The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-12-2005 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION _ ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PL4CE: Council Chambers/Ci~~ic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, iv~Iike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani ABSENT: Commissioner Zutshi Staff: Planners Oosterhous b:. Welsh, Interim Director Li~~ingstone, and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OFALLEGLaNCE MI\'UTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of December 8, 2004. (APPROVED 6-0) ORAL CO'~1~fUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public hill be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on rnatter•s not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taping action on such items. Hoit~ever, the Planning Commission ma}~ irutn~ct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGE\DA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 6, 2005. 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 (li) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - 1\Tone 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 #04-150 (397-15-018, 397-14-022, 397-13-030) METRO PCS, West Valley College, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue; -Request for use permit approval to insta113 panel antennas, and an equipment enclosure at the Theater building on the West Valley College Campus. The theater building is currently utilized by several wireless facilities. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) (APPROVED 6-0) APPLICATION #04-370 (503-68-013) CHRISTENSEN/ROSSI;14111 Palomino Way -Appeal by Christiansen of an administrative decision to approve an outdoor kitchen/wall and deck as an unenclosed accessory structure within six feet of the side property line on the Rossi property _~ located at 14111 Palomino Way. The property is located in the Hillside Residential District and the lot size is 45,716 square feet. (A~~w WELSH) (APPEAL APPROVED 6-0) 3. APPLICATION #04-176 (503-16-050) KOENIG, 13071 Pierce Road; -Request Design Re~~iew Approval to build a new two-story house. The proposed house will be 5,404 square feet. The proposed floor area includes athree-car garage. The structure will also have a 360 square foot cabana and a 1,996 square foot basement. The gross lot size is 54,198 square feet and zoned R-1- 40,000. The maximum building height of the residence will not exceed 26-feet. (JoHi\ LIVINGSTONE) (APPROVED 6-0) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT AT 10:20 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, January 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerh at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerhC~saratoga.ca.us. Notificatior148 hours prior to the meeting tivill enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 3.102-3.104 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 Januar}~ 6, 2005 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 9070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at wwtiv. s a r-a toga. ca. u s If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@sarato a.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 -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, JANUARY 12, 2005 L` ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #04-150 - METRO PCS Item 1 14000 Fruitvale Avenue 2. Application #04-370 - CHRISTENSEN/ROSSI Item 2 14111 Palomino Way 3. Application #04-176 - KOENIG Item 3 13071 Pierce Road 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 AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie 1Vagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of December 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 staf f accordingly regarding Oral 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 January 6, 2005. 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 #04-150 (397-15-018, 397-14-022, 397-13-030) METRO PCS, West Valley College, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue; -Request for use permit approval to install 3 panel antennas, and an equipment enclosure at the Theater building on the West Valley College Campus. The theater building is currently utilized by several wireless facilities. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) 2. APPLICATION #04-370 (503-68-013) CHRISTENSEN/ROSSI;14111 Palomino Way -Appeal by Christiansen of an administrative decision to approve an outdoor kitchen/wall and deck as an unenclosed accessory structure within six feet of the side property line on the Rossi property located at 14111 Palomino Way. The property is located in the Hillside Residential District and the lot size is 45,716 square feet. (ANN WELSH) 3. APPLICATION #04-176 (503-16-050) KOENIG,13071 Pierce Road; -Request Design Review Approval to build a new two-story house. The proposed house will be 5,404 square feet. The proposed floor area includes athree-car garage. The structure will also have a 360 square foot cabana and a 1,996 square foot basement. The gross lot size is 54,198 square feet and zoned R-1- 40,000. The .maximum building height of the residence will not exceed 26-feet. (JoxN LIVINGSTONE) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, January 26, 2005 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 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 January 6, 2005 at the of fice of the City of Saratoga,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us • If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to lap nning,@saratoga.ca.us ~ a ~o MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, December 8, 2004 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Garakani called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi Absent: None Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous and Associate Planner Ann Welsh PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of November 10, 2004. Motion:- Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of November 10, 2004, were adopted with corrections to pages 2, 9, 17 and 20. (5-0-0-2; Commissioners Hunter and Uhl abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. Ray Muzzy, 19518 Eric Drive, Saratoga: • Reported that he submitted a letter dated November 27, 2004, to the Commission and asked if it had been received. • Stated that he is asking the Planning Commission to look at the Use Permit for the Church of the Ascension regarding the parish house constructed. • Said that light fixtures were indicated on the plans for this parish house but that shielding or voltage levels were not documented. • Asked the Commission to take another look as the City has Ordinance restrictions on illumination impacts off site. • Opined that these lights are not consistent with this residential community. • Reported that neighbors have contacted the church directly to no avail. • Pointed out that they are just asking that the church decrease and/or reduce the wattage of the light bulbs and/or provide shielding. These are reasonable requirements. • Added that the neighbors are also asking that landscaping be incorporated to help screen. • Stated that he believes the Commission has jurisdiction over Use Permit issues more so than the Code Enforcement staff. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 2 • Asked that this matter be checked into for consistence, again saying that he feels it is just a matter of changing out light bulbs and adding shields. These efforts would make a huge difference to the adjacent residents. • Said that they would appreciate any help. Commissioner Hunter asked staff if they had any comments on this request. Chair Garakani advised that this matter would be discussed with staff as a Director's Item later in the agenda. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 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. ~** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.1 APPLICATION #04-128 & #04-132 (LOTS 1 & 6) SAGARCHI, 13089 Quito Road: The applicant requests Design Review Approval for two single-family homes on the site of the former Dorcich Orchard, which was approved for asix-lot subdivision on November 12, 2003. The proposed homes are designed to be compatible with the style of the historic farmhouse, which is being moved and restored on Lot 5. The homes are one-and-a-half story structures with a maximum height of 24 feet, 3 inches. The floor area of the homes is 3,608 square feet. The property is in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. (ANN WELSH) These two lots are continued from the Planning Commission Meeting on November 10, 2004. Associate Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval for Lots 1 and 6 of a six-lot subdivision on the former Dorcich Orchard, located at Quito and Martha. • Reminded that three additional Design Review Approvals were granted on November 10, 2004, for this subdivision, while Lots 1 and 6 were continued to this evening's meeting as the applicants were asked to revise the two homes situated at the entrance of this new cul-de-sac to create a more gradual transition from single-story homes in the immediate area to the new two-story homes inside this new development. • Added that the applicant was asked to design these two homes with a lower profile and a partial two-story element. The two homes before the Commission this evening have the same design but Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 3 different facade details. The homes' appearance of bulk has been minimized through varied rooflines and materials uses. Commissioner Zutshi asked the previous height for these two units. Planner Ann Welsh replied that they were originally 26 feet and have been reduced to a maximum height of 24 feet, 6 inches. Commissioner Hunter asked if this evening's action is the end of the line for these approvals. Planner Ann Welsh replied yes. Lot 5 would not be coming before the Commission. Commissioner Hunter asked about the fig tree. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that this tree is on Lot 5, which is not under consideration this evening. Planner Ann Welsh stated that the applicant is proposing to move the historic farmhouse to Lot 5. Later a second phase will be processed for Lot 5 to include a new garage with a new master suite above it. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Salim Sagarchi, Applicant and Owner: • Said that three of his homes have been approved and these two required design modifications. • Assured that he has worked hard to meet the requirements of the Planning Commission. Three to four different variations were discussed with staff in order to reach this compromise. • Stated his belief that he has done everything possible to reduce the bulk and height and expressed his hope that the Commission would approve these last two homes tonight. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Salim Sagarchi if the fig tree would be removed prior to moving the farmhouse to Lot 5. Mr. Salim Sagarchi: • Replied yes. • Added that they have been able to save some more trees. Trees to be removed are not important trees but rather fruit trees. There is nothing he can do to save the fig tree, as it is located right in front of the old house. The only way to move and preserve the house is to cut down this tree. Commissioner Hunter lamented the loss of this very old tree. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that Southern Live. Oak trees are spelled out on the plan but that Spanish Live Oaks are the native species required. She asked if use of Spanish Live Oaks is still planned. Mr. Salim Sagarchi replied yes. Planner Ann Welsh said that this requirement could also be spelled out in the Conditions of Approval. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 4 Commissioner Rodgers thanked Planner Ann Welsh for that suggestion. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Salim Sagarchi if he had reduced the square footage in these two redesigned homes. Mr. Salim Sagarchi replied that they had not reduced square footage but had reduced height. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the 24-foot height proposed is still as high as a two-story home and asked why the square footage was not reduced. Mr. Salim Sagarchi said that while it is true that a 24-foot height could represent atwo-story home, it could just as easily represent asingle-story home in some architectural styles. He added that the idea was to eliminate the appearance of bulkiness. Commissioner Uhl asked for the upper floor square footage before as compared to now. Planner Ann Welsh: • Reported that this is the same house with a redesigned roofline to reduce the bulk. • Added that they wanted to retain the Craftsman style of architecture. • Pointed out that with this new roof design, the home appears much less bulky from the side elevations. • Stated that it had been difficult to come up with a solution at 1.5 stories that still retained the desired Craftsman style. Accomplishing this would have been easier on a sloping lot. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Hunter: • Expressed regret at missing the last meeting when this project was discussed. • Pointed out that when the Dorcich property first came up before the Commission, the audience was full. Now no one is present in opposition. • Stated that she would support what has been submitted. Commissioner Schallop asked if this revised design addresses what had be requested by the Commission at the last meeting. Commissioner Nagpal: • Reported that some had wanted single-story homes in these two lots. • Added that others were concerned with the preservation of the fig tree but that issue is not before the Commission this evening anyway since it is located on Lot 5. • Said that the proposal for one and a half story homes on Lots 1 and 6 was intended to help provide a transition from the existing neighborhood to this development. • Said that she can see the effort has been made to minimize bulk and that the architectural changes made have achieved that goal. • Commissioner Uhl pointed out that the house is set back on the sides that are facing the road so that the appearance is of a one-story structure near the road. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 5 Planner Ann Welsh pointed out that it was difficult to visualize how to incorporate a one and a half story home with traditional Craftsman style and features. Chair Garakani said he has no problem with this proposal. Commissioner Hunter said that the historic farmhouse details would be copied. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that a number of neighborhood meetings were held so that due diligence has occurred. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approvals (Applications #04-128 and #04-132) to construct two new one-and-one-half story homes on two lots located at 13089 Quito Road, with the added condition requiring the planting of Spanish Live Oaks, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: Zutshi ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ~~* PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #04-358 (503-69-002) - AMINI, 13815 Pierce Road, Request for Modification of Approved Plans: The applicant is requesting a modification to the plans that were approved on October 9, 2002. The modification involves to the facade, which add 15 windows and alter the pitch of the roof along the rear elevation. The location of the driveway and front yard landscaping is also the subject of review. No floor area change is proposed to the approved structure, which calls fora 5,993 square foot two-story residence with a 2,379 square foot basement on a 1.759-acre lot located in the Hillside Residential District. (ANN WELSH) Associate Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Modification to plans that were approved by the Planning Commission on October 10, 2002. Stated that at the time that the house design itself was originally approved, consideration of the driveway was left undecided pending further review by the City's Arborist. • Explained that the proposed modifications involved changes to the facade that include 14 additional windows, 8 new columns, three door relocations and Styrofoam formed stucco trim details around arches, windows and doors. • Stated that the driveway proposed is 14 feet wide. • Said that staff prefers the originally approved design of the residence without the added columns and windows but that there is no strong basis for denial. • Advised that the new rear windows do not impact privacy. • Said that the Via Regina Road Association has asked that a Condition of Approval be added that precludes access from this site to Via Regina Road. Staff has added that Condition, which was already included in the original Design Review Approval. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 6 Commissioner Hunter pointed out that this Condition has already been imposed. Planner Ann Welsh explained that the Via Regina Road Association just wanted it spelled out again in this Resolution. Commissioner Hunter said that there are 16 windows in the front elevation itself, which is a lot of windows. She asked what is meant by Styrofoam details. Director Tom Sullivan explained that the Styrofoam is glued onto the structure and stucco is place over it. It is a more economical way of achieving details in the stucco and fairly commonly used. Commissioner Nagpal asked if staff reluctantly supports this application. Planner Ann Welsh replied that there are no design guidelines that limit the number of windows allowed. It is more a matter of taste than a Design Review issue. Chair Garakani asked what the function is for these windows. Planner Ann Welsh replied to bring light into the home. Chair Garakani asked if bathrooms require functioning windows. Director Tom Sullivan replied that if there are no functioning windows, a bathroom is required to have mechanical ventilation. Commissioner Zutshi questioned the proposed columns and whether they were recessed. Planner Ann Welsh replied that they are not recessed but rather protruding. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the Commission is permitted to look at the gate or just the shape of the driveway. Planner Ann Welsh said that while the gate is part of the application, there is no permit required for a gate. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Mike Amini, Applicant and Owner, 13815 Pierce Road, Saratoga: • Stated that -there are no privacy impacts with these changes. • Reported that he went back and spoke with all of his immediate neighbors as follows: 0 13810 Pierce Road -They had no issues except not to touch the trees at the front. o Right Side Neighbors -Did not want windows on the right side overlooking them. that, they are okay. 0 13862 Pierce Road - No problem as there are so many trees to screen. o Mr. D'Angelo -Showed him the added windows. He had no problem. 0 21200 Pierce Road -Wanted no fence at the back to block deer passage. o Mr. Walker - As long as construction does not occur at the same time as his construction, he was fine. With own • • • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 7 o Mrs. Rush -Mentioned that the front elevation was too tall prior. It is now 2.5 feet lower. o Fire Department -driveway width and angle requirements are met. o City Arborist -Try to save as many trees as possible. They will use pier and beam construction to prevent tree damage. • Said that his neighbors are happy and supportive. • Said that the home has had windows added to the front. This is because the dining room was relocated from the front to the rear of the home and the living room was brought to the front. Added windows bring in natural light required in a living room. • Said that the columns are decorative and the use of Styrofoam details is common. Chair Garakani pointed out two windows and asked if the rooms they serve are bathrooms. Mr. Mike Amini said that these are bathrooms for his kids, which need air and light. He added that they could be frosted glass to give privacy. Chair Garakani pointed out that the Arborist should be present when the driveway is put in. Mr. Mike Amini said that he would follow what the Arborist dictates. He added that he already agreed two years ago that no access to Via Regina would occur from his property and that he does not understand why the issue has come up again. Commissioner Zutshi said that a circular driveway is a better design for access to a busy road. Mr. Mike Amini reported that his driveway design allows for parking for parties. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the building colors. Planner Ann Welsh reported that a really nice color rendering was provided. Mr. Mike Amini advised that the home would be beige with red tile. Commissioner Uhl said that this applicant has taken the time to meet with all of his neighbors with his changes as well as working with the Planning Department. This is a good design. Chair Garakani pointed out the vegetation at Pierce Road. Planner Ann Welsh said that this vegetation is a really important element and the reason for the Arborist's participation. Commissioner Rodgers expressed concern between the ornate stucco additions versus the number of windows proposed. Commissioner Hunter said that she remembers the original approval for this site and said the Commission approved a nice design. These changes are not in keeping with Pierce Road. It is more obvious because this home will be very visible. It is a long lot with 15 windows on the front facade. