILIN SHEN OR CURRENT OWNER 24615 HEATHER RIGHTS SARATOGA CA 95070 JANET P ROBERTS OR CURRENT OWNER 1401 THOMAS RD HOLLISTER CA 95023 OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER ,'~. .J • • Q ~~''~' • ITEM 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: #04-233, Conditional Use Permit; 20300 Herriman Avenue Applicant/Owner: California Farmers' Markets Association Staff Planner: Steve Prosser, Public Safety Officer Date: September 22, 2004 APN: 397-29-012 Department Head: -: Saratoga Hgh School ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ._ -~~ _ ~~~, J, _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;r ~'~, 500' Saratoga High School ^~ 4 \._ ~ .... ~ 1 ~ ~. ~ ~-[ r :: ~ ~ / ~ ~.. ~/ ~` ~. . []Contlorriniurrc G_ .: _. ~~ i ~ i ~ ~ ~ i ~ ., T j' ~~•.._r~~ f -- ~ ,/~ ~_; Merged_Parcels __ ~~ ~ _:_ 7 '-i ..~ ,a^ N /i ~ \~ _ __- Strcel_Lahels. _. ~_l i ~' ~."`_'' 1 I _. ..}..,~ ~ ~, _...~._ yR ! i ___ i, _._ i . i , ~ ~ ,. L. I ~ 7 I ~ I- ~ _ ice- ~-W '~ ~1~' ~ .,/ ~~ .}rt ~ ~ _ T l ~ _~ ,~, ,. ,_ \ . =,-F~_ ~ ~.- -~~ 1 _ ~ v > F L _ I_. --_..._1 . l..i_... _ ~ \ ~ ~ --~ - - ,- -- w. '-1 ~ ~. ~ I ' ~~ ~ 'rZ ~ ~~' ~~ % _r ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ _ -~+ ~ °. _, - -1 C_. l - -,. ~~ _ . ~-.._ ! , ~- ~- '-~'~~ 'fit - - ~ i~ 4 ` ~ ~ T < --' `- _ _a\ ~ ~ ~ _ ---- _. ,- -.. ~,K. _.. -} I ~ .. I t _. < / \a //^) ~ ~,~ L. 0 000 ` 600 i 600 1200 1500 H -}~""- .~ ~ ' \ -~ - i _ I . ,- ~~ ,- ,• ., t ~ i y _ ~ a'.C - - - ~ 20300 Herriman Avenue • 0®0~(~~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 05/03/04 (Fees paid 7/20/04) 08/25/04 09/07/04 09/07/04 09/16/04 The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit allowing the California Farmers' Market Association to continue holding the Saratoga Farmers' Market on the parking lot area adjacent to Herriman Avenue at Saratoga High School, Saturdays year round. The previous Use Permit, #98-005, expired on Apri103, 2004. The County Agricultural Commission certifies a Certified Farmers' Market where consumers purchase fresh fruit, nuts, and vegetables direct from local Certified Producers. The Certified Farmers' Market program is developed and regulated by the California Department of Food and Agriculture to bring farm products directly to the consumer. Only California products may be sold. No reselling is allowed at a California Certified Farmers' Market. The California Farmers' Market Association, anon-profit association of 10 markets with 300 participating farms, operates the Saratoga Certified Farmers' Market. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit application with conditions by adopting the Resolution attached to this staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution with conditions 2. Notice, Noticing Affidavit and Noticing Labels 3. Application packet 4. Letter dated September 8, 2004 5. Letter dated May 17, 2004 6. Lease agreement between the California Certified Farmers' Market Association and the Los Gatos- Saratoga Union High School District • ~....J • ~~'~®Q2 File No. 04-233; 20300 Herriman Avenue STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R1-12, 500 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CFS -Community Facilities MEASURE G: Not applicable SITE AREA: 30,000 square feet (Parking lot area for vendor use) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Not applicable GRADING REQUIRED: Not applicable MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Temporary tents and tables ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Temporary agricultural truck sales are categorically exempt from CEQA Guidelines per section 15304. .7 ~~U~03 File No. 04-233; 20300 Herriman Avenue PROJECT DISCUSSION Every Saturday morning, approximately 40 certified producers will bring their farm-fresh produce to consumers. The Certified Producers will use temporary stands and tables to sell their produce. The Certified Farmers' Markets Association has leased from the Los Gatos- Saratoga Union High School District an area of the parking lot adjacent to Herriman Avenue for a maximum of 40 vendors. The lease includes all other available parking locations for consumer use. The hours of operation for the previous Use Permit, 98-005, were 09:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. After discussions with staff from the Saratoga High School and concerned neighbors, a set- up time of 8:00 am and clean-up time of 2:00 p.m. was found to be satisfactory. The Farmers' Market Association is requesting a 07:00 a.m. set-up time. The Farmers' Market consists of producers who are based outside of Santa Clara County who arrive in Saratoga earlier than 8:00 a.m. and request permission to set-up on arrival. The City of Saratoga believes the Farmers' market should be held to the same standards compared to similar uses regarding set-up times. Saratoga City Code 7-30.060(f) states that set-up and cleaning activities conducted at restaurants and other commercial establishments located immediately adjacent to a residential area, which generate any noise audible to the occupants of the adjacent residences, ... including noise generated by the operation of delivery or service vehicles, shall not begin prior to one hour before the normal opening time of the establishment or extend later than one hour after the normal closing time... In addition, the Farmers' Market Association requests the operation of amplified music i within the vendor area. Amplified music is not consistent with the agricultural intent of Certified Farmers' Markets and may negatively affect surrounding residential properties. Therefore, music should be expressly prohibited as a Condition of Approval. Saratoga Farmers' Market as a Conditionally Permitted Use Establishing a Saratoga Farmers' Market in a residential zoning district requires the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. This process allows the Planning Commission to impose conditions on a project to ensure its compatibility with adjacent land uses. In this case, Saratoga Farmers' market will be in an established location for consumers but will require mitigation Conditions of Approval to address existing issues and limit any negative impacts on the surrounding uses. Parkingand Circulation With the construction occurring at Saratoga High School eliminating public parking spaces, the site is unable to accommodate the amount of pedestrian and vehicle traffic present. Customers are parking along the residential streets near the High School causing additional noise and traffic complaints that may be mitigated by adjusting the set-up and/or start time for the vendors. ~~~~~4 ,' File No. 04-233; 20300 Hetriman Avenue Hours of Operation The applicant is proposing the following hours of operation: Saturday: 09:00 a.m. to I:00 p.m. The applicant requests that set-up may commence at 7:00 a.m. and clean-up end at 2:00 pm. Staff has placed a condition of approval limiting the hour of set-up consistent with similar uses limiting the commencement of set-up operations to no earlier than 8:00 a.m. In addition, staff recommends prohibiting vendor arrival on site until 7:45 a.m. to eliminate instances of early set-up. Signage The applicant is proposing multiple on-site and off-site signs consistent with the type of use. The signs, if placed at the location requested by the applicant should not interfere with normal pedestrian or vehicle traffic and not constitute a hazard. A copy of the type and description of signs and proposed location is included with the Use Permit application packet. Correspondence Letters dated September 8, 2004 and May 17, 2004 from a concerned Saratoga resident are attached. In Summary, the Saratoga resident discusses the appropriateness of having the Farmers' Market at Saratoga High School and feels that the Market should be moved to an area within the City that will limit the negative impact to surrounding residential properties. The Saratoga resident is concerned with the perceived lack of compliance with previous Use Permit regulations and questions whether or not the Farmers' Market will abide by the Conditions set forth by this Planning Commission and by the lease agreement between the Farmers' Market and the school district. Conclusion Staff feels that all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the Ciry Code can be made in the affirmative in that: The proposed Saratoga Farmers' market meets the objectives of the Saratoga General Plan and the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located, in that the proposed establishment will be mutually beneficial to the surrounding uses, and will be conveniently located to provide a service beneficial to the residents of Saratoga; and • The proposed Saratoga Farmers' market will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the project to minimize potential impacts; and ~oooos Fffe No. 04-233; 20300 Herriman Avenue • The proposed Saratoga Farmers' Market will comply with all other applicable provisions of the Saratoga Ciry Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit application 04-233 with conditions by adopting the Resolution attached to this staff report. • n ~J ~i'~~~Q6 Attachment 1 ~'~'~®~~ File No. 04-233; 20300 Herriman Avenue RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 04-233 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CERTIFIED FARMERS' MARKETS ASSOCIATION, SARATOGA FARMERS' MARKET ~USE~ 20300 HERRIMAN AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of Saratoga Farmers' Market at Saratoga High School on Saturdays year round; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed Public Hearing at which tune all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the proposed project allowing for a Certified Farmers' Market is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15304, "Temporary agricultural truck sales"; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code can be made in the affirmative in that: The proposed Saratoga Farmers' market meets the objectives of the Saratoga General Plan and the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located, in that the proposed establishment will be mutually beneficial to the surrounding uses, and will be conveniently located to provide a service beneficial to the residents of Saratoga; and • The proposed Saratoga Farmers' market will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the project to minimize potential impacts; and • The proposed Saratoga Farmers' Market will comply with all other applicable provisions of the Saratoga City Code. • ~~'~d8 File No. 04-233; 20300 Herriman Avenue Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the application packet and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for a Conditional Use Permit approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PLANNING 1. