Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-14-2005 Planning Commission Packet
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTON MINUTEs DATE: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Manny Cappello, Jill Hunter, Robert Kundtz, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, and Chair Susie Nagpal ABSENT: Commissioner Schallop STAFF: Planners Vasudevan, Ungo-McCormick, Thomas &z Schmidt, Director Livingstone and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 24, 2005. (APPROVED 5-1, UHL ABSTAINED) 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 lawgenerallyprohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 8, 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 1. APPLICATION #06-020 (389-05-021) - LOVOI,19152 De Havilland Drive; -Approval of Resolution 05-035 granting the appeal filed by property owner to remove a Canary Island Pine. (APPROVED 6+0, NO CHANGES TO CONDITIONS) PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appeaz 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. 2. APPLICATION #06-078 -Commercial Historic District (CH-1 and CH-2); -The City Council adopted Interim Ordinance 231, establishing a moratorium on new Personal Service Businesses on the first floor in the CH-1 and CH-2 districts. The City is proposing a Zoning Ordinance Amendment that will regulate the placement of Personal Service Businesses in the CH-1 and CH-2 zoning districts. The amendment will specify the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit for new Personal Service Businesses at the first floor level. (LATH VASUDEVAN) (APPROVED 5-1, NO CHANGES TO CONDITIONS) APPLICATION #OS-029 (397-20-94) DEXHEIMER 14574 Horseshoe Court; -The applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential and rezoning from R-1-20,000 to R-1-40,000 for the approximately 31,292 square feet (0.72 acre) rear portion of a vacant lot to conform with the existing designation and zoning of the front portion of lot. The applicant also requests design review approval to construct a two-story, single-family residence, garage and secondary dwelling unit on the lot. The total floor area of the proposed residence, garage and secondary dwelling unit is 7,700 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The net lot size is approximately 100,751 square feet (2.31 acres) and the site is zoned R-1 40,000. (DEBORAH LINGO-MCCORMICK) (G.P. APPROVED 6-0, ZONE APPROVED 6-0, DESIGN REVIEW APPROVED 6-0 WITH CHANGES) 4. APPLICATION #05-204 (517-13-033) - ROBERSON,16208 Cuvilly Way; -The applicant requests design review approval to construct aone-story single-family residence and a second dwelling unit on a vacant lot. The total floor area of the proposed residence and attached garage is 6029 square feet. A 591 square foot second dwelling unit is proposed. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 23 feet. The maximum height of the second dwelling unit is 17 feet. The gross lot size is 42,166 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 40,000. (SUZANNE THOMAS) (APPROVED 5-1, RODGERS REQUISED) 5. APPLICATION #06-015 (397-04-026) - FORMICO, 14456 Sobey Road; -The applicant requests design review approval for a detached, single-story, second dwelling unit /cabana. Design review is required because the allowable floor area on the site exceeds 6,000 square-feet. The maximum height of the proposed structure is 14.6-feet. Total floor area on the site including the main residence and garage would be 6,642.5-feet. The gross lot size is approximately 61,855 square feet and is zoned R-1- 40, 000. (THERESE SCHMIDT) (APPROVED 6-0, NO CHANGES TO CONDITIONS) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT AT 9:50 P.M. TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, September 28, 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 Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerkC~saratoga.ca.us. Not cation 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). Cert~cate of Posting ofAgenda: I, Andrea Sandoval, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on September 8, 2005 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.sarato ag ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLAN1vING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 3:30 p.m. PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Site Visit Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANI~TING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 • ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #06-078 PERSONAL SERVICE BUSINESSES Item 2 Commercial Historic District 2. Application #OS-204 ROBERSON Item 4 16208 Cuvilly Way 3. Application #05-029 DEXHEIMER Item 3 14574 Horseshoe Court 4. Application #06-015 FORMICO Item 5 14456 Sobey Road SITE VISIT COMMII?EE 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 3:30 p.m. and 5:00 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. • ~EPORT OP POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Govanmenc ,code sa9s4.2, the fay this .meeting was pmope~ly posocd on s a zoos. • • i ~~ + '" 4 " ~ :~ ~ ,.., i} r ~; i.. ..w„. _....a .[s. e_. .~ ~ .y4.:::. ... ... • ~?; ;~~ ;~~~ r ~: Pi.~DGE Og ALLZIGiAN~CE Muacrr~s: Draft Ntirnttes6rom Regular Pla~ng Caammi~on of ?4, 2005. COAL GOtrtl-ttJMICATIONS - Any r caf the P1r,~ic will Ix:Jlvwad cw,~+ee~ ~e Camrian kr tg- tw , t~aemm~r~rxaoab~isatC Thebw~,~t~6eC~ftiat~q~'at ' ~a61~ xtta~ tm ~+~ch ~ ~ ~ ~ me3' pct ~'' ~ru~rP msYnff ORAL CQMMC1ri~CA2'IONS- PII-NNING COMM~SION Dttt~GTION'~'O STAFF j: won oo staff u~oea; as cune~pc:Ekai CaaQm rOF~06'~'l~G ITT O~APP'EAL RIGHTS ~ . ~ff to appal auj- decision on this Agenda, you may ~ an "Aplxai Applicatio~a" with the City Clezk within .' , (15) cakadar days of ttliee date of the aectsion pursuant to Municipal Cone LS-9o.OSO ro). . ~,. . Co~tsErrr C:AFF.ND~iR ,: ~. APPuCartor~ ono (~9-as~o~) - Lovoi,>~sz n~ Haan - A~r~ ~ ton OS-035 gtanting the append filod by psvpesty owner m range a Canary Island Pine. ~~LtC HGs A8 eyed perao~ tm4y apQapr sad be hard at the shave time and pisae. ~~~Appel3arts at~d thdr ~ . i+eddiva }fie a tidal aE tm m~a m~dmam~ hoc aos st~dmo~. of he A~ ma1 oaa~t as atR Ittm floc uP to t~rt+ee wee. Appgcant/Appe~mts at~d t rePc+eea~tives line a uobd oif $nae a ma~damam £oc cloaiag . ?. APPLICATION X06.075 = C:odal Hiseoeic Dis~cxx (CH-1 aud~~ CH-2); - I'hc City Council ac~ptod Interim Ordi~mcx 131, e~rt~bhshiag a ~ttc~rocitun oa:~t- Pet~oaal Service ~isincases On the $Z'st flOOr in ttie CH-1 and CH-2 dfsa~ts.:The. City `ie p~apoting a ~6 Ordinanoc ,, Aa~mdmmt~t~atwill the.Pt of P~a~al Sezv~oe is the CH-1 sad CH-2 ':. ~ . zoning didricxs.The s~mmdmmrruilt ~ the ~~t ~ a Co~tion~l Use P!ermft floc new Pereo~l Service Busraea+eea at tlu Bret IIooc-kvd (IATA VASUDEVA~ -' ~ _ o. ~f h 2. 3. APPZ.ICA?iON SOS-029 (397-20-94) ~F~~-~F~ 14574 Hareeshoe Court -The applicant ra~sts approval of a General Plan Aen~endmcat f~ Low Density Residential to Very Low . Re~dential and. rezoning. from R 1-2b,~00 to R-1-40,000 f©r the appro~ody 31,292 ' fat (0.72 acre) rear portiaai of a vacant l~ m ao~tform with hr esistialg deeig~nation sad zo~g of the of lot. 'xhc apt sled reroiew approy~d m const~ct a n~+o-soar. ~i~'fsmfily rOe, g~c and y dv6 twit oa ttu lot. Tbc toad floox area of the ~ nei~Oe, garage. sad ~ dwelt ~ 7,700 square feet The ~~ ht of the prcrpoeod xoe as ,2b fat 'T'he ls~ ;a~e~ is ~~atcly 100,751 squats fat. (2.31 ate} andthe.site is zoned R-i 40,Oa0. ~(DEI~tlR~lfi.L~tGO-MCCX3~MICIC~ ~~~:-~ r - 4. APQLICAT 3~f ~.3-2U4 (517-13.03) - >~OBERS4N. X06 Way;. - T1~e apphCSEnt roquests rtvlcw ap~oval t0 fOnBtruCt a (~-may -f- ~ and a sccacmd dwelluig unit a~ a v~caat lot. The total hoot area of the pmp~ed woe and' ~~ is 6029 ~ A 591 square ~ ece~d d unit is proposed.. The tna~ t of the ~~ ~e is 23 lat The mwdmu~a t of t~ ~aex# ~ valt it i7 feet .The rlipde' 42,1b6 square feet and tht site ~e~zoncd R-140,00. (SUZ~i~11V~ THf~MAS) '" ~ x ! ~ ~ 1~ I~ew is ~~~ ~e allowable floor area an the etc f-U~O,~-fit. ~e m~u~nun-hcight oaf the ~ _' ~+e fs 14.6~et. ?oral ~ :oat the awe ~ the main residence and t'425-feet. The g~+o~ss let eaze is v~dmste~r 61 aqua feet at~d is zoned R-1- 40, OOi'l. ~ S+CHMIll'I } ~ ~~ ~ ~.~~! ~ _ ~ !. 1, ~ of ~ t ~ .l~D,~JRNN~ Ti NEXT MEETING - W~~ September 28, 2005 at 7.00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13TJ? Ftvlf!'waie Avrnuc, Sat~oga, CA ~ wle~ the A~aia~a widr L~sxbilitirs Act Can~~ ~yw,,x+eat spe~,el ~~ ~ this & ~aee oaabet thr Cletlr u (~) d968--1a~69 ar ctrlttq~r.cn..ux Nfam ~i8 bo~u~ pear m tabs mxti~g will .cmrl~e abe ~- m mie~e~apwo~lle ~~ m enaru+e xrcrssf6.rllry m thla ~ GFR ~.~-.3S.lOf A~DA ride IIJ. GeaerafiQfr. ~ .~lodnar Wi~16r the Gary afsarxt~o~t, de+cla~+e tl~t the ~r the moQagg asf the PLoaing G'a~m xis po~+ad ae SePt~embee' ~` n the awe of tiie Cky of 13717 Fruitvxk '' sod was ~r#lahfe fare rrvaew~ at t~ The . is slaw *vxilalJe nra a6e Ciiyk r ,. ~ ff~aasaol~r`t~re'a~~l,p~we ~ead~o~re-mfl~~wsoap~p "f~ ~F • • ~. ~ ~~ Applicatfoa No.: #06-073 . Type of Application: Zoning Ch~dinance ~~ -Personal Service Bueinessee Location: CH-1-and CH-2 honing Districts (Dawnt~own Village) ApplicandOwner: City o#SarAtoge Staff Planner: I.ata Vasudevan, AICP~ ~ / Associate Planner ~ Y M Date: September 14, 2003. APN: N/A Depattm~nt Hesui:G .:::,:,: ,*~~ CFi-1 W CH-2 M 0 500 r-..~ ~ ~~ -I and CfI-2 ZONING DISTRICTS i~~'/ n(~t~l Application 06-078 -Zoning Ordinance Amendment -Personal Service Businesses is n~ cQC ce,.l,;~n nn*nl..l;nl,,,,e.l* ~..~.,11~111.1..1.... , /~~ , /~ ~ l ,.h ~ n n. ~~ n T~ll Tl~lln~ Aw t~n Mt*;Mn• ~~n n ~ w n~ n ~T ~ n r ~ LF ~ ,a « l.;ll, Fn,,. *l,n nnln ,.F..n,,,a~ „ e, ~, ./.L.n.l,];nn VL 111N11 l. lA.,,n,..,an.] l..l, n,.,a ^f^f2 R ~ Ir L / V \e ~ - 15-06.585 Personal service business. "Personal service business" means a use that sells any personal convenience services directly to the public, including but not limited to, barbers, beauty salons, nail salons, hair removal and/or replacement, piercing, tattooing, psychics, cleaners, tailors, dog grooming, yoga studios, fitness centers and other services of a similar nature. Personal service business does not include travel agencies, insurance offices, law offices, or any other type of office use. It is very common for personal service businesses to have a combination of retail and personal services. An example is a beauty supply store which may have a significant retail azea in the front with styling stations in the rear. Some cities classify such uses as retail if the retail sales azea comprises a certain percentage of the store. This type of restriction is difficult to monitor. Staff finds that it is easier to classify any business as a `personal • service business' if it provides any personal service, even if it is secondary to its main use. To achieve this clarification in the City Code, Staff proposes the following amendment to section 15-06.560 `Retail establishment' (new language is shown in bold text): 15-06.560 Retail establishment. 'Retail establishment' means a use engaged in providing retail sale or rental of items primarily intended for consumer or household use. Any use including a personal service business is a personal service business and not a retail establishment. (a) Extensive retail establishment, as used with respect to pazking requirements, means a retail use having more than seventy-five percent of the gross floor azea used for display, sales and related storage of bulky commodities, including household furniture and appliances, lumber and building materials, carpeting and floor coverings, air conditioning and heating equipment, and similar goods, which uses have demonstrably low parking demand generation per squaze foot of gross floor azea. (b) Intensive retail establishment, as used with respect to parking requirements, means any retail use not defined as an extensive retail establishment. Type of Reguulation Applicable to Personal Service Businesses • The current interim urgency ordinance imposes a ban on all new street level personal service businesses in the Village that have their primary access from Big Basin Way or n~n~~~ Application 06-078 -Zoning Ordinance Amendment -Personal Service Businesses across the front lot line. Staff finds that adoption of a zoning ordinance amendment that • continues or expands this prohibition would be inconsistent with the purpose of the C (Commercial) zoning district. City Code section 15-19.010(b) states that one of the purposes of the C district is, "To provide opportunities for retail stores, offices and service establishments to concentrate for the convenience of the public and in mutually beneficial relationship to each other." The `Saratoga Village Plan' also lists the encouragement of a town center mix of business establishments as an objective for the Village. Apart from the current concentration of such businesses, personal service establishments at the street level, such as hair and nail salons and day spas, are essential in contributing to a viable variety of businesses in the Village. Furthermore, as in all successful business districts, competition between several of the same types of business uses contributes toward a viable economic atmosphere and allows more choices for customers. Therefore, the proposed ordinance amendment is not intended to limit competition, but to limit over concentration of uses that already exist in the downtown Village. It is the City's role to support the objectives of the C zoning designation by analyzing the impacts of each new personal service establishment to ensure that there is a balanced mix of businesses. Conditional uses as described in City Code section 15-55.010, require special consideration by the Planning Commission so that they may be located properly with respect to the objectives of the purposes of the district in which the site is located. Furthermore, General Plan Land Use Policy LU 7.1 states, "The City shall consider the economic impacts of all land use decisions on the City." In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the approving authority must make all of the findings stated in City Code • section 15-55.070 consistent with the General Plan. Staff believes that the proposed amendment would enable the Planning Commission to evaluate each new application for a personal service business on a case-by-case basis in relation to the mix of businesses that are present and in light of the City's economic goals for the Village. Permissible Locations for Personal Service Businesses The current Interim Urgency Ordinance applies only in the Village. The CH zoning districts encompass the Village area; no other areas in Saratoga have a CH zoning designation. Since a concentration of personal service businesses has been identified by the City Council in the downtown Village only, Staff recommends that personal service establishments remain permitted uses (no use permit required) in the C-N and C-V zoning districts. Also, the Interim Urgency Ordinance restricts new personal service businesses would be located at street level or would have primary access across Big Basin Way or across the front lot line. Staff recommends that the zoning ordinance amendments have a similar scope. Accordingly, staff recommends the following text amendments. Recommended deletions are represented with strikeout text, and insertions are in bold text: 15-19.020 General regulations. The following general regulations shall apply to all commercial districts in the City: • ~~n~~~~~ Application 06-078 -Zoning Ordinance Amendment -Personal Service Businesses • (a) Permitted uses. The following permitted uses shall be allowed in any commercial district, unless a use involves the operation of a business providing direct customer service (including, but not limited to, conducting a delivery service) on-site between the hours of 1:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M., in which event such use maybe allowed upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter: (1) Retail establishments, except restaurants, markets, delicatessens, and any establishment engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages. (3) Home occupations, conducted in accordance with the regulations prescribed in Article 15-40 of this Chapter. (4) Parking lots which comply with the standards for off-street parking facilities as set forth in Section 15-35.020 of this Chapter. (5) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a permitted use. 15-19.030 C-N district regulations. (a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Section 1S-19.020(a) of this Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in a C-N district: (1) Professional and administrative offices. (2) Financial institutions. (3) Personal Service Businesses. (4) Religious and charitable institutions. • (5) Christmas tree and pumpkin sales lots. 15-19.040 C-V district regulations. (a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Section 15-19.020(a) of this Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in a C-V district: (1) Professional and administrative offices. (2) Financial institutions. (3) Personal Service Businesses. 15-19.050 C-H district regulations. (a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Section 15-19.020(a) of this Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in the CH-1 and CH-2 districts: (1) Professional, administrative and medical offices and financial institutions, when located either above the street level or at street level if separated from street frontage by a retail establishment; and . ~~ ~°~T~° °~~°'~~~~'~~~°~~~. (2) Personal Service Businesses that are above street level, and personal service businesses that are at street level but do not have primary access from Big Basin Way or across the front lot line. (b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Section 15-19.020(b) of this Article, the following conditional uses may also be allowed in the CH-1 and CH-2 districts, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this • Chapter: (1) Professional, administrative and medical offices and financial institutions, when n~n~«~ Application 06-078 -Zoning Ordinance Amendment -Personal Service Businesses located at street level and having street frontage. • (2) Theaters. (3) Religious and charitable institutions. (4) Mixed-Use Development conforming to the Design Standards found in Article 15- 58. (5) Personal Service Businesses at the street level that have primary access from Big Basin Way or across the front lot line. WRITTEN REPORT The contents of this report are intended to satisfy the requirements of Government Code section 65858(d) describing the measures taken to alleviate the conditions which led to the adoption of the Urgency Interim Ordinance. Upon presentation of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment to the City Council, Staff will recommend that the Council approve the contents of the City Council staff report to satisfy the aforesaid requirement. GENERAL PLAN FINDINGS The General Plan designates the downtown Village area as CR -Retail Commercial. General Plan Land Use Policy LU 7.1 states, "The City shall consider the economic impacts of all land use decisions on the City." The Interim Urgency Ordinance describes that the concentration of existing number of Personal Service Businesses limits or excludes other retail activities, reduces the . attractiveness of the Village and ultimately jeopardizes the ability of the City's retail azea to compete with other retail areas in the region. The City launched an economic development program in 2001 and has been focusing attention on revitalizing the Village for some time. Adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment would be consistent with Policy LU 7.1 and the City's goals to revitalize the Village. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT It has been determined that this project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15308 of the State Environmental Guidelines. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance relating to personal service businesses in the downtown Village. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. City Council Ordinance Nos. 225 and 231- Adoption of Interim Ordinances • l141~1('~f~~ • • Attachment 1 • f~~tl~l(~i?~" RESOLUTION NO. • Application No. 06-078 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received a request to consider amendments of certain sections of the Zoning Code relating to personal service businesses in the CH-1 and CH-2 zoning districts; 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 staff presented sufficient information required to evaluate the proposed amendments, and the following findings have been determined: ^ The proposed amendment will be consistent with the purpose of the C district as stated in City Code Section 15-19.010. That the proposed amendment will enable the Planning Commission to review each application for a new Personal Service Business or expansion of existing Personal Service Businesses in the CH zoning districts according to Use Permit findings stated in City Code • Section 15-55. ^ The proposed amendment will empower the Planning Commission to grant and to deny applications for Conditional Use Permits for the establishment or expansion of Personal Service Businesses. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of all of the testimony and related information the Planning Conunission of the City of Saratoga does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Saratoga approve the proposed amendments to the Chapter 15 Zoning Regulations of the City Code as stated below. Deleted language is shown in strikeout text and new language is shown in bold text. . 15-06.585 Personal service business. "Personal service business" means a use that sells any personal convenience services directly to the public, including but not limited to, bazbers, beauty salons, nail salons, hair removal and/or replacement, piercing, tattooing, psychics, cleaners, tailors, dog grooming, yoga studios, fitness centers and other services of a similaz nature. Personal service business does not include travel agencies, insurance offices, law offices, or any other type of office use. 15-06.560 Retail establishment. "Retail establishment" means a use engaged in providing retail sale or rental of items primarily intended for consumer or household use. Any use including a personal service business is a personal service business and not a retail establishment. (a) Extensive retail establishment, as used with respect to parking requirements, means a retail use having more than seventy-five percent of the gross floor area used for display, sales and related storage of bulky commodities, including household furniture and appliances, lumber and building materials, carpeting and floor coverings, air conditioning and heating equipment, and similaz goods, which uses have demonstrably low parking demand generation per square foot of gross floor area. (b) Intensive retail establishment, as used with respect to parking requirements, means any retail use not defined as an extensive retail establishment. 15-19.020 General regulations. The following general regulations shall apply to all commercial districts in the City: (a) Permitted uses. The following permitted uses shall be allowed in any commercial district, unless a use involves the operation of a business providing direct customer service (including, but not limited to, conducting a delivery service) on-site between the hours of 1:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M., in which event such use maybe allowed upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter: (1) Retail establishments, except restaurants, markets, delicatessens, and any establishment engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages. M\ c, "• ' e (3) Home occupations, conducted in accordance with the regulations prescribed in Article 15-40 of this Chapter. (4) Parking lots which comply with the standards for off-street parking facilities as set forth in Section 15-35.020 of this Chapter. (5) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a permitted use. 15-19.030 C-N district regulations. (a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Section 15-19.020(a) of this Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in a C-N district: n~nnc~~~ (1) Professional and administrative offices. (2) Financial institutions. (3) Personal Service Businesses. (4) Religious and charitable institutions. (5) Christmas tree and pumpkin sales lots. 15-19.040 C-V district regulations. (a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Section 15.19.020(a) of this Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in a C-V district: (1) Professional and administrative offices. (2) Financial institutions. (3) Personal Service Businesses. 15-19.050 C-H district regulations. (a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Section 15-19.020(a) of this Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in the CH-1 and CH-2 districts: (1) Professional, administrative and medical offices and financial institutions, when located either above the street level or at street level if separated from street frontage by a retail establishment; and . °~ ~°MT°° °~~"''''^'""°~~ (2) Personal Service Businesses that are above street level, and personal service businesses that are at street level but do not have primary access from Big Basin Way or across the front lot line. (b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Section 15-19.020(b) of this Article, the following conditional uses may also be allowed in the CH-1 and CH-2 districts, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter: (1) Professional, administrative and medical offices and financial institutions, when located at street level and having street frontage. (2) Theaters. (3) Religious and charitable institutions. (4) Mixed-Use Development conforming to the Design Standards found in Article 15- 58. (5) Personal Service Businesses at the street level that have primary access from Big Basin Way or across the front lot line. (1~(1(1(1~,~ • PASSED AND ADOPTID by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, September 14, 2005 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission • • n~~~~~ • Attachment 2 ,\ Cl~[ltl(~~ic: ,, ©RDY1~1~1V+CE N4. 231 • ~~ ' ~ =. ~,: Establ~shnl~t of new Persolial Ser°vace r$ttsil'les8~s ,dining the time the City staff is. . stedying_ the business enviroxonent .and the vue t~~ isu~g regulation$ on' su~i could result in conflcts.wtth an}~ regui~oris.that t~,ght u3ti~~~~~ ~ a~gtod~ ~~iusinesse~ Fpr the reasons stated herein, the o}~aing of ue~ P~onal Service Bats ~ Vie' .: :. _ . ,~ i1i dune the term of phis Ordinance poses a cent ~arid immediate tbTeat to public U` $ welfare. ale~l~, safety'~• ~ ... ' 'tion of the foregoing the City Council on 4ctobeT 5, 20A3 ~adopttd an urgency 1: ~In reCOg~, ~ . , cjrdlaance unpos~ng a :45-day u3arator~urn on the' eatabh~hment of F1 Serrnce.$tisnesses is the Y~i~g~ $ecauac i#. not y~tbeon_po .~ . to © a'k~ evaluate the ixif©rmation beutg developed by Ci#~y staff, the purpose of this o~di~ace is to r extend ~~at tnorato3 i~um tt~ (~ctflber Y 4; ~(~4.. , ~~ '`Ti'ns ~rtat~ce is ~t a pxo~ect aixb,}ec# to the=Callf,a.~~rcinznent~ ~ '~ 1 ~ 3'~g, sivt~ioa ~~ ~. t~+c evert chat ,: (Q~:) pursuant to CE~~ ~~de~~s s~ # crn tnis {Jr-dtn ~s fold to bye a .pro,~ect dot` eBQ~1,. ~fi ^aub~ acct: to `tie ,4~.t~ +rx . l ~~= ~Yi,S10A ~~•~~~ O~ ~, bt1~C :it Catl k ; fr, (iDllta~~ ln, ~ix'1.II • e h.~ ' A ~~' lie s~,cn nth certa~Mty th~t~ there ~~ ma ~~oas~- #hat ~ hati-e ~ s~~r ,~ ~.. ~ie eLlYlrOn'txieiit. The purpose of thas Ordinat~cv t~>'to prohx'`b~t •op au inter U~asis, li~sw, °'e ~~~al Seavice Businesses in:the Y%ilage, ~h~43~:~a~+ b~ ~thos~vvisa :ers~r'l~ r . ~Y ~. c7WSit~ .gdhe~t~ '~`~S ~~ne Wl~ tla# e~a~ $ ~ 1~ ~+~~~ar~n~at~ ~tt A ~ a3uta~s dray in~open$ ~'b~s~'~s ~~ ti~~`~ ~ r ~s,;,`' ~ ~,e, d wonl~i njat nld~ect~r: or dixec~y ~es~& #~~ ~~~. ,~ ., .. ~:f ~ .. ,~ ~ ~ .. ,. .. h `~ _ ; . QII. : , 7 _ - - 3'h~ }low: reg~lat~on ~~ be~b~ xr~posed, '~ ~~ x. ~ : r , ; t , ~ ~~ ~ { ~... , ~ e S ~pa. Cede 4r a :ec~ ~ .... , _ rlfi 'V^' ~ ~~ ~ yy , ~t 7• ~ t~ .. 7 A' ~ '1'~'~~~+!~It~k~lM~~~~~~~ Y ~~ i ,~~: ~ ~i~1 ~ ~~~ 'Rr~.~} ~~ ~ ' of the Gt~n~~~ ~~' l~~t,~ { load otl V ~~ ~ L . h l exe~tta~ pa~ar tb t$~ e~ftlve t~at~ ~1~#~ t~s' ~ .~ ~~ F .'td , " ~ _ lamer the ~~1`b"~i'~a~ $~rvl~. $1X51ness .1$1'~EAt ever ~'oril ~ ~ ' ^ z .r l u y ~n~{' qp J . "p~'SO'Il&i x7~(}' ~',~ V V B11S1]3CSS" means $. uB.ey dl'1C~'~~ '~~. E "`~~s~~ ~r3 `: ` _~ • ' ' . _ ' ~ ~ ~L'~ `fob' ~~~~C~BQDai +Care Q~ a~ Ii'~t~~'.Vl~lla} ~iSC~~ir1, ~1~ I~P~ 'fix ~ - ~ 4. ., ~ ~ /~ ~~~y, jam, - y . ~ .' ~~~ L~pQ~'~e firidin~ set farlh m ~eotu~' i, a~~ ~'~ ~s ~~ '. „'s C}i't~~e ~ ~u'aii~t t~ t~~a~t Code ~n~ aid ~~~~ , ~, ~ , '"~ ,` t0 tl~~ ~~~ara#4~~ hi .~E~~ l t3 '~ `~3+~-~~7~~ ~~~~ .. ~. . _, ' , re . ,e~ .i'~da~el ' , '~n~a ~s ~ I. , " 4'- .. ~> _ ., ~ rk ~~, ~.~..~.~~~ p~ eat"~ 1' ....y _ '' - '' :ws Sx ~~ ~. ~eptart~~;Req~.'enle~t. j t .. • ksyL.< , ,., _ ~ _ 1 , ~ ' . c Ten days prior to expiration of this Interim Ordinance, the City Council shall issue a written report pursuant to Government Code section 65858(d) describing the measures taken to alleviate the conditions, which have led to the adoption of this Interim Ordinance. Section 5. Severance Clause. The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this Ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this Ordinance. If any section, sub-section, pazagraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is held invalid, the City Council declazes that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this Ordinance irrespective of the portion held invalid, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this Ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. - Section 6. Publication. 'This Ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published once in a :newspaper +~f general circulation of the Ci#y of Saratoga within fiileen days after its adoption: _ This interim Ordinance was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Sazatoga on September 1, 2U04 and adopted by at least a four-f ftbs .(4/5) vote of the City Council as follows: AYES:. Councilmembers Norman Kline, Nick Streit, Vice Mayor Kathleen King, Mayor Ann Waltonsmith . . . . ., ~ NAYS: None ABSENT: Councilmember Stan Bogosian ... _ ABSTAIN: Noae sue. _ ~. MAYO CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA ., n~nn~~ ~ - • , ORDINANCE NO. 225 • AN INTERIM ORDINANCE EXTENDING A MORATORIUM ON NEW PERSONAL SERVICE BUSINESSES LOCATED ON THE GROUND FLOOR IN THE VILLLAGE AND DECLARING THE SAME TO BE AN URGENCY MEASURE TO TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declazes as follows: a. The City of Sazatoga's Village business district has long been recognized as an azea that has a mix of businesses that included cross section of retail, service, restaurant, and personal service industries that contribute to our citizens quality of life. b. The City's Village Design Guidelines and Village Improvement Project both contain numerous goals to create a vibrant downtown where the mix of retail and service based businesses exist. c. A nationwide economic recession has reduced the demand for many retail goods resulting in retail business failures and increasing retail space vacancies in the Village d. While the total number of Personal Service Businesses continues to grow, our current • vacant retail space is being converted to additional Personal Services Businesses compromising our desired Village business mix. e. The City does not have complete and comprehensive information analyzing the current business environment of the Village or describing the total number, type, and mix of businesses located therein, or the growth trend of different types of businesses, including Personal Service Businesses. f. The zoning provisions of the City of Saratoga does not provide a definition of "Personal Service Business" nor does it contain adequate procedures for investigating and addressing the impacts of new Personal Service Businesses in the Village. g. While the precise number of Personal Service Businesses has yet to be determined, an initial review of City business license information indicates that in calendar yeaz 2001 approximately l O locations in the Village were used for Personal Services Businesses, that the number increased slightly to 13 locations in calendaz year 2002, and that thus far in calendar yeaz 2003 the number has increased to approximately 161ocations. h. While a more detailed survey may more accurately reflect the number of Personal Service Businesses in the Village, the preliminary information referred to herein, coupled with the pending and anticipated opening of more such businesses, suggests the existence of a large and rapidly increasing number of Personal Service Businesses in the Village specializing in hair, nail, and skin caze, and a trend of vacant retail spaces converting to Personal Service Businesses. i. An increase in the existing number of Personal Service Businesses in the Village potentially threatens the City's desired business mix of retail and service businesses in a • number of way, including, but not limited to, a concentration of Personal Services n~nn~~ . Businesses which limit or exclude other retail activities, the decrease of varied retail opportunities thereby reducing the attractiveness of the Village to both shoppers and new retail businesses, and ultimately jeopardizing the ability of the City's retail areas to successfully compete with other retail areas in the region. j. The City's Department of Community Development has been directed to evaluate and make recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the necessity and potential form of regulation of new Personal Service Businesses. k. Establishment of new Personal Service Businesses during the time the City staff is studying the business environment and the value of imposing regulations on such businesses could result in conflicts with any regulations that might ultimately be adopted. 1. For the reasons stated herein, the opening of new Personal Service Businesses in the Village during the term of this Ordinance poses a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare. m. In recognition of the foregoing the City Council on October 15, 2003 adopted an urgency ordinance imposing a 45 day moratorium on the establishment of any new Personal Service Businesses in the Village. Because it has not yet been possible to obtain and evaluate the information being developed by City staff, the purpose of this ordinance is to extend that moratorium to October 14, 2004. n. This Ordinance is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, subdivision (b). In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in section 15061, subdivision (b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that it may have a significant effect on • the environment. The purpose of this Ordinance is to prohibit on an interim basis, new Personal Service Businesses in the Village which maybe otherwise permissible under existing~policies. The Ordinance will not create a change in the environment because it maintains the status quo. Any delay in opening such businesses is only temporary in nature, and would not indirectly or directly result;.in a physical change to the environment. j Section 2. Regulation. The following regulation is hereby imposed. This regulation shall prevail over any conflicting provisions of the Saratoga City Code or the other ordinances, resolutions, policies, and regulations of the City of Saratoga: 1. During the term of this Interim Ordinance, no new Personal Service Business shall be located on the first floor of the Commercial Historic District (CH-1 and CH-2), unless a lease has been executed prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. 2. "Personal Service Business" means a use, not conducted within an office, providing services for the personal care of an individual including, but not limited to, hair and nail salons and day spas. • 2 (1(lfl~'"~ r' ~~ Section 3. Interim Urgency Ordinance. Based upon the findings set forth in Section 1, above, this is an Interim Urgency Ordinance adopted pursuant to Government Code section 65858, and pursuant to the authority granted to the City of Saratoga in Article 11, Section 7 of the California Constitution. This Ordinance shall therefore take effect immediately upon adoption. This Ordinance shall extend the term of the Interim Urgency Ordinance adopted on October 15, 2003 until October 14, 2004, unless extended prior to that time by the City Council pursuant to Government Code section 65858. Section 4. Reporting Requirement. Ten days prior to expiration of this Interim Ordinance, the City Council shall issue a written report pursuant to Government Code section 65858(d) describing the measures taken to alleviate the conditions which have led to the adoption of this Interim Ordinance. Section S. Severance Clause. The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this Ordinance is severable and independent of every other • section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this Ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is held invalid, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this Ordinance irrespective of the portion held invalid, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this Ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. Section 6. Publication. This Ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. • 3 61(ln(~~ ~. , • This interim Ordinance was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga on November 19, 2003 and adopted by at least afour-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council as follows: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: Councilmembers Kathleen King, Norman Kline, Vice Mayor Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor Nick Streit NAYS: Councilmember Stan Bogosian ABESNT: None ABSTAIN: None SIGNED: MAYOR OF THE OF SARATOGA • Saratoga, California 1 • A 4 ~~nc~~ 3 Saratoga, California D~ MINUTES ~ nd ~J ARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION S DATE: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 PLACE: Adult Day Care Room, 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Nagpal called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop Absent: Commissioners Uhl Staff: Director John Livingstone and Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of July 27, 2005. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner • Cappello, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of July 27, 2005, were adopted with changes to pages 5 and 13. (3-0-1-3; Commissioner Uhl was absent and Commissioners Hunter, Rodgers and Schallop abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communication items. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 18, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Nagpal 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. Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #06-020 (389-05-021) LOVOI, 19152 De Havilland Drive; -Appeal by aforesaid property owner of an Administrative decision denying the removal of a Canary Island Pine tree at the noted address. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that during the processing of an Administrative review of a single-story addition to an existing single-family residence, the Arborist's report determined that a Canary Island Pine located within the proposed footprint of this addition was worth preserving therefore the Administrative decision was to require the preservation of this tree. • Added that the property owner appealed this decision to require the retention of this tree. • Explained that the Commission shall use the criteria in the Code in formulating its decision on this appeal. Commissioner Hunter told staff that this tree actually looks like a Monterey Pine and that it actually looked quite brown during the site visit although this is likely a part of the needle drop that occur during the summer. • Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Paul Lovoi, Property Owner and Appellant, 19152 De Havilland Drive, Saratoga: • Informed the Commission that he has owned this property for 27 years and it is a 13,000 square foot lot. • Added that they have been planning for this remodel for years now. • Said that this particular tree actually fell over years ago and he simply propped it back up. This tree also nearly died during the drought and that they have been good stewards of their trees over the years. • Explained that there are nine Ordinance sized trees on this parcel and by removal of this tree he is not denuding the local neighborhood of trees. • Said that his back neighbor has a large lot with a large stand of Redwood trees. He is proposing to plant an additional Coast Redwood on his property to join this existing grove. • Reported that there are only two directions they can go in with their addition to the rear and toward Cox Avenue, which is to the north and east sides of his property. • Said that they are proposing to go to the north with an expansion of their kitchen and addition of a study. Their home is an Eichler that needs updating. • Said he is available for questions and assured that he is willing to plant a nice replacement tree for this tree. • Added that this is the only non-native tree on his property. Commissioner Cappello reminded Mr. Paul Lovoi of the discussion during the site visit about the possibility of modifying the addition to keep this tree. He asked Mr. Paul Lovoi if anything had been done to address this possibility. • Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 3 • Mr. Paul Lovoi said that the Arborist has imposed an 11-foot perimeter around this tree and they would have to reduce the size of their kitchen and study additions. This tree needs to be eight feet to the north. Commissioner Cappello said that this tree interferes with the existing house as far as the proposed perimeter. Mr. Paul Lovoi said that there is approximately 10 feet distance right now. Commissioner Rodgers said that there is a fair amount of setback between the kitchen and side of the house. She suggested moving the bulk of the house away from this pine. Mr. Paul Lovoi said that they are building as far as possible with required setbacks. Commissioner Rodgers said that there is room to take the kitchen out but perhaps the den and living room additions can be pushed back further. Mr. Paul Lovoi said that they would not likely do a study in that case because they want a square useable room. He pointed out that pine trees are dying in the area. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that this is not a great area for Monterey Pines. Mr. Paul Lovoi agreed saying that they are not native to this area. Commissioner Rodgers asked why the growth of the limbs appears stunted. Mr. Paul Lovoi said he is not sure but perhaps due to the fact that the tree fell over years ago. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Hunter expressed her appreciation for the City's staff and Arborist's interest in saving a tree but that she thinks this particular tree can go. There is no need to preserve it, as it is not a particularly nice looking tree. The Lovois should be able to enjoy their new kitchen and live it up. Commissioner Rodgers: • Pointed out the factors in the Code that must be met including the condition of the tree; necessity due to damage or threatened damage; topography; number of other trees and effect; age and number of trees; alternatives to retaining; any other reason and necessity. • Said that in her opinion the condition of this tree is okay, there is no damage or threat of damage requiring the removal; there is no unusual topography; the tree is underneath existing tree canopy. However, retaining this does make for an awkward addition and the need to implement post and beam construction for that addition in order to retain this tree. Therefore there is no alternative to removing the tree in order to allow this addition. • Stated her agreement with the comments made by Commissioner Hunter. • Expressed her support for granting this appeal to allow the removal of this Canary Island Pine. Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 4 Commissioner Schallop: • Said he agreed with both Commissioners Hunter and Rodgers. • Reminded that there are plenty of healthy trees on this lot. • Pointed out that the applicant is offering to plant a replacement tree. • Said that removal of this tree offers this property owner his only option for remodeling his home. • Stated that the Commission does not need to make a majority of the findings. Any one finding can be used to justify the removal. • Recommended approval of this appeal. Commissioner Rodgers agreed. Commissioner Kundtr: • Said that there is~a trade off issue in allowing this property owner to maximize the design of their addition versus retention of this one tree. • Stated that on balance, this owner should be allowed to enjoy maximization of their new residential addition design. • Expressed appreciation to Mr. Paul Lovoi for his willingness to plant a Coast Redwood. • Stated his support for granting this appeal. Commissioner Cappello agreed. Chair Na al: 9P • Reiterated her appreciation to staff for fighting for every tree. • Assured that this Commission would not support every tree coming down but rather will look at these requests on a case-by-case basis. • Said that she would support this appeal as necessary findings for support can be met. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission granted an Appeal (Application #06-020) overturning the Administrative decision denying the removal of a Canary Island Pine tree on property located at 19152 De Havilland Drive with the added condition to plant a new Redwood tree at the back of the property, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #04-177(386-35-069) NEXTEL. 19550 Prospect Avenue (12033 Miller • Avenue -Church of the Ascension): - Nextel requests Use Permit approval to locate a Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 5 . wireless facility at the aforesaid address. The project consists of the installation and operation of concealed cellular antennas. Related equipment cabinets will be installed in a proposed enclosed area attached to one of the buildings on the property. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that Nextel is seeking approval to place a wireless facility at the Church of the Ascension. • Described the installation as consisting of a 262 square foot enclosure surrounded by an eight-foot high wall near Wamer Hall. Additionally, Nextel would have 80 square feet of lease space on a landscape island for placement of an artificial tree that would contain 12 panel antennas. This antenna is known as a mono-pine. • Explained that several revisions to the proposed appearance of the tree have been reviewed. • Reminded that last year the Commission approved the placement of a mono-pine at the Prince of Peace Church. • Said that staff has requested additional foliage that begins at the 12 foot point of the trunk instead of the proposed 20 foot point to start placing foliage. Staff feels that this added foliage would greatly improve the appearance. • Reported that the appearance of these tree antennas varies. One in Palo Alto has more foliage than the one at the Prince of Peace Church in Saratoga. • Said that she researched conditions imposed by other cities regarding appearance and maintenance. • • Said that the Arborist studied potential impacts and made recommended conditions. • Said that this is a new type of antenna for Saratoga. • Reminded that health and safety issues are not an issue for the Commission due to FCC regulations. • Recommended approval. • Reported that there is significant opposition to this application by neighbors to the north of the proposed site. Commissioner Rodgers thanked Planner Lata Vasudevan for her research and conditions. She asked if it would be possible to see a sample of the branches. Planner Lata Vasudevan presented a sample board for the Commissioners to review. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that the neighbors are questioning the need for this facility at this location. Director John Livingstone said that the applicant is asked to substantiate their need for this location. Commissioner Hunter asked whether having a child attempt to climb this phony tree would represent a health and safety issue. • Chair Nagpal asked about other locations along Prospect. Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 6 Planner Lata Vasudevan said that at Lawrence and Saratoga there are three sets of antennas on a tower there. Chair Nagpal asked if there are others further down Lawrence. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that the applicant could elaborate, as she is not sure. Commissioner Hunter reminded that a cell site has been located at the railroad tracks. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that the coverage map provided is black and white although the key says that colors represent the coverage. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that the applicant has a color copy. Commissioner Cappello said that perhaps asking for branches to start at 12 feet instead of 20 might create a public safety concern and that perhaps 20 feet is done to prevent climbing. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that this is a good question for the applicant. Commissioner Hunter asked if there are plans for a chain link fence at the base of this tree antenna. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied no. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Christian Stansky, Nextel Representative: • Said he can attest to Nextel's need for this site to provide coverage. • Assured that they would not be asking for this site if it were not needed. • Said that Nextel's RF Engineer is present this evening for questions. • Said that they are attempting to achieve seamless coverage for their customers and they need to fill in areas where there are coverage gaps. • Stated that this is a more difficult task in residential zones and that this church is an ideal site. It is 1.1 miles from Lawrence and .85 miles from DeAnza. It is zoned for Quasi Public use. • Advised that it is common for carriers to approach churches for placement of cell sites. • Said that there are no existing towers in this location and they need amono-pine to get the height needed. • Reported that there are a lot of factors taken into consideration in site selection. They have a black hole or an area with a lack of coverage. • Said that when they selected the church they also scouted out all other possible locations in the area. • Advised that the church was amiable to the lease. It has a large site in the heart of the area where Nextel's coverage is lacking. • Said that the most ideal placement on this site is near other pines where it will blend in. • Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 7 • Said that they had looked at the installation at Prince of Peace. This is a better situation than that. It is a better location. • Reminded that this has undergone a 1.5-year design process. • Assured that they are happy to comply with any conditions imposed. • Said that they will run bark all the way up to the top and place shrubs at the base to surround it. • Said that this is not a hasty process and that a lot goes into the selection of a site including planning, leasing and constructability on that site. • Reported that a flagpole antenna was offered as an alternative but the neighbors did not prefer that option. • Said that they obtained 32 letters of support for the mono-pine. • Said that they had investigated co-location possibilities in the area and found none. They have the ability to accommodate co-location at this site in the future. • Said that he is happy to provide real trees to further screen and mitigate this mono-pine. • Reported that the neighbor with the best line of site of this mono-pine is the church. • Reminded that wireless is here to stay and that they try to integrate as best they can into a community. • Stated his availability for questions. Commissioner Cappello asked what is meant by seamless coverage. He asked about the extent of the gap in coverage. He said that it appears that between Highway 85 and Lawrence there is no gap in coverage for in car service but there is difficulty from in home. Mr. Kevin Curry, Radio Frequency Engineer, Nextel: • Said that problems include garbled sound, dropped calls and/or no ability to make a call or use the walkie-talkie function offered by Nextel. Commissioner Cappello asked Mr. Kevin Curry if he could provide any data on the number of complaints received about unsatisfactory coverage in this area. Mr. Kevin Curry said that he did not have this data with him this evening but that Nextel does use such data to determine where the need is. Commissioner Rodgers asked about use of repeaters. Mr. Kevin Curry said that height is still needed as well as two antennas and distance between them. Chair Nagpal asked why they couldn't install at the Prospect and Lawrence site. Mr. Kevin Curry said that it would cause interference. Commissioner Cappello asked if this interference would be with their own network and not • with other carriers. Mr. Kevin Curry replied yes. Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 8 Commissioner Rodgers pointed to two pie-shaped wedges depicted along Highway 85 Commissioner Cappello said that without a transmitter the area of coverage is quite short. He asked if taking that into the other direction would it cover the entire area needed. Commissioner Hunter asked why Highway 85 was not considered. Commissioner Cappello said that he trusts that Nextel is optimizing existing sites before constructing new ones. He asked if there are other gaps in Saratoga and for future plans for cell sites in the future. Mr. Kevin Cuny said that there is a gap in coverage on Highway 9 between Los Gatos and Saratoga. Mr. Ray Muzzy, 19518 Eric Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he is here for two reasons. One is to represent himself. The other is to represent 49 other homeowners from his neighborhood and the surrounding area. This represents 79 percent of the impacted zone. • Said that this proposed installation has impacts on streets such as Eric Drive, Candy Lane, C, Miller Avenue, Ashton and Terrance Avenue. • Questioned why neighbors just learned about this proposal two weeks ago when it has been underway for 1.5 years. • Said that he is surprised at such short notice on such important activities. • Added that the description on the notice sent was not very descriptive. • Reported that representatives from the church talked to some locals as well as to their parishioners. However, the people within the impact zone are the ones who count. • Said that 49 people have listed their concems and these concerns need to be addressed before a final decision can be made. • Questioned why a commercial venture should be required in a residential area. • Said that there are four areas of concern. One is the idea of this commercial venture in this area. The second is the impacts on the zoning. The third is that this tree looks artificial. The fourth is that this is the wrong location and that there are other viable placements on this site. • Stated that since the neighbors took time to fill out forms, their concerns should be heard and addressed before a final decision is made. • Suggested that this process be slowed down, as the neighborhood has only been aware of this proposal for two weeks. • Recounted that he had sent out an email seeking cell service vendors with coverage in his area. Sprint replied that they could offer excellent coverage. • Announced that Sprint and Nextel recently merged. Ms. Donna Muzzy, 19518 Eric Drive, Saratoga: • Said that she has lived at this same address for 38 years. • Stated that she is active in Saratoga activities and takes an interest in her neighborhood • Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 9 • • Said that she wants this to stay as a residential neighborhood and that she does not want a fake tree. • Said that this area mainly has Redwood trees. • Stated that this is a poor location and that this would not be safe for children in the neighborhood. Mr. Bill Ness, 19537 Eric Drive, Saratoga: • Said that 22 of the 30 people who supported Nextel's request are out of the area or members of this church. • Said that he is disappointed, mad and feels betrayed. • Stated that he has lived in this town for 40 years, 37 of those years on Ashton Court and the last three on Eric Drive. • Said that he can see this location from his front door. • Reported that a realtor told him that this installation will degrade the value of his property by $50,000 and that he must disclose that this cell site is a source of radiation. Mr. Paul Fontenot, 19537 Eric Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he visited the 849 Pollard cell site that is co-located with Sprint. • Reported that there are five nearby Nextel sites and five nearby Sprint sites. With their merger, these companies have 10 sites in the area. • Questioned the need for this installation. Mr. Tom Ness, 19537 Eric Drive, Saratoga: • Expressed the irony of having the first item on tonight's agenda be the removal of a real tree and the second item on the agenda being the addition of a fake tree. • Said that he grew up in Saratoga. • Questioned the need for this cell site and suggested the need for independent verification of the claims made by Nextel. • Questioned whether this is the best location on this site itself. It would be the first thing seen at the comer of Miller. • Suggested that this cell site would be better located on a street with faster traffic such as Prospect. • Disagreed with the staff report's contention that this will not be visible from most residences. • Said that most of the people in the impacted zone are against this installation. Actually, all but one is against. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Tom Ness if he has cell phone ability from his house and whether it is important to him to have cell phone service available from his home. Mr. Tom Ness replied yes. Mr. Roy Cook, 12305 Candy Court, Saratoga: • Said that he has resided at this location for 40 years. It is located off of Miller. • Said that he is a realtor here to support Mr. Muzzy and Mr. Ness. Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 10 • Pointed out that California real estate law requires the disclosure of any negative feature of a property. This cell site would scare some people off and could affect the sale and appreciation in value of this property. • Recommended that if the cell site must be located on this property that it be placed in the parking lot rather than at the corner. Ms. Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, Saratoga: • Said that she and her husband recently saw one of these artificial antenna trees when driving down Highway 80 and nearly drove off the road. • Said that this would be awful. • Stated that using a cell phone in the car is just like being a drunk driver. • Said that cells phones are not needed when there are landlines available. Mr. Doug Snyder, 1370 Merrivale West Square: • Said that he is a real estate broker and general contractor. • Said that he sold a home that had a transmission tower behind in within four days. The tower didn't affect the sales price. • Pointed out that this mono-pine is not an eyesore and will be tucked in the back. • Said that he has been involved with the Church of the Ascension since it was built. • Stated that people tend to get upset and agitated. • Assured that radiation and property value issues are no problem with this installation. • Reported that he is a member of a homeowners association where people can agree on a paint color. Mr. Jerry Streb, 1307 Regency Drive, San Jose: • Stated that he is a member of the parish. • Said that four of the seven closest residents are supportive of this request. • Said that those who changed their opinion did so due to radiation information provided by Bill Ness. • Pointed out that Planner Lata Vasudevan has added conditions to better blend this tree into the environment. • Said that there is a lot of emotion on this issue. • Asked the Planning Commission to consider facts on this issue and reminded that a large number of neighbors do support this. Commissioner Kundtz asked Mr. Jerry Streb if his answer would be the same if the church were not going to be paid $2,000 per month in leasing fees. Mr. Jerry Streb said that if the need were presented he would support the neighbors and the City. Commissioner Schallop asked if other locations on site had been discussed. Mr. Jerry Streb said that they considered the west side of Warner Hall. However, the closer to Prospect the better the coverage would be. He said that it is technically feasible to locate elsewhere on the property and he is not opposed to considering alternate placement. Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 11 • Commissioner Rodgers asked about the consideration of a flagpole as an alternative to the mono-pine. Mr. Jerry Streb said that they considered and would accept that idea if it is the consensus. They did a straw pole and the breakdown was two-thirds in support for the tree and one-third in support of the flagpole. Mr. Hui Lin, 19617 Ashton Court, Saratoga: • Said that he has health issue concems. • Recounted how in 2002 he had placed an offer on a home that he withdrew once he teamed of a nearby tower. • Stated his belief that long-term exposure increases cancer rates and he has two young children. • Said that some people use hands-free headsets to avoid exposure of the cell phone too close to their head. • Stated he does not want to risk his family. • Said he has no problem with Nextel achieving good coverage but he is not here to support Nextel's business but rather to protect his own interest. Mr. Ron Schoengold, 1900 Saratoga Glen Place, Saratoga: • Said that he is a long-time member of this church. • Said he is also a trained scientist and epidemiologist working on cancer prevention over the last 35 years. • Added that he is not an RF specialist. • Said that he has read many studies on issues of high voltage lines versus radio frequency. • Added that he has used a cell phone for 20 years. • Said that his review of the literature and the fact that the FCC has taken jurisdiction over the issue of radio frequency leaves him believing that no documented studies have shown an effect. • Said that this is a young industry and there is not a lot of long-term data. It takes more than 20 years to obtain that data. • Stated that we live with an imperfect amount of knowledge. While there may be some risk, there is also a tremendous value and benefit. • Said he hopes that a solution can be found that accommodates everyone. Mr. Christian Stansky, Nextel Representative: • Stressed that it is important to understand that 1.5 years of review has been done. • Assured that they are trying to play by the rules and provide a needed service. • Said that this church is also a part of this area and they have property rights. • Said that providing greater service to the majority is important. • Stated that they would mitigate visual concerns using landscaping. • Pointed out that wireless is here to stay, as its capabilities are unbelievable. • • Said that it is odd to see this lack of support for technological upgrades here in the Silicon Valley. Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 12 • Said that Nextel has the right to provide service and complete its network in order to . compete. • Said that they are not trying to be the bad guy and not trying to wreck this neighborhood. • Said that having cell sites located at churches is prevalent today. Cell companies like to do so in order to provide funding to a church. • Stated that he understands that this is a contentious hearing. Commissioner Schallop asked if this specific coverage upgrade is still needed with the recent Nextel/Sprint merger. Mr. Christian Stansky said that the two use different frequencies and have different customer bases. He added that many types of businesses use cell service, as do families. He assured that Nextel's network does indeed need this location. Commissioner Rodgers asked about Nextel versus Sprint's technologies. Mr. Christian Stansky said that they both use different frequencies right now. Mr. Kevin Curry said that they home to integrate in the future but this merger with Sprint occur-ed just last week. Any merger of service is years off. Commissioner Schallop asked Mr. Kevin Curry how many antennas would be located on this tree. Mr. Kevin Curry replied six right now with potential for a maximum of 12 in the future. Commissioner Schallop asked if this is the most realistic tree option. Mr. Kevin Curry replied that they are getting better all the time. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out the recent experience of Mr. Muzzy who emailed Sprint regarding coverage in this area and was told it is excellent. Is Nextel's coverage not excellent in this area? Mr. Kevin Curry replied right. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the walkie-talkie distance is the same as cell service distance. Mr. Kevin Cuny said that every Nextel customer has the walkie-talkie feature. It is another part of the phone and offers direct connect. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Hunter: • Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 13 • • Said that she has been on the Planning Commission for a long .time and there are a lot of cellular carriers in Saratoga. There are a number of carriers at West Valley College as well as on Lawrence Expressway. • Said that some requests have been denied if found to not fit into the area. • Stated that this installation does not strike her as right. • Said that with this recent merger, we are not sure what will happen. • Expressed reservations about a plastic tree. • Said that she is afraid that this matter must go back to the drawing board and suggested a continuance. • Pointed out that the artificial tree at Prince of Peace Church is way back on the site within a grove of trees. On the other hand, this is a very visible location that she cannot accept. Commissioner Cappello: • Said that a continuance is in order here. • Said that he has no issue with the location as long as the tree is tucked back from the street between buildings and among real trees. • Said that other locations on site are worse and would offer a clear view from Prospect. • Said that a health standpoint is not an issue. • Said that he lives in the neighborhood and is not concerned and that required findings .have been met. • Suggested more information on what other options are available for coverage in this area as he is not satisfied with what he has seen. • Stated he is in favor of a continuance. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that this location is appropriate as far as zoning. • Reminded that a Conditional Use Permit allows a structure on a site that is not zoned for commercial uses with conditions. • Said that studies show no significant health risks regarding health and safety issues. • Reiterated that the Federal government has acted to take away local authority to consider the issue of health impacts. • Said that as far as location and aesthetics, she is happy with the tree and the proposed location and that the height of the mono-pine is lower than the trees behind it. • Said that as far as bulk and size, another solution is a flagpole. However, a tree is a better disguise than a flagpole. • Admitted that she is not sure`what can be done about property values. However a lack of cell phone coverage would be a negative to many potential property buyers. • Said that the there is not enough information to consider the possibility of locating this antenna on another location that would cover Prospect Avenue. • Announced that she cannot vote to accept this application and supports a continuance. Commissioner Schallop: • Said he agrees with Commissioner Rodgers except for the need for more information on • alternative cell sites. • Added that the applicant has shown alternatives and has made a sufficient showing of need. Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 14 • Stated that the issue is does it fit in. • • Said that he does not think that consensus is likely even with the alternate use of a flagpole. • Said that an up or down vote should be taken on the information we have. Commissioner Kundtr: • Said that if Nextel has evaluated and says that there is no alternative available, he too would support an up or down vote this evening. • Said he is inclined to approve but located the tree on the west side of the building amongst the Eucalyptus trees. • Suggested adding real pine trees in the area. • Said if Nextel wants more time he will support the continuance. If not, he would support a vote this evening. Chair Nagpal: • Said that optional locations have been reviewed today. • Stated that she would like to have Nextel say they cannot locate elsewhere and must have this location but she tends to support their proposed location or near existing Eucalyptus trees. • Said that when comparing the flagpole to the mono-pine, she prefers the tree but that she supports a more attractive looking tree than the one approved at Prince of Peace Church. • Said that she feels more time is needed. • Reiterated that safety issues are not within the Commission's purview. • Suggested that the neighbors could probably come up with a solution as to where to place this on this site and how best to mitigate its placement and supported giving them the opportunity to do so. Commissioner Nagpal asked Commission Schallop if he believes that Nextel has met the burden that there is no other viable location. Commissioner Schallop replied that he must rely on the information provided by RF engineers much like the Commission relies on the Arborist for tree advice. He said that the Code does not require that all alternatives be exhausted. Said that he assumes that the need for a cell site exists at this location. Commissioner Hunter advised those in attendance that the members of the Planning Commission all live in the City of Saratoga and are acting as citizen representatives of the community. If we feel something is not acceptable, we should state it that way. Commissioner Schallop said he did not disagree with that. Director John Livingstone said that if the motion is to be for a continuance he suggests that it be continued to a date uncertain. When the next hearing is set, staff will re-notice the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 15 • Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission CONTINUED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN consideration of a Conditional Use Permit (Application #04-177) to allow the location of a wireless facility at the Church of the Ascension on property located at 12033 Miller Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop NOES: Hunter ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None . *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS There were no Commission Items. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, Chair Nagpal adjourned the meeting at 9:27 p.m. to a Study Session immediately following this Regular Meeting and subsequently to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of September 14, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • ~e;-r Cht1r, 0:011 ATTEST: S~ocretsry to tl>G Ply C.os~missi~ • • • ""' REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application I~oJto OS/029 -14574 Hore~ehoe Ct Type of Application: Ge~ral Plan Ammdmeat, and Desi~ R~tview ~+vner: Bryn and Lrorllee Dpchai~r, ProPaty Owna~s Staff Pl~ntur: Deborah Ungo-McCormick, AICP, Contract Planner Date SCp~xmber 14, X005 APN: 397-20.044; 397-20.0:11- DCpart Heed: ~.., -p~~._ 14574 Horseshoe Court ~~ r ~y ,~ .-,s _ ... .. I ~ta:7. . ~ ,.... .- ~.. •y9~P~.; _-rT ~..- ',w_ ~ . ,-T,. ~ f~ ~~R'~p' ~Iq~' .. - - • -' C~as H~tY: • ~~: J Old ~ , OSd3i /SOS 0!91a2~OS O~Va81n3 It~dea~prl,b Ver;r Lour D~otwty ~Rieado~al e~ ~m R-1-Z0~001~ R 1-40,000 40,'~QR ; feat (.939 s~+ea~ :ar portrc~t ri[.pi+oel 397-24-94 at 14-bpe4~o~rt 1at.1e oonfo~oa ~ the da end coning of the $+o~t P' • b, t:. EXECUTIVE StJMl1~IARY Application No. OS-029;14574 Horseshoe Ct. • STAFF ANALYSIS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING: EXISTING ZONING: R-1-20,000 PROPOSED ZONING: R-1-40,000 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLD (Residential Low Density) EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 40,903 squaze feet (rear portion of parcel 397-20-94 at 14574 Horseshoe Court) SLOPE: 9.5 % average site slope; 7% slope at building site GRADING REQUIRED: N/A PROJECT DISCUSSION Background: The property owner currently holds title on two adjacent parcels with frontage on Horseshoe Court (Parcel 1) and on Horseshoe Drive (Pazce13). Parcel 1 (APN 397-20-94) is vacant while Parcel 2 (APN 397-20-31) contains asingle-family home. The applicant has submitted an application for a lot line adjustment between the two parcels that would transfer 40,903 squaze feet (.939 acres) from the rear portion of Pazce12 to Parcel 1. The lot line adjustment is an administrative review process (SMC Section 14-5-040), which essentially verifies that both sites will still conform to minimum site and zoning requirements (lot area, setbacks, maximum coverage, maximum FAR, etc.) of the applicable district, will not create any new parcels and has been prepazed following accepted mapping standazds. Staff has determined that the two resulting pazcels will meet minimum zoning district standards. The affected 40,903 square feet (.939 acres) portion of the site that is being transferred from Parcel 2 to Parcel 1 currently has land use designation of RLD (Residential Low Density) and is zoned R-1-20,000, while the front portion of the lot has a designation of RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) and is zoned R-1-40,000. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) and Rezoning to R-1-40,000 to make the land use designation and zoning consistent for the • entire site (See Exhibits A and B). (1(1()n1~3 Application No. OS-029;14574 Hozs~shoe Ct. The applicant has also submitted a design review application, which is being processed • concurrent with the lot line adjustment, general plan amendment and rezoning. Approval of the design review application would be contingent on approval of the general plan amendment and rezoning by City Council and recordation of the lot line adjustment. General Plan Conformance: The following General Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies aze applicable to the proposed redesignation: Land Use Element Policy 8.1: "Existing non-developed sites zoned single family detached residential should remain so designated. " The existing two pazcels aze zoned single-family detached residential. The redesignation of a portion of one parcel will not change the intended use of the site as both will continue to be designated for single-family detached residential. Zoning Regulations: The portion of the site affected by this rezoning is currently zoned R- 1-20,000 (Low Density Residential) while the remaining (front) portion is zoned R-1- 40,000. The purpose of the rezoning is to ensure consistency of development standazds for the entire site. In order to approve a redesignation to a lower residential density designation for the azea, however, Government Code Section 65863 (b) requires that: "No city, county, or city and county shall, by administrative, quasi-judicial, or legislative action, reduce, require, or permit the reduction of the residential density for any pazcel to a lower residential density that is below the density that was utilized by the Department of Housing and Community Development in determining compliance with housing element law, Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3, unless the city, county, or city and county makes written findings supported by substantial evidence of both of the following:" 1. The reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing element. The site is currently designated as asingle-family residential site and the proposed rezoning of the reaz portion of the site from R-1-20000 to R-1-40,000 will not change this designation. The rezoning will be consistent with adopted Land Use Element Policy 8.1, which states that "existing non-developed sites zoned single-family detached residential should remain so designated". The Housing Element does not proposed redesignation of any currently zoned single-family sites (2002 Housing Element Table 1 -Means of Achieving Consistency). 2. The remaining sites ident~ed in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584: c~~r~c~n~ Application No. OS-029;14574 Horseshoe Ct. The portion of the site subject to rezoning is currently designated for production of low • density residential and the change in zoning designation will not result in a reduction of anticipated housing units on the site. Furthermore, the rezoning will make the entire parcel consistent in zoning designation and the applicant is proposing a secondary dwelling unit, which is consistent with Housing Element goals to encourage production of secondary units. The proposed General Plan amendment and rezoning would allow the subject site to develop under one single land use designation and single-family residential district and thus preserve the existing single-family nature of the existing neighborhood, as provided for in the General Plan and Housing Element. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15061 (b) (3) because there is no possibility of an impact on the environment in that the project not result in increased development potential for the parcel in question. DESIGN REVIEW ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 100,751 net square feet SLOPE: 9.5 % average site slope; 7% slope at building site GRADING REQUIRED: Minimal grading required since most of the construction is at grade. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. MATERIALS AND COLORS: Materials and colors include aearth-colored stucco and a wood material on the entry. The roof is grey metal for durability and minimal maintenance and will darken to a dull grey over time. • ~nnnn~ Application No. OS-029;14574 Horseshoe Ct. PROJECT DATA: • Proposal Code Requirements Lot 18% Maximum Allowable 35% Coverage: Residence and Garage 5,651 sq. ft Secondary Unit 506 sq. ft. Swimming Pool 688 sq. ft. Patios 3,531 sq. ft. Driveway 7,039 sq. ft. Walkways 795 sq. ft. TOTAL 18,210 sq. ft. 35,262.85 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable 7000 + 10% Residence 6168 sq. ft Gazage 1026 sq. ft. Secondary Unit 506 sq. ft. TOTAL 7700 sq. ft. 7700.00 sq. ft. i • Setbacks: rement Min. Requ Front >60 ft. 30 ft. Reaz >125 ft. 50 ft. Left Side >50 ft. 20 ft. Right Side >50 ft. 20 ft. Maximum Allowable Height: 26 ft. 26 ft. Lowest elevation pt. 454.60 Highest elevation pt. 462.50 Average 458.50 At the topmost point of 484.50 the structure PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests design review approval to construct a two story-story, single-family residence that includes a gazage and a secondazy unit. The total floor azea of the proposed single-family residence and garage is 6,168 squaze feet and the total floor azea of the (1(1(1(ii (js Application No. OS-029;14574 Horseshoe Ct. secondary unit is 506 squaze feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 25.4 feet. The lot size is approximately 100,751 squaze feet and the site is zoned R-140,000. As indicated in the General Plan and Rezoning Discussion above, the applicant has submitted an application for a lot line adjustment between the subject parcel and the adjacent parcel to the left (northwest) of the site. The purpose is to create a lazger pazcel and to develop with asingle-family residence and secondary unit. The average slope of the property is 9.5% and 7% at building site. The site is currently vacant and contains several ordinance size trees in the vicinity of the proposed residence and azound the perimeter of the site. The property has direct frontage along Horseshoe Court, which is a private street. The design of the proposed residence utilizes the slope of the lot to minimize mass and bulk, and incorporates most of the existing trees on the site. The surrounding homes aze differing styles -from ranch to craftsman to Italian tuscan villa. The house design is contemporary in the post-modern style, similaz to the minimalistic European style of azchitecture. This includes the use of traditional (stucco, wood) and non- traditional such as metal and exposed structural steel. The roof is metal for lifetime durability and minimal maintenance and will dazken to a dull grey over time. The applicant indicates that the house's primary goal is the balance of natural sun light /orientation and it's connection to the outdoors. The house is organic in nature composed of arched roof volumes reflecting the lazge oak tree canopies that dominate the site. Earth-colored stucco and wood on the wall surfaces aze designed to blend into the environment of the site. Staff had initial concerns that the contemporary design and materials would not be consistent with the existing surrounding homes (which include a wide range of traditional styles). However, the house will be located in the middle of the lot, which is screened by existing mature vegetation so that it is not visible from the adjacent street and properties. Further, the applicant has made every attempt to incorporate the existing trees in the design of the house. Zoning Code Section 15-45.060 states that whenever, as a result of the proposed construction, reconstruction or expansion, the gross floor azea of all structures on the site will exceed 6,000 squaze feet Design Review is required. The proposed project exceeds 6,000 squaze feet and is a two-story structure; therefore, Planning Commission review is required. The secondary dwelling unit is a permitted use; therefore, only the design of the structure is subject to Planning Commission review. The project also includes a swimming pool and patio area on the north side of the residence. The house is designed azound the dense existing trees and steps down to the north following the natural topography. The owner is also retaining the most of the existing mature trees on the site which provide privacy for the site. Additionally, the landscape plan is comprised of primarily native shrubs, flowers and groundcovers. The driveway and turnaround is comprised of porous pavers up to the azea in front of the garage, which is comprised of colored concrete paving. • Application No. OS-029;14574 Horseshoe Ct. Secondary Dwelling Unit City Code mandates that secondary units must be a rmnunum of four hundred squaze feet, shall not exceed twelve hundred square feet of living space, and must have no more than two bedrooms. A minimum of one off-street covered pazking space within a gazage is required. The proposed one-bedroom 506.0 square foot secondary unit complies with code. The adjacent three-car garage is sufficient to provide pazking for the main residence and the secondary unit.. As part of this application for a secondary dwelling unit, the applicant is permitted a one time ten percent increase in allowable floor azea based on a deed restriction that only allows the unit to be rented to below mazket rate households. Three pazking spaces are provided within the garage where two aze required for the residence and one for the secondary dwelling. Grading and Drainage A minimum of cut and fill is proposed for the project. The only fill azea occurs at the raised patio to the north. This is elevated from existing grade to allow a patio on the main floor level and is `cradled' between the wings of the house and hidden from view from the neighboring houses. The patio contains terraces that step down to follow the natural contours of the site. The grading plan will provide some on-site water retention through the use of bioswales and energy dissipators, and by incorporating pervious pavers along the entry driveway and turn azound. Trees The project site contains several ordinance size trees within the developable azea of the site and along the perimeter of the site. An azborist report was prepared based on preliminary plans for the residence on March 15, 2005. The Arborist Report identified 40 trees regulated by the Tree Ordinance that could be exposed to potential damage. These include twenty-six Coast Redwoods (#3-14, 16-26, 28, 30, 37), two Coast Redwoods (#38, 39), six Eucalyptus (#31-26), one Elderberry (#40), one Bay tree (#15), one Walnut (#29), one Spruce (#1), one Flowering Plum (#2) and one Monterey Pine (#27). The Arborist report dated March 15, 2005 concluded that trees #29 and #30 would be in direct conflict with the proposed residence, but due to their poor structural condition, their removal with property mitigation was highly appropriate. The report also concluded that, while not in direct conflict, 14 other trees would sustain substantial damage due to construction activities, and recommended redesign to minimize impacts to those trees. In accordance with the recommendations of the arborist report, the applicant revised the design of the residence and site improvements to minimize impacts to the ordinance size trees on the site. The City Arborist has reviewed the plans and has determined that the revised plans, with incorporation of recommendations outlined in the azborist report and subsequent review letters, will minimize impacts to trees in the vicinity of the proposed [1~(1[ln(~~ Application No. OS-029;14574 Horseshoe Ct. project (See Arborist Review Letters dated July 12, 2005 and August 31, 2005). Further, the applicant adjusted the originally proposed lot line adjustment to avoid conflict with ordinance size trees, as recommended in the original Arborist Report. Based on the proposed plans and location of trees, the tree protection bond is required which shall have a combined value of $194,150. In addition, tree mitigation for removal of trees #29 and 30 will require replacements with a combined value of $6,170. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has provided the City's neighbor notification templates for four adjacent properties. No negative comments have been received regazding this project. Geotechnical Clearance Geotechnical Clearance is not required for this project. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in MCS 15-45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy The project has been designed in a manner that minimizes interference with views and privacy to adjacent properties, including setbacks that exceed the minimum setbacks required by Code. The house is located in the center of the property to keep the maximum distance from all the surrounding neighboring houses. There aze no views blocked from any of the adjacent neighbors. The house is set into the grade on the southern portion to keep the overall height within the guidelines of the Saratoga requirements. The 2nd dwelling unit' s roof form follows the natural contours of the site to keep its height down and still tie into the overall architecture of the main house. Additionally, the project has been designed to preserve all of the existing mature landscaping along the perimeter of the site, which serves to enhance privacy for adjacent properties. (b) Preserve Natural Landscapes The proposed residence and landscape plan incorporate the existing mature vegetation on the site. Earth-colored stucco and wood aze designed to blend into the environment of the site. A sand float texture of stucco at the house walls and `ribbed' wood at the entry integrate with the site's textures. The new landscaping is meant to be `natural' and drought tolerant, using trees and grasses that are similar to the existing vegetation. Roofs aze arched metal to blend with the arching canopies of the lazge oaks on the site. The vaulted roofs are non-rectilineaz and echo the natural geometries of the site and trees. Driveways aze porous pavers that allow runoff to absorb into the paving azeas. The pazking area is concrete - to be stained in dark brown /red colors to blend into the ~141(1n(~'~J Application No. OS-029;14574 Horseshoe Ct. landscape. Low concrete walls are to have a `rough', textured appeazance. The terrace walls are to have a `rusted' steel facing that will integrate into the surrounding planting azeas. These measures serve to preserve and enhance the natural landscape of the site. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The project site contains 40 ordinance size trees in the immediate vicinity of the proposed residence that could be impacted by development of the site. In addition, there are several trees along the perimeter of the site that aze proposed to be retained. Of these, only two trees that aze located in the north side of the proposed residence (#29 and #30) would be impacted by the project and would require mitigation. The applicant is proposing to retain all other ordinance size trees, in addition to planting trees to mitigate the loss of the two trees and implementing recommendations by the City Arborist to ensure protection of the tree on the adjacent site. All arborist report recommendations have been made conditions of approval of the project to ensure a high degree of survival for all trees retained on site. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulkk Architectural details such as varied rooflines, varied and recessed wall planes break up building lines to create azchitectural interest and reduce mass and bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height The house is conceived of five main vaulted-roof volumes with `connector' spaces with low roofs. This scheme breaks up the massing of the overall house and allows a more integral connection to the site. The use of anearth-colored stucco and a wood material on the entry further tie the building to the site and reduce the bulk. The building height meets all the requirements of the Saratoga planning guidelines.. (f) Current grading and .erosion control methods. A minimum of cut and fill is proposed for the project. The only fill azea occurs at the raised patio to the north. This is elevated from existing grade to allow a patio on the main floor level and is `cradled' between the wings of the house and hidden from view from the neighboring houses. The patio contains terraces that step down to follow the natural contours of the site. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. (g) Design policies and techniques The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and staff report. Conclusion Staff concludes that the Design Review findings can be supported. (1(lf1(l~U Application No. OS-029;14574 Horseshoe Ct. . STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending City Council approve the General Plan Amendment 2. Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending City Council adopt the Ordinance approving the rezoning. 3. Approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution (Attachment 3) ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Recommending Approval of General Plan Amendment with attached Exhibit "A" 2. Resolution Recommending Approval of Rezoning with attached Exhibit `B" 3. Design Review Resolution 4. Arborist Report, dated March 18,2005 5. Arborist Review Letters dated July 12, 2005 and August 31, 2005 6. Neighbor Notification templates. 7. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project . notification. 8. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "C" 9. Elevation Renderings • (1(1(1(i~1. C7 Attachment 1 • . RESOLUTION OS-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMEND THE LAND USE MAP OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF A PORTION OF ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 397-20-94 (FORMERLY 397-20-31) FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, an application was made to the City of Saratoga under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for a Lot Line Adjustment to modify the lot lines between two parcels (APN 397-20-031 and 397-20-094), all as more particularly set forth in File No. OS-029 of this City; and, WHEREAS, an application was made to the City of Saratoga for an amendment of the General Plan Land Use Map to redesignate approximately 40,903 square feet (.939 acres) in the rear portion of parcel APN 397-20-94 (as modified by the aforementioned Lot Line Adjustment) from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential to conform with the existing designation and zoning of the front portion of said lot, as described in attached Exhibit A; and, • WHEREAS the Plannin Commission has conducted a dul noticed hearing at g Y which time all interested parties were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15061 (b) (3) because there is no possibility of an impact on the environment in that the project would reduce the development potential for the parcels in question.; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the General Plan Land Use Map needs to reflect and be consistent with the Very Low Density Residential land use designation of the front portion of the parcel; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed general plan amendment is consistent with land use and housing goals and policies of the General Plan.; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council amend the City of Saratoga General Plan Land Use Map by changing the land use designation of 40,903 square feet (.939 acres) in the rear portion of parcel APN 397-20-94 to Very Low Density Residential from Low Density • Residential, as shown in Exhibit A (attached). (1(1(1(~~.~ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, the 14`h day of September 2005 by the following roll call vote: • AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • • El(lnn'~..~ ~i-io~w..•.•.•.•..:•~~/• SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 111L Low DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL / 1AL VERY lOW DENSITY ' ~: ~ ESIGNATED .. ~ sloENnAL pow oEFISTY . ~ ..... ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ . . ~InAL vr:kRY pow oorsTh .............. . ....~.~. i!i, . ~ ~/ ~/ ............ i ~ ii,i . . ~Gy-BO=OS /i' i ,• i i .. ,, ............. ,, ,,, , i; . ............. ,;1 ~i, i ~- .............. j, ,~~ ,'%' . w9 LAS .~ /~.~. f Old , ~/ ~~ . i~ ;'. ,i ~. -,: ~ . r.Ba '~ A PLAT MAP FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT %; ' % WESTFALL ENgNEERS, INC. i~~'i 14583 BIG BASIN WAY, SARAIOGA %• • •~~l l~ • Attachment 2 1 • nn~~~ . RESOLUTION 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA BY FOR A PORTION OF ASSESSOR PARCEL #397-20-94 (FORMERLY 397-20-31)FROM R-1-20,000 TO R-1-40,000 WHEREAS, an application was made to the City of Saratoga for a change of the Zoning Map to rezone approximately 40,903 square feet (.939 acres) in the rear portion of parcel APN 397-20-94 (as modified by the aforementioned Lot Line Adjustment) from R-1-20,000 to R-1-40,000 to conform with the existing zoning of the front portion of said lot, as described in attached Exhibit B; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed hearing at which time all interested parties were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the Zoning needs to reflect and be consistent with the approved Very Low Density Residential land use . designation of that portion of the parcel; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15061 (b) (3) because there is no possibility of an impact on the environment in that the project would not increase the development potential for the parcels in question.; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission pursuant to Government Code Section 65863 (b) which requires that: "No city, county, or city and county shall, by administrative, quasi judicial, or legislative action, reduce, require, or permit the reduction of the residential density for any parcel to a lower residential density that is below the density that was utilized by the Department of Housing and Community Development in determining compliance with housing element law, Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3, recommends that the City Council find as follows 1. That the reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing element. The site is currently designated as asingle-family residential site and the proposed rezoning of the rear portion of the site from R-1-20000 to R-1-40,000 will not change this designation. The rezoning will be consistent with adopted Land Use Element . Policy 8.1, which states that "existing non-developed sites zoned single-family detached residential should remain so designated". The Housing Element does not (1(1(1() "~ proposed redesignation of any currently zoned single-family sites (2002 Element Table 1-Means of Achieving Consistency). • 2. That the remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing needpursuant to Section 65584: The portion of the site subject to rezoning is currently designated for production of low density residential and the change in zoning designation will not result in a reduction of anticipated housing units on the site. Furthermore, the rezoning will make the entire parcel consistent in zoning designation and the applicant is proposing a secondary dwelling unit, which is consistent with Housing Element goals to encourage production of secondary units. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance to rezone the 40,903 square feet (.939 acres) in the rear portion of parcel APN 397-20-94 from R-1-20,000 to R-1- 40,000 as shown in Exhibit B (attached). PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, the 14`h day of September 2005 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: • ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • (1(1(11 ~ LEGEND: .....:::.:........ R-1-20 SMIGLE FAMILY RESIDENnAL RESIOENnAL Low DENSITY .... / R-1-40 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENnAL ® RESIDENnAI VERY LOW DENSITY .... , ... AREA TO BE REZONED ... ~ i 11I u • ,•.ea M ~ ~~ %/' ~; ;i ' PLAT MAP ' !~~!%~'~'~ / FOR ,~~~, ;'~i`~,~/%, REZONING ;!!j %'. %/~~ % ,•" .