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 8 Chair Garakani pointed out that these 15 windows are on a first floor. Commissioner Hunter said that the original design was more pleasing. This is too ornate for the countrified road and won't fit in. Chair Garakani reminded that this house is already approved. Planner Ann Welsh added that what is before the Commission are the changes. Commissioner Hunter said that she does not mind the changes to the side and rear elevations but does not like the changes to the front elevation. Commissioner Nagpal agreed that this creates something that is not compatible with the neighborhood as far as the front elevation impact. These small windows break up the front design and she has trouble supporting them. Commissioner Schallop pointed out that the additional windows and detail elements don't impact the bulk and height and it does not appear as if there is a basis to not approve these changes. Chair Garakani agreed. Commissioner Rodgers said that she has no problem with the changes to the back and side elevations and no problem with the added front windows. However, she would support taking out the ornamentation details as opposed to the windows. Commissioner Schallop pointed out that there have been no neighbor concerns raised. Commissioner Hunter asked if this- item was noticed. Planner Ann Welsh replied yes. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that there is no neighbor present this evening to object. Commissioner Hunter reminded that this is a visible house on Pierce Road. Commissioner Uhl said that there are a lot of new homes along Pierce Road. Pierce Road is evolving. Commissioner Hunter agreed that old_ homes have been torn down there for a long time only to be replaced with larger more ornate homes. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that the porch feature would obscure many of the front elevation windows. Chair Garakani said that the reasoning for the windows has been made and is not really an issue. Removing the Styrofoam details can soften the look. Commissioner Uhl said that the overhang creates a setback for many of the windows. , Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 9 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Schallop, the Planning Commission approved a Modification to the approved plans (Application #04-358) for a home to be constructed at 13815 Pierce Road with the added Condition that no access to Via Regina occur from this property, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: Hunter, Nagpal and Rodgers ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 APPLICATION #04-068 (503-27-074) MALLADI, 14345 Springer Avenue: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,368 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 24 feet, 6 inches. The lot size is 10,265 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to construct atwo-story residence and demolish an existing single-story residence. • Reported that the total FAR would be 3,368 and the maximum height 24 feet. The lot is 10,200 square feet within an R-1-10;000 zoning district. • Explained that the building line staggers back or steps away from the street and the second story is set back, which minimizes the .mass and bulk. • Said that there are no second story windows on the right elevation. • Stated that the erected story poles have demonstrated that this home would interfere with views of the hillside from the kitchen and family room of the neighboring residence. Therefore, the applicant has revised the project, moving the footprint by five feet and pivoting the structure by four feet to the rear property line as well as lowering the structure by one foot. These efforts also result in the preservation of an additional Redwood tree. • Explained that the revised plan requires a Variance by two feet for the front portion of the garage and second story to the rear. Director Tom Sullivan explained that the Variance issues would have to be advertised prior to approval. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the story poles reflect these changes. Commissioner Hunter said that she visited the site and didn't notice if the poles had been changed. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the Variance for the garage equals the house being the same size. She asked if the Variance would still be required if the house were to be reduced in square footage. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied no. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 10 Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the turret features are an imposing Mediterranean feature that does not appear to be compatible with this neighborhood. Planner Christy Oosterhous: • Pointed out that this is a double frontage lot with more of a presence on the street. Other lots in the neighborhood are long and narrow. • Said that more than adequate setbacks are provided and the garage is not prominent. • Explained that the turret elements are not massive or bulky. • Stated that this is not a tract style home. Chair Garakani asked if the garage could be constructed as a detached garage at the back of the lot. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that people lose their back yard space with detached garage structures located at the rear of their lots and are reluctant to do so. Commissioner Schallop asked if there is precedent for approving a Variance when required for Design Review in order to justify privacy. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. Commissioner Rodgers stressed the importance in trying to maximize the preservation of views. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that this house is only on paper right now. It is easier to change the design on paper versus violating rules. There are ways to do this project without a Variance. Commissioner Zutshi questioned the size of the home two lots down. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that Parce172 consists of .22 acres. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Malladi, Applicant and Owner, 14345 Springer Avenue, Saratoga: • Stated that they are trying to optimize their back yard. • Pointed out that there is a 60-foot setback on one side. • Assured that they have followed all the rules and met with their neighbors. • Said that they also put up story poles, which demonstrated that one viewpoint is impacted by his proposed home. • Said that most neighbors are supportive. • Stated that they may not actually need a Variance on the right side but may need a Variance for the second floor rear setback by about two feet. • Added that they may be able to complete the project without any variations. Commissioner Zutshi asked if a Variance would still be required if the round turret feature were to be reduced and moved back. Mr. Malladi said that it is very close but might require a Variance by perhaps two feet. .~ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 11 Chair Garakani said this house is hard to visualize. Commissioner IJhI said that revised story poles would help. He added that there are not a lot of two- story homes in this area. Mr. Malladi disagreed saying that there are lots of them. Commissioner Hunter agreed saying that almost one-third of them appear to be two-story homes. Chair Garakani said that the two-story aspect is not an issue but rather the overall bulk of the structure. Commissioner Schallop asked if the applicant would support changes to reduce the view impacts on the neighbor's kitchen without necessitating a Variance. He asked the applicant if he is willing to go back and reach a compromise. Mr. Malladi said that he looks forward to doing that. Said that he still has some allowance available at the back. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Malladi if he received any input from his neighbors after the story poles went up. Mr. Malladi replied no. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that Bedroom #2 on the second floor is jutting out by about two feet. Suggesting that reducing the size of that room would mean it does not require a Variance. Asked Mr. Malladi if he is willing to do this. Mr. Malladi replied yes. Ms. Carole Amos, 14320 Springer Avenue, Saratoga: • Stated that she resides across the street and that her husband, Logan, wrote a letter. • Said that this looks like a beautiful home but also looks massive. • Pointed out that this is a rural street where bigger homes are softened by Oak trees. This is not possible with this particular lot. • Said that the prevalent architectural style tends toward Cottage and Craftsman styles. • Said that there are no view issues from her own property and suggested that the bulk be softened. Mr. Clint Rosenthal, 14433 Wildwood Way, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for the public hearing process. • Said that while this proposed house is beautiful, this neighborhood is more rustic and rural while this home is modern and stark and located on an open part of the street. • Stated that there are no view impacts for his property. • Said that he does not feel like this project fits into this neighborhood. • Suggested that the neighbors could get together to discuss concerns further. Mr. Dennis Ryan, 14325 Springer Avenue, Saratoga: • Said his property is adjacent to the project site. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 12 • Thanked the Commission for this opportunity to voice concerns. • Said that the story poles were put back up today reflecting the changes. • Stated that while there is some relief from the view impacts, it is still not what he had been looking for. While the view from his kitchen was about 95 percent eliminated originally, now the view impacts are reduced by 15 to 20 percent. • Said that this is a large structure. If the home were not so massive, relief from the amount of mass could occur and also the need for a Variance could be eliminated. Mr. Malladi: • Stated that the size of his proposed home is pretty common. • Advised that the setbacks on his home would be better than others existing on the street. • Said that the view issue has been somewhat positively resolved and assured that he would preserve as much of the views as possible. • Thanked the Commission for its consideration. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Malladi if the new story poles reflect the rotation of the home. Mr. Malladi said that the new poles reflect the setbacks and rotation. Chair Garakani asked why there was no reduction in mass. He suggested that Mr. Malladi go back and work further with staff to address concerns raised by neighbors and the Commission. He asked Mr. Malladi if he would support a continuance. Mr. Malladi said he would. appreciate more guidance and that he could understand the need fora continuance. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 Commissioner Hunter: • Reminded that Springer Avenue is a historic section of Saratoga, constructed at the turn of the last century. It is a different area because of this historic element. • Reported that these homes were used as summer cottages for people from San Francisco. • Stated that she has a lot of concern regarding the bulk and design, specifically the turrets. • Said that she would like to see more work put into this design and some sort of agreement reached with the neighbors. • Said that this home would dominate this street even with some additional redesign. • Encouraged redesign and sensitivity to the City's historic areas. Commissioner Zutshi asked how the front should be changed. Commissioner Hunter replied that it should be softened. More work should be done to this home. Chair Garakani encouraged the Commission to provide direction for staff and the applicant. Commissioner Zutshi stated that this home is bulky from the street and would require a reduction in size. The view impacts should be less than 30 or 40 percent for the neighbors. However, the style of the front of the house is a personal choice. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 13 Commissioner Nagpal: • Agreed that there is the need to soften the bulk and preserve the Ryans' view. • Said that she does not support a Variance for this site as no special circumstances exist that supports it. • Said that staff could work with the applicant to soften the turrets. • Stressed that this is a bulk issue rather than a square footage issue. Commissioner Schallop: • Stated his agreement with Commissioner Nagpal's comments. • Reported that he used to live on Springer Avenue. • Said that he looked at the story poles and found that the views from the kitchen at the Ryan home would be compromised by this new home. • Said that effort should be made to make this design compatible. • Pointed out that this is a large lot, with 10,000 square feet. Awell-designed home could be less intrusive on this lot. • Stated that he is looking for compatibility with the neighborhood. • Said that specifically, he wants to see a compromise reached regarding the Ryans' views. • Added that this applicant does have the right to develop his lot. Commissioner Rodgers: • Agreed with the points made by Commissioners Nagpal and Schallop. • Said that the applicant is applying for a Variance to accommodate the Ryans' view but that she cannot find any special circumstance to support such a Variance. • Said that the proposed changes could help preserve some of the view from the kitchen eating area. • Stated that softening the front of the house to make it more compatible also appeals to her. • Stressed the need to have a home that is compatible while preserving the views. This should occur without a Variance. Commissioner Uhl agreed. Chair Garakani: • Said that he sees this as a beautiful design that looks good. • Added that the issue is that the proposed house is big for the lot and that bulk and massing issues comes into play. • Said that the tower elements are not compatible with this neighborhood and the appearance of these tower elements should be softened. • Asked staff if this is sufficient direction to move forward. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that a motion be made to continue this item. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission CONTINUED consideration of a Design Review request (Application #04-068) on property located at 14345 Springer Avenue to a date uncertain, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 14 ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None **~ PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 APPLICATION #02-281 (503-31-067) SHENG 21794 Heber Way Request Design Review Approval and Variances for the front and side yard setbacks to build a new two-story house on an existing vacant lot. The proposed structure will be 6,483 square feet, which includes the 726 square foot three-car garage. The gross lot size is 6.06 acres and zoned Hillside Residential. The maximum building height of the residence will not exceed 26 feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval for a new two-story home to be constructed on a vacant lot. • Explained that Variances for front and side yard setbacks would also be required. • Described the proposed structure as consisting of 6,483 square feet, including a 726 square foot three-car garage. • Said that the maximum height would be less than 26 feet. • Stated that the parcel consists of 6 acres and is zoned Hillside Residential. • Reported that the homes in this area vary in design, while the majority of them are stucco. • Said that the applicant is proposing smooth trowel stucco with true divided light wood windows, a slate roof and cultured stone accents. The colors-are all natural earth tones. • Stated that this project is consistent with required Design Review findings. It is not within a view corridor and has no impacts on neighbors. It would be built into the hillside. The closest home is 70 feet away. The proposed garage faces the neighbor's garage. No protected trees would be removed. The proposed landscape plan provides for 28 native trees. • Advised that 17,000 square feet of this property would be disturbed with the construction of this home while the remaining 5.5 acres would remain undisturbed open space. The home would be built into the hillside. The slate roof blends into the hillside. • Said that the applicant is proposing Variances for the front and left side setback. To approve the Variances, the Commission must make all required findings. o Special Circumstances -This finding can be made, as this lot is unique, consisting of a small portion of the lot that is available for placement of the house, while being an unusually large lot. Stated that a majority of the neighborhood and single-family development has 30- foot front yard setbacks and 20-foot side yard setbacks.. Code now requires a percentage of the lot to develop required setbacks. These setbacks would be five to seven times larger than the other setbacks in the neighborhood. This is one of the last remaining vacant lots in this area. Strict interpretation of the setback requirements would result in a smaller home than is typical. o Must not be the Granting of a Special Privilege -This finding can also be made as another lot received a front yard setback Variance in 1996. o Must Not Be Detrimental to Health, Safety & Welfare -This finding can also be met. This Variance allows the building to be located in an area on the property with the lowest available slope. Pointed out the table in his staff report. There are two other homes with Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 15 more than 6,000 square feet and three with more than 5,000 square feet. Therefore, this proposal is for a home that is smaller than some of the existing homes in the immediate area. • Said that this home has a very traditional design and modest appearance. The setback is 93 feet, while a majority of homes in the area have much less of a setback. • Said that this modest home has a slate roof with 28 new trees to be located on side. The home would be built into the hillside and would be much less noticeable than others in the area and on the street. This home would blend into the hillside and become one of the least visible homes in the area. • Stated that the project is consistent with the Hillside Specific Plan and includes aone-story entry. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the applicant could subdivide this lot. Planner John Livingstone replied that it would be difficult. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the setback requirements would be different if this property were to be divided. Planner John Livingstone replied that this is true but that there are a lot of issues in order to qualify for a lot split. He agreed that if the property could be split, the setback requirements would change. Commissioner Nagpal sought clarification that if no Variance were to be granted the building footprint would consist of only 1,100 square feet. Planner John Livin stone re lied that some sort of Variance must be ranted. g P g Commissioner Nagpal asked if any of the properties included on the staff report table also has an open space easement. Planner John Livingstone replied yes, 21719 does. Commissioner Nagpal asked if it is a significant portion of that parcel. Planner John Livingstone replied he was not sure. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the buildable areas for those lots. Planner John Livingstone said that this is a hillside area with slope. The majority of the homes in the area were constructed in the 1980s, one in the 1990s and now this lot. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the sizes include garages on the provided table. Planner John Livingstone replied yes. He added that 10 emails received on this project were provided to the Commission. Commissioner Rodgers reported that she had received phone calls from neighbors regarding this item. All. of the Commissioners advised that they too had received phone calls. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 16 Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Steve Sheng, Applicant and Property Owner, 21794 Heber Way, Saratoga: • Advised that he had obtained a Variance on the adjacent lot that he also owns. • Explained that he purchased this lot in 1990 and has been working on this applicant for the last 14 years. • Said that a Geologist's report was finally approved in 2000. • Said that he is trying to build a home on property with geological constraints and that he has tried to do something that is compatible with the area. • Pointed out that this is a 6-acre lot and that almost none of the house would be visible as is demonstrated by the story poles. • Said that he is trying to comply with City rules and to accommodate neighborhood concerns. • Introduced his architect. Mr. Steve Nelson, Project Architect: • Thanked Planner John Livingstone for an incredible job. • Said that with the situation on this lot, they have to have a Slope Variance. The slope is 33 percent. • Stated that with the Variance, they would have a 2,004 square foot buildable area. • Said that as designed, the house would require both a side and front setback Variance. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the balcony. • Mr. Steve Nelson replied that it is located on the side and has no view on neighboring properties. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Steve Nelson if moving the garage to the other side had been considered. Mr. Steve Nelson said that egress would be more difficult.