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use Permit and may, at any time, modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. 2. The Saratoga Farmers' market shall operate as represented on the Use Permit application with a maximum of forty (40) vendors on site. Any intensification of this use shall require an amended Conditional Use Permit. 4. The operating hours of the Saratoga farmers' Market includes set-up activities no earlier than 8:00 a.m. and clean-up activities no later than 2:00 p.m. At no time shall vendors amve on the property of Saratoga High School located at 20300 Herriman Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 earlier than 07:45 a.m. The California Certified Farmers' Markets Association is required to provide a site manager responsible for • vendor compliance of the Conditions of Approval. 5. On or before September 1 of each subsequent year, the applicant is required to provide the City of Saratoga Community Development Department copies of the County of Santa Clara Environmental Health Permit, and clearance letters from the Fire District and County Sheriff s Department. 6. The proposed use shall at all times operate in compliance with all regulations of the City and/or other agencies having jurisdictional authority over the use pertaining to, but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety, and water quality issues. 7. Live or amplified music is inconsistent with the stated agricultural nature of the Saratoga Farmers' Market and is prohibited. CITY ATTORNEY 8. 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. ~`®~®~~ File No. 04-233; 20300 Herriman Avenue 9. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute grounds for the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. • Section 2. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 3. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 22nd day of September 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Applicant or Authorized Agent Date • '~~~~1® • Attachment 2 C7 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, Kristin Borel, 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 2nd day of September, 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 S00 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 • ~~~U~12 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 22nd day of September 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Thursday from 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. APPLICATION #04-233 (397-29-012) California Farmers' Markets Association, 20300 Herriman Avenue: -Request approval for a Conditional Use Permit allowing the California Farmers' Markets Association to continue holding a Farmers' Market on the parking lot area of Saratoga High School, Saturdays year round. The previous Temporary Use Permit (#98-005 expu~ed on Apri103, 2004. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. • ~~~®13 HUANG CHI JEN 8r CHIUNG-YU KWONG JOSEPH W &z MAY F CHEN TSEHUA A ~ LI-TSUNG E 13811 CAMINO RICO 20221 HERRIMAN AV 20261 HERRIMAN AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4924 SARATOGA, CA 95070-4905 SARATOGA, CA 95070-4905 ~~ LJ CHOU MING JER &r HSIU-HUEI 20275 HERRIMAN AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4905 MANN DAVID M &r DEBORAH J 20289 HERRIMAN AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4905 MEYER WALTER J TRUSTEE 20345 HERRIMAN AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4905 SUN YUE &r LILI 13784 LEXINGTON CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-4933 OLIVER ROBERT H 67 ROSA P TRUSTEE 13748 LEXINGTON CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-4933 CHANG GARY G ~r PAMELA P TRUSTEE 20325 HERRIMAN AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4905 HORN RICHARD H &r SUSAN E TRUSTEE 13751 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4917 FANALI JOSEPH ~St RUTH TRUSTEE 13811 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4970 KWANG KENT Est JIN-LING 13780 SARATOGA VISTA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4940 KARASIK RICHARD P &r DARLENE A TRUSTEE 13732 SARATOGA VISTA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4940 PORTER PATRICK T ~ DIANE M 13777 SARATOGA VISTA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4939 TSAI LEE-CHUNG &z LEE-WEN W 13772 LEXINGTON CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-4933 CORA HENDERSON P. O. BOX 2536 SARATOGA, CA 95070 GUERIN DANIEL J ~ NACERA 20241 HERRIMAN AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4905 SCONTRINO ROBERT Est HELEN TRUSTEE 13771 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4917 POST JACK Est BETTY 20121 HERRIMAN AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4904 STAHEL WERNER &z SIEW YONG TRUSTEE 13764 SARATOGA VISTA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4940 SMITH SHELLEY J II &z MARIANN K 13741 SARATOGA VISTA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4939 LIAO JUNG CHI 8r SHEN SHU CHU 13810 CAMINO RICO SARATOGA, CA 95070-4925 ANABATHULA RADHAKRISHNA M ~ TARA 13760 LEXINGTON CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-4933 SHIH SHENG-LI &r LIN YIN-LIEN 20315 HERRIMAN AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4905 PMB 179 914 WESTWOOD BL LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 CHOI HA S &r KWANG A 13791 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4917 POST BETTY J &r JACK 20121 HERRIMAN SARATOGA, CA 95070-4904 MCMILLAN JERRY P ~z MAUREEN T 13748 SARATOGA VISTA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4940 CHANG PETER ~u RUTH 13759 SARATOGA VISTA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4939 MARKS LLOYD C ~ INA M 13784 CAMINO RICO SARATOGA, CA 95070-4925 ~~~®~~ JOHNSON GREGORY T &r TINA M SLATER WILLIAM ~ EILEEN 13760 CAMINO RICO 13744 CAMINO RICO RATOGA, CA 95070-4925 SARATOGA, CA 95070-4925 TORCZYNER ROBERT D &r JANICE IRWIN JOHN W &z MARY L L TRUSTEE TRUSTEE 13795 SARATOGA VISTA AV 13813 SARATOGA VISTA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4939 SARATOGA, CA 95070-4939 SEATON KENNETH L TRUSTEE ETAL 13810 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4969 LEIGH BETTY A PO BOX 3021 SARATOGA, CA 95070-1021 LEE KENNETH D &r J H 13841 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA, CA 95070-5424 WANG RAY SHU-NING Fu LISA KING FONG 13871 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA, CA 95070-5424 CLARKS KENNETH F &r JAN S 13911 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA, CA 95070-5424 NGUYEN FRANK T &r JEANNIE T 13910 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA, CA 95070-5424 WEN SHAG-HSIU &z JEAN ETAL 13851 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA, CA 95070-5424 TAM MARISA CHING SHUT 13891 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA, CA 95070-5424 BITTER JOAN V 13921 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA, CA 95070-5424 SUE CHENG-YUAN Fst CHIAHUI 13890 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA, CA 95070-5424 MAROSTICA DANNY L psi SANDRA S TRUSTEE 13728 CAMINO RICO SARATOGA, CA 95070-4925 SONG JEONG S &r JANET S 20025 HERRIMAN AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4903 ONN CHARLES ETAL 13770 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4935 GUIDO GEORGE D Est SARA D 13861 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA, CA 95070-5424 CHEN JIE ~ WEN JUNG 13901 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA, CA 95070-5424 VAN DE VEN MICHAEL E ~ JAMIE S TRUSTEE 13930 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA, CA 95070-5424 GOTOH TETSUO &r SHIGEKO 13860 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA, CA 95070-5424 CAPPELLO PAULA L TRUSTEE CASABONNE YVES G &z ANNETTE E HO CHING-YEN ~ LING-MAY TRUSTEE 13850 RIVER RANCH CL 14951 JERRIES DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-5424 P O BOX 247 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5408 EL VERANO, CA 95433-0247 HEETER ROBERT W &z CAROL V 14961 JERRIES DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-5408 DANCE ALAN Est LISA 14965 JERRIES DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-5408 DUJARI SITYAM ~ ANJALI 14969 JERRIES DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-5408 ~TSINGER FRED J ~ HELEN STEE 14051 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-5412 LIN YEN CHUNG &z SU IN HSIEH TRUSTEE 14057 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-5412 HUR JIM R ETAL 19933 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5522 ~~~~1~ KOO SHAWN MYUNG-KWAN &r LIU YUAN KWEI ~ JU PING CHU HENRY H ~ SALLY S TRUSTEE'- TERESA Y CHANG 14081 LOMA RIO DR 14069 LOMA RIO DR 14075 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-5412 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5412 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5412 SANQUINI RICHARD L &r ANNE M CALLAGHAN JOHN B Est MARY L TRUSTEE 14093 LOMA RIO DR 14087 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-5412 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5412 S C V W D SUCKOW JOHN R &r SALLY C SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 14020 JUNE WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-5410 COLEMAN SANDRA L ~ NORMAN STAHLMAN GLORIA D TRUSTEE R TRUSTEE 14001 JERRIES DR 14000 JERRIES DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-5409 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5411 MCCOY HELEN M TRUSTEE MANDELL BRADLEY S Est KATHRYN 2865 BRISTOL RD J KENWOOD, CA 95452-9012 14031 JERRIES DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-5409 ALLEN C DONALD ~ SARA B 14101 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-5412 HEESCH MORGAN L ~ PATRICIA H TRUSTEE 1022 VIA TORNASOL APTOS, CA 95003 NISSLY KENNETH L 8z MARJORIE J 14011 JERRIES DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-5409 NATOLI JOSEPH T Est JENNIFER D 14041 JERRIES DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-5409 OHN CHRISTOL MENNEMEIER UDITH A TRUSTEE DOUGHERTY KATHRYN N &r C P.O. BOX 3105 114 REDWOOD DR 19980 