~' i I / ; ~ : ~, WESTFALL ENGINEERS, INC. 14583 BIG BASIN WAY, $ARATGCA J '.. i ~ f JW `2Zf1~ ~ . I~~~~ V • Attachment 3 t (1(1(1020 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO.OS-_ Application No. 05-029 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Dexheimer;14574 Horseshoe Ct WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review for new 6,168 squaze foot, two-story home and a 506 square foot secondary unit at a maximum height of 26 feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heazd and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which proposes to construct a new single-family home, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to construction of a single family home in an urbanized azea; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 have been made in the affirmative: The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in MCS 15=45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy The project has been designed in a manner that minimizes interference with views and privacy to adjacent properties, including setbacks that exceed the minimum setbacks required by Code. The house is located in the center of the property to keep the maximum distance from all the surrounding neighboring houses. There are no views blocked from any of the adjacent neighbors. The house is set into the grade on the southern portion to keep the overall height within the guidelines of the Saratoga requirements. The 2°a dwelling unit' s roof form follows the natural contours of the site to keep its height down and still tie into the overall architecture of the main house. Additionally, the project has been designed to preserve all of the existing mature landscaping along the perimeter of the site, which serves to enhance privacy for adjacent properties. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The proposed residence and landscape plan incorporate the existing mature vegetation on the site. Earth-colored stucco and wood aze designed to blend into the envirorunent of the site. A sand float texture of stucco at the house walls and `ribbed' wood at the entry integrate with the site's textures. The new landscaping is meant to be `natural' and drought tolerant, using trees and grasses that are similar to the existing vegetation. Roofs are arched metal to blend with the azching canopies of the lazge oaks on the site. The vaulted roofs aze non-rectilineaz and echo the natural geometries of the site and trees. Dnveways aze porous pavers that allow runoff to absorb into the paving areas. The pazking area is concrete - to be stained in dazk brown /red colors to blend into the landscape. Low concrete walls are to have a `rough', textured appearance. The terrace walls are to have a `rusted' steel facing that will integrate into the surrounding planting azeas. These measures serve to preserve and enhance the natural landscape of the site. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The project site contains 40 ordinance size trees in the immediate vicinity of the proposed residence that could be impacted by development of the site. In addition, there aze several trees along the perimeter of the site that aze proposed to be retained. Of these, only two trees that aze located in the north side of the proposed residence (#29 and #30) would be impacted by the project and would require mitigation. The applicant is proposing to retain all other ordinance size trees, in addition to planting trees to mitigate the loss of the two trees and implementing recommendations by the City Arborist to ensure protection of the tree on the adjacent site. All azborist report recommendations have been made conditions of approval of the project to ensure a high degree of survival for all trees retained on site. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. Architectural details such as varied rooflines, varied and recessed wall planes. In addition, arched windows, precast stone columns and trim with keystone, wood frame windows and doors break up building lines to create azchitectural interest and reduce mass and bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The house is conceived of five main vaulted-roof volumes with `connector' spaces with low roofs. This scheme breaks up the massing of the overall house and allows a more integral connection to the site. The use of anearth-colored stucco and a wood material on the entry further tie the building to the site and reduce the bulk. The building height meets all the requirements of the Saratoga planning guidelines.. (fl Current grading and erosion control methods. A minimum of cut and fill is proposed for the project. The only fill azea occurs at the raised patio to the north. This is elevated from existing grade to allow a patio on the main floor level and is `cradled' between the wings of the house and hidden from view from the neighboring houses. The patio contains terraces that step down to follow the natural contours of the site. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and staff report. (l~)n(),~c; • NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, Application No. 05-029 for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Design Review Approval for the site shall be contingent upon approval of the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Lot line adjustment for the subject site. 2. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "C" (incorporated by reference, date stamped September 1, 2005 and in compliance with the conditions stated in this Resolution. Any proposed changes, including but not limited to facade design and materials, to the approved plans shall be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 3. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Report dated March 15, 2005, July 12, 2005 and August 31, 2005 as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. • 4. All enclosed accesso structures shall conform to setback and height ry requirements pursuant to Section 15-80.030 (d) of the Saratoga Municipal Code. 5. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. 6. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 7. A grading and drainage plan stamped by a registered civil engineer combined with 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, shall be submitted along with the complete construction drawings. An explanatory note shall be provided if all storm water cannot be maintained on site. 8. The drainage plan shall be designed to avoid off-site runoff onto adjacent properties. 9. The construction set shall include a final landscape, irrigation and utility plan. The final landscape plans shall show the required replacement trees. The utility • plan shall show locations of air conditioning units. Any proposed c~~nc- 3 undergrounding of utilities shall take into account potential damage to roots of • protected trees. 10. The owner/applicant is responsible for all damages to curb, gutter and public street caused during the project construction by project construction vehicles at the property frontage. Public Works Inspector will determine if any repair is required prior to Final Occupancy Approval. 11. Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the City Public Works Department for any work in the public right-of-way including demolition of existing driveway approach, new driveway approach, construction and curb, gutter and street repair, if needed. 12. 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, shall be submitted along with the complete construction drawings. An explanatory note shall be provided if all storm water cannot be maintained on site. 13. A deed restriction shall be recorded with the County of Santa Clara which restricts rental of the second unit to only households that qualify as lower, very- low, or extremely-low income households as those terms are defined in the most recent Santa Clara County Housing and Urban Development Program Income Limits. If rent is charged, the rent level for the second unit shall not exceed that • established by the Section 8 Program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or its successor for lower, very-low, or extremely low- income households. A copy of the recorded deed shall be on file with the City of Saratoga prior to final occupancy 14. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the community development department, shall be reconciled with a minimum $500 surplus balance prior to building permit issuance until final occupancy is granted. CITY ARBORIST 15. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Report dated March 15, 2005 and Arborist Review Letters dated July 12, 2005 and August 31, 2005 shall be followed, 16. Tree protective fencing and other protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist in review of the final plans, shall be installed and inspected by Planning Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. 17. The submitted landscape and irrigation plan shall be consistent with the • preservation recommendations stated in the City Arborist Report. o~z~ • 18. Trenching for pool equipment piping shall be identified on the landscape plan, and designed outside from beneath canopies of retained trees. 19. Prior to issuance of City Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $194,150.to guarantee their maintenance and preservation. 20. Prior to Final Building Inspection approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after the planting of required replacement trees, a favorable site inspection by the City Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 21. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant provide written proof from the Santa Clara Valley Water District that development is in compliance with requirements and applicable permits as stated in letter of Comments dated March 23, 2005. FIRE DISTRICT 22. Applicant shall comply with all Saratoga Fire District conditions. • CITY ATTORNEY 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 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. 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, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. C~ f1(1~1~125 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of • California, the 14th day of September 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 (1(1(1(1: 6 • ATTACHMENT 4 r~ ~n~~:f~ ~- ARBOR RESOURCES ' Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A TREE IlWENTORY AND REVIEW OF A PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT 14574 HORSESHOE COURT SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: Dexheimer APPLICATION #: 05-029 APN #: 397-20-094 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A March 1 S, 2005 • C7 • P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 nini~~2~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 1 S, 2005 SUhIMARY Parcel Line Adjustment The proposed line intersects two fairly large trees and will intersect a dozen or more smaller trees in the future. As such, the line may need reconfiguring to avoid potential disputes or legal concerns regarding the trees now or in the distant future. Proposed Site Development Forty trees of Ordinance size were inventoried for this report. Of these, two, #29 and 30, are in conflict and would be removed; replacements are recommended as mitigation and must be equivalent to their combined value of $6.170. By implementing the proposed design, 15 trees would be jeopardized and include #4, 5, 8, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 26, 27 and 32-36. Revisions are necessary to driveway, grading, landscape, and drainage design to achieve a greater protection of these trees; guidelines for achieving doing so are identified in the `Recommendations' section of this report. Two trees, # 15 and 28, are extremely unsafe and should be removed regardless of the proposed project. Given their condition, mitigation is not recommended. Tree #25 is at risk of failure and should be relocated. • All trees anticipated to be retained are expected to survive provided all recommendations are carefully followed and incorporated into construction plans. The bond amount required for adhering to the recommendations presented in this report is determined to be $194,150.1 INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with [1] an adjustment of the parcel line between 14574 Horseshoe Court and 14552 Horseshoe Drive, Saratoga and [2] the development a vacant lot at 14574 Horseshoe Court, Saratoga, to include a residence, driveway and landscaping. This report presents my findings and recommendations. Plans reviewed for this report include a Tentative Map for Lot Line Adjustment (by Westfall Engineers, Inc., dated 1/OS) and Sheets A-0 and L-1 (by Wilson Associates, dated 1/18/05). The trees' locations and numbers are presented on an attached copy of Sheet A-0 (Site Plan/Driveway Plan). • 'This value represents the sum of the appraised tree values shown on the attached table for trees anticipated to be retained. The values are calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9'~' Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Dexheimer Property, 14574 Horseshoe Court, Saratoga Page I of 8 City ojSaratoga Community Development Department ~~(~~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 1 S, 2005 Trees #2, 3,11, 20, 21, 32, 37 and 40 are not shown on plans reviewed. Their approximate • locations are presented on the attached map but should not be construed as being surveyed. Please note the surveyed location of each trunk should be shown on all site related plans. For identification purposes, metallic tags containing engraved numbers corresponding to trees within this report were attached to each accessible trunk. FINDINGS Parcel Line Adjusbnent The proposed new parcel line between 14574 Horseshoe Court and 14552 Horseshoe Drive intersects the trunks of one 30-inch diameter Monterey Pine and one 18-inch diameter Coast Live Oak. Additionally, the portion directed northwest to southeast is proposed within a fairly dense grove of approximately 12, relatively young Coast Live Oaks. As these Oaks mature, their trunks will intersect the parcel line as well. Based on my findings, the proposed line presents legal concerns regarding the ownership of trees that will be intersected, whether now or in the future. Disputes could arise regarding which property owner is responsible for the maintenance and potential liability of the `joint' ownership trees. In addition, the location of property fencing around trees and in close proximity to their trunks can also cause dispute between owners. Based on the amount of trees within the area of the proposed new parcel line, it maybe • impossible to avoid all existing trees. However, it appears that the immediate intersection of any trees can be avoided and the opportunity to circumvent most from likely intersection in the foreseeable future can be potentially achieved by establishing it proposed location possibly five to ten feet in either direction. Proposed Site Development Forty trees are located in close proximity to the proposed project and have been inventoried for this report. They include twenty!--six Coast Live Oaks (#3-14, 16-26, 28, 30, 37), two Coast Redwoods (#38, 39), six Eucalyptus (#31-36), one Elderberry (#40), one Bay tree (#15), one Walnut (#29), one Spruce (#1), one Flowering Plum (#2) and one Monterey Pine (#27). Specific data compiled for each is presented on the attached table. There are numerous, additional trees situated along the property's west side that are in proximity to the proposed grading. They were not inventoried for this report as any foreseeable impacts would not exist after plans are revised. These revisions shall include eliminating grading contours `458' and `460' from the design (shown along the north and west sides of trees #26 and 28). Trees #29 and 30 are in conflict with the design and would be removed. Both are in poor structural condition and their removal is highly appropriate. Replacements are recommended as mitigation. Dexheimer Property, 14574 Horseshoe Court, Saratoga Page 2 of 8 City of Saratoga Community Development Department nnn(~~~ David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 1 S, 2005 Though not in direct conflict, the following trees would sustain a substantial amount of damage by implementation of the proposed grading, drainage, landscape and/or driveway design: #4 5 8, 10, 13. 14, 17. 19, 26, 27 and 32-36. Revisions to the project design are necessary to minimize the impacts to these trees; detailed guidelines for doing so are presented in the `Recommendations' section. As for the driveway, plan revisions are necessary to avoid adversely impacting trees #4, 5. 8, 10 and 17 through root damage and/or the removal of major limbs. Setbacks for achieving this are presented in the `Recommendations' section of this report. Trees #15 and 28 should be removed regardless of the proposed project. Both trees have declined beyond recovery and their complete demise in the near future is imminent. Replacements for the removal of these trees are not recommended. A dark line is shown on Sheet L-1 beneath the east side of canopies of trees #38 and 39. It appears to exemplify the existing contour but I am unsure. If the line is intended to represent a new grading contour, the trees could also be significantly impacted. The stumps of two Ordinance-sized Coast Live Oaks were found on site and appear to have been recently cut. They are situated adjacent to another and are located immediately northwest of the proposed pool (clearly shown on Sheet L-1). Their trunk diameters (measured at grade) are 13 and 9 inches. Mitigation for the removal of both trees should include the installation of one native tree of 48-inch box size (unless superseded by an approved Tree Removal Permit Application). The clarity of Sheets A-0 and L-1 should be improved and guidelines for doing so are presented in the `Recommendations' section of this report. Tree #25's trunk is surrounded by water from the seemingly intermittent channel of water flowing downhill towards the north. Consequently, the tree is at high risk of potential failure due not only to the uprooting or windthrow associated with saturated soil conditions but also from infection by harmful organisms that can infect Oaks under such moist conditions. The tree does appear in overall good condition, and in my opinion, is worthy of retention. To achieve this, I recommend the tree be relocated elsewhere on the property rather than removed. The planting design proposed among the Oaks in the future front yard should be revised to incorporate greater setbacks from the trees' trunks in combination with a more drought- tolerant landscape. Guidelines for achieving this are presented in the next section. The row of Eucalyptus trees above the creek will be in close proximity to the proposed residence. Given their large size and the potential safety risk, they should be pruned and their entire canopies inspected under the supervision of an individual certified by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). Additionally, there is a fairly large and elongated wound/opening along the upper trunk of tree #39 that should also be examined. Dexheimer Property, 14574 Horseshoe Court, Saratoga Page 3 of 8 City of Saratoga Community Development Department (~~~I(~ ~;~. . David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 1 S, 2005 RECOMIVV~NDATIONS All recommendations presented below consider the proposed plans for the future development of the new residence and landscaping. Should plans be revised, the recommendations may require modification. Design Guidelines 1. The proposed driveway must be redesigned so the following minimum distances from the trees' trunks are achieved: a. Tree #4: 15 feet towards the east and 22 feet towards the west. b. Tree #5: 12 feet towards the west. a Tree #8: 21 feet towards the west while maintaining the existing setbacks towards the north. d. Tree #10: 17 feet towards the east and north sides (including the proposed wall). e. Tree # 17: 19 feet towards the southwest. If these cannot be followed, I recommend the entire driveway is redesigned to be along the west side of tree #9. In doing so, I suggest the following minimum setbacks from the trunks of adjacent trees: the same for trees #4 and 5 as specified above, 20 feet from trees #9 and 24, and 1 S feet from tree #23. • 2. All portions of the driveway and walkways, including any curb or edging, proposed beneath the trees' canopies shall be established on top of existing soil grade (i.e. a no- dig design). The surface of these features must be fully pernous, such as non- interlocking blocks and clean sand, and placed on fully porous subbase materials (e.g. pea gravel or'/.