- He added that the garage would become the front of the house and would face the court. He added that public areas fa<;e the neighbor's garage directly. Ms. Nancy Kundtz, 21790 Heber Way, Saratoga: • Stated that she is representing 14 families. • Said that there is nothing to recommend this project as it is too big by 50 percent and destroys privacy. It is not an asset. • Added that the proposal does not conform to Codes and Regulations. • Pointed out that the applicant bought a piece of land that should not even be a legal lot since 5.5 acres are dedicated as open space. The applicant knew this fact when he bought this parcel that only a half an acre was buildable and the site had geologic problems. • Said that preserving the hillside is important. • Advised that there is no room for trees to be planted along her side property line to help screen the garage from view. • Said that this proposal requires three Variances for three sides of the house. • Added that this home would result in the privacy of her property being ruined. • • Stated that there are no special circumstances to support this proposal. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 17 • Informed that a neighbor with the same sort of lot built on her lot in 1988. They were restricted to a 3,100 square foot maximum house. • Reported that this applicant never spoke with the neighbors and it would have saved time if he had done what he was supposed to do as far as neighbor outreach. Chair Garakani asked Ms. Nancy Kundtz what privacy impacts are created. Ms. Nancy Kundtz: • Said that she would be looking at a three-car garage without any screening. This garage would be facing her living room and two bedrooms in her home. • Stated that she bought this land in the late 1980s predicated on privacy so that no one is in anyone else's line of site. Chair Garakani pointed out the high cost of land today and questioned her proposal for just a 2,800 square foot home on this parcel. Ms. Nancy Kundtz said that a home of that size recently went on the market for $3 million. Said that taking away privacy equals devaluation and creates a noise violation. Commissioner Zutshi asked Ms. Nancy Kundtz how large her garage is. Ms. Nancy Kundtz replied that she has athree-car garage. Her home is the only one in the area that consists of 6,000 square feet. Commissioner Zutshi asked Ms. Nancy Kundtz what her setbacks are. Ms. Nancy Kundtz said that part of the driveway is an easement to the rear lot. She was required to push her house back when she built it so she has a rather small back yard. Commissioner Rodgers asked if a trellis would alleviate her concerns over the balcony. Ms. Nancy Kundtz replied no. Her concern is all about noise impacts. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the key issue is view impacts or noise impacts. Ms. Nancy Kundtz replied both. The garage looks directly at bedrooms in her home. She is concern about noise intrusion and the lack of opportunity for adequate screening landscaping to obscure this garage. Mr. Rocky Hill, 21760 Heber Way, Saratoga: • Reported that the Planning requirements changed when he was in the midst of developing plans for his parcel and he had to reduce his home. • Said that there is no real area available between the proposed garage and the road for screening landscaping. • Said that he too would have liked to have obtained Variances for his property but there was no chance of that at the time he was developing his lot. • Stated that this discrepancy seems unfair. • Said that the impacts on the neighborhood do not seem fair. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 18 • Reminded that all who purchased land in this area knew that there were limited building areas on each parcel. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Rocky Hill when he originally viewed the plans for this project. Mr. Rocky Hill replied that he thought this proposed house looked beautiful but it was only upon seeing the story poles in place that he realized the actual impacts on the neighborhood. Ms. Danielle (Denny) Alff, 14185 Teerlink Way, Saratoga: • Said that she owns the other comparable lot to this one, consisting of 6 acres with 5.5-acres being an open space/scenic easement. • Said that she built in 1988. Her home is a 3,100 square foot home. She had originally proposed a 3,400 square foot home but the Planning Commission said it was too big and bulky and impacted the neighborhood too much. • Said that she used strong environmental ethics and built her home of wood, incorporating skylights, and kept the house very low and inconspicuous. • Encouraged the Commission to look at this proposal very carefully and thanked them for their efforts. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Danielle Alff if she has views of this site from her property. Ms. Danielle Alff replied no. Commissioner Rodgers asked if this proposed home would destroy the sense of community. Ms. Danielle Alff replied that this is an extremely large house and that all the neighbors are united in their opposition to it. Mr. Heber Teerlink, 21910 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga: • Said that the Commission is between a rock and a hard place in evaluating the interests of two parties. • Said that he has three areas of interest: Neighborhood, having both his first name and family name representing this area as street names and assisting in the marketing of homes. • Stated that homes that are not situated appropriately to one another can devalue both. • Said that a 6,500 square foot home is proposed. The size is not as important as the footprint and visibility of this home. For this area, 6,500 square feet is out of norm. • Recommended that the setbacks and square footage be reduced- and that a planting strip be provided between the two driveways with an 8 to 12 foot high hedge to soften impacts between the two homes. Ms. Cindy Teerlink and Ms. Susan Denicolo, 21810 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga: • Stated that they are here this evening in support of Nancy Kundtz and her views. • Said that privacy is the biggest issue at the Teerlink Ranch development. Mr: Steve Sheng, Applicant and Owner: • Pointed out that the garage is 76 feet away from the Kundtz home. • Said that he did talk with the nearby neighbors. _ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 19 • Said he is willing to move the driveway and plant as necessary. • Said that there is no way .to move the house due to the geological concerns but that he can do mitigations regarding privacy. Chair Garakani asked what mitigations Mr. Steve Sheng proposes. Mr. Steve Sheng said he could move the garage back by five to six feet, reduce the house by 300 square feet so that it is the same size as Nancy's house. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Steve Sheng if he is open to planting trees between the two properties. Mr. Steve Sheng replied yes, he is open to recommendations. Commissioner Zutshi asked about a sound wall. Mr. Steve Nelson said that a sound wall was never proposed but landscaping screening was. He asked for help on the setback issue. The setbacks allowed would dictate the size of the house. He said that part of the redesign depends on the setbacks supported. Commissioner Uhl said that he agrees the house is beautiful and the issue is size. Mr. Steve Nelson said he could reduce the house to 6,100 square feet. However, no matter what, they will need a Variance. • Commissioner Rodgers asked about the Setback Variance versus Slope Variance. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Steve Nelson said that with the 33 percent slope, the building area is just 1,100 square feet and 600 square feet would be the garage. This scenario requires a large second story. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the balcony. Mr. Steve Nelson said that he is willing to eliminate the balcony but that it faces the rear of the lot. However, if it is an issue, it can be removed from the plan. Commissioner Nagpal sought clarification that the house cannot be moved on the site due to geological issues. Mr. Steve Nelson replied correct. The buildable area is limited due to the proximity to faults. Commissioner Hunter asked if the project was denied since 1990 when the land was purchased. Mr. Steve Sheng replied no. He has been working under the same application and filing fees all of these years. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that this size house was not allowed in those days. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 20 Commissioner Rogers pointed out that while there are CC&Rs, the Planning Commission does not enforce them and reviews compliance with Design Guidelines only. Commissioner Uhl asked staff if the table figures for square footage include garage space in all cases. Planner John Livingstone said that he researched this data using microfiche and previous staff reports. He said that the figures should all be inclusive of all countable FAR, including garages. Chair Garakani pointed out that the applicant is willing to reduce the size of his home and provide screening landscaping. However, it appears that the balcony is considered to be a privacy impact issue for a neighbor. Commissioner Nagpal said that it appears that no matter what a Variance is required for this property owner to build anything on this property. Said that when considering the choices between a Slope Variance and Setback Variance, the Setback Variance makes more sense. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that the hardest thing for the Commission to do is to be consistent, particularly with Hillside projects. • Reported that the she has voted no for proposed Hillside projects on Pierce and Bohlman Roads. • Said that these hillsides belong to everyone in Saratoga and what is constructed on them affects us all. • Suggested that if a neighbor were to propose such a project next door to Mr. Sheng, he too would object. • Stated that this is an enormous house and that she cannot support a house of this size on this property. Chair Garakani asked Commissioner Hunter if she is recommending a reduction in size. Commissioner Hunter replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal said that the impact is bulk and not just overall square footage. Commissioner Uhl stressed the importance of avoiding impacts on views and privacy. Chair Garakani suggested that the project go back to staff for additional redesign. Commissioner Schallop said that the Commission should address the Variance issue. Planner John Livingstone asked that the Commission identify the portions of the structure that it finds bulky and requires change. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that when considering Slope versus Setback Variances, it worries her more to pull soil out from a hillside property. • Stated that the setbacks requested by the applicant are closer in line to those setbacks existing in the neighborhood. • Advised that she supports Setback Variances versus Slope Variances. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 21 Commissioner Zutshi suggested that the setback to the neighbor's house be increased. Planner John Livingstone suggested that Plan Sheet P-1 offers a good perspective for this current conversation. Commissioner Zutshi suggested that increasing this setback from 20 feet would automatically reduce the square footage. Chair Garakani added that this would also offer more room to plant screening landscaping. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that there are lots of .properties with similar circumstances that were developed without Variances. Chair Garakani said that this applicant needs a building pad larger than the currently allowed 1,100 square feet. Commissioner Rodgers said that setbacks and overall size are issues. Commissioner Uhl said that the setbacks should be greater than proposed by the applicant on the sides. Commissioner Schallop said that the setbacks were based upon 5.5 acres of which 5 acres are open space. Commissioner Uhl said that he understands the need for a Variance in this circumstance but that the Commission does not have to be too loose as to how big this Variance is. He suggested redesign with a smaller footprint. Commissioner Nagpal asked Commissioner Uhl to be more specific about smaller footprint. Commissioner Uhl said that the applicant should go back to the drawing board with a smaller footprint and less need for a Variance. Planner John Livingstone said that the proposed setback from the garage is 25 feet and Commissioner Uhl is proposing something along the lines of 45 feet. Commissioner Uhl said that he wants the Variances to be as tight as the Commission can go while still allowing this property owner to develop his property. Chair Garakani suggested this go back to staff. Corrunissioner Zutshi suggested a 35-foot side yard setback. Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that an arbitrary compromise might- not actually be helpful. Planner John Livingstone asked if the Commission has any feedback on the location of the garage. Commissioner Zutshi said that it appears to be in the right location. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 _ Page 22 Chair Garakani agreed that it would be tough to rotate it. Commissioner Hunter reminded that the neighbor does not want it there. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that back-to-back driveways and garages appear to be the preferred development pattern. She added that if the garage were to be placed at the front, both houses would face a garage. Commissioner Uhl said that a community meeting is required. Commissioner Nagpal agreed that discussion with neighbors is needed. Commissioner Rodgers said that while a meeting with neighbors might be 1lelpful, it should not be required that every neighbor be consulted. Commissioner Schallop: • Said that the applicant must be given clear guidance so that the applicant, neighbors and staff all understand. • Stated that it appears to be the consensus that the Variance for both front and side yard setbacks is needed to allow development of this legal lot. • Said that the chart in the staff report is helpful and that what is presented does not seem unreasonable in comparison. _It is only 500 square feet larger. • Suggested a compromise in the size of the proposed home so that it falls within 5,000 and 6,000 square feet. Chair Garakani suggested a 10 percent reduction. Commissioner Hunter said that it would still be too big. Commissioner Schallop said that he had no concern with the architectural design, saying that the placement of the garage and the balcony issue appearing to be resolved if the applicant is willing to consider the proposed changes. Commissioner Nagpal said that the issues are landscaping, setbacks and neighbor-related issues. Commissioner Uhl expressed support for offering the opportunity for neighbor design review but not to require neighbor approval, just the opportunity to see the proposal. Commissioner Schallop agreed-that it is a problem when the applicant and neighbors don't interact. Chair Garakani said that a 15 percent reduction in square footage would bring the total down to 5,500 square feet. Commissioner Uhl said he did not want to pick a number arbitrarily. Commissioner Na al said that the neighbors should be clear of its priorities. gP Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Pa e 23 Chair Garakani pointed out that some of these concerns would have been worked out if this applicant had listened to staff's recommendation to work with his neighbors. Agreed that some reduction in square footage is required. Commissioner Rodgers said that she would leave how much of a reduction open to the applicant and his architect to consider. The end result should be~within the average range of homes in the area. Pointed out that everyone likes the design. Commissioner Uhl said a great guideline is to make sure this home is consistent with the houses in the area. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission CONTINUED consideration of Design Review (Application #02-281) for a new two-story house proposed on property located at 21794 Heber Way to a date uncertain, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ~*:~ PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. S APPLICATION #03-168 (397-28-028) - BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, 14010 Alta Vista Avenue• Request Design Review Approval and a Variance for the front setback to build anew -two-story house on an existing vacant lot. The proposed structure will be 2,385 square feet as determined by the Planning Commission. The proposed floor area includes a 420 square foot two-car garage. The structure will also have a 797 square foot basement. The gross lot size is 8,721 square feet and is zoned R-1-10,000. The maximum building height of the residence will not exceed 26 feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval for a new two-story single-family residence on a vacant lot with a Variance for the front setback. • Described the proposed home as consisting of 2,385 square feet with a 420 square foot two-car garage and a 797 square foot basement. The maximum height would be less than 26 feet. • Explained that the lot is 8,721 square feet. • Stated that the applicant had sought an extension for a previous approval. However, upon review of the proposal, staff noticed that a Variance would be needed. The applicant redesigned their project. • Said that the Craftsman architectural style is predominate in this area. This home would use smooth stucco on the first floor and siding on the second. A 50-year composition shingle roof is proposed. • Said that the project meets Design Review findings as there are no adverse views impacts as there .are no visible neighbors to the rear. The second story is stepped back on all sides and there are varying rooflines. No protected trees will be removed and two new 24-inch box trees would be planted. Existing large Oak trees provide screening. • Said that the first finding can be made that this is a unique lot. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 24 • Added that the second finding can be made in that there are two large Oak trees in the middle of the lot to preserve and that only a small portion of the house protrudes into the required setback. • Said that the project is not detrimental to public health, safety and welfare. • Reported that the Commission must also make a Floor Area Determination. • Explained that this proposed home consists of 2,385 square feet. The adjacent homes are 2,256 and 2,242 square feet respectively so this proposed home is consistent and within range of its neighboring structures. • Said that the proposal conforms to the General Plan. • Recommended Design Review Approval, granting of a Variance and establishment of a Floor Area Determination for this project. Commissioner Uhl asked if Lots 25 and 28 had the same minimum requirements. Planner John Livingstone replied yes. Commissioner Uhl asked if those lots had also received Variances. Planner John Livingstone replied no. Additionally, no Floor Area Determination was sought for the other lots. Reported that there are several issues with the prior staff report. Director Tom Sullivan added that different staff prepared the report. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Mr. David Britt Pro'ect Architect, Britt-Rowe: J • Thanked staff for its work. • Stated that this is now a better house than originally approved as it is more sensitive to the trees on site. • Said that they have moved the basement six feet further from an existing tree. • Said that problems with the design have all been changed and this proposal conforms better to Saratoga's guidelines. • Stated that he was available for any questions. Chair Garakani asked if neighbor input was obtained. Mr: David Britt reported that this same property owner owns most of the surrounding parcels. He added -that there were few neighbors when doing the five-lots below this one. Added -that this setback was never an issue with any neighbors. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that a letter of wholehearted support was received. Commissioner Rodgers asked how future. owners of this home could be made to respect the intent to preserve this tree. Mr. David Britt said he was unsure, perhaps a title restriction. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that a Tree Permit would be required for removal of any trees. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 25 Mr. David Britt reminded that this is the 10`h new house constructed in this neighborhood and that trees have been properly protected during construction. Planner John Livingstone said that there is generally good compliance with the Arborist's tree protection recommendations during construction. Commissioner Zutshi asked about imposing a deed restriction. Commissioner Uhl asked what size home could be built on this lot without a Variance. Mr. David Britt replied that there is no set Floor Area Ratio for this house. Planner John Livingstone advised that since this is less than a 5,000 square foot lot, the Planning Commission determines the size of house permitted on a case-by-case basis. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Commissioner Uhl stated that Variances should be rare and there were three presented tonight. Commissioner Nagpal reminded that special circumstances findings are required to support a Variance. Commissioner Uhl said that this particular request does not concern him as much as others do. Director Tom Sullivan assured that approving a Variance does not set precedent. Variances are adopted on a case-by-case basis. They are approved individually, one request at a time. Commissioner Uhl said that Variances should be avoided whenever possible. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the Commission has not seen a lot of Variance requests in the. last year and a half. Commissioner Hunter reported that City staff tells applicants that a Variance is not easily obtained. Commissioner Zutshi said that this Variance helps preserve old Oaks on this site. Commissioner Hunter said that due to the odd shape of the lot and the preservation of Oak trees, she could support this Variance. Planner John Livingstone assured that at the front counter staff shies away from Variances, which are difficult to support when developing a vacant lot and for which State law sets the required findings. Commissioner Nagpal indicated that she could support this Variance. Chair Garakani asked if there are any design issues. Commissioner Hunter said that this design was nicely done. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 26 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval, a Variance for the front setback and made a Floor Area Determination (Application #03-168) for a new two-story house to be located on property at 14010 Alta Vista Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Director Tom Sullivan: • Reminded the Commission that the Planning Commission meeting on December 22, 2004, has been cancelled. • Announced that Council has adopted an Urgency Ordinance. Buildings receiving final occupancy from December 2004 onward cannot make changes or additions to what was approved without necessary processing and public notification. In January 2005, Council will grant a 10.5-month extension to this Urgency Ordinance. Another one-year extension is possible thereafter to allow time to draft and adopt a permanent amendment to the Municipal Code. • Distributed. a copy of his resignation letter and advised that this is his last meeting with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Nagpal extended her appreciation to Director Tom Sullivan for his leadership and guidance. The Commissioners extended their best wishes to Director-Tom Sullivan and said he would be missed. COMMISSION ITEMS Chair Garakani asked Director Tom Sullivan what should be done with the issue raised under Oral Communications. Director Tom Sullivan replied that staff should contact and work with the Church on the issues raised. COMMUNICATIONS City Council Minutes from the Regular Meeting on October 20, 2004. AD TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Schallop, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, Chair Garakani adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of January 12, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • ITEM 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant No./Location: UP 04-150; 14000 Fruitvale Avenue (West Valley College) Type of Application: Use Permit Applicant/Owner: Metro PCS Staff Planner: Christy Oosterhous, Associate Planner Date: January 12, 2005 APN: 397-15-018, 397-14-022, 397-13-030 Department Head: 14000 Fruitvale Avenue (West Valley College) ~O®®Oi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed PROJECT DESCRIPTION 05/10/04 10/28/04 12/29/04 12/14/04 01/06/05 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 located in an existing equipment area behind the theater building. The college campus is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Several wireless carvers 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. Affidavit of mailing notices, public notice, and mailing labels. 3. RF Exposure Report. 4. Coverage Plan Map and Existing On-Air and Proposed Sites Map. 5. Photosimulations. 6. Plans, Exhibit "A." • • • ®®®~~~ Application No. 04-1 S0, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue, West Palley College STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN: Residential-Very Low Density MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: Approximately 23 acres. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Not applicable GRADING REQUIRED: None MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: All equipment cabinets and antennas 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 California 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. • ~®®003 Application No. 04-1 S0, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue, West Valley 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. 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 to be mounted on the exterior of the building at roof level approximately 60 feet in height. The dimension of each antenna is approximately 54.5 inches in length, 6.8 inches in width, and 3.5 inches in depth. Orie 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 10 feet by 6 feet. The cabinets are approximately 6 feet tall. The proposed equipment cabinets are to be located at the rear of the building. The applicant has provided existing and proposed photosimulations of each building elevation and the equipment cabinets to provide clarity. 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 3.4% of the public exposure limit. 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 ~®~®0~ . Application No. 04-1 S0, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue, West Valley College 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 04-150 by adopting the attached resolution of approval. • • ~®~~®~ • Attachment 1 • ~~~~~~ Application No. 04-150, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue, West Valley College RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 04-150 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Metro PCS;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 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 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 ensure 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: ~~(~®0~ Application No. 04-1 S0, 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 04-150 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. >f 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. 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 ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 12th day of January 2005 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: • ~'~~~+o~ Application No. 04-150, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue, West Valley College • 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. Pro a Owner or Authorized A ent P rh' g • Date ~~~~~~ • Attachment 2 . ®®®~~ • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) - ----_ I, ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that aacting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the ~ ~ day of ~ e- ~- ~~.1~'{(-' 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. ._ ---- --._ . `_ w - Signed ~Q~~~~ 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 12`h day of January 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Project details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Thursday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Inquiries regarding the project should be directed to the planner noted below. APPLICATION #04-150 (397-15-018, 397-14-022, 397-13-030) METRO PCS, WEST VALLEY COLLEGE 14000 FRUITVALE AVENUE; -REQUEST FOR USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO INSTALL 3 PANEL ANTENNAS, AND AN EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE AT THE THEATER BUILDING ON THE WEST VALLEY COLLEGE CAMPUS. THE THEATER BUILDING IS CURRENTLY UTILIZED BY SEVERAL WIRELESS FACILITIES. 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. Christy Oosterhous, AICP Community Development Director coosterhous@saratoga.ca.us 408 868-1286 • ~~®~~~ r~ u Attachment 3 • ~'~~~,~ ' MetroPCS • Proposed Base Station (Site No. SFA-Z08-636A) 14000 Fruitvale Avenue • Saratoga, California • Statement of Hammett 8~ Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of MetroPCS, a wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. SFA-Z08-636A) 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 Radiofre:quency 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 exp osures of unlimited duration to radio frequency energy for several personal wireless services are as follows:- Personal Wireless Service Approx Freyuency Occupational Limit Public Limit Personal Communication ("PCS") 1,950 MHz 5.00 mW/crri2 1.00 mW/cm2 Cellular Telephone 870 2.90 0.58 Specialized Mobile Radio 855 2.85 0.57 [most restrictive frequency range] 30-300 1.00 020 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. CONSULTING ENGINEERS i .r SAN FRANCISCO , • • C~' MP636A596 Page 1 of 3 ~~~~~~ MetroPCS • Proposed Base Station (Site No. SFA-Z08-636A) 14000 Fruitvale Avenue • Saratoga, California ith ve little ever wasted toward the s or the ound. Alon with the low ower of the honzon, w ry gy ky gr g p 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 Metro, including zoning drawings by DCI Pacific, dated April 5, 2004, it is proposed to mount three EMS Model RR6518-OODPL2 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 70 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 1,890 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, Sprint PCS, and Verizon Wireless, other wireless telecommunications carriers. Facilities reported for those carriers are as follows: Effective Antenna Carver Antenna Make/Model Maximum ERP Height (AGLI 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 Sprint Andrew UMWD-06516-XDM 1,000 601/2 Verizon Andrew DB874G90 600 58 Study Results The maximum ambient RF level anywhere at ground due to the proposed Metro operation by itself is calculated to be 0.00049 mW/cm2, which is 0.049% of the applicable public exposure limit. The maximum calculated cumulative level at ground for the simultaneous operation of all seven carriers is 3.4% of the public exposure limit. It should be noted that these results include several "worst-case" ' -=~ HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. ` coNSUL~rnvc ENCrrrESxs MP636A596 snN eawNCisco Page 2 of 3 ~~~+~2?~ ' MetroPCS • Proposed Base Station (Site No. SFA-Z08-636A) 14000 Fruitvale Avenue • Saratoga, California • 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. It is further recommended that measurements be cor.~ducted on the roof of the subject building when the Metro base station is ready to begin operation, in order to identify areas where the cumulative power density levels may exceed the public standard and to develop at that time any appropriate mitigation measures for achieving compliance with the FC;C-adopted guidelines for both public and occupational exposure conditions. It is anticipated that the posting of explanatory warning signs' will be required, at a minimum. Conclusion Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the base station proposed by MetroPCS 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. 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 ro be correct. Qp~C~ESS/p Q~ F • H,q,~~ ~y y ~ E-13026 ~~a ~'% ~ M-20676 William F. Ha e , P.E. Or E~.6-31}05 ~ April 15, 2004 * ~FCfR~GP~. Q" ~~, ~CHAN~G~_d~~ i 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. t~~ ~ ~~::~r= `~"' HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. ~,.w~ ~~~, MP636A596 F„-~~ ,~. ~ °-"-' CONSULTING ENGINEERS .,- _=. f--_z:.~ snNFaanNasco Page 3 of**3. ~~~~~Gr~ 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 ~. ~ "~ ~ U ~~ a° "3 A ~ .., 1000 100 10 1 0.1 Electromagnetic Fields (f is freauencv of emission in MHz Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far-Field Field Strength Field Strength Power Density (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cmZ) 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100 614 823.8/] 1.63 2.19/f 100 180/ 1842/ f 823.8/f 4.89/ f 2.19/f 900/ f 18%f? 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2 3.54~f 1.59fj' 1~f/106 'f1/238 f/300 f/1500 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0 ~ FM •` f ~~ Public E/xnosure Cell ~~~~~ 0.1 1 10 100 103 104 105 Frequency (MHz) \J 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. ~4' HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. = CONSULTING ENGINEERS .~ .~. „ SAN FRANCISCO FCC Guidelines Figure 1 Occupational Exposure PCS ~~~~~ RFR.CALCr'" 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. Hil;her 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 site:>. 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 I) 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: 180 x 0.1 x Pnet in mW/~2 power density S - ~ ,~ x D x h ' ' where OBE, =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 = 2 in mW/cm2, 4xttxD 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. _~ Methodology ~.; - CONSULTLNG ENGINEERS 'fi'r _'_'<. ~K.'t~. SAN FRANCISCO Figure 2 ~~~~2~ ~_~ Attachment 4 • ~~~~~~ a L J LL '~ m N O fl O L a u Y U Q J m l4 a C®L®R )[~Y: G RE Eti =Good in-Building, =Good Outdoor/Mobile, RED =Marginal Outdoor/Mobile OTHER COLORS =Topography (not signal) rroposea sites 6:i 6, "/ lU, 61Z, cYc 684 shown as points of reference only, not on air (all other sites depicted aze on air). The need for the currently proposed sites 710 & 636 in the Saratoga area is evident by the above coverage plot. A large area of little to no coverage fills much of Saratoga. i ne aaaiuon or proposed sites "71U and 636 in the North-East area of Saratoga clearly fills in a large geographic azea. Both 710 and 636 sites are required to provide this coverage. Building one or the other site will not provide adequate coverage (as will be shown on the following page). COLOR KEY: GREEiV =Good in-Building, OTHER COLORS =Topography (not signal) : =Good Outdoor/Mobile, REIID = Mazginal Outdoor/Mobile t3y only building site 710 there is a large azea of little to no coverage on and surrounding the West Valley College campus. As can be seen in the above plot, the area surrounding the proposed 710 site is not served by site 636. Hence, both 710 and 636 are required to provide adequate coverage to this region. 0 0 0 .. O a 0 0 as s 0 L 3 v~ 0 0 d .~ 0 0 3 0 0 r d a' J; ~1 ~ ~, 0 \Q N 0 • O O O ~y T O ~y T N s 3 0 H of L O O .~ O O y+ 3 .~ O ~+ O d Y • • ~ 10/10/2004 i; f :~__,s +$ #.~ _ 3. t ~_ ~~ ~ .~' ~~. . ,;~ ~~ ~ - , : ~ ~. ,. . ..:. , .. ~ ~ . s ' j 1 V . ~ '~fC ~`~ ..Y. i c ~ - ~ ~~ ~. ~t }' ~ L. ~ ~~ G°~ Lsi - - e, _ ~ ~~~ i ~ - - - - ~-}r ( r i .~. __•-~ .. s .., .- .. yy gg((((((''(() ~ E e i ~' P311,1.1,1 't r ~~ .w-{} w ~~. 0 0 p G ~4 J Inc., N r a - ~, ,, . , . .. - - ,~ 4 _ `~-" a ,,. _ _ _ _ ~~ _ - ~.. .~ served. Accuracy of this phntosimulation based upon information provided by project applicant Questiuns7 Call 1-R77-799-3210 or visit N'4Y W ,1'li(Z,-~~I;y,t;,~1;~ i., r' ~E ~R,1 ~ }1 uS~ n. , ~i1 F .. ~ ~!'~ r _ ~ .- r~ ~, ~~tr~ ~ ~ ,..:.- ~y~~~. Metrofi~ S5 i West Valley College 14000 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 SFA-636A ll ray., r.J Photosimulation of view of the equipment area around the back of the building. • • ~ PZ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ c ~ m ~ ~ O D ~ ~~ ~~~~~ m v -Zi O m m a ~, ~~ ~~~ ~ z ~ ~ Z fi't` ~~ -~ -D w -' ~ v D m n ~ ~~ ~ n 88 m 88 ~ Wg ~ o o O N Z A C v t ~ O g 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~~ o ~~ ~ g ~>~~ n ~ o N v! m C ~ . ~W~ = cn o ~ ~ ~ = N y ~ ~~~ m ~ ~ ~ Z ~ 3 < ~ r ~ ~ ~5~~> ~ a00o ~ r N Z O D D v r ~° ~ ~ ~ m N Z~ ~ O ~ r r w~ m m ..~ C m ~75= ~~z mm O 0 A ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~o .I ~ + ~ ~~ ~s~ J~41 NNE ~O I~1 ~ '~ ~ ~l D~ ~~~~ v m ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ n ~~ ~~~`~ ~g ~_ ~o~ ~~ ~ o ~ ~v ~~ m Z c ~ ~ ~~ Q/(J~~4N;~ 8~$~~ O NNNr~ tl aaxj~~ m ~~~~~~ ~ ~oovvo ~ ~~~~ ~~~ D a~ Z ~~~~~ (~ 44444 ~~: Z o° Z m c ~~ n ° r n o ~ ~~ m z Tv -~i= -~- - _ - -t. = r--~- .. -~ ~ Z o ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~' m ~ a N~B~ o ~ ~a~~ ~ o= ~~ ~ o ~~~~~~~ i + _v ~ s ~ ` n ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~m 4 ~ Z No~+ ~ m M .~~. ~ ~ N~ ~~ ~ V V~ ~ VI C gic~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C D °'~ ~8 D ~~~'~ ~ m Z ~ ~~~ ~A~ ~ ~3 z s= z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~e ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~, II s O ~ ~ Oo V V ONNO ~ I B~ ~ N W .~ m ~~~~~~~~~~~~ n ~ ~~~~~~~~~,~ Z ~~~~~~~~~~~~ N ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ Z b FRUINALE AVE. 9 ~ -~ O -'I s o~= ~ ~~ Y C) D ~ ~~ IFS A ~ D `O S~fY RD. ~~. .`i ~ ~ ~y Z DVITp Rp. N v a w .~i D N ~ ~ z ~ ~ m= - - -- - - - =- -_ - - ~ ~ -- - - - - _ - -_ y - - - x ~ ~ N ~ O ~ Z z c~ ~_° s ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ R ~ ~ o z T N ~ ~~ p ~ i ~ ~~ O ~ R~ ~a m D ~ a ~ fo m w Q~ ~ r < rT1 D r p p o ~ ~ ~ =~~ ~ a . i D m m a ~~~~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ I O o .~ o < O N r nc m V ~ r C7 cfl rn O cD r om ~ m . ~uI ~_ N ~ 0 ~ w [~ ~ ~ D ~ 0 ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ a~~~ ~~ ~~~ - ~~ ~~' a ~~~ , Z ^~^ -- "Y I ~` O O v~ O~ ~~ nm T~ W O Z rn~ -.~ ~ tci~ O v~ '' m A C /~ -~--- v ~~~~o ~~~~ n :~ ~~ DD • • _ • -~ m 0 T~ V Z ~i(t \~`~ '~, ;~ ~~~ ,\ ~~ n V1 C D A m ~N Z ~ D ~ ~ ~ Q.. ~v ~Z r ~~ m z N ~°v ~N m m c ~ZgZ ~ mmy = v F' ; C~~f? z c -~ vv gv .\\\\\\\~ z~ ao~ P A ~ ~~Z~ 3~~ v v ~ r-i* csm r o F ~ o ~ `~ c ~~~ o = O N Z z „Y-/n m A my Z n n m= D ZZ n ~C Z N C~ A m ~~m~Z ~ P; ~ 6 $ ~ ~~~^ov N T = ~`~ m s ~~N y > Cp=3 i ~~ pC~ SmCy " ~ z ~nn ~ i W = ~ Aom Z mss din S O A 3 me C ~o= r a Imc 1 ~Z Z S~ K I~~ N O } _ ~~y+r11 ~ m C n ~^ m N D ~ _ _A N X ~ n 'N 4~~ K r- _- - - -_- -- ----- - - Ord _ .. ~,~,• w S~ p `C o T /1`/ Q 9 ~ c x~ ..1 v s ~ C) m D :~~ ~~~ -v-~X' -- -' -- ~~Z " O Q ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~ C~ __ SECTOR '1' ANTENNA (0-AZIAIIITH) --~ ~~~ _ ~~ ~~' a ~~ TI ~~ ~~~~o ~~~~ b ~~ ~ ~ ,o, • m p c m z -~ O c r Z m 0 O 0 • • .m.O~Z z ~ C v ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ^y ~~o ~~~ 0 ;~ ~o ~_ A~ S v i ~ ~v ~ j D D ~n I Z X y l i m I O ~g~; O mm v~~0 w- v 6~OCy _~~~ O 00 z 03 c O~O T N v v~~ c~z 6 ~~ Z n OCD" °~X~~ ~~~n y '< ~ ~ ~ ~v~ ~~ 4~: ~ ~ ~ r~ ~ o ~~~ ~~~ ~o r m O O O m n O ... ~ C7 n I ~ C I Z D m m I r y _' I m .I A I I ~I mnC .:I ~nm m A 0 I n O v I ~' I J \\ \\\\\ ` y` y o;gam c v ~~~~ ovZ j ~ n v --I y O O Z ~ C C ~ ~ y ~ ~ D 4. _~~~ N ~ ~ ~ N \ 11-O~~Illl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~a ~~ ~~ ~ o ~ ~ 3 S a o ~~ n m '~ ~ o~ ~~~~ ~ g o A c O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~p s ~ ~ w ~ < o~~ ~R~~ ~ N C m m ~ V+ r a~~~C 5 ' ~ D m m ~~~p~ _ -~ ~~~ i b 43 8 ~_ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~b ~ ~ 4 x N I 0 ~3 Q o ~ ~~ mo m =o ~~ N~ D R O~ A ~ r ,D ~n 0= z c Z m V n ~ ~p ~ ~ ~ _r^ Z r~r> m ~ _ ~-~-__ _ _ of ~ ~N~ ~ m f c~ A r~~ Y ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~p~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ - ~~' a ~~~ T ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ o ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~, ~ ~ ~; m m r m D -~ O Z ~zz ~~ ~~~ ~~ O C ~ ~~ v 1~ o~ c z v~ ;u N :~ O m r m D O Z Rr= o^ z~ ~~ oQ zc ~v _ ~ D ^~ m m ~ ~~ ~~ r~z+ t o v-i o 0 ~; ~ N ~Q r c m i~ v m m o~ ~~ ~~~ ~ f") m~ O ~ ; z ~ Z ~ ~ A -i Z z z 2~jz ~ ~~; z ~~ ~~ v ~~ ~~~ ~~_~ ~Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ D o ~w a n f r < c~i c ~ O ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ CAD o D ~ ~ m D o~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ p ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~, T ~~ ~ n ~~~ _ , t!' ~ ~~ > ~ ~ " ~vv \v m v ~~ v v g+ ~ +, v ~~ z ~~~ ; Q ' z ~ o ~~~ ~~ mm O ~ ~ ~~q z~~ ~o ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ z c ~ m n z m z z n __ - ~ c=_= .~. ~ - I ~;z ~ ~ ~ ~ I --~ ~ ~~ ~ =~~$ ~~ J I ~~r~ r + z - ~, I s ~ ~: ~~ I~ I~ I ~ -~-- - --- - - - ~ -'- °~ -~-I~ - --- - ~~ I~ ~~~ ~v D H ~ C v ~~ ~~~ ~~; =pm W~~ ~~ _c 6 N Q G=j N ~ ~ ~: m m r rn D O Z ~v ~v cFn; ~_ ~~ ~~~~~ n~ ~„ ~~ m vi Z v `z ~ z Cn m ~~ I ~~ m (n A Z p; Jr ~ D „_~ r ~yj~ C l~1 I Cy~ t1i D ~ C ~ ~~ C o m 8'-C~ ~ N _6 ~ R I C 5 ~ q ;' - - --- -. - • --- - _ -- - - - - - - I~ -I- -- _ _ - - - ~ I ~ b m N 70'-2' N O c -~ m r m _~ O z j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $=o ~~ ~~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ > o ~ m ~ ~ x ~ ~~ ,A ~ ~ R ~~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~D o ~ w I"< omm ~~ ~~~ R~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o y a m e> ~ ~ ~ ~ D RID m ~ :~" ~a~ ~°~~~ p Z ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~$~~ ~~~ _ ~~' a ~~~' T ~~ ~~~ o ~~~ ~ ~~ rout X: \PRbJECTS\UETRO PCS\SFAZC66'6A\OFFiCE N - ~ 6 O ~ n n ^: ° yKyK Y n~ ~~ __~ ~NVA nynyN ~~ v~~y ~ . N ~ C C m~g O > H~ ~~~Z m~ D 4 o N A ^ ~ ti A N .~ N NA 270'31'21 (TIPICAL) u N N ~ ; A ~p v°i~ g O, =D ~ + y ~ l~ ° ~~~ _ II 0 A o A >0 m ~~~ ' ~ ~ > ~ -$F o °c z u > i ~ PZ yyp § ~~ ~ c - = ~ y p ` f < Zy 6 > Z ~ r m ~ ~ m ~ ~ Z vo ~~ ~o~ ~ 4 ~ ~ _ O SS Ty .IFCI • ~ O k ~ ~ ~oFi as xo ; gc m = ~ o ov ~z zo o s ~ ~ ~ ~ z H O D ; y ~ y ~ r r X O ~ I ~ ~ m ~" i 6 0 -~- ~~- fi m b - o -- n ~ nn M x p 2 ~ Zi m ~ ~ o D C ° > mI ' C "~' Q m ~ o pr - z~ 5 y F'~ I ~ X m ~ ~ r z _ C m m C TI ~ D N o I m ° A D 3FA CA- N C~ / O ~g ~~ l• n i ~~nn 84 v~ ~ ~T m ~° 0 ~ Z ~ l O A r ~' yl o m N O Z Q ~ o '--~ $ ~ ~'; >r y~ j'1/ ~ q ~ ~ r fir ~ ~v (E) BUILDING ;~ g 4~ m P~~ +Z'.1 NYP,i ~ ~f E~ ~S ¢~F z A ! f ~ $ ~ v~~ gym ~ ~ _ ~j~ ~ yr b ~g ~ C m Z N f_ m n z II n x o ?~ D n II ~ F III µ~~~ x°=Unl ~~ ~ D `Z N J //~ 1/~ l~ t n T n i 1l' y Q ° ° v x O l"l A wGlr ~' ~'~W 0 `o 2 i {~ W b C; ~ w ~ N y~ 9 N ti .~ Z p„o~ ~°^.' 