HERRIMAN AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 BOULDER CREEK, CA 95006-8532 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5401 SMITH JACK S &r MARGARET O 13881 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA, CA 95070-5424 VICK PATRICIA ~ GARY J 14137 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5417 WEISMAN WENDIE E 14147 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5417 CLEMENT ALBERT &z DIANE M 14157 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5417 LAFFOON POLK IV ~ ANNE C 14191 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5417 CHAMPION DENNIS W &z MARY E TRUSTEE 20411 WALNUT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5426 MARTIN DAVID N &r ROBEN S 14167 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5417 RUBY ALLEN J Esc CYNTHIA W 14205 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5417 SHAHMIRZA MEHDI &z DEBRA K 13730 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4935 BURLINGHAM PRESTON Est MARGARET M TRUSTEE 14173 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5417 GRIFFIN JAMES A &r CAROLYN M 14170 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5418 AN MIKE J Fs~ ERIN 20451 WALNUT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5426 ~~~®~6 FITT ROBERT D &r KAREN M MANZO J P JR Est MARCIA M ELLIOTT LAURA C Est GEORGE J 20461 WALNUT AV 20471 WALNUT AV 20462 WILLIAMS AV RATOGA, CA 95070-5426 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5426 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5428 PICO RANCH INC ETAL ETAL PACE JOHN W &z CHRISTINE A FELCYN GLORIA H TRUSTEE 3707 WILLIAMS RD 202 20450 WILLIAMS AV 20440 WILLIAMS AV SAN JOSE, CA 95117 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5428 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5428 HIDY JAY S ETAL PEAKS BENJAMIN &i LEILIA GANESAN SUBRAMANIAN ~ 20430 WILLIAMS AV 20400 WILLIAMS AV CHARUMATHY SARATOGA, CA 95070-5428 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5428 20470 WILLIAMS AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5428 TEEPEE JUDITH L ETAL BIETZ RICHARD J FRANCES C MILLER 20480 WILLIAMS AV 14081 ALTA VISTA AV 14600 WILD OAK WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-5428 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5421 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5550 ESHLEMAN DAVID ~ CONNIE PASTUSZKA WALDEMAR M Est HARTGE LAWRENCE C ETAL TRUSTEE LUCYNA TRUSTEE 15808 GLEN UNA DR 14130 ALTA VISTA AV 1116 WALSH AV LOS GATOS, CA 95030-2911 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5459 SANTA CAARA, CA 95050-0000 WETTERHOLT DAVID G S C V W D GRIFFIN CHARLEY L TRUSTEE 14054 ALTA VISTA AV ALTA VISTA AV 20365 WILLIAMS AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5422 SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5458 MCKENZIE FRIEDA B TRUSTEE MCKENZIE FRIEDA B TRUSTEE 15311 BELLECOURT AV 15311 BELLECOURT RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-6466 SARATOGA, CA 95070-6466 ROCKWOOD ROBERT K &z KERIN ANTHONY J III ~ LINDA D NORA JOHN P &z KAY M CYNTHIA A TRUSTEE 20461 WILLIAMS AV PO BOX 73 20445 WILLIAMS AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5427 SARATOGA, CA 95071 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5427 CHANG WEI Est ANNABEL W ETAL SARATOGA PARENT NURS ERY RAISSI BABAK SCHOOL 14078 ALTA VISTA AV 20481 WALNUT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5422 20490 WILLIAMS AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5428 iJV TAT H &r TSUI H GONI RAYMOND E &z DEBBIE L KWAN BRADEN S &r CECILIA K 00 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD 14080 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD 20473 WILLIAMS AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5836 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5836 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5427 Q®®®g~ HULME ALLEN F 20485 WILLIAMS AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5427 CHU TAIN GEENG T &r KAI JUNG G 20435 WALNUT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5426 HART THEODORE ~ VICTORIA A TRUSTEE PO BOX 427 SARATOGA, CA 95071 BLACKWELL PROPERTIES 125 E SUNNYOAKS AV CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6607 LEUNG SAVIO T ETAL 55 VERBALEE LN HILLSBOROUGH, CA 94010-7435 PAXTON LORINE D TRUSTEE 20426 WILLIAMS AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5428 HART THEODORE &r VICTORIA A TRUSTEE PO BOX 427 SARATOGA, CA 95071 BLACKWELL PROPERTIES 125 E SUNNYOAKS AV CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6607 BLACKWELL PROPERTIES 125 E SUNNYOAKS AV CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6607 PONCHIONE ELIO '_ 20433 WALNUT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5426 BONNET PAUL A 20900 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-5750 SCHAEFFER THOMAS H TRUSTEE ETAL 13995 ALTA VISTA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 BLACKWELL PROPERTIES 125 E SUNNYOAKS AV CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6607 • GLAZER DONALD A ~ ALICE A PO BOX 3687 SARATOGA, CA 95070-1687 HSU WEN C TRUSTEE ETAL 14029 OAK HOLLOW SARATOGA, CA 95070-5449 CHENG GARY Y TRUSTEE ETAL 14043 OAK HOLLOW SARATOGA, CA 95070-5449 FREEMAN JERRY E &r LIANE D 13993 ALTA VISTA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5421 SMITH-COGGINS REBECCA S~ DWAIN L 14005 OAK HOLLOW SARATOGA, CA 95070-5449 BAC STANLEY 8x SUSAN 13990 ALTA VISTA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5422 KU CHIA-CHIN ~ SUNG-WU 20466 GERALD ZAPELLI CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-5400 NEHAWANDIAN ABOLGHASSEM ~z SMITH THEODORE ~ LILLIE PARIDOKHT TRUSTEE 13773 PRUNE BLOSSOM DR 13772 PRUNE BLOSSOM DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-4832 SARATOGA, CA 95070-4832 LOS GATOS H S D SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 WANG REN D TRUSTEE POBOX762 SARATOGA, CA 95070 LORTON LIA J TRUSTEE • 13750 PRUNE BLOSSOM DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-4832 ~~~~~8 LONG KENNETH W 6~ KERI K 15858 MINA WY ARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 KIANG TEDDY TIAN &r SYLVIA TE- YI 12010 MAGNOLIA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 MORRIS IAIN M &r ALISON M 15867 MINA WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 ROSITANO DEAN J &r JULIE T 18581 PETUNIA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 MOYLES MERVYN W &r HELEN B TRUSTEE 20560 REID LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5369 EBROCK STEPHEN C &~ LOIS M 20546 REID LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5323 HUANG KUOJIM 6x HUI-WEN DEBBIE 14091 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-5834 CHAPMAN JOHN T &r KAREAN L 15862 MINA WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 NAVID BAHRAM &r FATEMEH 12020 MAGNOLIA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 ZAMANI FARHANG ~St FERIALEH TRUSTEE P O BOX 2128 CUPERTINO, CA 95015 POLLACK PATRICIA R 15863 MINA WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 LOWDERMILK THOMAS J &z MOMOYO K 14031 ELVIRA ST SARATOGA, CA 95070-5829 RAD HOSSEIN &r AZITA 20520 REID LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5323 NAVICO INCORPORATED 20480 BLAUER DR A SARATOGA, CA 95070 NAVICO INCORPORATED 20480 BLAUER DR A SARATOGA, CA 95070 NAVICO INCORPORATED 20480 BLAUER DR A SARATOGA, CA 95070 NASSER MOHAMMAD S Est DIANE S 15859 MINA WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 ATONDO LUCY H &z ERNEST 14060 ELVIRA ST SARATOGA, CA 95070-5815 VIERRA GEORGE M JR ~x LENA 14071 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-5834 DAHLBECK MICHAEL J &~ THERESA LAMBERT JOAN G TRUSTEE M TRUSTEE 14030 ELVIRA ST 14051 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-5815 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5834 CALVANICO ESTHER R TRUSTEE CHAUDHRY ZAHOOR A &~ SAMINA GLUCK ROBERT &r MYRNA 14063 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD Z TRUSTEE SARATOGA, CA 95070-5834 1725 MISSION ST 20553 REID LN SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5322 RATHJENS CORINNE L TRUSTEE LIN JINGWEI &z YVONNE W ISAACSON KENNETH S 6x LILLIAN S 20575 REID LN 20587 REID LN TRUSTEE SARATOGA, CA 95070-5322 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5322 13960 LYNDE AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5348 ~BERTSON DEBRA 90 LYNDE AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5312 LICCARDO KATHLEEN A REED WILLIAM C TRUSTEE 20588 LYNDE CT 20576 LYNDE CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-5312 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5312 ~~~D~~.y HE LIMIN Est QI BUTLAR EDMUND L TRUSTEE ARMSTRONG FREDERICK S &c 20446 CHALET LN 20454 CHALET LN GLADYS J TRUSTEE SARATOGA, CA 95070-4929 SARATOGA, CA 95070-4929 20462 CHALET LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-4929 VENKATRAMAN CHANDRASEKAR Fsi VANITHA 20476 CHALET LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-4929 WALKER SHIRLEY B 13737 LEXINGTON CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-4934 ACHARYA ABHIJIT Fst QUENTINE TRUSTEE 13773 LEXINGTON CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-4934 LUKE CHARLES A 20210 MERRICK DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-4936 TSENG DAVID &r WEI S 13772 CALLS TACUBA SARATOGA, CA 95070-4921 HUANG WEIAN W ~St MENGFEN W 20488 CHALET LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-4929 APPLE CHRISTIAN K ~ ROBIN S 13749 LEXINGTON CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-4934 DE LUCA G MERCEDES 13785 LEXINGTON CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-4934 LOURDOU ALEXANDRE R TRUSTEE 13794 CALLS TACUBA SARATOGA, CA 95070-4921 JENQ BAO-CHYUAN ~ SHU-CHU TRUSTEE 13768 CALLS TACUBA SARATOGA, CA 95070-4921 SUBBARAO MURALI B &t ANJALI 13725 LEXINGTON CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-4934 TRONSON LANE C TRUSTEE ETAL 13761 LEXINGTON CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-4934 SARATOGA PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 20455 HERRIMAN AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4901 ALVORD MURIEL D &z FRED L 13782 CALLS TACUBA SARATOGA, CA 95070-4921 DRUMM RICHARD C JR &z MARIANNE G 13754 CALLS TACUBA SARATOGA, CA 95070-4921 DOWELL RICHARD I MOVAHED-EZAZI MOHAMMAD H KUEHL FREDRICA A ~z MONIREH 13730 CALLS TACUBA 20270 MERRICK DR 20250 MERRICK DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-4919 SARATOGA, CA 