- to 1'/z-inch gravel containing no fines). The soil surface must not be compacted; the subbase materials can be but should not exceed 75-percent. Soil fill can be used to slope the sides of the driveway down to existing grade. The use of stabilizers, cleaners and sealers should be avoided. Plans should show the driveway in detail and incorporate these specifications into the Site and/or Landscape Plan. 3. The proposed detention basins, rock berms and associated drain lines should be redesigned to be at least 10 feet from tree #26's trunk, 15 feet from tree #27's trunk and 25 feet towards the north of tree #31's trunk. 4. With the exception of the area beyond 20 feet from tree #33's trunk and within two to three feet of the home's foundation, the grading design must be revised so no soil fill or excavation is shown beneath the canopies of retained trees. Additionally, the grading contours of `458' and `460' shown along the north and west sides of trees #26 and 28 must also be eliminated from the design. 5. Fill could be placed within the portion of the existing watercourse channel beneath the trees' canopies but must not exceed the top of the banks. 6. The drainage design should not divert any existing surface runoff flowing towards the root zones of trees being retained. Dexheimer Property. 14574 Horseshoe Court, Saratoga Page 4 of 8 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~(~~~~,,; David L. Babb}; Registered Consulting Arborist March 1 S, 2005 7. Temporary or permanent drainage features must be designed so water is not discharged beneath the canopies of the Oaks or near the trunks of other trees. Downspouts from the buildings should be established at least 15 feet to the side and directed away from the trunks of Oaks. 8. The location and elevations of trees #2, 3, 11, 20, 21, 32, 37 and 40 must be surveyed and shown on all site related plans (including landscaping). Additionally, tree #27 should only be represented by one trunk (rather than two). 9. The canopy sizes2 presented on the attached table under the column titled "Canopy Spread" should be used to identify the canopies of trees inventoried for this report. I also recommend the numbers assigned to each tree are displayed on the project plans. 10. To improve clarity of the plans, I recommend the following changes are made: [1] only the perimeter of the trees' canopies shall be shown rather than the current illustration being used, [2] the grading and drainage design should be shown separately from the Landscape Plan (i.e. a Grading and Drainage Plan should be created), [3] all existing and proposed contours must be clearly shown, [4] all faded lines or features shown on the plans should be used solely for the existing contours and all proposed with a darker font, [S] Sheet A-0 or any other site related plan must be presented at a minimum scale of 1" equals 20 feet,3 [6] the `edge of grass area' shall be clearly distinguished from other lines and [7] the entire driveway entrance from Horseshoe Court should be shown on Sheet L-1 or any other site related plan. 11. Sheet A-0 should indicate that tree located immediately northwest of the proposed pool has been removed. Sheet L-1 should indicate that tree #30 remains rather than akeady being removed. 12. The landscape design should indicate that tree #25 will be relocated and its new location shown on the plan. 13. The proposed landscape must be revised to incorporate the following recommendations, as they apply, into the design: a. Plant material should comprise no more than 20-percent of the area beneath a tree's canopy. Plant material installed beneath an Oak's canopy should bedrought- tolerant and compatible for planting beneath Oaks; contact the California Oaks Foundation at www.californiaoaks.org for a list of suitable plants. b. Any plant material or lawn that requires regular irrigation beneath an Oak's canopy should be established a minimum distance from the trunk of seven times its diameter. 2 Any reference to canopy size within this report is intended to refer to the trces' actual canopy size and not necessarily what is shown on the plans. Please note the canopy spreads represent the furthest distance across; half of the number equals the distance radiating from the center of the trunk in ail directions. ' This may require showing separate sections of the property on the plans. Dexheimer Property, 14574 Horseshoe Court, Saratoga Page S of 8 City of Saratoga Community Development Department -(~(~(1~;;.3 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 1 S, 2005 c. Irrigation should not spray beneath an Oak's canopy or within five feet from the trunks of all other trees. Any irrigation used to irrigate plants beneath an Oak's canopy must be of adrip-type system. d. Stones, mulch or other landscape features should be at least one-foot from the trunks of retained trees and not be in contact with the trunks of new trees. e. Tilling beneath the canopies must be avoided, including for weed control. f. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the trees' canopies must be established on top of existing soil grade. 14. Except for within 24 inches of the home's foundation, any trenching (such as for drainage, utilities, services, lighting, irrigation, etc.) should be designed at a distance from the trees' trunks of 10 times their diameter. If irrigation lines are designed inside this distance, the trenches. must be in a radial direction to the trunks and established no closer than five times the diameter of the nearest trunk; if this not be possible, the lines can be placed on top of existing soil grade and covered with wood chips or other mulch. • Protection Measures during Demolition and Construction 15. Tree protective fencing shall be installed prior to any grading, surface scraping, construction or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link mounted on eight-foot tall, two-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. Please note due to the amount of revisions required, fencing has not been delineated but will be upon review of the revised plans. 16. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the designated fenced areas (even after fencing is removed) and outside from beneath the canopies of Ordinance-sized trees not inventoried for this report. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading, surface scraping, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and pazking. 17. Prior to protective fencing being installed, afoot-inch layer of coarse wood chips from a tree company should be spread beneath the entire canopies of retained trees (excluding where the foundation of the home and second unit will be placed). Additionally, a 16-inch layer of coarse wood chips must be manually spread. along the section of driveway that is beneath the canopies but outside the designated fenced areas. The wood chips should be placed on top of the existing leaf litter and its depth maintained throughout construction. The chips should not be in contact with the trees' trunks and only placed and removed by hand. 18. Any approved soil excavation, grading or trenching beneath the trees' canopies shall be manually performed using shovels. Regazding soil excavation, all roots encountered during the process shall be cleanly severed at the edge of excavation (nearest the tree's trunk) and immediately covered with soil. The freshly cut ends of roots with diameters Dexheimer Property, 14574 Horseshoe Court, Saratoga Page 6 of 8 City of Saratoga Community Development Department (1(1~)f'1~:~..~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 1 S, 2005 • of two inches and greater shall be coated with latex paint or immediately wrapped in a clear, plastic sandwich bag that is tightly sealed using electrical tape or rubber bands. 19.Overcut occurring beneath the trees' canopies shall not exceed the home's foundation or any walls by more than 24 inches. 20. Any unused, existing underground utilities or pipes beneath the trees' canopies should be abandoned and cut off at existing soil grade. 21. Any existing plants, groundcover, small aces or shrubs being removed beneath the trces' canopies shall be manually cut to grade and the roots left below ground. The stumps can either be axed away or ground to below grade. 22. The stumps of trees #15 and 28-30 should only be removed by being ground to below grade rather than being pulled up using an excavator. The roots of the stump should also remain below ground. 23. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is .prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. In addition, fuel should not be stored nor shall any refueling or maintenance of equipment occur within 100 feet of the trees' trunks (unless on the street). . 24. Supplemental water shall be supplied to trees in proximity to or near the proposed development activities. In doing so, I recommend an ISA Certified Arborist be retained to identify the trces requiring water and prescribing the amount, frequency, and application method. A letter by the arborist should be submitted to the City's Community Development Director specifying the watering program. 25. Upon availability, plans showing the proposed underground utilities and services and landscaping (both planting and irrigation) should be reviewed for tree impacts prior to implementation. 26. Herbicides should not be applied beneath the canopies of retained trees. Where used on site, they must be labeled for safe use near trces. 27. Any tree pruning, removals or transplants (such as trce #25) must be performed under supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist (not by construction personnel) and according to ISA standards. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained at http: //www. isa-arbor. com. The pruning of all Oaks should be limited to the removal of dead branches one-inch and greater in diameter, establishing sufficient clearances from the home and paths of travel, and reducing any heavy limb weight. Tree Replacements • 28. Mitigation for the loss of trees #29 and 30 shall include the installation of new trees equal to their combined appraised value of $6.170. Replacement tree values and sizes are presented on the bottom of the attached table. Dexheimer Property, 14574 Horseshoe Court, Saratoga Page 7 of 8 City of Saratoga Community Development Department n~~~.~ rJ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 1 S, 2005 29. Mitigation for the removal of the tree located immediately northwest of the proposed • pool shall include the installation of one tree of 48-inch box size. 30. Acceptable replacement species include Quercus agrifolia, Quercus lobata, Quercus kelloggii, Quercus douglasii, Quercus dumosa, Acer macrophyllum, Aesculus californica, Pseudotsuga menziesii and Sequoia sempervirerts. The proposed location and sizes of new trees should be shown on the landscape plans and be at least 15 feet apart and 15 feet outside from beneath the actual canopies of retained trees. They must be installed prior to final inspection and, as necessary for support, bedouble-staked with rubber tree ties. Irrigation must be a drip or soaker hose system placed on the soil surface and not in a sleeve. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (a copy of Sheet A-0) • Dezheimer Property, 14574 Horseshoe Court, Saratoga Page 8 of 8 City of Saratoga Community Development Department n nn ~ ~ b _ . ~ ARBOR RESOURCES -. Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care . TREE IlWENTORY TABLE .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ o ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ TREE ~ o ~ ~" ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ o a ~ NO. TREE NAME -- -- -~ Norway Spmoe 1 Picea abies 15 35 20 100% 100% Good 4 - X 53,920 Flowa'ing Plum 2 Pnmat certiui ero 8, 3 30 25 759/0 25% Fair Low 4 - X 5500 Caest Live Oak 3 er+cwa a ' olio 12 40 30 100% 100°Yo Good 4 - X 52,570 Coast Live Oak 4 encua a ' olio 31.5, 14 40 100 75% 75% Good 2 - 521,600 Coast Live Oak 17.5, 16, S a 'olio 12,11 35 40 100% 25% Fair Moderate 1 - 59,600 Coast Live Oak 16,15, encµr a 'olio 15 35 35 100% 25% Fair Moderate 3 - 58,300 Coast Live Oak 21.5, 16, 7 errw a 'olio 10 45 45 75% 50% Fair Moderate 3 - S9,620 Coast Live Oak 8 er+cw a 'olio 16 25 25 100% 50% Good Moderate 2 - S3,840 Coast Live Oak 18.5, 9 a 'olio 14.5 35 40 75% 25°Yo Fair Low 3 - 55,500 Coast Live Oak 10 a olio 26 40 50 100% 75% Good 1 - 511,400 Coast Live Oak 11 ereur a 'olio 17, 10, 8 35 35 509'0 25% Poor Low 4 - X X 52,690 Coast Live Oak is a 'olio 25 35 45 100% 50% Good 4 - 59,300 Coast Live Oak 13 erew o 'olio 16, 13 30 45 1009'0 75% Good 2 - 57,100 Coast Live Oak 14 arras a 'olio 15.5, 13 35 30 100% 50% Good 2 - 56,000 Sits: 1 X574 Hwserlros Coru'R Saaroaa Prrpo~Ior C,rry o1'S~a ~' ~~~ orb!': Drri4L Bobby, RC! 1 al3 (~N~.~ i . _' ~RBOR RESOURCES . Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care • TREE INVENTORY TABLE • ;, ~ a a TREE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g a NO. TREE NAME -- r- ~ n ^' g Coast Live Oak 16 erCtrs a ' olio 10.5 35 15 75% 75% Good Moderate 3 - 51 690 Coast Live Oak 17 a ' olio 35 40 60 75% 50% Good 1 - S14 000 Coast Live Oak lg er~;us a • olio 11.5, 6 25 35 100% 50% Good 3 - S2 560 Coast Live Oak 19 errw a 'olio 36 45 50 100% 50% Good 1 - 518,300 Coast Live Oak ZO arras a ' olio 11,10 30 30 100% 75% Good 5 - X X 52,060 Caest Live Oak 23 encus a olio 16 20 30 100% 50% Good 4 - 53,960 Coast Live Oak 24 0 ' olio 23.5 35 40 100% 1009~o Good 4 - S9 600 Coast Live Oak 2S arras a 'olio 7.5 15 10 100% 50% Good Hi 3 - 5790 Coast Live Oak 26 arras a • olio 10 25 20 100% 100% Good 2 - S1,810 Monterey Pine 27 Pimrs radiata 13.5 35 25 1009/0 50% Good Moderate 1 - 5390 Coast Live Oak 28 arras a 'olio 15.5 35 - 25% 25% Poor REMOVE 1 - 50 California Black Walnut 29 Jr fans c. hindsii 15.5, 15 30 30 759/0 25% Fair Low - X 5970 Coast Live Oak 30 ergs a 'olio 24.5 20 20 759/0 25% Fair Low - X 55,2 1 S-gallon - 5120 24-iorL boa -5420 36-mch box = 51,320 4&mch bm~ = SS,000 32-inrb Loot = Sian I4S7! Xwaerbss CaaR she Pr~..irjo.: Gib' oJ'S~+sa cn~nwni y lknelopwat l~ep.-t 2 ~ j Prrpo~by: Drni~L Bobby, RCA - S13 000 ~~l'l it ~a?U ~/1S/1BIS . ARBOR RESOURCES - - - Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care • TREE IlWENTORY TABLE ~ ~ ~ ~ ,. a ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 a ~ .~ TREE ~ ~ ~ ,., ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ .a ~ ~ d NO: TREE Nt~ME -- ~ -• --~ Tasmanian Blue Gum 31 Euca tus lobeles 44 100 60 100% SO% Good Hi 3 - S2 80 Tasmanian Blue Gum 18,18, 32 Euca tus lobules 10 110 50 100% 25% Fair Moderate 2 - X 5520 Tasmanian Blue Gum 33 Euca tus !obelus 84 160 120 75% SO% Good 2 - 53,280 Tasmanian Blue Gum 34 Euca tus !obelus 10, 9 50 20 100% 50% Fair 1 - S140 Tasmanian Blue Gmn 3S Euca tes lobules 13, 7, 7 80 30 100% SO% Good 1 - S140 Tasmanian Blue Gum 20, 18, Euca tus lobalus 11, 8 80 40 100% 50% Good 1 - S940 Coast Live Oek (Que-rus agrijolia) 6.5 25 15 100°Yo 75% Good High S - X 5790 Caest Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 21.5 85 30 100oYo 100% Good High 4 - 58,601 Caest Rodwrood (Sequoia sempe~vir+ens) 30 90 40 100% 50% Fair 4 - S12 Sa Blue Elderberry (Sambucus caerulea) 12 30 30 75% 75% Good Moderate S - X 5900 13 lion = 5120 24-inch bao~ =5420 36-inch REPLACF.111~NT TREE VALUES ban = Sl 20 48-inch box = SS 000 32-inch ban = T7 000 72-inch bax = TIS 000 Stns: 14571 Hossobos CswrR Ssr~oSe p-~-Wlo-. airy afssr~toa~ Canierwi~ ~+' P-~grarsd by: Drrid L Babby, li'G s-BPiefJ +~~ 3 oJ'3 ~R ,~l ! ~~ 3/I S/20®S <r .. .. _.. _.. $~. ~t '17 iDIMiN10M tLMI' i/f1ON AYQIf i'10NIf ONUOMIDON b) b"3 .illB awry s-~ :,:~ i ra~~wu'wr i~MMOAl11/~ W'af1AY/~1~ ~~ AYQit 7lOM I .~,~~_~ O'r(y-etE Wd • Attachment S • ~~~~~~` • ARB R RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care July 12, 2005 Deborah Ungo-McCormick Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: REVIEW OF PLANS for the Proposed Residence at the Dexheimer Property; 14574 Horseshoe Court, Saratoga; Application #: OS-029 Dear Deborah: I have reviewed the revised set of plans for the proposed new residence at the above- referenced site. My comments are presented below. 1. Protective fencing has been delineated on the attached copies of Sheets L-1 and L-2 (dated 6/23/05). I recommend the fencing presented on these maps are reflected onto the Site Plan. Please note fencing should be established no further than five feet from the foundation of the proposed home and one-foot from the proposed driveway. 2. The detail shown on Sheet L-2 regarding the proposed driveway should also specify (per recommendation #2 of my initial report dated 3/15/05) that the existing soil surface should not be compacted; the subbase materials can be but shall not exceed 75- percent (the use of geotextile or geogrid placed on natural grade may help achieve this). 3. ~ The proposed grading and driveway design presented on the Site Plan differs with the Grading and Drainage Plan. I recommend the Grading and Drainage Plan is revised accordingly. 4. The grading design beneath the canopies of trees #10 and 17 requires revision to comply with recommendations #2 and 4 of my initial report. 5. The grading design beneath the canopies of trees #31 thru 36 must be revised to conform to recommendation #4 of my initial report. 6. The `energy dissipater' proposed immediately north of tree #12 should be established at least 35 feet i~rom its trunk. 7. The proposed storms drains would require a significant amount of trenching beneath the trees' canopies and cause adverse impacts. Consequently, I recommend their placement is revised to conform to recommendation #14 of my initial report. • • P.O. Box 25295; San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources(a3comcast.net (I~1~~~2 Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.240.0777 • Licensed Contractor #796763 ARB R RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care July 12, 2005 14574 Horseshoe Court page 2 8. The proposed driveway will encroach beneath aloes-growing, 18-inch diameter limb of tree #17. I find the driveway's location will be suitable provided the limb remains intact and is not damaged. 9. On the Grading and Drainage Plan, the proposed `bioswale' beneath tree #31's canopy should be revised to be at least 25 feet from the tree's trunk. l0.On the Grading and Drainage Plan, item #1 below the `Grading Notes' should be revised in a manner that considers any grading beyond the portion of home beneath a tree's canopy should not exceed three feet from the foundation (per recommendation #4 of my initial report). 11. Similar to Sheet L-2, the driveway entrance should be shown on the Grading and Drainage Plan 12.On July 11, 2005, I visited the property and observed that three large limbs have failed from tree #33 since my last site visit. They range in size from 16 to 18 inches in diameter and exemplify the serious nature of the Eucalyptus trees requiring proper pnming and their canopies being inspected by a qualified arborist. Sincerely, G~ David L. Babby, RCA Consulting Arborist Attachments: Site Maps showing Protective Fencing (copies of Sheets L-1 and L-2) • P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@comcast.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.240.0777 • Licensed Contractor #796763 (~(~(~(~L~J • • • ~ v ~:~1~ 1i ~f •~ '~•' :~~,\~:. to -~. i' ~ ~~ - r... .; i ~ i ' ~~ • ~, Y tee; ~ ~ ~ i :sue`./i' 1 ''t ~~ , . ! ,. • .?;. _~ ~ ~~~ i I ~ ~e to t I~, wn '•1~ ~~ ~ ~ ~'~ I •v" ~~.