8 C m ,~ o nOvr O ~ ~ ',. ~`WO "oyd C N! °~ ~ ~ s S' • m ~ • 0 A 8 rD m O O li a { o a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ "' $ - S N m 8 8 }F8 88 ° ~ s Y e e m Y 3:~ u' c 6 z c~ D 0 N 0 Z11 N -N C ~ m y v ie ~ ~~ 8fi ~ ~~~~ ~ ~og~~~~~ o ~ m~ O~ ~yA y~' DDsm n ~mZZ~ ° ~ I~ n~ yA ~ m ~~NNyDy ~ mHCCZO~~~o O~ m~ ~ m yy 9m ~ y ~rZZ NO~1 \ oc mZ j0 '~ >~"~ ~ ~~p>~~5~`N A ¢ G~ R a mD AO H O y~ZO N ~Ayro~m;O O L y~y~~j Z Z pp !°~Ip lZ~ly m D°m? ~ Al~ny D4~29< ~ ~yA1 °p~ a ~ oP Qy ~~y~~~o~ ~ Z° -D1C Qj rByA =~~Q Z y°mmtim p ~~ ~~ ~ ~! A~m~ n ~ym~°s~nms y ~c ~~ nK~ ~ v7 m p~d~ o DZ °~ ,-~1 IA°n~~s ~'- sY ~i~~rvom o s m ~1 ~~ ~a ~~¢s ~ig~b~D~~ '~ S m n z~ m > ~' ~'A" ci~D ~6 17'< ~ ~"op oo~~yA~~ R~' y~ ma O °80 ~=~mDAOy ~,Na ~ ~ ~mm °~~¢AASS_ ~g r m D ~C ~p~py°Z \ d T n Y~Ny ymAZ('1°y~ ~ > !R o ~~g S=D~~`g> ~ e g Nyi =~~ om rCi vc, a v _N D v avroec7e vD z i y~y m COVOPEIF ° T 0 N Q __ - _~'~ ~m ~ N >N> C~'OCD D H;~ CZ ay D N ~ o o c ~ ~~~ z~y O 17 ~ o ylm m Z>~ ~ yxy < Om {O D D m~ fs~l CS'~I yy p ( ~ OOC .ym ; N ~ yO IpA m p yy C { /1 m Z I.1 -Im yiN f`! m Q ;~ _> ~1 ~n1 ~ ~N x Qi ~~o ~ Dm~ ~ zz °Qi ^Q~'I z ~ > F ~+ nl p sH O DOAO u " r2 Z ~ y. ~p t D I Fy L+++~~~;IZO NCOF C~ N ++ 2 ~p p~ !7 > (O~fm~ <~ o ~ `pti°Z °_nypNpp O Z ~~ ~ mFj A~ a p ?yp0~ ~D~D w+1lyt O ~ ~ ° V O y ^~ y n 0 ZC~D D~Z ~~Om pD UfAn D A s ~ OyK ~ ~'>LL< m ^' m y jy C ~ i ` ' n 0 ; ;c Z v~D~ y ~ ffCy ~ z s ON <; o~< Jp nl F ~ CC ~~i ~i°mz y °m m ~ z v O~ ~o~°~ m o r~x ~m > ° [o v ~ 9 ily p D m ~ BZ ~ y. <N Fn ~' I^ JR ~~ ~ A A yj T~~ a ~ ~ i btQ_ \ > A ~ ^ ~NS y°m mo v~ N " i o zo ~ ~ ' s A~ im m~Y ~ y~ i ~ y A L Z D -yd ~ ny > D ~ ? C s,R,r ~4 ~ Z _ FRUINA > oA> LE AVE. I gg~~ ~ k~E~ I /~ ,"f; ^O V J D . OA ~ O Z~ o ~~~ RD. O ti ~ 'O NN m N n ~ ~ p A m F m ~~~ O ~ 0 ~ ~ y m p ~ ~ ~ vNi Zoo ~ ~ ~ <" OZ ro~ Z /~ '~ -P m ago D < ~ IV t- D ~ o b lY m C O m A z 0 ~ _ N n~~ 00 n n I C Q D yy C+'I N Z7 ~ z°~°' r ~ ° ~ D fr+'1 < rw m Vj e.: ANA E:FC?RON:C J~GTAL MEDIA aRgY.DN VY E5. 'O OUR CI,iEUf !: A OOUP.'ESV ANO IS NCT !J UE NERRODUCED, D:51R:VU cD, SOLD, Ri.'~1 SEU. ED~Tf.^. DR AMENDED 'M TV.GVS "PRESi WA.iT(Eti f,DN$EN' D< AN OFE:CER ^~ ES. fVRT1iFR, ONLY ~E =:NA:. STAUREU, SOME. DATE: CRiGNAt. 'HARU CORY VER90N Di DDR $JR'vEY MAP :S (XH:SD'cRED 70 5E OUR LF.^.A LT REOr•^N:PrD PRDUUCT. FRUIT VALE AVE. ITEM 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 04-370/ 14111 Palomino Way Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: James &r Kathleen Christensen/Ronald Rossi Ann Welsh, AICP, Associate Planner January 12, 2005 503-68-13 Department Head: ~~ ~J 14111 Palomino Way ~~~~~~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Administrative Decision Appeal Filed Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 11/24/04 11/24/04 12/29/04 12/21/04 1/6/05 This application involves an appeal of an administrative decision to approve the unpermitted construction of an elevated deck with outdoor kitchen within six feet of the side property line of a 45,716 square foot parcel located in the Hillside Residential District. The property owner was issued a stop work order on September 21, 2004 because an outdoor kitchen and deck was being constructed without benefit of permits. On November 24, 2004 the Director made a determination to approve the construction pending receipt of complete plans and filing of a building permit. The neighbor was notified of the approval via e-mail and filed an appeal from the administrative decision on November 24, 2004. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the administrative decision was based upon erroneous information and recommends that the Planning Commission support the appeal. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Stop Work Notice 3. 1993 Building Permit and Site Plan for Exterior Decks 4. 2001 Site Plan for Administrative Review depicting deck configuration 5. Aerial photo of area 6. Photos submitted from neighbor's property 7. Letter from property owner dated November 29, 2004 8. Plans, Exhibit "A" • • 2 Od~O~o~; STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: Hillside Residential District GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Hillside Conservation, which permits a maximum density of .5 dwelling units per net acre. Maximum intensity of building and impervious coverage 15,000 square feet or 25% of site area, whichever is less. MEASURE G: Not a~ licable PARCEL SIZE: 45,716 square feet gross AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average slope of lot is 23% GRADING REQUIRED: The deck project did not involve any additional grading. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of constructing adeck/outdoor kitchen on an existing single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The deck is wooden with impervious the surface. The wall, which would face the neighbor's property, would be cement plaster with exterior groupings of stone veneer. 3 ~®®®®~ Hillside Residential Proposal Code Requirements Lot Size 45,716 sq. ft. 87,120 sq. ft. Lot Coverage Maximum Allowable 25% of lot area or 15, 000 House 2,756 sq. ft. sq. ft. whichever is less. Garage 580 sq. t. Driveways 3,620 sq. ft. Pool &t Pool Deck 1,430 sq. ft. Misc. Landings .500 sq. ft. Deck Conversion 500 sq. ft. TOTAL 9,386 sq. ft. 11,429 sq. ft. Floor Area Maximum Allowable Main Floor 2,756 sq. ft. Upper Floor 868 sq. ft. Garage 58o sq. ft. TOTAL 4,204 sq. ft. 5,064 sq. ft. Setbacks Minimum Requirement Front 57 ft. 30 ft. North Side (deck) 6.6 ft. X16 ft. North Side (house) 21 ft. 20 ft. South Side (house) 72 ft. 20 ft. Rear 110 ft 50 ft. Height Two Story Maximum Allowable 32.6 ft. - 25.3 ft. 26 ft. Section 15-80.010(b) -Above ground decks no part of which is more than 4 feet above finished grade may extend into a required yard not more than 4-feet. Section 15-80.010 (c) -Decks which are not above finished grade may be constructed within any required yard Section 15-80.030(e) Unenclosed garden structures. Subject to approval by the Community Development Director, unenclosed garden, ornamental and decorative structures such as gazebos, lattice work, arbors and fountains may be located no closer than six feet from a side or rear property line and shall not exceed eight feet in height, plus one additional foot in height for each additional foot of setback from the side and rear property line in excess of six feet, up to a maximum height of ten feet if the structure is still. located within a required side or rear yard. Section 15-80.030(g) Barbeques. Permanent barbeques, such as those constructed out of brick or masonry, may be located no closer than six feet from the rear property line and shall not exceed four feet in height. 4 • • • ®®~~~~ PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant has partially constructed without permits a deck with an outdoor kitchen consisting of sink, gas grill, fireplace, pizza oven and icemaker. The outdoor kitchen is elevated on the deck and enclosed with a privacy wall, which is at the closest point within 6 feet 6 inches of the property line. The privacy wall according to the plans would range from 8 feet at the lowest point to 10 feet at the corner fireplace, with the pizza oven wall having a height of 13 feet as measured from the existing grade. The outdoor kitchen is constructed on a deck, which is supported by a cinder block wall at the outer perimeter of the deck. The height of the deck is shown on the plans as extending to 4 feet above the existing grade. The dimensions of the deck are approximately 40 feet long by 20 feet wide. The deck extends 21 feet from the existing house. The project was constructed without building permits and is currently under a stop work order. The outdoor kitchen was placed under stop work order in September 2004 when neighbors filed a formal complaint with the building department about the wall and outdoor kitchen being constructed in close proximity to the property line. At that time the wall was about 4 feet higher than the plans currently depict and a heavy wooden trellis was constructed about two feet above the wall. The owner's were given permission to remove the trellis and a portion of the wall after the stop work order in order to mitigate some of the non-conformity. The property owner met with the Director and indicated that the deck was existing and had been legally permitted by a previous permit and that the outdoor kitchen was built upon the existing permitted deck. On the basis of this information, the Director made the determination that the deck was a legal non-conforming structure that had been permitted. The decision was that if the height of the wall would be lowered and the trellis removed, the revised plans would be approved as an unenclosed garden structure upon application for a building permit. The Director then informed the neighbors, that the project was approved and that they had a right to appeal the decision. They filed an appeal on November 24, 2004. In researching the background for this report, the files contained one relevant permit. A permit for exterior decks was issued in 1993. The plans for this deck depict dimensions, 24 feet long by 20 feet wide. The deck plans show the deck extending from the existing house 10 feet 10 inches (See Attachment 3). Thus, the 1993 plans depict a deck in the same location as the current deck but the dimensions of the deck that has been constructed are approximately 16 feet longer than the deck permitted in 1993. The 1993 deck permit was issued but there was no final inspection on the deck and this permit expired. The Planning and Building files do not have any documentation to support the permitting of the additional 16 feet, which did not appear on the 1993 plans. • ~®~~®~ 3= The additional 16 feet of decking which did not show on the 1993 plans, encroach into the side yard in a manner, which is inconsistent with the requiremE>nts of the zoning ordinance. On the basis of the files it appears that the deck was extended, at some point in time, approximately 16 feet longer than the 1993 permit permitted. This extension made the deck nonconforming since decks, which are not more than four feet .above the existing finished grade, may extend no more than four feet into the side yard setback. This research suggests the conclusion that the Administrative Decision was based upon erroneous information supplied by the property owner. In light of this new information staff recommends that the appeal be upheld and that the plans be revised to comply with the zoning regulations. Staff makes the following recommendations: 1. The deck foundation walls were built within the root zone of protected native trees without benefit of the City Arborist's review of the plans. These plans should be submitted to the Ciry Arborist for recommendation on how to mitigate any damage which may have incurred to the 18 inch live oak tree and the 30 inch redwood and the 20 inch redwood which are in close proximity to the cinder block wall that was constructed to support the outdoor kitchen. 2. The portion of the deck which encroaches more than 4 feet into the side yard should be lowered to finished grade to comply with Section 15-80.010 (c) of the Zoning Ordinance which allows that decks which are not above finished grade maybe constructed in any side yard. 3. The barbeque should be moved out of the side yard setback in accordance with Section 15-80.030 which requires that permanent barbeques be located no more than 6 feet from the rear property line and be not more than four feet in height. CONCLUSION In conclusion staff finds that the Administrative Decision was based upon erroneous information and recommends that the Planning Commission support the appeal.- STAFF RECOMMENDATION Support the appeal by adopting the Resolution for application 04-034. • • 6 0~®®~~ • Attachment 1 • ®~Q~~~ RESOLUTION NO.OS- APPLICATION N0.04-370 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMN{ISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Appeal of Decision Rossi -Christensen / 14411 Palomino Way WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission considered an appeal of the Administrative Decision to approve an outdoor walled kitchen and deck as an unenclosed garden structure; and WHEREAS, on January 12, 2005 following a duly noticed and conducted de novo Public Hearing at which all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, the Planning Commission considered all testimony and evidence presented including all materials prepared by city staff, the appellant, the property owner and other interested parties and rendered its decision on the Appeal sought by James and Kathleen Christensen for reversal of the decision to approve the proposed outdoor walled kitchen and-deck as an enclosed accessory structure; and WHEREAS, California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 Governs any judicial review of this decision, and each applicant and each appellant is hereby notified that if such applicant or appellant intends to seek judicial-review, the deadline for any such court action is not later that the 90 day following the date on which this decision became final (this decision shall become final on the date that the Notice of the Decision is mailed to the applicant and the appellant), and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the Administa~ative Decision was based upon erroneous information and the appeal should be upheld. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the appeal filed by James and Kathleen Anderson is GRANTED and the Administrative Decision is overturned with the following conditions: 1. The property owner shall apply for an arborist report and Exhibit "A" should be submitted to the City Arborist for recommendation on how to mitigate any damage which may have occurred to the 18 inch live oak tree and the 30 inch redwood and the 20 inch redwood tree which are in close proximity to the cinder block wall that was constructed to support the outdoor kitchen. 2. The property owner shall comply with the recommendations in the Arborist Report and make any necessary design revisions. ~~~~~~ 3. The portion of the deck which encroaches more than 4 feet into the side yard should be lowered to comply with Section 15-80.010(c) of the Zoning Ordinance which allows that decks which are not above finished grade maybe constructed in any side yard. 4. The barbeque should be moved out of the 20 foot side yard setback in accordance with Section 15-80.030 which requires that permanent barbeques be located no more than 6 feet from the rear property line and be not more than 4 feet in height. S. The "optional cut out" which is depicted on Sheet 3 of the plans should be removed from the plans and is prohibited in order to ma<Yimi~e privacy for the neighbors. Section 1. All applicable requirements of the State, County, Ciry and other Governmental entities mustbe met. C~ 2 ®~4~~~ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 12th day of January 2005 by the follov~~ing roll call vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission ' ions hereof This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and Condit and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby. acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • ®®~~~.~ • Attachment 2 • ®~®~~~. -NOTICE - . vvor so -VIOLATION - BY ORDER OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OF THE CITY of SARATOGA CONTACT THE BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION WlTuin~ ~~ un~ ~Qe "~O FURTHER WORK MAY BE DONE ON THIS STRUCTURE WITHOUT CLEARANCE FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OWNER'S NAME ~ DATE f LOCATION OF PROPERTY PERMIT (IF EXIS NG) VIOLATION INSPECTOR /Q ~ CITY OF SARATOGA BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION 13777 FRUITVALE AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 (408) 868-1201 ANY UNAUTHORIZED PERSON REMOVING THIS SIGN WILL BE PROSECUTED Complaint ~: _ Via: Time:_ ~~~~~ ate Closed: ~ APN: ~~ U ~~~~~~s -~ ~~~~ . -------..---- ---.~. warning Leh 1 Follow Up Date: ,`. ]'`Letter Sent: 2 Follow Up Date: Final Letter Sent: ~ 3 Follow Up Date: , Case Status: Forwarded to Ciry Attorney: .fictions: ~ • Attachment 3 ®~~~~~ • art, r , - J ' ~ _ ~~ f ~ I'J• ~ -~ ~ ~ ~. .. I c ~ .'t ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ < <D-• - f ~. Ci • - .` ~ P ~ ~ III ! . I•I ~ . _. . . _._ _ i CI .~ _ . _ . .... il l ~~ W f®. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ® .. ~ ~: . c ~ : I I .., m . ~, ~r~,~:~t ~ An ~ ~.ri! ..• ..................... .. iy~f':> { • • ®®~~~~ ..,. __ Pill 0/ YO .., .... ~.,.....~ .,....5 ...p ,couc . ~-• ~~,~ ~~' ~ AY/f OM11101Yr ~ NI- ..•[~~. H,~r ors 1• ~ b •.°~ . 19fOtl 09Yg0Y •fYw tiw +e/ .~. ..,o....,.~ ~~t ° - r,,~ _ f710>f0 YOIYf11X7 ~00~ 2~J8JM@1 ~;'~.~'i r. ~ • • • ®~~~~~ a- !S O V ~u.an X11-~---W ~/~ 11® lllf~! iW ~ ® ~ II~ ~t~ (~ ~~ A /!7 ~- -~C ~~ ~~ ~~ "o~ FO~ ~~ ~ :~ ~: ~~ ~ ~~~ ~: ~~ -~ D ~~. ~ !t \ i ~~'~ ~ } ~ qq ~'S : ; ~ ~~ q ~\ x I ,~s ~ ~ h O ~ ~ ~ n °a~ ~~ S ~. ~ o ~ ,~ ~, ~ , _ _........__ ..._,~_[ ~ ~~ ~,, ; _ __ ~n ~ ._ .o r• _ . ~ _. .-_ _ r ,, s.._ _ ~ ~ Y F ~\ ~~. ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~g # ~ . ~~ ` a ~~ -- - ---- \ %, ~~ ~ _ a ,, ~~ ~ ~~i ,:.. ,, :.~,_:._ ~. . . .. .: _ ___ ~ . _.. Q 9 ~ ~~ x . '.:'~ i. :. ~.: d Q J W O to gGg' m _ P ~°~ F ~ o h fi', >~ ' ~it~"5a~=r~; i Yfig = Y'-=i~~s ~~~ r ` iig e :~ ~9 Sao = Ro 0 vii a.g ;d oa d oaa oo .<"3~ erg` ,~ eon ~ b: (1 P ~~-~°- ~mOwG '" ~~ ~ _.~ r e_ - - ~~ ~~ ~~ ~< , ~~ s4 i v ad~~ F~~88a~88 ',E;~ ~ ~ NN~N yC~ ~ : ~ : ~ M '- LJ ° ~ ~ °_ ~ ° 3 s h 'eeeeeeeee ~4!-~~~~ {Ng~~ ~F ~ .~ vi~~~~~ ~ ~~ Z ~ i ._ ~eaeeeeeee ~'1~~~~ `~ ~~ > _ ~~ ~ 3~ titi N ti +~ : e y Attachment 5 • " ®®~~~~ ~,, s ~ ~,k '~. .~ ~ ,f. ,~ `•~ ~,~ ~:~ {a.-. ~.~ . '~' { ti ~~, ,~irYf"'r - ~ rte'.. *...t ~hi~ ~ f. „y _ i _ , ,..~ ~ ..; ~fiu~ a '~ '"~- ~ ~(? ~. ~ ,}~.:1 ' `f ,1. ~. f: ~)'y~. * ~ .. ~t'}i <. F~~'~s - ,may., .1" ~ ~_~'~ ~~ ,~ x ~ _ ~ ~ I ~ i~ ~t t, I ~ a YJ ~ I ~~~ 2 ~ ~ ~{ ~~. ri ~ ~~ . '! y~ f I~ ~`- ~'~ - - 7~ - ~~~ LL~ T ~~.~ ~ ,~ ~ `~ ~ 'fir. 'rK SyL s lYr(T.+~ `"~~ ~ s ,r ESP s ~ '"'4'ql~~' -.~~at~ _. _ ' ~._ ~~ ..: a 4 ~, i , ~~ ~L ± < e j!~ ~ ~~~~~~ may` ~ -~` ~ +~ ~ ~ ~ >.r ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ aj yr' ~,+~~ `+ .> .. ~~;~ .:#~'»` J '. ~ L' 11f~ ~j~, ~~ "ai Vic; ~. ~ r-' ~, . ~_ ~? _ 3 P ~ ,: ~.~Y ~ ~ ~' . ~ t. t. _x ~ ~yt` , , ~ ~ .r ~~~! t'Sr ~, { • Attachment 6 • ®~®.1~~ ~,."" ~ '~r,;~ qtr %uF,'~.~ .~ ;, . ~. ~~ G. ~~~ ~ - ~ ~ ~~.~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~ _ i~ ~ 3 f . .. . _ N ~` ~ G1 G1 > .~ ~ .~ ~~ r ~ ~~.L ~.. ~ ~ r~ ' V;k'. ~ f ''t rl ~ .~ Y~ `~ .it _ ~. -~v~~14 ~ ~~ I ~ x f ~ f t ~, a t -, ~ ~~ F s v~a~'k;y .,$ .~. 7 y ~ y Y V L '4 • "~ E ~ ~X r ~. / 0 Y= t J` ~ l ) r ~ i , ~ - /~ ... f ,~ ` f! J ~~; _ •~ y ~f '4 '..'pig; . ~° '!~ , ..~ ~ ° ~_ 0 ~ •~ +, . H ~ i 1 `~ ~ i "S i `~ ~~-y ~ ~ ~- ft - 3 r ~- ~. t;. ~ ~ ~. ~ ~~ f, ~ ; ~- - ~ ~~ a~ ~siLl~.. ^. * ?J z ., e ~/ t ~? 4r y.. - ~ 0 !r k _ ~ ~- t 3 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ y.. ~ z > 3 .~ ~ ~,-~ .. ~j , i. > ~ ~ ~' 4 ;. . . ... ~ 4 all r ~~ ~, l^4 ~~ . ~ L'~~ ~.~ ,~ #~'. `~ ~ .~ a ~' ~ ~ 1' Shy 1~ } ~ ~ti~ / ~ ~ }~ rF. i -~ ~y 7i ~Y, i _ . .~ ._.- ~f= ~. 5~t . 'r .' J . ~i~a9w~w _ r~ ~' N~f ;. i ~ t 3 +y a ~% ~ ~~ ~~- ~~ ~~~ "'~ .~_ ~ ~~''. ~~ ~~~ ..:~. .^ ~ ° :1 iy i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y y- j _. 1, 4~~w~(' Z, <'~. . t k ~~ ~~ ~ ., t~ fr n R f: F~ ~~ t/ 'PaM ~ . r ii-~ ~ ~ ~ w ~r f +~ ~. y`)~~~ ~ ~ ~ ,~~ •"f ~' r.. r ~ ~ ~~ ~ ti k r ~. Q ?+r? f { ~.~ 'T ~~'tr , t ht- ..: 1l t-+f Ham. +~ -f. ` i rp '~ 1 ~.. 7~ ~ n. ~~ ~ y a y j ~ 3f C, r t ~ ~H~- ~..~~j ~. ®~®~~~ • • • xrrk"~ i~4 t r,rk Ftle ~~ 7.~~? :f z - '"~ f _ y ~~ Nv ti* ~ r ~ z '` a~ S ``~`' {r'~'e.:°4 ~`~~ ~ _ 'iii ,-~~7 ~~ x r r '~_ ~'~ ~ ~ ` ~ ;: t P ,. Y YI y4 ~ ~ 14 ~~~. Y 'e'~~~~ T~ r' ~ r_ I f w'z ' TI r r ~~_,: ~yy/}* I~ f1 .,4~x t. ! .. ~ ,~" s. f *. tl nl ~ y~ ~~ . .r ~"~ r j - k ,},, ~f ~ ~ ~~ r;, - .: ~ l ~~ r t .G r ~' ~f+C~"" ~~ ~ 7~ _ ~_ / j ~ ~ ~• -~; `~ rye .~' ~ ~ rF.-~ . ~ .]~~ ~-~~ k ~ r +'~ 't~ ..~ r- d ~ C ~1ti •~a/ 1 ~ ~~r." .,~~ ~ r ._ r ,,~ . ...:~ • _ ~.. .~ .. .w L ~ •~ " ,. iR-f~r ..'> ~_ r! )~... ~, f a ~t~~ ~'~a ~ ~ ~ - .r' ~` ' ;~ { f ~{ . a 1. .' ~ 7 'y.# ~ ~,' -fat-t _ f ~ .- ii ,,. ' ._.xs-.~~=z~:i _: ~r-~sE_r~. ~i".~,.~-Tyr..., i.,_ O L O ®®®®~~ • • Q. O L N-- ®®®®~ras z s ~ 1 ° :r ---- f f b ~~ ~' r :: ~ 3'ys 1 ~` ?~ ~~ ~ X rte- c~ ~ ,~"~~ ~.r.~h s a a A ~~~ k a - p ~~~ t 'mac ~~ ~~ , ~ ~` '. -' ` f . `_ ~ ~~ - ti Z. t a ~.' , ~ _ Y a .,Y' _ k ~~T '"'~ yy ? 's-~~ ~" ~ - r "S~: y ~G `~ *~ r ~ - zip ~~`~ l: _ ate; ,-mot, . ^„ ~~' '~ - -~~; '{ -~-~-~a -- - ~ „ .. ~ - , __-_ .....~.....,...,,,.,..~.~.,.~_ ..r.o...~..~.-... -~,.».~..r ~...~~ .~,_..- ~--- _ _ ~_.._~. ~_. ~...,~. T. r. ~7 i' s~ ,: y .~ 1 j~ ~, +~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~~' ~ ~e_ y~ ~; ~ `,;,~ .11 ~~ -!,~ , y 1 ~ .IC ~}.i ~}. ~y v- :~ ~ ~' `~, ~ ~ -~~ z, i ~. ~~ s ~ *:" ~' ~- ~ . ~~. -( y. !~ .: I~` 3 ~ ~'~' .; 4 '' ~~ "` , ~ yF. .X~ ¢ t ad ~__. ~~• ~ ~ ~l r ;rt :x ~.» / ~. ; „ ~ ~~~ ~ `1 ~~ ` / 1~ t} `fit ~ . ~' '~ ~` {{ ~:~ x~ ~.4~ ~~ ~' r '°I i r i lll~~~ .7 1 ~~ ~~ r' ~~` ~ ~ ~ - Y y ~ ~, ~ „ #, a -- f . ,,,, k ~, +~ x '4 ~~,y~i ~f ~ i. t, ~ " ~~ s,• p I+C ~~ 1f. ~ k i. ~ ` i Q. s ~?_ ~'; ~_ ~ ~4 r / ' -~ _,y~ ~ ~,ti_ k ~ ~ <~ _1 ' ,y, Y 3 ^~~ W O W ~ ~ ~ U O O O N '> ~. ~ ~ C e O U ~ ~ ~ ~ L ®~~`i~/~/d~ • • N ~ O U O O ~ ~ `~- O V ~ O ~ •> N ~ to ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ._ U ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ • ®®®~~~ • C. 0 O ~. O ~- ~®~~~~ • • ~~ ~ ,,, "r,t ~.Z~. `5 ~~~~ ' t ~~-~i~ t~ ;.rte ~, '~~r .'C' k ~, ~: ~~ - .; t ~, .. T ~- ~ z t~. ..e+ ~ `•~ ,, _ ~~~` <r ~. fib. ~4;. ~~~ :.; ? F<. }~ t ` a..; , f r- Y _ ,,~.. ~' f;,+~~; ~~ ' ~ ~! 