95070-4936 SARATOGA, CA 95070-4936 BROOKS WILLIAM T ~ CANDACE C LAI SHU K SEIBERT JOHN E ~ SANDRA L 20230 MERRICK DR 13725 CALLS TACUBA 13735 CALLS TACUBA SARATOGA, CA 95070-4936 SARATOGA, CA 95070-4918 SARATOGA, CA 95070-4918 SOIN SARVNANDAN S &z NAMITA D TRUSTEE 13745 CALLS TACUBA SARATOGA, CA 95070-4918 WONG DAVID M &r KAREN W 13775 CALLS TACUBA SARATOGA, CA 95070-4920 NAMIMATSU DENNIS T &z TRACY K ISON JOHN W ~St CARLA C F 13765 CALLS TACUBA 13755 CALLS TACUBA SARATOGA, CA 95070-4920 SARATOGA, CA 95070-4920 THOMPSON LAURENCE A 6x JOAN CHEN LIANG T ETAL C 13795 CALLS TACUBA 13785 CALLS TACUBA SARATOGA, CA 95070-4920 SARATOGA, CA 95070-4920 • • ~~~~~~ti~ _CHIANG STEVE ~ YUCHEN 20564 LYNDE CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-5312 LALWANI RAJESH 8x SUNITA 20538 LYNDE CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-5312 WORDEN TERRY G TRUSTEE 20552 LYNDE CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-5312 WONG KENLEY H &r NANCY T 20526 LYNDE CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-5312 WILLIAMS JAMES L Fsi CAROLYN M yANG HSIA &z CLARA TRUSTEE 13896 LYNDE AV 13904 LYNDE AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5311 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5311 RAJAMANICKAM PAKKIRISAMY 6~ CHANG CHIA-PU ~sz SHOW-FEN VETRISELVI CHEN 20532 DEERPARK CT 20520 DEERPARK CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-5308 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5308 LUI GRACE Y 20531 DEERPARK CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-5308 ~SCHMAYER JOSEPH T JR &r LISA A 13877 LYNDE AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5310 LEVIS JAMES J ~ MARY J 20557 DEERPARK CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-5308 CHIANG KOH-SITYAN C &r LING JU L 20540 LYNDE CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-5312 TAN TIOW H ~ LIH C 20579 LYNDE CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-5312 NICHOLS JACK D 8z NANCY A 13888 LYNDE AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5311 JAMES DEAN B ~¢ ETHEL B TRUSTEE 20518 DEERPARK CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-5308 REESE JOHN H ~ JANET S TRUSTEE 13869 LYNDE AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5310 DENNIS ROGER E &z GRETCHEN A HASSAN ZAHEER &r NISHAT TRUSTEE 13893 LYNDE AV 13885 LYNDE AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5310 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5310 WITTWER WILLIAM R ~ KRISTEN A 13901 LYNDE AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5310 ~J HHANG YIREN &r YIHONG GEDDES JAY R TRUSTEE 13909 LYNDE AV 13917 LYNDE AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5310 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5310 ~~'©~21 Attachment 3 • ~~~~~ CALIFO FARMERS' MARKETS ASSOCIATION 830 Navaronne Way, Concord, CA 94518. (925)689-4141 FAX (92589-4188 Mr. Steve Prosser Public Safety Officer Community Development City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Permit information for the Saratoga Certified Farmers' Market Dear Mr. Prosser: Thank you for the request for our Use Permit information. I have inclosed the following information for your use. • Completed permit application • Environmental Health Permit • Market operation update • Sign and banner location maps • Market Sign Design • Market Site Plan (entire parking lot and adjacent buildings/street) All parameters and conditions set forth by the Fire and Sheriff Department have remained in effect since our permitting procedure was completed last year. Notwithstanding our recent changes in grower set-up times and noise abatement in the mornings, we have not changed anything regarding our operating procedures at the market site. Will you still require us to provide you with letters of approval of acknowledgement from the Sheriff's and Fire Departments? Please advise. You may reach me at 800-806-3276. Thank you for your help in this matter. ~~O®23 A non profit grower organization May 4, 2004 President .:~ ~; ~. ~ ':. ~.1.. .~;.. r~`Y,~iL+y~';•~ •+,.: ~~~•~ •~.Vti V' Ise,. ...~•~. I yy~, .. .~ ~~ tiv. ~.n,. Y~. ••fa^~ Jam'., ~.~~ I .~~r . . ,.rb;~• ~• r~ lam, ., ~~~~. •• ~w.•~:" .,,... _ . ~,:-0. . ~i •;~• i .. ' '• 4 Planal~gDepa~tru~c use oaly. G~C• t ~~ -~ FFE SO o ~s~3 /~r -~ ~ ",l ~l APPLICATION NO. ~ '' 3 ~ ~ - ~~ Requested entidament(s}_ ~~,nllI • / _ ''i~~" - S,q,'l9~b~.4 -~ti~ ram/-~ /~, -~'• ~,~~i~'/G_~ h~~i ~ 5~,~..ryy~~E project Location Assessor Parcel Number (APN) Project Description ~ /~~ • ~~~~~''~~~ ~ Applicant Name ~~'~~0~/`~/~ ~~'~ ~/~~1~-l - ~-TS O C . Applicant Address 000 C / ~~v..f G/C • ~~~~ . !~(1T ,NCI fC Zip ~ City ~ . 3~ 7 f. FAX oZS 6 ~ y -3 Applicant Phone Oo O ~i ,_~.. /,, Pmail ~ OuG D ' l~~ ' e~~ . . property owner Name LJS <oi4-/ro S ~ S'A- %~ ~`' •,~I SCh~O G ! Ti2/C•T proprrry owner Address / 7 7~ /~~~~ C^J~'TT, GOB -t~l _50.3 ~ pm~ny ~OwuCt PTwnc ~ s ~ FAX ~ ,3S 7 j" . Fsnail -- 1, the un d, undo Penalty of perjury, herelry declare awd agrct chat I am the applicAnt far this request, that chc vwna~ o~.he PmPe'~7' ~'PW°"ed rbe filcoErrect, anal arcura~te nto the best ollmyekliowled$e amd~ and other.infortt~tton submitted herrwith are true, es that a~ cu~~ditiona, f£ suy, upon which the upplicatiou is It the applfdtion is granted, the nnderstgned agrc granted, Will be carefully observed and that the project will pracced in accordance with all City, Static and Federal laWS. I Agree to hold the Gity harmless from all costs and ~us~+. includin8 attorney fees ineumd by the City or held to be the liabd8ry of the City is eonnectiora w9~h the ~icy"s defcnae of its acxions in any at~~8 bmu~t in any State or Fcdcral Court challenging the Ciry's atcions in arty ws-y with respect to this applicati~ and any amenda~ or revisions to this application. • s-s-o5~ Applicant or Property Ownu Date ~~~~J2~ J ` u»8Ma ~ ~:.~ Applicant's name: ~9L~F ~9~~'~JQ-~~~~-r.. ~-f-rOC,//4 T/Gw Applicant's address:.3~0~ C/~2cJS C/RC-G~ ~/ll~ G/~41.i'-~C,J~' C~~ Name o! property t~smer: Lpf ~o O Address of Property Owner: ~~ 5/~/ /~<,~ZL.E~~49r' ~f1_ GOSro4: e~J Address of Site: S,~Z~%~G~ ~ SCh~L Ss"o3o Activities planned (inc].udinq sales of goods, if any): ~~Pn~~~ ~ "~~~ Days and hours of operation: ~'f-~!~ 7~/~. -~ 9f1/~ , D~j24r~.r Number of people involved in operation events L /~'i~t'e~L ~O /~a2/ number o! people expected to attend the events !S~ o - ~ooo Is food to be served? Yes: ,r~_ No: • What kind of food, and how served? (~ L~D(~N , ~~D T~.!~l~i~/~i~ Cf~/c~~ !/~C~/~ G/,2A~J' GfZ/GG,Es~ AJ/,~ /'S,Ei~1' ~V~~~' -~ 1~~6. Ntuaber of sanitary facilitiss existing at site (one women's plus ono man's equals two (2) facilities): Are on-site signs proposed (number and description)? ~s ~~~~~z a A -~.~~ All doeumQrts and maps submditted ae required, b®come the property of the City~of Saratoga and shall be subaitted with this applica- tion ~?0 LUTEit T8~ THIA'1'Y (3 0) D31Y8 88PGRE '1'gE PAQP08ED D#Ta O? Tm6 aV~IT. 8U81[I88t01~ AEOIIIAIO[EII'P8 ~. Appropriate fees 2. Appropriate letters of approval from the Fire District, Health Department and sheriff's Department (sco section III, 8 and C) 3. Two (~) copies of site plan which shows the followings a. Designation of area to be occupied by use b. Existing structures and improvemonta, as woll ass pro- posed temporary stxucture,s ' a. Provision for off-street parking d. cite location diagr~uq ~.,~r ..; -~S ~~~~~~. SEP-08-2004 12:23 PM CA FARMERS MILT ASSOC 925 465 4692 ENV'I~~ONMENTAL HEALTI~1 PERMIT P. 02 PERMIT HOLDER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS PERMIT: Renew on Or before explratlon date, l( PermR Holder does not receive renewal notice present this Permit to the address below on or before the explratlon date. late payments are assessed a 25% penalty. HAYDEN,DOUG CALIFORNIA FARMERS MARKET ASfiO 830 NAVARONNE WY CONGORD, CA 94518 PERMIT IS NOT TRANSFERABLE l MAY BE REVOKED FOR CAUSL. Permit is void on chanfle of owner. New owner must apply and pay for permit (s) ~ to operation or penalties wNl be assessed at 25%. ~ u~-NTA CLNrtA Ct7UNTY-DEpiaR'I'MEN f Uh I~NViRUNMeNTAL HEALTH I I 1555 BEROER DR BLDG. 2; SUITE 300, SAN JOSE, CA 8S11Z2716 408-818-3400 ENVIRONMENTAL MEALTH PERMIT REGULATED FAGiLITY ; CF 4RM MKT-8ARATOGA Facility ID: FA0240439 HERRIMAN AV Account ID. AR1241290 SARATOGA, CA 95070 Issued; 7/30/2004 OWNER NAME : CALIFOR?~11A FARMERS MARKET ASSO p.nnllx PT0440598 1801 -CERTIFIED FARh1ERS' MARKET Proo~ a PR0340548 CFARM MKT-SARATOG,a Valid From 9/1/2004 to 81:1/2005 Ben Gale, Director of Environmental Health DISPLAY IN PUBLIC VIEW • soo~.rn~ +.o.~.o~.oo ~Q~©~r~ • ~ ~~~ o~ ~ 13777 FIiI'I"CVALE AVIJNUIJ SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 COI?NGIL MEMBERS: Incorporated October 22, 1956 Stan Bogosian Kathleen King Norman Kline August 25, 2004 Nickstreit Ann Waltonsmith Doug Hayden California Farmers' Markets Association 830 Navaronne Way Concord, CA 94518 RE: 20300 Herriman Avenue 04-233 Dear Doug Hayden: . The application has been deemed complete. The project has been scheduled for the September 22, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting at 7:00 in the City Hall theater.' • ~ As requested, your application will be evaluated as an application for a Conditional Use' Permit allowing for a Farmers' Market to be held at Saratoga High School on Saturdays throughout the year. On September 21, 2004, the Planning Commission will conduct a site visit to review projects before the meeting .the next night. The site visits are normally around 12:OOpm. Staff recommends the applicant is present to answer questions at the site visit. Staff will mail you an agenda for the site visit. If you have any questions regarding your planning application, please call me at 868.1214. Sincerely, s,~,~f Steve Prosser Public Safety Officer • ~Q~®2'~ County of Santa Clara Office of the Sheriff 55 West Younger Avenue San Jose. California 95 1 10-1 72 1 (408) 299-2 1 O1 l~urie Smith Sheriff August 20, 2004 City of Saratoga Community Development/Code Enforcement Attention: Public Safety Officer Steve Prosser 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 7h "° ~.