4 , i. c { 'ax '~.'~ t c. ~f zx ~t,' i ~ ~ :?; ~ i ' ~ .1 Ja. ' 3~ Q. 0 Q. U '~ 0 -~--~ L O n~ W .~ U Y O W ~. ; ` .~~, , ~.-,z ~ y-~, :~ ~~ ''. -,~,.,, ~ ~ of ~. U J x,`i ~ a,7~r ''~~`~'~' - F -"~ F „Zi ~ `-?Y ~~ t~ f,, ~ ~ ~~ ry ~n ~ej ~~i`,.. ~lr, ~-~~.. ~_ 'fir. ~. fi:, ^.. y~;.,+a* lr S C v.. ~ t. t .~ V - M1~ _ n.<< ~.. ~V.~ ~ f-. ~4~ t _ ~ y. Y ` ~ S' .f E'L ~rI 1 a. i ~~ l~~ 'ti ' .._ 3' l.li.~ '1 . .~.= ~~ _ ~ ~ ~f:` f,{ *r i ~ ~ '~ ~ t, ~''' ..tt'. . ~~ C4 t :~. t' . > ~ ~ ~ r t ~ ~ r~~ Y ~ ~ ,~ , ~} s ~V J ~~ ~, yy ~~k ~y ~4_. I ~' -~ , ~ ~ ~~~ t~~~ ~ lti r ~~~ r ~ ~~~ r Y, - .*/'.. ,~ ~~ w ^"~~• ~~{ ~. ~ ~ ~ -'~ `~~. 'rl,x '~ 1' 'i1 1~ L '~ * • ~, Y .~ ~: -!~4`, z`F~~ L~ ~ ~~ r~~. r ~fR„h YY~ y==` t ~ ~~'~~ ~~~ ~~~;,> ~~- ~ =~ ~~ ~ ._ : 7 c ~ -mot, i-w~" ~~~ ~ ~ k ?~ ~T' ~~~ ~ f r!'„,,~ s ~ ~ .~ ' " ~ x :~' Ty '~ .' C,. ~' `~: ~' ~ .f r .. r,-... ~s'f u. ~n __ ~ ~ ' ie e ~ ~:~ 1 4 ,~ /~ . ~ = , .Try ,t , :~ , ~ ~ sir 3 ~ r ~~ fn., .wf /.. F~ ~~~ ~~ , F x ~~'0 ~: +~~; I?lam i~k~p !i kn w ,~. ,, ,.~ ~ , fi ,fy .,~- { {+ 1 ,~ s-'.. A+j~'~ A ~~ G. J~1'~A ~ ', 4 7 r f , ~.~~ R ~ ;' ~,} / ~ ~~ ~J 1 ' y • `.O `Y Q. U L... Q O a3i ®~~ V ~~ • • .7 (6 ~-+ C Q1 U +~ O i ~.. N ~~~~a~ ~ • • ~~~~~~ w mar--~-.- "'~T- ~ _ "'s' _ - "T'"_y ~~' ~"'~'' ~ ~~ r Yy~,• `'k` 'k, ~ ~1 i~~h~y ~~ t~ ~../ f^! k '.4 L ,~iA~ { ~ tom. :.:: r fiy p 8 M1w - c e°' ~ r ~ - r ~ ,w ~ ~s "r r a p ,~ x e ' , t .~, M ~ ~» ..,.,,,, r ~<,,.~~~ .~, f+ 4~ ~ ! ~ 1 ~ +;~ 9~ ~ . ,.:'. ~ I t ~. ~ T , t 'K ~ + ~ I .:: ~ a 1 i ' ~ f ~:. } ~4~.qI i i ~ ~~ii III III w a n ~ }, ~ .r> x ~. ~ ~. F *~ ,~ . ~_~ : s, ..~ y.~ ~ ~ .~f.t A w ~St ~y Ill ~I ~q r t. +. 't' v. , _,7" - F~'t ~ ~. yet ~,~I _, p_ .. : - ~ t't ~ L` • ' ~r. ~ } Y C F _ ~' 4 , ~~r ~~ yy -yi 'i ` _ ~ "t . i ~. ~ ~= ~ ~~~ oA ~~~1 ~ ':; ,~` ~{+ r ~+~'PylMic _ ~~~ . ~-. r ,~ ~ ' ~~ , ' ' ' : c ,~ x r: ti r. ~~ ~. .... r }~'~` Lk~t.4~~"'lam .6 f } ~r~ 4:.~ x ~~~ ~ ~ ~.~- ~~ #; ~a ~~ ~ °~~+t. - ~ r~ x 4ls ',N ~ ~ ~F ~ x~.,s R1_ > "~r ~$k~ • r • ~ . ~ -, w ~ i ~~ ~ ...~c ~ ~ ~~~ r~- ~ f .. ~ .~- ~l ~ ' ~+~ .~ `. ~ r ~~ ~ ' ;Y' ~ "~ t ~ ~1- R ~.-' ~ ~r=fit '~. i ~ ~ ~:~~ y~i ~ ~ ,.' ~a- ~~ _ ~,.. ~, Y ~ ~ ~~;, ~,-~yt ~ ~_ 7 ~ `c ~ r ~~~yyy Jx"~ _,x/~ti-+.~. ` y~"'h~-~jV~ ;~ _^ ~ ~_ eta ~~, '_. ~ ((( RF ~ ~~ . ,"+ ~ ~ h7AwiY .k ` w ~ ~ ~ ~ tj y'. .~ S i ~~ ,~ _ tr' x k„ J ~ ~ y7~ ~ .DIRT ~ ~ ~~ ~'rt Ys ~" -;' ~ )~ w/' k~ r v t~~l ' ~ . ~ `~ i r"` xl < j ~.~ 111 71!'~ '~' ~ .v ~ ~ ' } ~ - - -1.,~~.,.t~L_~ _ ~ ~{~~. _'z _.."~ .._. .a.~ .u .. . :- VLF- O N C t • ®~~~~• -~ ' £ '~ ~'~,~ ~~ .~.. -~ ;~ ~ ~ ~~ ,. ~~ ~ ~~ jr~ ~'"r k 7L" i ~' ` Y~~ .t~'~ ~'~i f~ ` rrt1~ aw; z ~`y. ,,,,yy~iF r , . --. ~'F\ ~ r. r ~ ,g~p~ ' r .S~ ~~ ~ ~ M '~ "' ~ ~ .11t~1 { ~~ ~ 'y ~~ t ~~r y ~~ ',, a J ~~ F~ J .. ~TTr ;"c > '~; xS tin . ~-~~ ~ ~ '~ , ~~~ ~~ , , ~` a l ~ 1 f `i_ . ~ ~~ ~: ~- ~ M mall ~, ~ + r ,~, l ik . E. ~.w; + l `C ~ .. , .~ -.. r f ~ " _..~ ~; ~ ~.' t; i4 w ~ ~ C~~ ~ w ~ , ~- 's ~ t ~` : ~t gL'~~, 'r « ~' rad i . r ~,,:iL~.. ~ ~ ` ~~ L~. .~ .. ~Af. •~( ,~ 1 ,y ~ "~~t sr . < 5 i?„m~k~ ~3 9 »~. ~ * 7r~j-r ~ ~ ~ ~:*T ~ }I Y r jry ,. ~ ~~ 3 ~_ L ~ _T i, k v i V ~.I ~+~ ~~ t:°ir:.,... ~~ I t t t` t~"~-~z 1iC.~ ~` ~~: ~ ~ '~ ~ s:;T ~~ .. , X ..~i ~< ~i i~t ,~ ~- O N L O ~'i.,b° ~ • • M O O N N N Z • r] • ~~3 #; ~ ,,i`1 ~ ~ . ~~ ~: . ::~, ;,~., _==.: } ~'~ . _~ Kµ ~ 3 - ~, ~ ~~ Y '~ ~~ ~ -~ j ,~ .y sG 4,~ . t " `~ ~ . 4 ~ *9~`~ ~ :, M ~~ ~ ~ O a~ N ~. a ~ ~ s... N O z \y ®®~~(y0 [ 1 E Y' ~ ^4 F p F: a . r ~ ;.x ~ ~i'~r .~ dY ~~ ~ ~ ltj ~S ~ ~~~' ~ '~n i r _ V ;r T~ r. ~J F _ :~ is 4 h- r~ 1 z~ ~~ ~ ~ d ~a ~ ~~ ,~ i p ~ ~ ~ ~ k 1 f ~~ i~ ~ `~~~ -i ~~ ~ F' d'~ --y 1 ~ _ ~ ~_ 6 ~. ~~ 6 7 p ~. }f %'~_ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ f ~ ~~- . ~ ~u~ ,:, ~ ~ ~ ~; ~~~~ ~ t is"~ "'dr , `' E s N ~ ..a ~ • 3 ~ ~ a ~ ~; ~~ ~' ~ ~~ ' f F r ~ f d ~, I r~ r ~ ;~ 1) ~~ ~ ~ Y~ ~ 1 f { 1 ~ ~ x 1 tr~ ~~ + :, .:~ ,':~ , .~ rA ~~ ~{ `x 1 Ct {'~ f ~ '~ ~ ~t ~ f ~T~3h'~ 4 .. ~S~ .''t ~t I~ f ~ ~ ~ `k ~_~ O N •~ a -~..~ ®~~~ `` ~~ t ' ~ ~ ~r~ r ~ YY ~ ~ r '4 ""` ~. ~b f , r*'~.- _ ~ t ~ ~. .. ~- r ~ ~ '~ ~ - r c s ~ a= a. v ~ ~ '; .: ~~ ._ _ ~; ,.~ .mss r1 ~_.~- ~ ~ _ ~, a= , };~ K ~ ,y ~fi r-, e r ~Q. "s r _ +a. r-m'aw'-~Yl~ ~ ""u ,~ ,F `. y - a t _ . r .~ 4 4 ,~',1 ~ .-. t war ~1 ~r..u }'TA~T~} . F -~r ~ i sal ' ~ i ~ .....+ r..,-., f ~~' ~,;.;. ~ rya ~ ....rwr~ Mr' ~ :7.' ~ ?~ y.~ ' "+tsMr~ #/ t'~' .~, ~r T 1 '~ ~ ra r •~ p J x ,,~ ~:, w ~~ t ~~ ~ , ,~ :~~;: :~ N~ , ~ , ,.~ ., w ~ ~,~ ~. _,,, ~..~ 7i` f{f~ ~?~ [r. ,~ r~ _T 1 ~' , ( s- ~._._ f. ~ ~ ~ `Y ~.~.~~ ~: t ..~v~ ~-. . ~' -~ ~~w~_.~. R P.. ~. ~. ~.. ~ ~', N O N ®~~~`~ -~ • _. ~ ~' ] yy w yF ..~ 4r w P .M CTia $ Y J .. . e ~ ~~ "> r .. y r ^~J{ ~ ~+ ~* ~ ~, zL ~~ ~r '"r-..f~~. . ~."~ sx; , ~ ~' x r~ c~ ~ SPx f , ~r~~ ~ ~ ~ 1 a ~ ~' z ~. ~ ,.~ ~ _ ~~} .. l a T, L ~~ ~` ~, y H fits ~;g'VW ~ ~ _ vT ~ .:r c ~.~7+~~~ ~ ~~... iVl. }~ ~~~~ ~ 4 ..y t . ~ ~ Y ~ F• ~~ 1x i k« ~. C? y~~J,~ T ~ ~ M~I~ ~ f ~ 1'r'r r~ f ~i ~?` - ~'L t. > • t t -, r ,~ ~' : t ~~~ ~~~` '. :Y ~` ~- = ~~ r ~" ~ J' ti rr ~': _ ~` 1 ~~"' T x ~ ~r i ,~K~~ ~., ~ ~ ~ s ~;. r ~'~- !` . ~' ~ ~ u T. t ~F' ~.. I r1 ~~ n'z .t a- ;.~ ; ~ "`~ '' ~ ~~l, ~ k F '~ ~ a - .~yS ~' ~'- ~ ~ ~ _ ~~llr' ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~~ ~ • ~, t t i i `, 4 ~ '~ ._~ ~e~ _y ~3 T y X ~ .i{ ~ t F . ,.r i ~: ; ~ 1 ~. ~{{ ~ f 1 f f v ~ ~~ ~ N r O N I ~ ~ ~~ ' ~. t a f , f ~ f ~ . L s qq~~'~ • r~ O O O N L V r.~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ Attachment 7 • ~~~~~~ C~Op~ 1960 The Alameda, Suite 200 San Jose, cA 95126 P (408) 261-4252 F (408) 261-4292 f November 29, 2004 ~. Jim and Kathy Christensen 14055 Palomino Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Jim and Kathy: I was hopeful that we were on the right track when Jim and I met on Saturday, November 20, to discuss our addition. Things seemed cordial, and it looked as though we were on our way to resolve the situation. On Wednesday, November 24, I called both of you twice in the early evening and tried to discuss the situation. In both calls, neither of you would allow me the courtesy to finish what I was saying; each of you hung up on me after making a rather angry remark. Both of you had hung up on me twice before, but I assumed after our seemingly cordial meeting on Saturday that that would not occur again. Obviously, I was mistaken. As I understand it, Jim called Dawne on Tuesday, November 23, and told her that he believe I knew at our meeting on Saturday the 20th that the planners had preliminarily rejected our idea and proposal and that I actually knew that on Friday, November 19. Therefore, he contended, and told Dawne, that I was trying to mislead both of you when we met in my backyard to go over the plans that we have now engaged an architect to draw, which significantly modified the work as it now exists. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, and I think if you verify it, you will find that our architect did not even know about the preliminary decision from the City until Monday of last week, the 22"d, and I had no idea when we met on Saturday. The minute I found out on Monday, I called you, and you called back on Tuesday but told us not to return the call if I got home after 9:00 p.m. As you know, I am studying for my Master's in history at San Jose State and get home on Tuesdays about 9:30 p.m., and therefore I called you back on Wednesday evening. In that discussion, it was quite evident that you contend that we were trying to pull the wool over your eyes and the City's eyes with regard to getting a permit. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. As I told you, if I were really trying to fool somebody, either you or the City of Saratoga, why would I do it at the same time I'm building a family room with a permit, knowing that inspectors are coming and going periodically to inspect the site? That would be a pretty dumb move on my part if I were trying to fool anybody, and it should be pretty good ®~~~~ Jim and Kathy Christensen November 29, 2004 Page 2 of 2 • evidence for you or anyone else that we really didn't think we needed a permit. In fact, we obtained a permit from the city for the family room on :tune 1, 2004 (Permit #04 00000 735). The backyard addition was not stopped by the City until September 21, 2004. In any event, the fact that you will now not agree to anything; the fact that you insist that the landscaping is not sufficient (even though I've put in mature redwoods and maples at a cost exceeding $8,000.00) because the trees might take a year to grow and completely screen the project; and -the fact that you contend that since we're not going to be on the deck all the time, you'd rather look at the deck than at a screening wall, even though it will be planted, is disconcerting. As I have repeatedly told you, if you had come to me during any phase of construction, I would have immediately tried to work something. You chose instead to go to the City. When I met with both of you earlier, you said the reason you went to the City and didn't call me is that you didn't know my phone number. As I said at that time, my phone number is and always has been listed, and, furthermore, we are next- door neighbors. In any event, how are neighbors supposed to communicate and resolve issues and potential disputes if one neighbor hangs up on the other, as both of you_ did in both my calls to you? Again, I find. this distressing, and I believe it creates a situation where it's impossible to resolve this dispute. Frankly, I think the best thing would be for us to go to some sort of mediation to see if we can work-this out. We intend to live here for a long time. We've lived here for over 25 years, and we've never once had a problem with a neighbor. This neighborhood stuck together during the 1989 earthquake and every other issue that's-come up, and I want that to continue. Therefore, I'm willing to go to a mediation -with a retired judge or someone else qualified to mediate this kind of dispute to see if we can get back on the right foot. However, we can't do that if you continue to hang up on us and refuse to even discuss the issue. You have consistently said that whatever the City allows, you'll live with, but you won't explain what it is you're willing to live with. You've said that as long as the City allows it and it doesn't involve a variance, you'll live with it, but then you keep saying things to the contrary. As I mentioned to you in our phone conversation, the City could allow a lot of different uses for that area. Quite by accident, we followed the City's guidelines completely for this type of construction, including the landscaping buffer, asking you repeatedly about colors and materials. You say that you didn't know a wall was going up, and frankly I wish I had been clearer. in the beginning, letting you know exactly what we were doing. That would have been the smart thing for me to do. But I have left you at least four voicemail messages asking what color you wanted, what kind of stone you wanted, what kind of landscaping you wanted, etc. It would have been very easy for you to say that you didn't want anything or say what you've said consistently -that you'll live with whatever the City allows -which, again, to me, is ~~~®~~ s ~ P r • Jim and Kathy Christensen November 29, 2004 Page 3 of 3 disingenuous, not very neighborly, and seems to be motivated by spite, ill-will, and anger because you are convinced we tried to pull something on you. As I tried to say in my second conversation with Kathy, we never intended to fool anybody or pull the wool over anybody's eyes. That's not the way I live my life, and anyone who knows anything about me will tell you that. In any event, I .guess we'll leave it up to you as to whether you want to resolve the anger and hostility issues. I guess we'll have to leave it that you will abide by whatever the City decides. However, as I've told you repeatedly, as far as any design issues (color, landscaping, size, height, etc.), I am more than willing to work with you, but I have to do it with the understanding that you'll be civil and reasonable, that you will not be so angry that you hang up on me, and that you will try and listen to and work with us as neighbors in the world that we all live in, instead of just demanding that everything be done your way. Life is too short to get into these kinds of disputes. They're distressing, they always escalate, and they always get expensive, and I'm already into this thing for quite a bit of money. I want to try and keep this situation from escalating at this point, and I'm in good faith in doing so. I just hope that both of you can reconsider your position and be willing to work with us in the way that the law and humanity dictate that people should. )im and Kathy, I want to say again that you know that Dawne and I have gone to great lengths to try to landscape the buffer between our properties and landscape our own property by adding a significant number of trees. We've planted over 20 redwood trees and at least 15 oak trees, along with other landscaping. The fact that there was a buffer between our backyard and your side yard of a huge forest of bamboo obviously made it impossible for you to see what had been there all along. As I've told you, nothing really changed. The deck was there and the corbels were there -admittedly smaller, with a large planter box -but, frankly, because of the bamboo, you could not see anything. We all know, as I have told you repeatedly, that the bamboo was eventually going to affect the redwood-and oak trees, and we thought it best for everyone's sake to remove the bamboo and plant native trees as opposed to putting in a plant that is not indigenous to Saratoga and would ultimately grow in a helter-skelter fashion and cause considerable problems between our two houses. Very truly yours, • RONALD R. ROSSI ~~~~~~~ ~ .. ~ - ~' i b= ~' n ., ~: a- '.~.. _ `_~,~ :: ~=- • • r~ u ITEM 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: App # 04-176/ 13095 Pierce Road Applicant/Owner: Walter Chapman/Ken Koenig Staff Planner: John F. Livingstone, AICP Interim Community Development Director Type of Application: Design Review for a new single-family house Date: January 12, 2005 APN: 503-16-050 Department Head: ~~~ 13071 Pierce Road o®o®o~. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 06/03/04 10/08/04 12/29/04 12/20/04 01/06/05 Request Design Review Approval to construct a new two-story house. The proposed house will be 5,404 square feet. The proposed floor area includes athree-car garage. The structure will also have a 360 square foot cabana and a 1,996 square foot basement. The gross lot size is 54,198 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum building height of the residence will not exceed 26-feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the application for Design Review with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution with conditions 2. City Arborist Report 3. City of Saratoga Noticing Labels, Noticing Affidavit, and Notice 4. Fire District Development Review Comments 5. Applicant's Plans, Exhibit "A" • • ®~O®®:c File No. 04176,• 13071 Pierce Road/Koenig Property STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 54,198 square feet gross AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 10% GRADING REQUIRED: The applicant is proposing 48 cubic yards of excavation for the residence. The City Code does not count basements as grading therefore the basement is not included in this calculation. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposal is Categorically Exempt from the California 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 32.5% 35% Building Footprint 3,505 sq. ft. Patios, Pool, light wells, Cabana and Walkways 5,415 sq. ft. Driveway 2,998 sq. ft. TOTAL 11,918 sq. ft. 12,659 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable Main Floor 2,788 sq. ft. Garage 717 sq. ft. Upper Floor 1,899 sq. ft. Cabana 360 sq. ft. (Basement), not counted (1,996 sq. ft.) TOTAL 5,764 sq. ft. 5,766 sq. ft. Setbacks: Min. Requirement Front 57 ft. 30 ft. Rear 230 ft. 50 ft. ls` /60 ft. 2na Left Side 21 ft. 9'-8" ls`/14'-8" 2nd Right Side 14'-8" 9'-8°' 15C/14'-8" 2nd Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 26 ft. 26 ft. Cabana 13'-3" 15 ft. ~®®~~a~ File No. 04176,• 13071 Pierce Road/KoenigProperty PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant is requesting approval for Design Review to construct a new two-story house. The proposed house will be 5,404 square feet. The proposed floor area includes a three-car garage. The structure will also have a 360 square foot cabana and a 1,996 square foot basement. The gross lot size is 54,198 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum building height of the residence will not exceed 26-feet. The homes in the area vary in age and design with no consistent design pattern. The proposed exterior finish will be a horizontal wood siding. The siding will. be painted gray with white trim. The roof will be a heavy composition shingle. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in Article 15-45.080 of the City Code: (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 neighbors' views. The proposed house is located in approximately the same location as the existing house. . (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Only two protected trees will be removed as part of the proposed plan. One is an Apple tree . and the other a Palm. The City Arborist Report requires replacement trees to be installed equivalent to the value of the removed trees. The applicant has shown a conceptual landscape plan that includes the planting of approximately seven trees and numerous native plants. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The applicant proposing to remove one Apple tree and a Palm tree. The City Arborist Report requires replacement trees to be installed equivalent to the value of the removed trees. The applicant has shown a conceptual landscape plan that includes the planting of approximately seven trees and numerous native plants. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. As recommended in the City of Saratoga's Residential Design Handbook the proposed structure has varying rooflines that act to break up the facade and provide interest to the proposed structure. The applicant is also using horizontal wood siding and bay windows to add character to the structure and reduce bulk. ~~®®~~ File No. 04176,• 13071 Pierce Road/Koenig Property (e) Compatible bulk and height. The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will not exceed the maximum allowed height limit. The traditional design and attention to details will add character to the neighborhood and be compatible in both height and bulk with the varying designs located throughout the neighborhood. (f) Currentgradzngandemsion controlmethods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. The project has received geotechnical clearance from the City Geologist. The project is also providing a bio-swale to allow for storm water filtration and semi-pervious driveway pavers. (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, integrating the structure with the environment, 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. Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The applicant is proposing athree-car garage with open parking provided in the driveway. Trees There are 14 protected trees on the site. Only two protected trees will be removed as part of the proposed plan. One is an Apple tree and the other a Palm. The Ciry Arborist has recommended replacement trees. The City Arborist reports dated June 24, 2004 (attached) contain recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site. The Arborist's recommendations shall be conditions of project approval. A certificate of deposit is also required as a condition of project approval for tree protection. Correspondence The applicant has shown the proposed plans to the adjacent neighbors as documented by the applicant. The neighbors to the north of the applicant's project initially had concerns with the second story but have worked out a compromise. The compromise requires that the neighbors approve the proposed landscaping in the side yard closest to them. The applicant will be required to provide a letter of approval from the neighbors concerning the landscaping prior to the first framing inspection. This has been added as a condition of project approval and noted on the applicant's plans. ~~~®~~ File No. 04-176,• 13071 Pierce Road/Koenig Property GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY Conservation Element Polio Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Land Lase Element Policy 5.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed new house is consistent with the above General Plan Policies in that the proposed project will preserve the large Oak trees on the site protecting the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. The proposed materials and colors will blend the proposed house into the existing landscape and be compatible the other structures in the neighborhood. 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 minimize the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning 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. ~~'®®~~ ~I• • Attachment 1 • ~Q~®®®~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Koenig; 13071 Pierce Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review Approval to build a new two-story house. The proposed house will be 5;404 square feet. The proposed floor area includes a -three-car garage. The structure will also -have a 360 square foot cabana and a 1,996 square foot basement. The gross lot sizE. is 54,198 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum building height. of the residence will not exceed 26-feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public El:earing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from -the California . 