~ . ~ • A Re: Saratoga Certified Farmers' Market Use Permit Location: Saratoga High School, 20300 Herriman Avenue Date/Time: Every Saturday/9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Contact: Doug Hayden, President California Farmer's Market Association • Saratoga Code Enforcement: The Sheriff s Office has no objections with granting a Use Permit for the Saratoga Farmers' Market. I suggest that the permit reserve the right to review or revoke the permit regarding any traffic or public safety concern. If you have any questions, please contact Sergeant William Tait at (408) 868-6600. Sincerely, LAURIE SMITH, Sheriff By: // John Hirokawa, Captain West Valley Patrol Division 14374 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 • ~;~~U~2S SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 14380 SARATOGA AV. SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • Telephone:408-867-9001 Fax:408-867-2780 www.sarato¢afire.com August 17, 2004 Steve Prosser, Public Safety Officer Community Development Department City of Sazatoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Letter of approval for Farmers' Market Association Use Permit 2004 I have sent Doug Hayden this letter of approval for his event and becomes part of your Use Permit application. This is your copy of the letter. If you have any questions, please call me at 408-867-9001, extension 304. ~~ Hal Netter, Fire Prevention Inspector • • ~4~~2~ farmers market approval copy to city 2004.wpd SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT SERVICE SINCE 1923 Doug and Gail Hayden California Farmers' Markets Association 830 Navaronne Way Concord, CA 94518 Fire Department Clearance for Temporary Use Permit • Mazch 23, 2003 I have received and reviewed the information you sent on the Farmers' Market event to be held at the Saratoga High School. 'T`his document becomes the letter of approval and is part of the Temporary Use Permit to be issued by the City of Saratoga. These are the conditions as required by Saratoga Fire District: 1. The location, date and times of the Farmers' Market are acceptable. 2. There shall be site maps showing evacuation routes from within the site. Recommended locations for these evacuation maps are at the end of each aisle and centrally located in each aisle. The purpose is to show dispersal areas for the crowd to go during an emergency. The dispersal azeas can be the open areas adjacent to the market and the parking lots adjacent to the market. 3. The fire access lanes around the market, shall be kept clear of any obstructions and no encroachment or parking is allowed. Participants can use the access lanes for travel to and from the parking lots and safe . dispersal areas but not to congregate. 4. Fire extinguishers for this event are required in accordance with California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 19. (CFC 3208) Based on the size and type of activities involved, there shall be a minimum 2A class extinguisher for every 6,000 square feet of market. Maximum travel distance to an extinguisher is 75 feet. If there is any cooking other than food warming or cooking demonstrations, there shall be a minimunm l OB class extinguisher every 30 feet or at each booth containing cooking appliances that are greater than 30 feet apart. If any cooking operations use cooking grease or produce grease laden vapors then the requirement is a minimum 40B class extinguisher every 30 feet or at each booth containing cooking appliances that are greater than 30 feet apart. Additionally, any booth involved with cooking grease (such as deep flying) shall be a minimum of 20 feet from any other booth. (CFC 3216.3.3) This event shall be subject to site visits by the Saratoga Fire District. Any condition or situation deemed unsafe by the District shall be corrected or cease and the Saratoga Commutity Development Department shall be notified. This letter becomes part of the approval package and a copy shall be kept on site during all events and shall be presented upon demand. Any questions can be directed to me at 408-867-9001, extension 304. ~~ Hal Netter, Fire Prevention Inspector cc: Steve Prosser, Public Safety Office, City of Saratoga ~~~~~~0 14380 Saratoga Ave. • Saratoga, CA 9F^?0-5953 • (408) 867-9001 • Fax (408) 867-2780 www.saratogafire.com Saratoga Certified Farmers' Market Operation Update for Temporary Permit 2004 History Since the Saratoga Certified Farmers' Market opened in the summer of 1997 we have responded satisfactorily to each and every concern brought forth by the City, the Saratoga High School and the Saratoga community. When issues have been brought forth to us we have made every effort possible to cure them as fast as possible. Some of the issues include traffic and banner locations on city property, parking overflow on school event Saturdays and most recently the construction of the Saratoga High School Performing Arts project. We take pride in being good neighbors as we provide this valuable community service of bringing the farms to Saratoga. Over the past 7 years we never received a complaint regarding noise resulting from the set-up of the market or music at our events. If a complaint had been registered we would have followed up with the problem and taken measures to cwe it. It was not until last December that we were made aware that early morning set-up noise at the market site was causing a disturbance. Since that time we have made several good faith attempts at curing this problem, dealing directly with the Los Gatos-Saratoga High School District, Principal Kevin Skelly of the Saratoga High School and Mr. Hugh Leo, a nearby neighbor. Setting up a system of near instant communication and feedback with Mr. Leo and Kevin Skelly has allowed us to eventually arrive at a solution to the early morning set-up noise at the market. New Operating Procedure for Farmers' Market Set-Up Previously, market management allowed farmers to download supplies and produce at the market site prior to lam. Unfortunately the noise from approaching trucks and downloading became noticeable and we have since prohibited this practice, allowing vendors and growers to enter only after lam. Since the beginning of Apri12004 the Market Manager now arrives at the market site between Gam and 6:15am to cone off the market entrances. He then guards the site entrances to enforce this new market requirement, turning away any market trucks that make the mistake of arriving too early. Market vehicles are actually asked to leave the school area and return after lam. • ~;~~~~31 Page 2. Operation Update . From lam to 7:30am the entire market site operates under the provision that all market participants unload and set-up their stalls without dropping equipment, loud talking or other noisy procedures. Non-compliance with this requirement will require vendors to be removed from the market on a permanent basis. It is important to be able to set-up the market starting at lam. Many of the market's farmers and food vendors need this time to prepare and set-up their stalls for the gam market opening. Starting the market at gam reduces operating time at the market during the hottest part of the day, avoiding wilted produce and over-heated customers. As a service to the Saratoga community we feel it is important to start the Farmers' Market no later than gam. As a side note, it is impossible to prohibit the local community from entering the school's parking lot prior to lam. On several occasions we have witnessed vehicles other than those associated with the Farmers' Market entering the parking lot and causing enough noise to wake nearby neighbors. Please do not associate the Farmers' Market with these pre-lam intrusions. Music at the Market We typically have amplified music at the Farmers' Market. Musicians are located within the market area, close to all the vendors. The volume of the music must not be too loud as to drown out the conversations and sales of nearby stalls. Therefore we assume that this volume is also low enough for neighbors over 200 feet away from the market. We have not received any complaints from nearby neighbors as of yet. In the event we incur a complaint we will adjust the volume and or direction of the musician's speakers to cure the problem. In conclusion, if and when the market is issued a complaint from the City, School District or nearby neighbors we enjoy the opportunity to cure the problem as fast as possible. Feedback about our operational procedures is important to us. We take pride in being good neighbors while bringing the finest fruits and vegetables from the farm to the Saratoga community. i ~~~~~~~ • ~~. ~~ ~. e~ ~..~ ~^^ ll ~D ~~ n ~c N x ^! ~. A~ D O A~ d \~ ~~ \~ ~' ~ '~~ v ~ .~ •,,~ ~`ti ~ ~', ~'~ ~D ~~ ~' ~~\ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~. `'~ ~, \ ~~. ~ Faculty parking /~~GJ %f~i4li~ ~ CAD n ~n O i "~ ~ ~ I !' i ~ x ~" n O O_ G .,.. U~ y A R' O O_ C' C~• G y A7 f9 X33 ~i ~~~~~..~til t r- ~ '1'~ :. ..5.i:,•..1( a~ ~~Jf ~ ~S w t: 3" ~~ G b .~ i ~~ Saratoea Market Site ~ .~ Bakery/Non-ag . r, vv ~~~ ~ Market Aisle 14' wide `,.~ ~,,` ~~. ~~.~:~~~ i ~~ r~~~J+~x.as ~~l-~-~' h~ lc;-~i~t~. ~ ..~-~.. ~~,t ~ n~ 1-lam ~'~. '' S i. ~ 2~t~ S ~ : A t~l~ ~~`~~C ~~cc.~ce-C:~ ~. ... .~ ~ ~w ~+~'~~ tab ~ l,l~~ Market Aisl e 14' wide -.._ ire.+... .,~;+..:~nas... y,.__._....... ~~~..~ t~,+ r;~ b .~ ~r~~ ~~; f' V-~ ~-.1 r~~-~ ~- t `~ ~~i~-t::. `:, ~~/:_VLSJI~a~~ ~- I~:~v~~L i -- - ~.... w 1.~... ~.-~ Y=, F.-~ e U z N C7 • • Sign location map Big Basin Way & Saratoga/Sunnyvale Rd. !~ ail i ~ ~ j 5~ + , t . ~~00 { ` 1 4~S ~' 1 '/ ----'_ l ---- _ _--- ~~ - __-- 1 S i i ;b ;~ `', ~ 4 ~ 4' ~~ ~ ~' 1 I ~,~~ c 1l ~ ~ ~, !~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ a ~~ C~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~v ~~ . a0~ / ~~~. ~j ~~®~35 Sign location map Prospect Rd. & Saratoga/Sunnyvale Rd. ~,~a V ~I"b S ~ ~~ ~~~ .y L as i ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ `, \`~/~ c i ~ ~ v .. ~ ~ .. ~ ~~, ~~ i ~~ ~\ ~,.~ -- -~ r, ____._......__ . I " 'J ' 1 ~ I ' ~. i I pn 5 z Z „s ~`, T~Zv S r~-G t R Q o~ -~ w ~y h V G:1 a 0 ~~ ~~~ ~}~~~3~ • • • • Sign location map Herriman Road & Saratoga/Sunnyvale Rd. i .r ij i~ ~ h 1 ~ ~ ,~~ ,r`f ~i ~~it ~~ 1 ( ~i ~1 • 1 ~ L `J,~~+ ~ H t . 5~ ~~vd I 1 ~ ' ~- u - w~L J -- - ---_ - _..~ Herriman Road ~~ i' ~I ~ } t ~ ~1 Farmers' Market ~, Banner ~ ~ ._ ~I I` ,i ~ '' s • ~~~~~~ Sign location map Wardell Rd. & Saratoga/Sunnyvale Rd. ~ ~ 5 ~~ ti ~~ i 1 f I ~ ~ I' • O~ ~ i ~ La ~ ~ _. _. I '~ Traffic light pole vl ~ . ~ ~ ~~ ' ~ Market sign - •1 11 I ~ 2 ~ ~; ~K '~ ~I ~ ~~ r tf- ~ ~ t,~~~® ~ • • 4~ .5E ,,~ L ~ Cd O D y L C~ ~ ~L C~ ~ V ~ ~ MM W a b ~~ O ~ FFFSyyy ~y.~ F+y L ~?1 V~ .