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 as stated in Article 15- 45.080 of the City Code 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 neighbors' views. The proposed house is located in approximately the same location ~~s the existing house. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Only two protected trees will be removed as part of the proposed plan. One is an Apple tree and the other a small Palm. The City Arborist Report requires replacement trees to be installed equivalent to the value of the removed trees. The applicant has shown a conceptual landscape plan that includes the planting of approximately seven trees and numerous native plants. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The applicant proposing to remove one Apple tree and a small Palm. The City Arborist Report requires replacement trees to be installed equivalent to the value of .the removed trees: The applicant has shown a conceptual landscape plan that includes. the planting of approximately seven trees and numerous native plants. ~~®®Q~ (d) Minimize perception ofexcessive bulk. As recommended in the City of Saratoga's Residential Design Handbook the proposed structure has varying rooflines that act to break up the facade and provide interest to the proposed structure. The applicant is also using horizontal wood siding and bay windows to add character to the structure and reduce bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will not exceed the maximum allowed height limit. The traditional design and attention to details will add character to the neighborhood and be compatible in both height and bulk with the varying designs located throughout the neighborhood. (f) Currentgradingand erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. The project has received geotechnical clearance from the City Geologist. The project is also providing a bio-swale to allow for storm water filtration and semi-pervious driveway pavers. (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, integrating the structure with the environment, 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. 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 Policy: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by caret ally considering the visual impact of new development. Land LTse Element Policy 5.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed new house is consistent with the above General Plan Policies in that the proposed project will preserve the large Oak trees on the site protecting the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. The proposed materials and colors will blend the proposed house into the existing landscape and be compatible the other structures in the neighborhood. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: • ~~~~Q~~ 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 Exlubit "A" date stamped December 23, 2004, incorporated by reference. Any modifications of -the approved plans are subject to the review of the Community Development Director. Any modifications to the approved plans shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Division with a proposed set of plans highlighting all changes with a cloud. Staff will approve no exterior downgrading in the appearance of the proposed residence., Downgrades may include, but are not limited to, garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, etc. Any exterior changes to approved plans may require filing an additional application and fees for review by the Planning Commission as a modification to approved plans. 2. The following shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building and grading permit plan check review process: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. 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. 5. The -set of plans. submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall be revised to show a 6-foot maximum fence. 6. The set of plans submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall provide a section illustrating the lightwell and planter box. No portion of the planter box -shall be located below grade to increase the size of the lightwell. 7. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating -the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 8. 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. • ~~®~~~ 9. The applicant to shall provide a letter of approval from the neighbor to the north concerning the landscaping located in the side yard prior to the first framing inspection and subject to final approval of the Community Development Director. 10. 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. 11. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 12. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. 13. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 14. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 15. The height of the structure shall not exceed 26-feet as defined in Section 15-06.340 of the Ciry Zoning Code. CITY ARBORIST 16. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Reports dated June 24, 2004 and letters shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. The Arborist Reports shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. b. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction.° Staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit shall inspect the fencing. c. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 17. All requirements stated in the attached Development Review Comments from the Fire District shall be complied with. ~~~®~~ PUBLIC WORKS 18. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 19. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall provide correct distances from Type A and Type B faults to the proposed project site. The consultant shall re~riew and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundatior.~s) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations, and are consistent with standards of good geotechnical practice. 20. The results of the seismic parameter correction and plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter, and submitted to the City Engineer for review, prior to issuance of permits. 21. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessaril"y be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for fill keyways, and foundation construction, prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as- built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to Final Project Approval. 22. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. CITY ATI"ORNEY 23. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with Ciry's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, Ciry and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission; State of California, this 12th day of January 2005 by the following roll call vote: ~~®~~~ AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • ~~~®~,~ • Attachment 2 ~~®~~'~ ''~- _~ ARBOR RESOURCES - Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care • A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT 13071 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: KOENIG APPLICATION #: 04-176 APN #: 503-16-050 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certifted Arborist #WE-4001A June 24, 2004 P.O. Boa 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Faa: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 `~ ~ ~,~~. 9' ~~O~~S David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 24, 2004 SITNIlVIARY Fourteen trees were inventoried for this report. Only one (#14) is nl conflict with the proposed design and two (#6 and 13) would be adversely impacted. Plan revisions are recommended to achieve the survival of tree #6. The loss of trees # 13 (a small Palm) and #14 (an Apple tree) are appropriate and replacements are recommended as mitigation. Per City Ordinance, a bond equal to 100% of the appraised valuer of trees planned for retention shall be submitted to the City prior to receiving permits. Based on my review of the proposed plans, the combined value of these trees is $54,360. INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga's 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 13071 Pierce Road, Saratoga. This report presents my findings and recommendations. Data compiled for each inventoried tree is presented on the attached table. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheet A-1 (dated 6/9/04 by Chapman Design Associates) and the Grading and Drainage Plan (dated 5/04 by Westfall Engineers, Inc.). The trees' locations, numbers and canopy perimeters are presented on an attached copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan. The trunk diameters of trees #3, 4 and 7-12 are visual estimates as access to their trunks was not readily available at the time of my inspection. FINDINGS The 14 trees were inventoried for this report include ten Coast Live Oaks (# 1-10), two Modesto .Ash (# 11 and 12), one Palm (# 13), and one Apple tree (# 14). Trees #4-9, 11 and 12 are not shown on plans reviewed. .Their estimated locations are presented on the attached map and should not be construed as being surveyed. Their trunk locations should be shown on all future site, grading and drainage and landscape plans. Trees #1-9, 11 and 12 are located on neighboring properties. They were included for this report as their root zones and/or canopies are exposed to construction damage. ' The appraised tree values shown on the attached Tree Inventory Table are calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`h Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. • • Koenig Property, 13071 Pierce Road, Saratoga Page I of3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~~~~~ • • David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 24, 2004 Tree # 14, an Apple tree, is in conflict with the proposed driveway. Its removal should be replaced with trees equivalent to its appraised value. The proposed driveway is proposed within two feet of tree #6's trunk. As a result, the tree's vigor and stability would be significantly compromised. To achieve a reasonable assurance of its survival, I recommend a minimum ten-foot setback from the trunk. This may require major design revisions to the proposed driveway and/or garage. For all practical purposes, tree #13 will also be significantly compromised due to its location and possible interference with construction activities. Given its low value and small size, I fmd its loss would be appropriate and should be replaced with trees equivalent to its appraised value. Though not shown on the proposed plans, I presume the existing retaining wall and fence along the southern property boundary will be replaced. This could potentially impact trees #7 and 8, as well as three large Coast Live Oaks (not inventoried) between these two trees. The potential damage can be simply avoided be constructing the entire wall and fence without excavating soil. RECONIlVIENDATIONS The recommendations presented below are based on the proposed plans. They are subject to revision upon my review of future plans. 1. The proposed driveway .must be revised to protect tree #6. I recommend a minimum ten-foot setback from its trunk (to include all grading and trenching activities). 2. The trunk locations and numbers of trees presented within this report shall be shown on all site, grading and drainage, and landscape plans. 3. 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, 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. Please note the fencing is not delineated on the attached map due to -the recommend design revision. It can be added upon my review of future plans. 4. Unless otherwise approved, all demolition and construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas (even after fencing is removed) and only on the north side of the southern property boundary. 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. Koenig Property, 13071 Pierce Road Saratoga Page 2 of 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~~®~r~ David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 24, 2004 5. The removal of hardscape beneath tree #9's canopy shall be performed carefully to avoid breaking overhead branches and scraping soil during the process. Upon removing the hardscape, I suggest a four-inch layer of wood chips is immediately spread over the exposed soil. 6. All existing underground pipes and irrigation lines beneath the atopies of retained trees should remain buried and be cut off at existing soil grade. 7. Upon availability, -plans showing the future landscaping, irrigation and underground utilities should be reviewed by the City for tree impacts. 8. All underground utilities (i.e. water, gas, sewer, electrical) and drainage features (such as drain lines, dissipaters and swales) shall be designed outside from beneath canopies of retained trees (the exception being where within five feet of the home's foundation): 9. Irrigation and lighting trenches should be designed to be no closer than ten feet from the trunks of trees #1 thru 6. Imgation within this distance must be placed on top of existing grade. 10. Where beneath the canopies of Oaks, irrigation is not suggested and plant material must be have low water requirements and be compatible for planting beneath Oaks. 11. Mulch, stones or other landscape features must be placed no closer than one-foot from the trees' trunks. "Bender board should not be installed and tilling of the soil should not occur within 10 times the diameter of the nearest trunk. 12. Herbicides should not be used beneath tree canopies. Where used on site, they should be labeled for safe use near trees. 13. The pruning of trees must be performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained by referring to the following website: http://www.isa- arbor. com/arborists/arbsearch. html. 14. The combined value of trees plazmed for removal, # 13 azid 14, " is $1,765. .Replacements equivalent to this value shall be installed, such as four trees of 24-inch box size. The replacement values are shown on the bottom of the attached table. Acceptable replacement species include Quercus agrifolia, Quercus lobata, Quercus kelloggii, Quercus douglasii, Quercus dumosa, Acer macrophyllum, Aesculus californica, Pseudotsuga menziesii and Sequoia sempervirens. Tlie replacement species, location and size should be shown on the planting and irrigation plans. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (Copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan) Koenig Property, 13071 Pierce Road, Saratoga City of Saratoga Community Development Department Page 3 of 3 ~~~~~~~ ~~~ ARBO~ RESOURCES ~ _ . Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE INVENTORY TABLE r ~ ~ .. ~ ° b ~ ~y ~ o ~ Q ~ -' ~ dU ^ ~ ~ .~ ~ c . ~ ..a a. o ~ ~ -, .. ~ ~ A ~ ~ T U ~o ~ ~~ a . ~ o $ ~ Q -TREE ~ c .°° ~ ~ o ~ .o a~i .~ ~ ~ x v c ~ c ~' NO. TREE NAME F., ~ x v x C v~ ~ O v~ A ^ ~ a H Coast Live Oak 1 (Quercus agrifolia) 15.5, 14 30 35 100% 50% Good High 4 - X $5,700 Coast Live Oak Z (Quercus agrijolia) 14.5, 10 35 40 100% 75% Good High 4 - X $4,890 Coast Live Oak 3 (Quercus agrifolia) 20, 10.5 40 40 100% 25% Fair High 3 - X $5,200 Coast Live Oak 4 (Quercus agrifolia) 16 35 25 100% 25% Fair High 3 - X X $2,960 Coast Live Oak 5 (Quercus agrifolia) 14 40 35 100% 50% Good High 3 - X X $2,960 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 16 35 35 100% 75% Good High 1 - X X $4,190 Coast Live Oak 7 (Quercus agrifolia) 9 30 20 100% 75% Good High 3 - X X $1,740 Coast Live Oak 8 (Quercus agrifolia) 32 35 60 100% 100% Good High 4 - X X $21,800 Coast Live Oak 9 (Quercus agrifolia) 8, 5 25 25 100% 50% Good High 3 - X X $1,540 Coast Live Oak 10 (Quercus agrijolia) 11 25 30 100% 100% Good High 5 - $3,030 Modesto Ash 11 (Fraxinus v . Zvlodesto') 13 50 50 75% 50% Fair High 4 - X X $190 Modesto Ash 12 (Fraxinus v .'Modesto') 13 45 40 50% 50% Fair High 4 - X X $160 Mexican Fan Palm 13 (Washingtonia robusta) 14 15 I S 100% 100% Good Low 1 - $125 Apple 14 (Malussylvestis) 14 15 25 75% 25% Good Low - X $1,140 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES I 15- allon = 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 , Site: 13071 Pierce Road, Saratoga ~ Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Depart Prepared by: David L Babby, RCA ~+ f~~~ ~~ ' ..._.~..__ tL _.,r . ~ 1 -~ ~, ~ - ~,TO~of ~ \\\\\ Wr \ _ _ ~ ~ ~ mo~1 \~ ~~ N ~ u p Ir ~ ~ ~ 1 .. c3 ~~ ~i Y f`Z'1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~\ \ \ ~ LIII ~ ~ tr ' K 1T \ gory 1 ~~1 d '~ ~ 1 X ,,e . II II • ~~ I~-- I r 07 z ..~ m A A 7 I~ ^ ':' .. a A ~ o. N 3n3 L ~ b -„ .. IJ m ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 3 ~, ~• o y N J b 6 m A n ~ 6 fZ N Sap ID n ~ F~ .~ ~ t~ o m F. Vl ~ ^ % 6 ~ 6 Z. ^ ~ ~ R • N s k ~' B n n m y ` 4_ „ ~ o o ~ ^~o _ II AA ~ ~ s 1"~' 1. :1 N o` W ~ ~~ • ~a~ ~ ' 1 1 u~ ~ r _ al. A' •~ e ~ O ~;NP d~~ ` J s. ~C ~~ s° = rrf ~,' J .~ ~ ~ 6 ~ ' \ p ~ y _ n ~1~~, .o5r4 yti' c - ~ ~ o A ~ D _ N 04'.00' 00' W 96. $4' PIERCE READ •i ~~ • • Attachment 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 12~' day of January 2005, at 7:00 p.m. Located in the City theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. L)etails 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 ~~~~~.saratora.ca.us for the City's work schedule. APPLICATION # 04-176 (503-16-050) Koenig,13071 Pierce -Road; -Request Design Review Approval to build a new two-story house. The proposed house will be 5,404 square feet. The proposed floor area includes athree-car garage. The structure will -also have a 360 square foot cabana and a 1,996 square foot basement. The gross lot size is 54,198 square feet and zoned R- 1-40,000. The maximum building height of the residence will not exceed 26-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 maybe 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 fists. 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 affectedby 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 • ~~®~ G~ -_ t ' ~'.. ..~ ~---~ FOOTHILL LN ~ i ~ 61EA~E'I~D ~~' 013071 Rerce Road \ ----AREOV DE ~~..LO '-'- ~~ ._~l~C OUIN, ' 500' from 13071 Rerce - -- ~ ' ~ `, "' N _ ~ Condorriniurtts fv~er9ed_PdrCelS ~ ~ PIERCE Fo- _ - - _ -` `~- I `~'~ E ~\ _.W Street Labels _ ~ ~ ~ 4 1 ~ r -. J ~ I ~'.. r~ ~~ ~ i' ~ `., j _ Y_ GOMER DR ~ COMER DR .- " J ~ H I.ICS ND~ AGE RD 9 P ~~ I ' _ -..... __~._` PFRkfADUNT DR . \ ~ i _ r / _ _~~ ~ , I I I ' _ I \ R .. I ~ ' / . ~ ~ r ~ - _ --, _i ... _.._ -, I ~, i ( .\ 1 / \ ' •. . ` ~ - -'T _ - ~ _ .. _ I _ _ - _ _ _ \ - ~ ~ r i \ I - ~ - _~ i - _ ,-_.~~ ~ 0 150 300 450 B00 750 ft j j ""'- -'- 1 _ : % I. / _ ' ' i / I I I ~ I, 1~ / ~ PARAAtOUI(T DR I ~ ~ ' • • ~'~'~®23 FRANKLIN LEWIS R &z NANCY E NIEMAN BERNARD G JR 6~t KENNEDY KATHRYN TRUSTEE TRUSTEE LUANNE TRUSTEE ETAL 13209 PADERO CT 13217 PADERO CT 1318() PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4208 SARATOGA, CA 95070-4208 SARATOGA, CA 95070-4212 GARLAND THOMAS C JR TRUSTEE WIRE CHRIS A ~ JENNIFER L MA"CHEW TERRY L ~ DEBORAH A ETAL 13040 HOUSTON CT 13036 HOUSTON CT 13090 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4204 SARATOGA, CA 95070-4204 SARATOGA, CA 95070-4212 EDI.ER PETER A &r KRISTEN C SHEWCHUK ROBERT P BLAETTLER CONSTRUCTIONS INC TRtJSTEE 13030 HOUSTON CT 2490 CLUB DR 12970 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4204 GILROY, CA 95020-0000 SAR.ATOGA, CA 95070-3739 ZHU JIEMING TRUSTEE ETAL 12950 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-3739 THORSON ROBERT M ~ CAROL K 12991 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-3721 WELDON DONALD M ~ JUNE C 13039 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4200 KOENIG KENNETH G ~ ROBIN W TRUSTEE 13071 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4211 OSTLE TERESA B 13044 HOUSTON CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-4204 HSI DON Esc PHEBE 13138 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4212 BUGADO JOSEPH R Esc JOAN A TRUSTEE 20988 COMER DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3710 KUMARPAL ~ ANNUNCIATA PATEL 20976 COMER DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3710 JACOBS PAUL E ~ RENEE M TRUSTEE 13093 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4211 BICKENBACH WILLIAM K ~ SYLVIA M TRUSTEE 13100 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4212 ATHERTON STEPHEN C &r ROBIN L 13050 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4212 CLAWSON MARILYN T TRUSTEE ETAL 13110 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4212 MINTEGUI ANGEL L Est CONNI~ TRUSTEE 13144 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 950.70-4212 S C V W D GONZALEZ FERNANDO JESUS ~ COMER DR ESTHER OLIVIA T SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 20975 COMER DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3709 MCSWEENEY WILLIAM &z IVES ROBERT L Esc JUDY P TRUSTEE PATRICIA 20937 COMER DR 20940 COMER DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3753 SARATOGA, CA 95070-3710 HULME JOHN R &z SUSAN W GLENNON 1987 LIVING TRUST UTD TRUSTEE 6/15/87 TRUS 20964 COMER DR 137 WANISH SARATOGA, CA 95070-3710 PALM DESERT, CA 92260-7319 SHAH DEVANG ~ SUNITA CONRADO PAUL R Esc ELIZABE~ TRUSTEE 18820 BELLA VINA 18800 BELLA VINA SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 ~~~~24 VERDOORN RONALD D TRUSTEE POELLOT J MICHAEL ~ BEVERLY R LEITZELL DAVID C Esc KAREN W 18850 BELLA VINA TRUSTEE 21000 COMER DR RATOGA, CA 95070-0000 18860 BELLA VINA SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 SARATOGA, CA 95070-3710 BASTHOLM JAMES W &r CARMEL WANG YU T &~ CINDY H TRUSTEE HARRIS JACK R M TRUSTEE 21027 COMER DR 21083 COMER DR 12946 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO SARATOGA, CA 95070-3709 SARATOGA, CA 95070-3709 SARATOGA, CA 95070-3708 YAGER ROBERT A &z MARION E JAUNRUBENIS ANDREJS &r SHERRY CLIFFORD LAURENCE E Esc TRUSTEE 12969 PIERCE RD PAULINE M 21020 COMER DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3752 12985 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-3710 SARATOGA, CA 95070-3700 INGRAHAM DARRELL P &r BUSH JOHN R &z PATRICIA J MARGEAUX 18677 WESTVIEW DR 12973 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-3542 SARATOGA, CA 95070-3752 • • ~~~~2~ 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 20`h day of December, 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 Ciry 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 13071 Pierce Road; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. ,~ John F. Livingsto AICP Associate Planner • ~~~~~~~ Attachment 4 • ~~~~~~ __ ~PGLAR4 coG ' ~~ ~ FIRE "~ GOUNTESY 6 SEflVICE FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 04 1429 BLDG PERMIT NUMBER CONTROL NUMBER FILE NUMBER ~4-176 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODElSEC. ~c 103.3 as emended by AMC _6-20.150 iMC .6-15.070 SHEET NO. ~ REQUIREMENT Review of a proposed new 7,400 square foot single family residence with an attached garage, basement and a 360 square foot detached cabana. 2 Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. Required Fire -Flow: The fire flow for this project is XXXX gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. As an automatic fire sprinkler system will be installed, the fire flow has been reduced by XX°/o establishing a required adjusted fire flow of XXXX gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. The adjusted fire flow XXX available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. Automatic Fire Sprinkler System Required:. Buildings requiring a fire flow in excess of 2,000 GPM or, is three (3) or more stories in height or, in excess of 10,000 square feet or new homes located within the hazardous fire area shall be protected throughout by an automatic fire sprinkler system, hydraulically designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13. Garage Fire Sprinkler System Required: An approved, automatic fire sprinkler system designed per National Fire Protection Association Standard #13D and local ordinances, shall be provided for the garage. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE ApplicantName DATE PAGE STG ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ CHAPMAN DESIN ASSOCIATES 6/28/2004 1 of 2 SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY Residential Development Hokanson, Wayne NAME OF PROJECT SFR- KOENIG LOCATION 13071 Pierce Rd ~ ~ Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, ~~FA~B Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga 'UU++ • ~~PC~ c°G ~~ FIRE ~~' COURTESY 6 SERVICE CODE/SEC. SHEET SMC 14-25.110 vFc 901.4.4 ~i n FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org 04 1429 PLAN REVIEW NUMBER BLDG PERMIT NUMBER CONTROL NUMBER FILE NUMBER 04176 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS NO.I REQUIREMENT 5 6 Early Warning Fire Alarm System Required: Provide an approved Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, installed per City of Saratoga Standards. Prior to installation, a licensed C-10 contractor shall submit to the fire department, plans, specifications & listings, a completed permit application, and applicable fee's for review and approval. State of California licensed fire protection and electrical contractors shall submit three (3) sets of plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work as noted in items 3 & 5 above. Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their backirround. City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE AppllcantName DATE PAGE STG ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ CHAPMAN DESIN ASSOCIATES 6/28/2004 2 2 of SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION gy Residential Development Hokanson, Wayne SFR- KOENIG 13071 Pierce Rd Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos.' ~~~~~~ Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno; Morgan Hill; and Saratoga Q ... .. _ ... _ ~:• X 4Z 3ZIS :AB 03H03HD 9°Ll-l4L (804) 'ON 3NOHd 0689-tb6 (GSS)_ ZZ046 trJ 'SOlltl SOl ' ~ ~~~~ ,p,~ „~,.,,;,. au„6~,u,,,,, ~33HS d0 :A8 NMtl210 OLOS6 tl0 tlJO1'datlS "02! 30a31d :LOC l ~f1N3Atl 31NOW l3 S OZ9 "^^ ' °O "°' ~"'a a`"~ •'~ , as noxn m num no annuoa:., ::: ~ a ®~ 5i~z ~oN nor ~~N3o~l Ni~o~ ~ N~~I ~:~~ ~~~~ -l ~i-I~ i m ~~a.`~~ , r ^ ^ f3 ^ 3S}/Hd ' `'. ~~~ ~T ~F~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ olun~xeana vi :xom:m~; n..r wni 'sxa.~a 'mm an: nmlcc ~xu g~ ~,,~' _ O z ~N 1.6 W Y~ ~L + J ~' i ~ ~ ° t ~ _ In CZ ]~ ~ D m ~~ ~ r u a ? "' ~ Q D P ~ 0 ~' ~ ~ -~G ~ Q- 7 U' t-d _ 2 Z F L'1 W Z O G ~y t! ~ W ~ f/1 ~ J w ¢ Z F ~~ W K >~/ i.h, i - ~ ~ __ ~ U C W C O ~U ~ W ., c ¢ N +~o u~Vi1z ~'oIUW=Q 1-~ZQZ y~~2 KV ><U LaZU ~~8~0 O N Y N OW OZWW QO LL OY Cy ~OOO ~`K !•+O~F OtLO~F UWt~ Ka +~F yyrj~ro .Hay OY W~Ua WO~~QJ N~nG VII<-~ ZZ zw j° BaW ¢W~1=-~U `O~~ ~WK~~m -01~f? y3 ~G~~ Z> ~ o~a ~oc c~~~~ ~~~~~N. r`d~Z z~~ o3Z~W oZm~~uW" u~F oom 3(~~Um~ [4~ci~~~ ZO 2 W y F o u fi~ ~ ~ I~ ~ti rc ~' 0 5 i3 c4 °c o~n o TQT L_ VJ W 0 U..) 1 yr `~ n z L ~ O V 2 ~ _ {L' `_ .L_ uJ ~ ~ O = 9 d~ y ,~ ~ ~ d 1 11~ 13 '$] q ~ 1 ~ ~ 8_ ~ -r Q 11] ~ TT ~ ~ n ~1- c-- ~ ~ S Q Z ~L N a ~ ~ U u] a~2 r, v- 111 .9 -~ !~ I~ i D P ~ ~ O ~ ~~5 ' TV,~.~=r~~. ~ j ~U~ .~LpN a~f' 3_ ' ~ ~~ ~~C~ ~ ~ . eL ~ p k]N y°- k~Q ~~~0 ~ i ' ~ ~ ~ ' , ~ S t Za y y ~Gl ~ ~ $ ~W ~U y ~+ .. - 's; • _ . . ~- -. w~ N ~~ ~ ~~ c i .r ~ __ v ,.. ~ .= a- `; e- ' , LIl 1-1 S ~ ~ f\ ~~ i ~ ne 5' II ~ ~ ' - ! I~ T ~ iz j ~' ! ~~ ^ O' -rY ~ ~ I ~; m I a ; i~~ ~p U ~: f ~~~ ~ ' ~ a I ~ .~ v _ , ,~ . ®~_'-`~ oL 8t tt N at ~ . , . ~~ ~9 gin' . a-1 ~ ~ o C-, n n u r' ~ ~ e: o ~. r. 1 ~ i~ i !n O' . ~a p ~ ~ .9: ;~ . m'.~ ~9 : pua v-~ qq l ~.qq. 3 i F~ mom. ''11 c . ~~' ~ , li . I j . I II ~ ~ ~ J` Ji U) ~~ v, In a cD c .2 .~1 ii i c- a- ,~ I ~ ~ 1 ~ ~: 3 O Q I ~ ~ I I ~-1 ..c- ._.. ~..., K .. ... I w F-- U~. 4 - O i u . I ._~ ~,~~. . y I 9£ X 4Z ~3ZIS S133HS ~0 ~A9 03H03H0 'A8 NMtl?JO 99LL-l4L (B04) 'ON 3NOHd OLOS6 d0 ' tl901ViiVS "db 3~2131d LLO£L 0689-146 (OS9) ZZ046 VO 'SO1lV SOl 3f1N3Ad 31NOW l3 'S OZ9 ~~~~'-'~ rm ~~~~~ ~~raunw~nwirwa :~ • ~~ 11~~ 'ON 80f 91N30~1 N1802! '8 N3~1 5~,70SS~ I ~~~~~ e aon w m.m,o m~mxr s ~ V~ ^ ^ ^ O 3StIHd ~~~C~Q ~~~~ ~ , aMU7otiam°auOOPoao~a°pu 133HS b~lb'd 1N~1~0 r~j/~j Ic~'~I~ ~-I-I-I ~ 310N » o - p G n ri ri ~ ~' J O o L N O O ~ ~_ -__~= r,. O O - - _ ~` 0 ® `\ ~ ~ ~ eL ti / S cY ~9 ~ v s .•2 N p 0 ~ m v ~ H O ~ ~ 1~ 1 - N ar ~ 1 ~ N s D N N / O N O U~ ~ p a Goo ~ ~ .s ~ c!` _ o ~ O / / ~ X X x • x ~ x __ / / / --1 ~ ~ ~ ISM lP lP P o Q ~ 000 0000®_ ~°- ~ LL y ~ N ~ LL ~ ~ LL u `n 4i s ~ N N y' o ~y, o ~ _ _ ~ I ~' a~ M oU ~ Ll~ ~ ~ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ ~ ~ 11 1 d O 01 ~ ``LL^^ 1 _ /~/ N " v N O V M X X X x F _ ~ N O O p O ~ X ~ __ O 0 _ tt ,n _ r ~ ~ c~ ~` cF p F - Z O F-Q J ® J - _ U Q ,~ - ` _ W N JI O O r `~ 0 ~ ,~ n " ~ M u~ Q N • o a )n `v / ~ cdt 1i'. r ~ ~y \ . ~ ~ X X "n x 6' . ~~ O C ~ O ®®® -, O p ~ _ ® \ O J- ~ _ z ~ O ~ ® / ~ ~ ~~ w 3 D / ~ ® © 0 / \\ / ~. ~ •\ i • • __ _ • 9£ X 4Z ~3ZIS ~.19 03N03H0 99LL-L4L 904 'ON 3NOHd S133HS d0 ~,19 NM`a410 OLOS6 tl'J ' tl901tlMtlS "021 302I31d tL0£t ~~ 51~Z 'ON 80f 91N30~ N180b '8 N3~1 ^ ^ ^ ^ 3S1+Hd 133HS `dlb'a 1N~1~0 0669-t46 (GS9) 1Z04B tl0 'SOlltl SOl vm .~~~ 3f1N3Atl 31NOW l3 'S OZ9 ~~~~ I ~~r~ ~~~~ S~~~OA7A7~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~is~a ~~~~~ ~~ r~'~ci~H~ ~~~~~ ~lON ~ ' ~ o ~ _i ~ ~~ ~- o, tl%~1 V i i I o I~ ' 1 i - • ~ ~ ~ I. - i ~ - -~ _ ~ ~ 4 ~o - o ~~ - ; - ~~~ - _ ~ ~ ~ .~ - 1 I ~~ - o~~ - - - ,~ _ , Ia ~ - _ I~. - ~ - ~ - -~ - '~~ ~ I a ~ ~ s ~~' 0 1 ~, _ 1 c °~ i _ a 1 ~ ll.. $ ! sax 0_~ ~ o _ r ~ - ,i~ _ r I 11 h ~ - li !~ I. - i '~ I"I~ ii ~ ~ II ~ u - - ' 1 - _ I ~~ ,a ,v e o - - ~ - ua q - ~ i r z 0 r r eL. 4 8 O ~ -- N r -__ ~~-r 9£ X 4Z 3ZIS ~A8 03N03H0 99Lt-!4L 804 'ON 3NOHd S133FIS j0 ~.18 NMtl2l0 OLOS6 tl0 tl901tlNtlS "02! 3021314 LLO£L ~~ , ~~ S~I~Z~ ONE 80f - JIN30~1 N180a '8 N3~1 133HS `4144 1N31~0 P O6B9-L46 (OS91 ZZ046 tlJ 'SOlltl SOl ~~~~~ 3f1N3Atl 31NOW l3 'S OZ9 S~~dI~~SS~' -1-I~-1-1 1~IJIS~Q -1~-1-1-1 I~~d`dHa -1-I~-I~ 310N ~~ -O ~~ t - ' u~~ o J ' . ~ 3~~3 atY u`Y 3~ r- - }_9 S ~ - 0 ~_ ~~ K i' ^r ' - 9£ X 4Z ~3ZIS -A9 03N03H0 99Lt-L4L 804 'ON 3NOHd S133HS 30 ~A8 NMtl210 OLOS6 tl0 ' tl901tl21tlS "021 3021314 LLO£l ~~ 91~Z 'ON 80f 91N30~1 NI802i '9 N3~ ^ ^ ^ ^ 3StlHd 133HS 4140 ~ 1N31~0~ 0689-146 (OS9) ZZ046 tl0 'SOlltl SOl ~~~~~ ~m •,,.~~~~,,,~ 3f1N3Atl •~/31~~/NOW l3 'S OZ9 ~~~~"~,,,~q®,~~ S/~=! ~w/O~~!' ~~~~~ WIW GO~~IO YC ~gll~l ' o~~~~a ~~,. ~.~~ 1~IJIS~Q -I-1-1-1-1 '~°° r1~~~H~ ~~~~~ 310N 1 - - o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 4 y~ ~ ~ .vs ol~ to ~ w ~3 IJ _ I i 'S LL I ~ t ~ I 2n _ r I ~ _ _ _ _ i I _ ' _ _ _ I I"1 L-~i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . .. I - I O O ' / MI i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I- ~ ~) I I~ ~ . I~ Frl YYY~---'"""' u 6~'I$ 3 tl I~ Y~~ ii9~b 2 I~ I ~ "' - I f ~ ~ I II - - ~ ~ - r' O $ ~ ~~ 1 ~~ ' _ _ O ~~o-,9S 1 ' v ~ -4 ~ tS .- ~ f° o ~ ~ ~~ I 1 - _ ' ~ 1 ~i -- ~f ~ ~{ s R d- F - - - I I ~L ~~ ~ ` ~ ~~ n°i8 - a i~ I ~~ -- 1 }I ~ .~,.e I I 1 I - , , I ~ - ~ te . ~ 1 _ a - ° I m ~ ~ ~ -o ~_ Ci ' t- 4 _o ~~ t - _. I I I I .'`.- :u5 - - ~, ~.~ I , I i ~ ~~ c`~- ~~ ~ a- Qo ,~ _ _ o ~-'~ T~ ~ E 'S o , s d iu 0 O, .~ i 1 V (~~~ ~ IL s- ~ -- _. • 9£ X 4Z ~321S S133HS d0 ~,18 03H03H0 ~ A MVN4 B N 99LC-l4L SOti 'ON 3NOHd OLOS 6 V O 'q'JO V H b ' 1 S " 021 3021 d 3 1 l LO£ l 0689-146 (OS9) ZZ046 V'J 'SOlIV SOl 3(1N3AV 31NOVV l3 'S OZ~ ~~~~~ ~, •,.~,,,,~,~~F~ c~~'x c~xn u, mi w -b . ~ o ~~~ gg ' y A ~~~V o®1 V V®~ • ~ p ~ , p~y ~ps ~tl yp ' ,p `y ,n` {~ ~ y 1 ` ~ 1 - VII V~®OI , V~'VI®~ tli , V~01~ ~ (\~~~jl~ ~\(~v,/T/}ITIF~)) ((\~~ ~j\_~/~ ~ ® ~ ~1III"~IIII ~'IIII ~II~~.'I¶' i. u ~ t976x'iq CSJ CO m~e^ .~^ ~ . ... "VV" _ ^ ^ ^ ^ 3SVHd .: LYJ 6d.Ll =1 V~n~IUd/ L.:J V - ~~~~~~~ Y ~ ~I ~I ~I ~~~ '1. ~ ~y-~~e~ ~u ~ ~..- mkx~cr e- cr am ~~ cso nu" ~' a' ou ~.~~~as ~~~® ~6~JI~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ -II ~~®~ • • • @)*12- A51+ 6 rMC, _04 _q 1112 W60 4_ E_i p�dr5y 'SANG Ve15 !IS se a, 7 lb 1i IF. J...... j- L—Ln I (A). A TREE INVENTORY TABLE ... . ... 7- ,�7 . ........ .. ]IFC13MMEMATIONS 1:5. the rcrvoval a[' harrdmp- bence.th near #9'6 CiAopy shall be parlianwA carefully ki 7: avoid breaking overhand branches and scraping soil during tht-process. tipan PLANT SPECIFICATIONS Cmuureoet The rccarearandiation, mmt,,A below am based an fie j , I I Ideas. They me s4cat I menuarvial; Lhe hairtlucape. I suggest a four•inch layer or wood chips is inarmodiately as torevisionapoarnymimoffittimplum spread over the "posed soil. U01 revisaadiv, sae d6. I leallaimausm (=J W&) 114.5,101 B 1 40 1 IM 1 7 1. The, propostal dirivemay mm be 6. Ali costing underground pipes and Irrigation I= beneath the canopies of retained A ARBUTUS'MARINA" STRAWBERRY TREE 24B 2 fiao, setback finstram needs (to mitate jillpalling and acithritiesl am should eternaln buried end be cat ofr&L existing "I we& ton B 3 3 2. The trard, locations and - -btu oftross Z). IDS1 4 1 4 1 1 25% 1 hk I Hkb I I within this report Alan b, shnaan on PRUNUS CAROLINIANIA STD. CAROLINA CF ISG an " vadim nddmnw ad landicipmeiiiinns. 7. Upon availability, plans showing the firturc landscaping, irrigation and underground 'BRIGHT-N-TIGHr' uffitim should be reviewed by The City for tree Impacts. C PRUNUS SERRULATA FLOWERING CHERRY 24B 1 3. Tcae prosectft fanning &A be im-11M piarassaw dcasolition. batsman ncaradom it. AD undaTilround utilities (Lm weam. D QUERCUSAGRIFOUA COAST LIVE OAK 36B 1 Wk andene zapin& construction a heavy ativilissucam masirwiax on she. It shall be gas. stmer. electrical) and draimc fcatuarcat (such 1.6 1 (=Jx) 1 14 1 0 1,35 1 Im I at deal. lines, dissipaters and invaies) shall be designed Outside hum beneath canones I MYRICA CALIFORNICA PACIFIC WAX MYRTLE 6G 12 .pid of fivc. to max-face hwh dean rmk mommead an tw&iucb dwxt=. of attained um (the exemption being where within rive rest orthchom'sloundAtion). 2 PRUNUS ILICIFOLIUS HOLLYLEAF CHERRY linlymind sw poster dctvm is dw Wound and aced to mumme thars 12 SG 7 16 35 35 10" 73x and be maintained CALIFORNIA LILAC 5G 3 10� I 1W I I I load apam On. establilsimed. to kneing wag mamusk andlisbabed 9. liciption and lighting trenalum a" be designed w be no claser than tm feel from 3 CEANOTHUS'RAY HARTMAN" throughout the comstructime immuccas, onto final mospection. Plasmas dw fenc4ag t; the trunks of am #1 then 6. Irrigation within ibis distance mu% be placed on 4 CEANOTHUIS"JOYCE COULTER" CALIFORNIA LILAC cosnuwo.e tap of 5G 4 not delineated on dbe amehad mop due In dw mitoommad dmdP levillimL It can be clistIng grade. 5 FEIJOA SELLOWIANA PINEAPPLE GUAVA 5G 7 added open MY tmew OfAUM p1smL 6 PRUNUSCAROLINLANACOMP. CAROLINA CHERRY 5G 6 1 32 35 0 I(OK Icam no X Ma" 4. Unless otherwise alispammmat AR decaliblies and construction activities must be 10. Where beneath the canopies of Oaks, irrigation, is not suggested and plant mancalel 7 ILEX CORNUTA BURFORDII DWARF BURFORD HOLLY 5G 7 sim be be" low water mcitsti6sm and be compatible for planting beneath Oaks. C—U.06, conducted ..d& the fenced wase (avae — --g is raised) and only on the 8 ABELLA "EDWARD GOUCHER" PINKABELLA 5G 8 1. am.6 aide of the southern pew" boundary. 71 me stativitics inclade, but em am 11. Mdcb, am= or other landscape features must be placed no closer than one-lbox ham 9 LAVENDULA AUGUSTIFOLIA 'PROVENCE- LAVENDER 1 is Braked to, the fictlawisag; 0 1 a — 101311*9 -Asim& a and dumping of C—Li"011, the trasse trunks. Bander bound should not be Installed and tilling of the =0 should not 10 DIETES VEGETA FORTNIGHT LILY SG 5 so It z 30 Imi t.1 I I I I materials (iacludeaq =4 9M' and c*%madmbid, assurance and parlraW, accur within 10 times she derneter of the nearest truck. 11 • MYRTUS COMMUNIS COMPACTA DWARF MYRTLE 6G 6 12. Herbicides 0ould net be used beneath tm compics. Whm mud an site. dxy should 12 SYRINGAVULGARIS LILAC 5G 3 be labeld for safe m raw m& 13 HEMEROCALLIS SPECIES DAYLILIES iG 3 G.] 'a. 13. The, primmIng of trom mug be perfortmed undo the supervision of an ISA Certified 14 ESCALLONIA FRADESII PINK FSCALLONIA SG 14 Moassso roes Arborist and accm&q to MA standards. Inflannadon regarding Certified Arbori;iz In Is COLEONEMA PULCHRUM PINK BREATH OF HEAVEN 5G 5 6e mra am be obtained by refinring to the following weWte: hap.-Ilivivir.isa• 16 SARCOCCOA RUSCIFOLIA FRAGRANT SARCOCCOA 50 9 14.Tbe combined value of tax's planned fa me naval. #13 and 14. is $1.765. Rieplaccesents equivaland to this A]. shall be installed, mch as fame trees of 24.inch box a= The mplaccamend values am shown on the bottom of the attached table, . I AMP11111316 MPkc®00 SPICiell Include gwcw owifolla, Quercur lebata, Qwcw kU-Vh. Quereor al-Wiladl, QUsnCut aliurnsuma. Acts• masamphyUm, Ammhur m4krnicsr, Pie-darsugas asseeriesis and Sequoia sempoMmm. The asplaaerneed. m simales, location and $I- should bah— on the pl-ft and irrigate. piscus. No. 7- ,�7 . ........ .. ]IFC13MMEMATIONS 1:5. the rcrvoval a[' harrdmp- bence.th near #9'6 CiAopy shall be parlianwA carefully ki 7: avoid breaking overhand branches and scraping soil during tht-process. tipan PLANT SPECIFICATIONS Cmuureoet The rccarearandiation, mmt,,A below am based an fie j , I I Ideas. They me s4cat I menuarvial; Lhe hairtlucape. I suggest a four•inch layer or wood chips is inarmodiately as torevisionapoarnymimoffittimplum spread over the "posed soil. U01 revisaadiv, sae d6. I leallaimausm (=J W&) 114.5,101 B 1 40 1 IM 1 7 1. The, propostal dirivemay mm be 6. Ali costing underground pipes and Irrigation I= beneath the canopies of retained A ARBUTUS'MARINA" STRAWBERRY TREE 24B 2 fiao, setback finstram needs (to mitate jillpalling and acithritiesl am should eternaln buried end be cat ofr&L existing "I we& ton B 3 3 2. The trard, locations and - -btu oftross Z). IDS1 4 1 4 1 1 25% 1 hk I Hkb I I within this report Alan b, shnaan on PRUNUS CAROLINIANIA STD. CAROLINA CF ISG an " vadim nddmnw ad landicipmeiiiinns. 7. Upon availability, plans showing the firturc landscaping, irrigation and underground 'BRIGHT-N-TIGHr' uffitim should be reviewed by The City for tree Impacts. C PRUNUS SERRULATA FLOWERING CHERRY 24B 1 3. Tcae prosectft fanning &A be im-11M piarassaw dcasolition. batsman ncaradom it. AD undaTilround utilities (Lm weam. D QUERCUSAGRIFOUA COAST LIVE OAK 36B 1 Wk andene zapin& construction a heavy ativilissucam masirwiax on she. It shall be gas. stmer. electrical) and draimc fcatuarcat (such 1.6 1 (=Jx) 1 14 1 0 1,35 1 Im I at deal. lines, dissipaters and invaies) shall be designed Outside hum beneath canones I MYRICA CALIFORNICA PACIFIC WAX MYRTLE 6G 12 .pid of fivc. to max-face hwh dean rmk mommead an tw&iucb dwxt=. of attained um (the exemption being where within rive rest orthchom'sloundAtion). 2 PRUNUS ILICIFOLIUS HOLLYLEAF CHERRY linlymind sw poster dctvm is dw Wound and aced to mumme thars 12 SG 7 16 35 35 10" 73x and be maintained CALIFORNIA LILAC 5G 3 10� I 1W I I I load apam On. establilsimed. to kneing wag mamusk andlisbabed 9. liciption and lighting trenalum a" be designed w be no claser than tm feel from 3 CEANOTHUS'RAY HARTMAN" throughout the comstructime immuccas, onto final mospection. Plasmas dw fenc4ag t; the trunks of am #1 then 6. Irrigation within ibis distance mu% be placed on 4 CEANOTHUIS"JOYCE COULTER" CALIFORNIA LILAC cosnuwo.e tap of 5G 4 not delineated on dbe amehad mop due In dw mitoommad dmdP levillimL It can be clistIng grade. 5 FEIJOA SELLOWIANA PINEAPPLE GUAVA 5G 7 added open MY tmew OfAUM p1smL 6 PRUNUSCAROLINLANACOMP. CAROLINA CHERRY 5G 6 1 32 35 0 I(OK Icam no X Ma" 4. Unless otherwise alispammmat AR decaliblies and construction activities must be 10. Where beneath the canopies of Oaks, irrigation, is not suggested and plant mancalel 7 ILEX CORNUTA BURFORDII DWARF BURFORD HOLLY 5G 7 sim be be" low water mcitsti6sm and be compatible for planting beneath Oaks. C—U.06, conducted ..d& the fenced wase (avae — --g is raised) and only on the 8 ABELLA "EDWARD GOUCHER" PINKABELLA 5G 8 1. am.6 aide of the southern pew" boundary. 71 me stativitics inclade, but em am 11. Mdcb, am= or other landscape features must be placed no closer than one-lbox ham 9 LAVENDULA AUGUSTIFOLIA 'PROVENCE- LAVENDER 1 is Braked to, the fictlawisag; 0 1 a — 101311*9 -Asim& a and dumping of C—Li"011, the trasse trunks. Bander bound should not be Installed and tilling of the =0 should not 10 DIETES VEGETA FORTNIGHT LILY SG 5 so It z 30 Imi t.1 I I I I materials (iacludeaq =4 9M' and c*%madmbid, assurance and parlraW, accur within 10 times she derneter of the nearest truck. 11 • MYRTUS COMMUNIS COMPACTA DWARF MYRTLE 6G 6 12. Herbicides 0ould net be used beneath tm compics. Whm mud an site. dxy should 12 SYRINGAVULGARIS LILAC 5G 3 be labeld for safe m raw m& 13 HEMEROCALLIS SPECIES DAYLILIES iG 3 G.] 'a. 13. The, primmIng of trom mug be perfortmed undo the supervision of an ISA Certified 14 ESCALLONIA FRADESII PINK FSCALLONIA SG 14 Moassso roes Arborist and accm&q to MA standards. Inflannadon regarding Certified Arbori;iz In Is COLEONEMA PULCHRUM PINK BREATH OF HEAVEN 5G 5 6e mra am be obtained by refinring to the following weWte: hap.-Ilivivir.isa• 16 SARCOCCOA RUSCIFOLIA FRAGRANT SARCOCCOA 50 9 14.Tbe combined value of tax's planned fa me naval. #13 and 14. is $1.765. Rieplaccesents equivaland to this A]. shall be installed, mch as fame trees of 24.inch box a= The mplaccamend values am shown on the bottom of the attached table, . I AMP11111316 MPkc®00 SPICiell Include gwcw owifolla, Quercur lebata, Qwcw kU-Vh. Quereor al-Wiladl, QUsnCut aliurnsuma. Acts• masamphyUm, Ammhur m4krnicsr, Pie-darsugas asseeriesis and Sequoia sempoMmm. The asplaaerneed. m simales, location and $I- should bah— on the pl-ft and irrigate. piscus. Q'dpd 3p?J3I d _48 96 h . ~ ~~ ¢O N \ ~~ ~~ \ ~~~~~ J~~ N l ~~ ~ N \~ ~ ~ ~~ - ~ ~~ ~~~ -~ \ `\ \ `_1~ ___ `\ `~`_' ' J\¢~ ~ "~~;' - - I ~~ ~ . .~ ~__ - ~~ "s I [i ~ 3 W ~ ~ W U N a N H W I NI WI e UN"+ ~ ~~~\~~~ ~ ~~_ a ` - __ 1 ~ B04 - 1\J ~~ ry e ,eZ „. ~ ~ $ ~ 8 s_ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~. s~ ~ ~$ ~ ~ ~~ a ' ~ ~ ~ ~ Pi . ~ ~ y ~~ k ~ ' ~ B~ ~. ~~~ ~® ~ i ~ a""• ~~ ~$ ~ a -a ~.~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ i ~ s~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~a ~ ~~ ~ ~: ~ ~ . m ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~,~ s '~ •~ 8~8 w m ~~ ..r~~ ~~~ 8 ~ ~~ .~ ~ . a~ ~~ ~~~ q ~~s.~~~~ O ~~ s ~~ >~ SS. r' }}}rrr ~ 8 ~< ~ ~~ a s~ ~~ ~~ $~ oa dR mag O Q ~_ H A } W Z W Q ~Wa QUA ZZ~ I--1 W ~ QA~ H A AW o A~ ~ Z ~,nw __.- F•~ H ~Z a zWo H O M AY Q U Z N ~I ~I n (^~ m `^~,' O I..L n W~ W Z H ~ r~ a V 0 Z W ti J a Q~ L~ " I- /~ VJ v 3 ~r .°_ > R I II I II l i l 1 1 }yy`~y(( I II ~a~00 e0QtJ ®~.(O I I II I ~ I I I~ I ~ 11 N 9 I i II I I~~ I I I I ~ °O Q A ~ ~ ~ W ~ W ~~1-) ~ T 6 N ~.7 LJ J y q fi ~ ~ V~ZQ 6~~ 3~5~s~W~~~§~~=~~~~~~s~e«~ ~ ` ~Zaawle~ D«d89'd'~38WSW~yy~i3~ rW~ I I II I J ~ ~ 3 }}}}----....~~~~ I II I a W~~o O.00~N~®h{o I I li I I ~ I I ~ I I - w 1d ~ 11 I I I I I I I I A ~~ y d ~ ° , : r 1 • • • .