~ r., d aauequa ~oj ~uni.n?d uam~i~ x ~ ~ ~U ~ -d w ~ ~,,, ~ . W v~ ~ ~~ ~ d 0~ aau~.~ua ~axrey~ C b~ ..~ .~ v .~ A A ~= CL O .... V O i~ ~~ ~~~ .~ ~ ~ y O Q peog aiun~uuns~u~o~uaes ~~~~~9 30"- 36" FARMERS' • MARKET 36"- 48" • • Typical farmers' market directional A-frame traffic sign All signs are white with red lettering ~~~~4~ r~ Attachment 4 ~~~G~41 Hugh F. Leo September 8, 2004 Mr. Steve Prosser Public Safety Officer City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Sazatoga, CA 95070 Re: Application for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Farmers' Market at Sazatoga High School Deaz Mr. Prosser: Doug Hayden, President of the California Farmers' Mazkets Association, has submitted the subject application to the City of Sazatoga. Please provide this letter and attachment to the Planning Commission so that the members can consider both as they evaluate the merit of the application before them. The subject application presents three questions the Planning Commission should weigh in its deliberations concerning the Farmers' Mazket: 1) Does the Farmers' Mazket provide benefits the community values? • The patronage of the Farmers' Mazket suggests the answer to this • question is "Yes". 2) Will the Farmers' Market comply with the provisions of a conditional use permit, granted by the City and designed reasonably to mitigate the effects of its operation on the residents of the neighborhood immediately surrounding Saratoga High School? As you will see, the performance of the California Farmers' Mazkets Association at Sazatoga High School demonstrates that the answer to this question is "No". 3) Is Sazatoga High School an appropriate venue for the operation of the Farmers' Mazket? As you will see, circumstances on premises demonstrate that the answer to this question is "No". Because the answers to questions #2 and #3 aze "No", for the reasons set forth below, the Planning Commission should deny the Farmers' Market application for a conditional use permit. • ~t~~~ Mr. Steve Prosser September 8, 2004 Page 2 Re: (#2) -Will they comply? The California Farmers' Markets Association consistently violated the provisions of its last Temporary Use Permit, that expired Apri12, 2004, and of its related agreement with the Los Gatos-Sazatoga Joint Union High School District. Details of this long-term failure to comply, including Mr. Hayden's own admissions, are contained the May 17, 20041etter, attached as Exhibit #1, I submitted in connection with the Farmers' Market application for a Temporary Use Permit at that time. Since the Apri12 expiration of its last Temporary Use Permit, the Farmers' Market has been operating at Sazatoga High School subject to an accommodation from the City of Saratoga, while the subject application is pending, and pursuant to a new agreement with the School District. The Farmers' Market is continuing its routine non-compliance, both with the provisions of its new agreement with the District and with the provisions of its last Temporary Use Permit, which continue to govern the Farmers' Market operation while its current application is pending e.g., a) The Farmers' Mazket is limited in the number of farmers that may sell at the market each week to a maximum of 40. Last Saturday, September 4, the Farmers' Mazket had 50 farmers selling on premises. b) The scheduled hours for the Farmers Market are 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM for set up, 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM for selling, and 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM for take down and clean up. Some farmers still arrive before 7:00 AM. The Farmers' Market never waits until 9:00 AM to commence selling, and usually starts by 8:OOAM to 8:15 AM. The Mazket rarely ceases selling by 1:00 PM. An increasing number of farmers are remaining on premises to at least 3:00 PM. In the past the California Farmers' Markets Association has consistently violated the provisions of its permits granted by the City and of the agreements it entered into with the School District. Presently, even as it awaits action by the Planning Commission on its application for a Conditional Use Permit, the Farmers' Mazket continues routinely to violate the requirements of the City and those of the School District that govern its operations at Saratoga High School. Consequently, in the future there is no reason to believe the Farmers' Market will comply with the provisions of any permit, temporary or conditional, granted by the City. Re: (#3) - Is the venue appropriate? The venue is not appropriate because of (a) the intensity of the utilization of the premises, (b) the capacity of the school administration to manage the premises, and (c) the recent posture of the school administration regarding City recommendations to mitigate the effects of activities requiring a permit to operate. ~~"~~~3 Mr. Steve Prosser September 8, 2004 Page 3 a) When the Farmers' Market first arrived at Saratoga High School it was a much smaller operation and the utilization of school premises was at a much lower level of intensity. Now, however, the Market has grown to an authorized 40 farmers and an actual utilization by 50 farmers on a given Saturday. The activities of the school itself have increased substantially in recent yeazs, and it has become a de-facto community center with a variety of organizations, both within and beyond the community, making peak utilization of the classrooms, gymnasium, tennis courts, athletic fields and swim facilities on the weekends. Irrespective of their relative educational purpose or intrinsic merit, these activities do not operate in a vacuum. They have an aggregate impact on the residents of the surrounding neighborhood in terms of noise, traffic congestion, parking, etc. These uses and related effects aze likely to intensify in the future, with the recent improvement of the athletic fields and the future completion of the PAL. Of course, the school was here when neazly all of the neighbors purchased their homes. However, this should not constitute license for the unlimited, unregulated use of the school premises for all purposes (educational and otherwise) by any organization or party (within or beyond the community) without regazd to the aggregate impact that on-campus activities and events have on the residents of the neighborhoods immediately surrounding the school. Few, if any of us, could have reasonably anticipated the transformation of Sazatoga High from simply a high school to a school and amulti-yeaz development-construction site and a community center and a magnet swim facility and an all weather athletic facility and, soon to be, an entertainment venue, and a Farmers' Mazket. Much of this is beyond the purview of the Planning Commission because Saratoga High School can exempt itself from City ordinances in connection with activities conducted for educational purposes. The exemption seems to be at the discretion of the School District, which some would say has, from time to time, applied a rather liberal standazd to its definition of the term "educational purposes". Here, however, the City has clear-cut jurisdiction, and the Planning Commission has an opportunity to provide the neighbors a degree of relief by denying the subject application, thereby removing the Farmers' Mazket as a contributor to the overall noise and congestion emanating from Saratoga High School on Saturdays due to activities the Planning Commission cannot otherwise influence. ~4~~~~4 Mr. Steve Prosser September 8, 2004 Page 4 b) In response to concerns I have voiced about activities and events at Saratoga High, on several occasions school administrators have told me directly, "We have no way of knowing what happens on-campus outside of school hours, unless the neighbors tell us." While this may be true in some absolutist sense, it is a position that would relieve the school of the responsibility to make provisions for what it otherwise might reasonably anticipate from the activities and events it authorizes on-campus. For example, until this past May the school's agreement with the Farmers' Market did not even contain a remedy for a breach of the operating requirements in the agreement. Furthermore, school administrators had full knowledge the last agreement was being routinely breached by the Farmers' Market, yet they made little or no effort to enforce their own agreement. Perhaps this is understandable. The school is not in the business of operating commercial property, even though they have assumed such obligations with the uses they have authorized. The administration certainly has more important day-to-day priorities than trying to compel performance by a recalcitrant part-time user of the premises. Since these circumstances are not likely to change, future improvement is not likely to occur. c) The school administration is not cooperating with the City to mitigate the effects of the Farmers' Market operation on the residents of the neighborhood immediately surrounding Saratoga High School. In May of this year the Farmers' Market was awaiting administrative action on its application for a Temporary Use Permit. An administrative approval was not forthcoming because both the school administration and Doug Hayden refused to modify their agreement to comply with the recommendation of City staff that the Farmers' Market schedule be changed to require set up to commence no earlier than 8:00 AM, with the reasoning that selling would then more naturally begin at the original objective of 9:00 AM. If the Planning Commission approves the subject application, it will engage the City in a relationship with the Farmers' Market and the school that is destined to fail. The failure will be precipitated by the casual disregard of the applicant for any restrictions applied to its operations and will be enabled by the benign neglect of the school. Those who will suffer in this scenario are the City itself and the neighbors of Saratoga High School. City staff, already burdened with substantial responsibilities and limited resources, will ~~~~~S Mr. Steve Prosser September 8, 2004 Page 5 be faced with having to compel compliance with the conditional use permit, instead of relying mainly upon business-like cooperation from the permit-holder, as would ordinarily be the case. The neighbors will continue to be subject to noise, congestion and continuing disregard for any reasonable standards of performance that have become the personification of the Farmers' Market at Saratoga High School. Consequently, the Planning Commission should deny the application by the California Farmers' Markets Association for a conditional use permit to operate a Farmers' Market at Saratoga High School. Sincerely, Hugh F eo • • Q ~~~D~6 • Attachment 5 • Hugh F. Leo May 17, 2004 . Mr. Steve Prosser Public Safety Officer City of Sazatoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Sazatoga, CA 95070 Re: Application dated May 3, 2004 for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Farmers' Market at Sazatoga High School Deaz Mr. Prosser: The City of Saratoga is now considering an application by Doug Hayden, President of the California Farmers' Mazkets Association, for the subject permit. I am writing to comment upon the merit of the materials submitted by Mr. Hayden in support of his application and to request a particular standard be applied to any permit that may be granted. In the "Operation Update for Temporary Permit 2004" accompanying Mr. Hayden's application he states: A) "Over the past 7 yeazs we never received a complaint regarding noise resulting from the set-up of the mazket or music at our events...It was not . until last December that we were made awaze that eazly morning set-up noise at the mazket site was causing a disturbance." B) "When issues have been brought forth to us we have made every effort to cure them as fast as possible." C) "Setting up a system of neaz instant communication and feedback with Mr. Leo and Kevin Skelly has allowed us to eventually arrive at a solution to the eazly morning set-up noise at the mazket." D) "As a side note, it is impossible to prohibit the local community from entering the school's pazking lot prior to 7 am...Please do not associate the Fazmers' Mazket with these pre-lam intrusions." Re: (A) I am not is a position to judge the accuracy of this statement. It seems to me the inferences Mr. Hayden would like us to draw from his statement aze that if there have been no complaints there have been no noise disturbances and if there have been no disturbances there must have been compliance with the permit granted by the City. This is not necessarily true. I acknowledge the first complaint I made was in December of 2003. However, early morning noise disturbances emanating from the Farmers' Market had been occurring for over a yeaz by that time. At first the disturbances were only occasional. Eventually they became • consistent. Then they shifted from brief to ongoing. Thereafter, their decibel c~'~~~~8 • Mr. Steve Prosser May 17, 2004 Page 2 levels increased materially. Finally, their hour of commencement shifted from shortly before 7 AM to as early as 4:30 AM. At every stage along the way I gave the Farmers' Mazket the benefit of the doubt, preferring to view the events as temporary exceptions as opposed to complaining about what in retrospect was becoming a standazd. The payoff for practicing patience became ever more egregious violations of the Conditional Use Permit. Finally, when the frequency, duration, decibel level and hour of the disturbances became absolutely intolerable and obviously a permanent standazd of performance, I made my first complaint in December 2003. Re: (B) According to my experience with the Farmers' Mazket, this statement is false. Following my first complaint last December neazly five months of emails, subsequent complaints, telephone calls and meetings, requiring my time and that of Dr. Skelly and Ron Adolphson, ensued with no credible resolution to the problem, even though we were seeking no more from the Farmers' Market than compliance with the Conditional Use Permit the City granted them in April of 2003. • It was not until shortly after Apri12, 2004, the expiration date of the Farmers' Market use permit, that they began pursuing any efforts to respond to our concerns regarding their non-compliance with your permit. It was not until three weeks ago that they made any regulaz and concerted effort to comply. That was Saturday, May 1 i.e., two days before the application date of Mr. Hayden's current request for new Conditional Use Permit. I do not believe the proximity of these dates is coincidental. It raises a reasonable doubt concerning whether an effort to comply will continue once there is no longer a pressing urgency to secure a new permit. Re: (C) Doug Hayden provided me with the cell phone number of his site manager, Frank Nichols. Perhaps this is the "system of near instant communication and feedback" to which Mr. Hayden refers. Such a "system" has little to do with "a solution to the eazly morning set-up noise at the market". If instant communication and feedback aze required, the system will have failed because another eazly morning noise-disturbance will already have occurred. Implicit in Mr. Hayden's statement is an assumption that somehow Dr. Skelly or I have a responsibility to initiate the enforcement of the farmers' • compliance with the permit through our complaints or other communications. On the contrary, I believe it is time for Mr. Hayden to shift from a reactive to Mr. Steve Prosser May 17, 2004 Page 3 a proactive posture and to accept responsibility for complying with the permit as it has been granted. The provisions contained in the permit aze not optional. They should be observed whether or not there aze complaints or other involvement by any third parties. Re: (D) There is no confusion concerning whether the sources of the eazly morning noise disturbances to which I have referred are indeed Farmers' Market participants. They are. I have personally observed them setting up their stands. On occasion I have given their names to Doug Hayden. He has likewise acknowledged their identities in emails to me, copies of which aze available at your request. If a new permit is granted to the Farmers' Mazket, I am hereby requesting its terms and conditions are drafted to be comprehensive in scope, detailed in description, explicit as to remedies, including termination, for breach of its conditions, and subject to zero- tolerance enforcement. • Whether my request is reasonable and necessary turns on the question of whether Doug Hayden made a good faith effort to comply with the terms and conditions of the permit granted to him by the City of Saratoga on or about Apri13, 2003 and to comply with his related agreement with the Los Gatos-Saratoga High School District to conduct a Farmers' Market at Saratoga High School. When a party: 1) freely enters into an agreement, and 2) understands and acknowledges the obligations undertaken, and 3) possesses the capacity to comply with the agreement, but 4) willfully refuses to perform in accordance with the agreement, a prima facie case of dealing in bad faith is thereby established. Re: (1) Doug Hayden applied to the City for a Conditional Use Permit that was granted on or about April 3, 2003, to secure authorization for his operation of the Farmers' Mazket at Sazatoga High School in accordance with specific terms and conditions. Re: (2) "The City of Saratoga permits us to set-up between the hours of lam and 9am." Doug Havden in an email to Hugh Leo on December 2, 2003. Re: (3) "I feel that the 7 am no entry/quiet time is a very important [SIC] perimeter as it has been added to our Rules and Regulations specifically for the Sazatoga market. Everyone is willing to adhere to the new rule (emphasis added)...We • will be [SICJ vigilent as we look at this problem as a `zero tolerance' rule." Doug Havden in an email to Hugh Leo on March 27, 2004. 000050 • Mr. Steve Prosser May 17, 2004 Page 4 Re: (4) "If, after several attempts, downloading prior to 7 am (emphasis added) in this manner is still too noisy, we will stop it [SIC] alltogether." Doug Hayden in an email to Hugh Leo on December 3, 2003. Re: (4) "Previously, mazket management allowed farmers to download supplies and produce at the mazket site prior to 7 am. " (emphasis added) Doug Hayden in his `Operation Update for Temporary Permit 2004' accompanying his current permit application. (Copies of email messages containing the quotes of Doug Hayden aze available upon request.) In his own words, describing his own actions and beliefs, Mr. Hayden demonstrates dealing in bad faith with respect to both the Conditional Use Permit and the Right of Entry and Use Agreement for the Farmers' Mazket at Sazatoga High School. Consequently, the definition and enforcement of any future permit granted to the Farmers' Mazket must be materially more stringent than that of any prior permit, if there is to be any reasonable expectation of compliance, rendering my request both reasonable and necessary. Sincerely, ~fugfi 2G: Geo Hugh F. Leo cc: Ron Adolphson Dave Anderson Kevin Skelly • ~~0~51 • Attachment 6 • ~4~~~~2 • AGREEMENT FOR USE OF SARATOGA HIGH SCHOOL PROPERTY BY SARATOGA CERTIFIED FARMERS' MARKET This Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement") is made and entered into by and between Los Gatos-Saratoga High School District, (hereinafter referred to as "District"), a California Public Corporation, and the California Farmers' Markets Association (hereinafter "CFMA"),anon profit mutual benefit corporation, for the provision of management and operation of the Saratoga Certified Farmers' Market. BACKGROUND CALIFORNIA FARMERS' MARKETS ASSOCIATION • California Farmers' Markets Association, a California Non Profit Mutual Benefit Corporation, dedicated to the concept "Fresh from the Farm", operates Certified Farmers' Markets in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area. With participation of over 300 farms and producers throughout California and the combined staff experience of over 50 years in developing and operating Certified Farmers' Markets, CFMA is able to successfully integrate Certified Farmers' Markets into cities and their nearby communities. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, CFMA exists for the purpose of developing, organizing, operating and managing "Certified Farmers' Markets" as such term is defined in Section 27512 of the California Health and Safety Code and Article 6.5, Title 3 of the California Administrative Code; and WHEREAS, CFMA desires to organize, operate, maintain and manage a Certified Farmers' Market at the Saratoga High School on property owned and maintained by District for the benefit of and use by members of the general public; and WHEREAS, District desires to permit such use by CFMA, provided that the public health, safety and welfare are not thereby impinged, diminished or adversely affected; and WHEREAS, the CFMA has the experience and expertise in operating, marketing and managing certified farmers' markets and CFMA maintains in-house talent and resources to accomplish the tasks necessary to successfully operate the Saratoga Certified Farmers' Market; and THEREFORE, the CFMA and District agree as follows: • 1. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The term of this Agreement is for the twelve (12) months beginning May 18, 2004 and ending May 18, 2005. The term shall be ~~~~~53 automatically extended on an annual basis unless either party gives the other party sixty (60) days notice of its intent to terminate the Agreement. 2. AREAS AND HOURS OF USE. a. Permission is hereby granted to CFMA to use and utilize for a Certified Farmers' Market a portion of the School parking lot on Herriman Avenue (hereinafter the "Permitted Area"), as described on the site plan attached as Exhibit A. CFMA management or staff shall cone off the Permitted Area between 6:00 AM and 6:15 AM and shall enforce compliance with the authorized hours of access and operation pursuant to this Agreement. Access to all School property including the Permitted Area is otherwise prohibited before 7:00 AM. Authorized Parties shall set up their stalls between the hours of 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and shall take their stalls down between the hours of 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM. The market may be open for business between the hours of 8:00 AM and 1:00 PM. The Authorized Parties shall depart the Permitted Area and all School property no later than 2:00 PM. CFMA management or staff shall remain at the Permitted Area until all stalls are completely disassembled and packed for removal and the site is clean. b. At its sole discretion the District may from time to time relocate the Permitted Area or reduce the Hours of Access & Operation of the Farmers' Market to accommodate another temporary use of the Permitted Area or School Property. In such an instance, the District shall give CFMA at least two (2) weeks prior written notice of such a change. 3. TYPE OF USE. The use for which permission is granted is the development, organization, operation, maintenance and management of a Certified Farmers' Market in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations of the State of California and in compliance with all provisions of any Conditional Use Permit granted by the City of Saratoga, and for no other use or uses whatsoever. 4. AUTHORIZED PARTICIPANTS. The persons granted permission of entry and use of the Permitted Area pursuant to this Agreement are the managers and staff of CFMA and those farmers who have entered into an agreement with CFMA in the form attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit B. No more than 40 farmers shall be allowed the right of entry and use of the Permitted Area on any Saturday. 5. MAINTENANCE. CFMA shall keep and maintain the permitted area free and clear of any and all trash, refuse, garbage debris or litter arising from or incidental to its use of the property as permitted hereby. CFMA shall not commit, suffer or permit any waste on the permitted area. 6. COMPENSATION. CFMA will pay Seventy-Five Dollars ($75.00) to District for • each day the market operates. The payment will be issued monthy no later than the last day 2 ~•~~~~~ of the month via US mail to the District address: 17421 Farley Road West, Los Gatos, California 95030. 7. PENALTIES AND DEFAULTS. The terms of this Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced strictly. a. CFMA shall pay District the sum of $100.00 as additional rent each time a farmer who is an Authorized Participant pursuant to an agreement with CFMA arrives at the School prior to 7:00 AM. Payments of additional rent are due no later than the last day of the month in which the associated violation occurred. b. At its sole discretion District may terminate this Agreement with fourteen (14) days prior written notice to CFMA if (i) three (3) violations authorizing an assessment of Penalty Rent occur in any month or if a total of five (5) violations authorizing an assessment of Penalty Rent occur at any time during the term of this Agreement, or (ii) if CFMA is in default of any provision of this Agreement or any provision of the Conditional Use Permit granted to CFMA by the City of Saratoga and such default is not cured with fourteen (14) days following receipt by CFMA of a notice of the default from District or from the City of Saratoga. 8. INSURANCE. CFMA shall, at all times during which this Agreement remains valid and in effect, take out and maintain in full force and effect a policy or policies of public liability insurance for the death or injury of any person or persons or damage to property resulting from or incidental to the use permitted hereby, in the amount of Three million Dollars ($3,000,000.00). District, its Board members, officers, agents, volunteers, students and employees shall be named as additional insureds under such policy or policies. This policy of liability insurance shall be primary insurance for any claims relating to CFMA'S use of property. CFMA shall, prior to the initiation of the use permitted hereby, supply District with certified copies of such insurance policy or policies, or an acceptable certificate thereof, which policy, policies or certificate shall provide that the insurer shall give District thirty (30) days advance written notice prior to its cancellation of such policy or policies. 9. INDEPENDENT CONTRATOR STATUS. It is understood CFMA is not acting hereunder in any manner as an employee, agent or representative of the District, but solely under this Agreement as an independent contractor with no connection to the members or employees of the District, or their known relatives. The District shall not, under any circumstances, be liable to CFMA or any person or persons acting for any such liability arising by virtue of negligence or intentional acts by the District, its board members, officers, members, agents or employees. 10. LICENSES AND CERTIFICATES. CFMA shall at all times observe and obey all applicable ordinances, resolutions, rules and regulations of City, County, State and Federal law and shall obtain and maintain all necessary permits, certificates, and licenses required to operate a Certified Farmers' Market in Saratoga. CFMA shall ensure that all Authorized Participants obtain and maintain all necessary permits, certificates, and licenses required 3 Q'~'~~J~ pursuant to the Certified Farmers' Market regulations, local City, County, State and Federal laws. 11. INDEMNIFICATION. CFMA agrees to indemnify, defend and hold District harmless from and against any and all claims, actions, causes of action or liability of any kind or nature whatsoever, for damages arising out of any injury to or death of any person or persons, or property of any kind and to whosoever it may belong, including District occurring in, or resulting from, CFMA sponsored-events on the premises or arising out of or in any manner connected with CFMA's use of District property. 12. NONDISCRIMINATION. CFMA agrees that no person shall, on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, sex, age, medical condition or physically handicapping condition, pursuant to California Government Code Section 12990, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination at the Farmers' Market or in the process of managing or operating the Farmers' Market. 13. NOTICES. Notice required by this agreement shall be personally delivered or mailed, postage pre-paid, as follows: To: Doug Hayden, President California Farmers' Markets Association 3000 Citrus Circle, Suite 111 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 To: Bob Peterson, CBO Los Gatos-Saratoga High School District 17421 Farley Road West Los Gatos, California 95030 Notices given by personal delivery shall be effective immediately. Notices given by mail shall be deemed to have been delivered forty-eight hours after having been deposited in the United States mail. 14. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, including any exhibits attached hereto and initialed by the parties, constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between District and CFMA, and it supercedes any prior agreements between District and CFMA. This Agreement may be altered or amended only in a writing signed by both Parties. 15. WAIVER. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement or any rights or obligations of any Party hereunder will be effective, except pursuant to a written instrument signed by the party or parties waiving compliance, and any such waiver will be effective only in the specific instances and for the specific purpose stated in such writing. • 16. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective heirs, personal representatives • and successors. This Agreement may not be assigned. • • ~~ U 17. CHOICE OF LAWS /ATTORNEYS' FEES. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California without regard to or application of conflicts of law rules or principles. District and CFMA agree and consent to jurisdiction in the state or federal courts in Santa Clara County, California. If action is taken by either Party to enforce any of the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees together with costs and expenses incurred in pursuit thereof. 18. SEVERABILITY. Should any part of this agreement be declared by a final decision by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, invalid, or beyond the authority of either party to enter into or carry out, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect, provided that the remainder of this agreement, absent the unexcised portion, can be reasonably interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the parties. 16. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE. The Board of the Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District was authorized to execute this Agreement by action of the Board of the District on May 18, 2004. LOS GATOS-SARATOGA UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT CALIFORNIA FARMERS' MARKET ASSOCIATION Date: By: Bob Peterson Title: CBO Address: 17421 Farley Road West City: Los Gatos State: CA Zip: 95030 Date: By: Title: Address: City: State: CA Zip: ~'~~~5~ • • •