~~ 1..~ y .v:r~ 1 J L, _ ~J ....... _ e` 1 1 .. ~, fail ~ '~eon~o ' ~ n ~~ • -~ `O t ! r C ~ • ~ ~.' ,y' • Gi soooo ooeon ~ t .~• o`rl'~$.I ' +i l l '\ ~ •s ~ o i. ~~ ~ 0 SE t wee p ~~ ~~ '' '~ ~ ~1: ~ I '~ ~ ,~ -, i eoo .1 r '~ per/ .o ~ , / • ti' • e6 . !.. N ..}~ ,~ ~ O 4 ^ J !. e eoo ~~ b • 're R I J f ~ OgSoS~~o ~~ ' ~ a ,,' ooQ7e'eueod • , ~ ;, ~o e ' ,' `, •`., ~ ~ ooeoeoosoec.aoe oep .r. _i eooa ~O° p e e .' '.•./. . oTon • ~~ • t i~. l eOOOeeeeM100 ~f~ O(~O}O~~Opp py pee ~.1~30 OeQp OMi~'~N ~i 00o4e ., ~ ~ .. ~ _ ~ , ~i~~ ML' O np0q~ 'O - '~ ~ ,, ~~' ' 1 1 ~ ~i 1 •~ no u llj ~'. ; ~ j ~ t: i' X0,,1 t /J, ,,•~.. t~ oo ;• ~ x ~ ~ erl 1 `.. `'• ~` ~a,r, 'i ~''1;% ms's ~_ ~hdD ~ ~ ' b '`, I ~ ~ r 7y I _ • ' ~ _ `` ~~n~4~~ • =e~~., ~ ~.,,~ ' i ~ tip ~ - ~ ns~rw~ ~., err, • ~ i ~.~ ' , w~= ~ I ~ ~ I r ` % ` ~ ~' .... ~ .~ ~. - w ~ ~ ' I ~" ~ ,~ ,~ r ~ ~ IM ~ ~:3!i~';tly, ~ , i `~~ ~ . , , ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 s . t+ V . ~ \ .~ I . '~.: ~ ~~ f: 1 ~ ,1 ~ /._ , ~• , tl~lf~1~ ~II~I~Or \ . ~OLIIR ! \~ ~ ~ • I ` • . ~r~~f ~~ ` ~~ i ~ ' •: r , wags "'~ , ~ + ~ Z . EGEND ~ r ~ ...a~ -- - -Protective-Fencin ~ g - ~~- s ~ i +; c1 ; "°" G ~ .~ ' ~ I ~ ' `,. ' w.w~isrw~ ~• ~,AI ~ww...i. Fn •r~~«a~w. • wr.r ' . O~ . . c~c~nc~4s ARBOR RESOURCES Pro/~essional Arhoricultura! Consultin & Tree Care S August 31, 2005 Deborah Ungo-McCormick Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: REVIEW OF PLANS (3'~ Review) for the Proposed Dexheimer Residence; 14574 Horseshoe Court, Saratoga; Application #: OS-029 Dear Deborah: I have reviewed the revised set of plans for the proposed new residence at the above- referenced site. Based on my findings, each recommendation presented below should be incotporated into the final set of development prior to permits being issued. 1. Protective fencing is not shown for tree #1 and should be added per the site map of Sheet L-2 attached to my previous letter dated July 12, 2005. 2. A note should be added to Sheet A-1 specifying that protective fencing shall be installed per Sheets L-1 and L-2 prior to development permits being issued. 3. A note on Sheet L-2 indicates the Grading and Drainage Plan will be modified to match the Site Plan. This must occur to comply with recommendations presented in my initial report. 4. The proposed storms drains presented on the Grading and Drainage Plan must be revised to conform to item #7 from my previous letter. Please note the changes were not observed on Sheet L-1 as indicated on the note on Sheet L-2. 5. Per item #9 of my previous letter, the `bioswale' proposed beneath tree #31's canopy has been revised to be outside the specified 25-foot setback from tree #31's trunk. However, it should be placed on the north side of the canopy to avoid discharging beneath and towards the tree's trunk. 6. Item #10 from my previous letter has not yet been incorporated into the. Grading and Drainage Plan. 7. The proposed entry trellis should utilize discontinuous footings so no soil cuts or trenching are necessary. P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 Email: arborresourccsC;comcast.nct Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.240.0777 • Licensed Contractor #796763 ~nnc~4~ ., -,. • ~ ARBOR RESOURCES Professional .9rborieultural Consu/ting & Tree Care August 31, 2005 14574 Horseshoe Court page 2 8. Item #1 below the `Grading I~Totes' should be revised to consider that any grading _ beyond the portion of home .beneath a tree's canopy should not exceed three feet from the foundation (per recommendation #4 of my initial report). Sincerely, ~./~ ~ David L. Babby, RCA Consulting Arborist • • P.O. Box 25295, San Matco, California 94402 • Email: arborresourccs@comcast.nct Phonc: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.240.0777 • Liccnscd Contractor #796763 f11~(1E~4'~ Attachment 6 ~~nnc~q 8 Can 18 05 03:34p Robert ~ !)orothy Hillner 4ua-ab'i-~aou p.e I , • • ~ • Neighbor notification Template for • Development Applications Date: j 20- ~.~ /~- 1 . PROJECT ADDRESS: ~fi~ ~~~oc. rG Applicant Name: r1~ Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of • the public hearing on the proposed project. ThT PorarcneniS Q~ ~~~ when so~ieit ~ . favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice thei applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta,$'and the Planning Commission prefer that • • neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of aA residents residing on yourproperry. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later dote and communicate it to tfu City of Saratoga. ~My•aignature below certifies the •following: I have reviewed the-project Plans; j understand the scone of work; and I do NOT Lave any concerns or issues wbieb need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hewing on the proposed project. • ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; j • 1 understand the stove of work; and I Gave issues or concerns,iwbicb after discussion witb the applicant, bane. not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: /lt~y~ .4•~.~d--~~~~ir~Y /-''~~1.NE'e- Neighbor Address: /457P ~/~/~ cE~~lnt G-~ _ Sena ro /1 Q 9s a 70 _ Neighbor Phone #l: 4GA- 8~7- SS T4~ Signature: Printed: ~1.1~., , ~ ~ f/ rc~ .l~Gk' O'TI~f~Y ~1. ~1LLN~'` C'iry of Saratoga Planning Departmer+t~~n fed ~: Neighbor Notification Template or Development Applications Date ~ DRESS: L~~---s~S'~ri~ ~~`~~ PRO ' / ~~ A licant Name: ~-'4^~ `~ "~ ~' C~-e- ~~ PP Application Nwnber: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address. issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Co ~~~ when of ~'ted by favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and applicants prior to the public hearing. Stu,~'and the Planning Commission prefer that . neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~Mysignature below certifies~the-following: I have reviewed the-project plans; ~ understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issnes which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public h '' g on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have review wbicbrafter dis nssion understand the stove of work; and I have issues or concerns,, with the applicant, have aot been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~-~Qt~ 'V RV55~~1'-U- Neighbor Address: Ik'9bg !-~~F c-r ~p~~(t. C `-(,S'b70 Neighbor Phone #: 'T~'~" ~g ~ ~ ~ 1~ Signature: Printed: w,u. v Res n~~~-5~ • ~~ P)nnnlnQ Deyartment • • Neighbor Notification Template for. Development Applications Data: l'"/(o -D S ~~'~S'~io~ rizo>ECr AI»~ss• Q"i icant Name: ~~''~ G' ~~~ '~~ ~~~ ~~ Appl Application Nwnber: 7'he Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearingr~ a,~''anc nhc~ orizssu~ they may have directly ne:ghbors take this opportunity to exp y to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you. may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. 1t=`JMy~~si~ature below certifies-thc~following: I have reviewed the_project plans; ~ understand the scone of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need the a licant rior to the City's public h "ng on the proposed projoct. to be address by pp P OMy si~,ature below certifies the following: I have review ~; brafer discussion understand the scone of work; and l have issues or concern ,. with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~~ ~ r4 M ,~J~ ,~f11l9 ~ ~ Neighbor Address: ~,~~,,~~,.,~~ Neighbor Phone #: ~6'l- q4~.~- Signature: Printed: ll(1r1(1$1 PlnrninQ Department ~ i ~ . Neighbor Not~ficat~on Template for. Development Applications ~ • Date: ~~ ~ r7~ PROJECT ADDRESS: ~l ~ ~o ~ C~ . . A licant Name: ~ri'~ ~ LOril~~ ~~ PP Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbo ~t~ address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evenin o the blic hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Com ~~ when solicited by Pu favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns a ~.s applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta,,~''and the Planning Commission prefer that . neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you. may reserve the right to amend your opinion at ~a later date and communicate it to the . City of Saratoga. . LJMy~si~ature below certifies-thefollowing: I have reviewed the_project plans; ~ understand the sco a of work; and I do NOT have any concernson.theu~ w sect ro ect• to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public h g ProPo P 1 . ~ : I have review the project plans; I ^My signature below certifies the following understand the scone of work; and I have issues or concerns,.wbicb after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My ~concenns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ~~ 88e~r~ . L6~~ ,l -~ PFn~A~ Neighbor Name. Neighbor Address: 1 ~~Z NSF ~~.. Neighbor Phone #: '~~7( Printed: . ~d~ ~~~ (1(1rl(1~ti Planning Department ~A~QA=ro~i~-. ~ ~~ 7° • Attachment 7 ~~ ~~ ~~nn~s AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, Deborah Unto-McCornuck, 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 Department on the 2nd day of September, 2005, 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 250 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. ~,,,,,5~ ~ ~ Signed • !1~(?(1(l.: 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 14"' day of September 2005, at 7:00 p.m. Located in the City Theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. PROJECT LOCATION: 14574 HORSESHOE CT. APN: 397-20-094 & 397-20-031; DEXHEIlVIER, property owner APPLICATION: #05-029 The applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential and rezoning from R-1-20,000 to R-1-40,000 for the approximately 31,292 square feet (0.72 acre) rear portion of the lot (APN 397-20- 094) to conform with the existing designation and zoning of the front portion of the lot. The applicant also requests design review approval to constract a two-story, single-family residence, garage and secondary dwelling unit at 14574 Horseshoe Ct. The total floor area of the proposed residence, garage and secondary dwelling unit is 7,700 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The net lot size is approximately 100,751 square feet (2.31 acres) and the site is zoned R-140,000. All interested persons may appeaz and be heazd at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for infom~ation to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Tuesday, September 6, 2005. 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. Contact: Deborah Ungo-McCormick City of Saratoga Community Development Department (408) 868-1232 Eli(1(1fI 39717033 JALAN RAJKUMAR & POONAM OR CURRENT OWNER 12045 PARKER RANCH RD SARATOGA,CA 39717043 PILLAI HARI TRUSTEE ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER 19800 VERSAILLES WY SARATOGA,CA 39717047 EVANS ROBERT & GEORGIA OR CURRENT OWNER 14448 DONNA LN SARATOGA,CA 39717062 SCHAUF JOSEPH H & SHARON L OR CURRENT OWNER 19965 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA,CA 39717065 FAZIO ALBERT & LESLYE G OR CURRENT OWNER 19900 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA,CA 39720001 FLANAGAN FRANCES E OR CURRENT OWNER 14553 WILD OAK WY SARATOGA,CA 39720004 OBERTHIER JERRY W & JUDITH L OR CURRENT OWNER 14651 FARWELL AV SARATOGA,CA 39720028 GERMERAAD PAUL B & SUSAN E TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 14606 HORSESHOE DR SARATOGA,CA 39720031 FOSTER GERALDINE GREEN TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 14552 HORSESHOE DR SARATOGA,CA 39717041 CHANG ELLIS & CAROLINE TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 19795 FARWELL AV SARATOGA,CA 39717045 FINCH JAMES L & JERI A OR CURRENT OWNER 14493 DONNA LN SARATOGA,CA 39717060 GUMMOW CHERYL OR CURRENT OWNER 19901 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA,CA 39717063 WIRT RICHARD B TRUSTEE ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER 19964 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA,CA 39717066 ERASER ALAN & KAREN L OR CURRENT OWNER 14403 DONNA LN SARATOGA,CA 39717042 MILLER DONALD B TRUSTEE ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER 14600 WII,D OAK WY SARATOGA,CA 39717046 STRIEBEL JAMES L & MATILDA M TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 14480 DONNA LN SARATOGA,CA 39717061 HUR JIM RONG & LING HUEY OR CURRENT OWNER 19933 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA, CA 39717064 MARTIN JAMES F & ELIZABETH M TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 19932 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA,CA 39717067 MAXFIELD MELINDA C TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 14445 DONNA LN SARATOGA, CA 39720002 39720003 JOHNSON HARRIET Q TRUSTEE ETAL BAILEY JAMES A TRUSTEE ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER:_ OR CURRENT OWNER 19781 WILD OAK WY 14601 WII,D OAK WY SARATOGA,CA SARATOGA,CA 39720005 DIETRICH GUY W & VIRGINIA K OR CURRENT OWNER 2775 SAND HILL RD 120 MENLO PARK, CA 39720006 MORAN THOMAS W ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER 14701 FARWELL AV SARATOGA,CA 39720029 FENNELL JOHN F TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 76 FAIR OAKS LN ATHERTON,CA 39720032 STUART WILLIAM A & SARA S TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 14538 HORSESHOE DR SARATOGA,CA 39720035 39720036 BERLINBERG CRAIG D & SNOWDEN TERRENCE TRUSTEE JACQUELINE S OR CURRENT OWNER ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER 14571 HORSESHOE DR 14591 HORSESHOE DR SARATOGA,CA SARATOGA,CA 39720030 HIBBETT HOFFMAN D & LORI A TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 14562 HORSESHOE DR SARATOGA,CA 39720034 GRENGO FRANK R & LUCIA OR CURRENT OWNER 14551 HORSESHOE DR SARATOGA,CA 39720045 TSAI YUAN H & KIN-LAN W OR CURRENT OWNER 14610 HORSESHOE DR SARATOGA, CA n~n~~s 39720046 ~ 39720047 39720048 HUANG YISHAO MAX TRUSTEE ETAL KAPOOR UDAY K & JERINA LAMBERT MICHAEL B & JOELLE M R CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 90 HORSESHOE DR 14570 HORSESHOE DR 14555 HORSESHOE DR TOGA, CA SARATOGA,CA SARATOGA,CA 39720049 39720050 39720051 ZARKESH AMIR M & NILOOFAR GRIBI STEPHEN G & EVE M TRUSTEE NG KENNETH & MONICA OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14575 HORSESHOE DR 14595 HORSESHOE DR 14605 HORSESHOE DR SARATOGA,CA SARATOGA,CA SARATOGA,CA 39720057 39720075 39720078 BUSMAN BARBARA T KOO ANDREW & ELIZABETH KRAFT JOHN K & SUSAN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19915 BELLA VISTA 20015 BELLA VISTA 20021 BELLA VISTA AV SARATOGA,CA SARATOGA,CA SARATOGA,CA 39720079 39720082 39720083 CLARK WILLIAM G & ELIZABETH MARTIRE LEONARD J & SHIRLEY J RIPARBELLI DAVID J & MARISA R TRUSTEE TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14521 WILD OAK WY 14582 HORSESHOE DR 14535 WII,D OAK WY SARATOGA, CA SARATOGA,CA SARATOGA,CA 39720089 STRIEBEL JAMES L & M M OR CURRENT OWNER 14480 DONNA LN ~TOGA,CA 39720093 BILLNER ROBERT O & DOROTHY M TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 14578 HORSESHOE CT SARATOGA,CA 39724075 NEDJO SPAICH OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 363 SARATOGA,CA 39737019 CASTELLANO ALCARIO TRUSTEE ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER 14547 CARNELIAN CL SARATOGA,CA 39720090 STEPHANIE ABBOTT OR CURRENT OWNER 19908 BELLA VISTA SARATOGA,CA 39720094 FOSTER GERALDINE G OR CURRENT OWNER 14552 HORSESHOE DR SARATOGA,CA 39737016 WELLS GEORGE D & ROBERTA S TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 14580 CARNELIAN CL SARATOGA,CA 39737020 NAYMARK RONALD L & JANICE I TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 14550 CARNELIAN CL SARATOGA,CA 39720091 KRAFT JOHN K & SUSAN OR CURRENT OWNER 20021 BELLA VISTA AV SARATOGA,CA 39720095 RUSSELL WILLIAM V & PATRICIA TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 14568 HORSESHOE CT SARATOGA,CA 39737018 BOWMAN A B 8c KRISTIN W OR CURRENT OWNER 14545 CARNELIAN CL SARATOGA,CA 39737021 TANDON SHAM & SUMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 14530 CARNELIAN GLEN CT SARATOGA,CA • ~~nnc~: ~ r • • Attachment 8 • W r U ~ O rn ~f ~~ ae 5 ~~ ~.~ ~~ a ~R H ~~ ~. ~ / l ~~ 1 ~+' ~ 4 ~ ~ ~3~E S~ ~~ ~~~ ~rr;;~ s ~ a E ~5~ ~ _ Lci €~ p ~ a ^^ ~ ~. l~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~ ft ~~~ ~ <s € g y O O ~ ~ m_ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ a ``gym ! ~ 8 ~~~ : ~~ ~ a~ ~~.; ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ as8 ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ Z' ~ ~ ~ z n r Yst iib.: .~ ~ ~ ~: N gg R R ~ k ~s K ~~ ~ ~ 7t ~ ~~~~ A~AS~ ~SMm ~ g 3~ p ~~~~~ ~ ~0 ~i ~3 $$~ ~ ~i ~~9"s ~~3~ ~ ~ ~#s a~~~~ aA~"sa i ~ ~ ~~ 3 ~ ~ iii e ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~$~!3 ~~s~ ~~~00 ~0~~~ _ F ~ ~ ~ ~ pax ~ ~ ~ ~? ~ ~ ~ t g~g~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ y~ a ~3~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ Z 2~ ~ ~ aa 6 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ i aaaxa+ , ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ j i~L ~ 2 ~ ~ ~7 ~ p ~ s ~ < gp • §$ . ~ ~ ~ ~~ y~~~~ A ~~t yg ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~, ~ .~~ o ~ I ~ ~ -'~ ~ ~ ~ - 5t ~ j ~ ~~ ~> ~ - _ _. F- ' ~,; , .. > ff Ci ~ ~ ,' ~ i l ~ ~ r__'~- I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~m~~ i~< ~o'~w n~~< ~ W~ ~ ~ ~° ~o ~ ~ ~ m g ~ :' :~ s~yyo~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ „ J. r„ ~~- . G J' .F .: \ ` ' \' \\ ~ ~ ~~~ 66 "~ ~ ~~ ~ 3 ~~ E~~ ~^ ~ ~ _ 4 ASS Y ~ ~.,~ ~ q ; ~ ' _~ m S z ~~ ~ a ~ i S` 3 ~G ~ m ~' W~ ~ ~~ ~~ :~ ~~ ~ Z .a f _ ~~ 5 ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 6 ~~ ~ G ~g ~~ ` °~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ g d ~ , ,: E5~oE p~t~(. 5 H J ~~ g ~ ~ ~ < No R5 • • +' _',t ~~ _.__ _ '~ ~ ~ ~ • ~J C7 WILSON ASSOCIATES ,s 'rElacaw ~ ,\ / \\ II ~ ~ \ \~ ~ \~.f IsGrw.~'am ,wrna // 1` .lr' , \ $. ~\ ,` '\ \ \ 4i ' ' . ' 111 wc~e. \ ~ l 1 ~ ' I, I • ` \ , J \ ~ ~ ` 1,' " ~ ~` ~~ \ 1 I ~ -. __ I SEwi!A EASB031rP9191pYFY . ~~ 1 . ` NYRFAIY L3'E, vu SIAYEr DRAw•1c Br wESrFALL Ewrr~ES ~~~ , r . A / 1 , ~ ~ \ ,~ -. Nes•u'oo•w / ~ ~ ISO' ~l .. I `: ` ( r , : 1 Y ,`11\ `'901VA1W 10'MfALL IgpI .\ ~ ~ / I ` •• , ~Ip OMNM16 ryry '1 I I _ I 1 1 ~ I Al ~ S / 1 ' ~ ~ I I • - \ \ '' l; 1 I ,/ I 1 ;, I~` I I ~ NI W i .}-_.110 i' ~ REAR BM}(IT+DStoKO-W ~/ ,\ \ O ` ` / ~,•{ ,• -,= - 111._ 1~` ~ Ilt >`.----- (IJ COAp00 ARD fAAABroBMIAAI. m. '"r \ \ / ~ ~~, ~\ J ~ --_ - v a v ~ 4' ~ , \ . , `\ ~ _ \ JI ~ 111 % \ ~~; \ 1 `\,, \,\111 \ I 1 ` \ ~ ~ ~,~a \ d \ \ ~ `. , r~• ; I \ '\• 112- ,`1 . \ '~ j ` I I` 111 / „ 1, 1I `\\ \` ~ IEI 01/, IRCf HAS AEEN RaA0YE0 \.\ , I '• 1 S / \\ I1, 7~T ~\1• I •,S` r 33. AAK hr POOL ®GE I\•••`~~ ~/ 1115 W~BIF~AIyfNGIElEHB AVEY DAAWMG IY L ~ I I / I W ~ ~-' \ ~~ \ r tOP OE BANKPFR SUWEI' ~7/ xvno~riAralro raR~cES wmisros oow"ro LOwER•~ ~ I ~\11 ,\ ~ I 1 \I i' , rARD,coNC.wAUS wm,coRreasIEELEhcrrG lrr I:•P \ n•I'1 a , /. .. .-.: PL, •chrcHwWl2sEE ~_~. _ I GRApNGI DRAINAGE "AN _ w n ,\. 1\ I /.. ;~ ~ 7 ~ I i G -~ T , ~ ~ Y2% GRADf FLEVA80NA1 ~ -- ,\ •. p , ~~ ~ ~$ 4 I ~ ~' ~~ / I ~_coANm.nP r r:,~j IE,o,~mffro~wEMOY® ~ I ~ . ~ ~~ ,`, i1 r~ ` _a ~ MoaNEOCa"rouR ~ ~ anLOru+ERFeLOVEasFELOrLRIEAwLarMFrfr H11 AEVBED PROPERTY LRIE SEE IdI UNE ADJUSIMBRr / /~ r IoOt DRAWNG er wESIPAU ENGINE915 Sq ~ , A • I SIANONGSFAM METAL .1 \ J _ • _ \ ~ I ~~ gtAwMG81'wE31FAUENGINEERf I I 1 '~ \uNErrv ~¢ 2 3 5 i . -- Y I L IRaoP, m ,., oO•c I. A-lp r 11 .,. so i 0'~ 1 ' . ; ~ 1 . • d _,d I {; ... _, ~ ~ , ~ Wh 1 I/ ~• ; ~ --- ` -_; •~,' ~ A god a,,~--' ~ ft ~ ~. '. ~ , , :~ ' ° . by µi ~ ,+ ~ - t1 ~ S!D n; .- _. •~. yew , . ~ ~` ~'1 1 , / I , ,~' 2291 1 (E) NEIGHBOWNG SWGLE STORY HOUSE ! P~ /a1p~+q, ~ '~/•'> ~~ ~~ wr.. ~ ~ , ~ 9. I _ _ _ >~- _,. ,.,. / .. ~ ` ~~ l~Y / , ~ '' . I - Y7D•GM•0 COIIGMIq 11, ~ -., ~Y, '•/ ~ 0 ~~ .. ~ ~ I ~ WIDOOA PRBUCE/GReI - - • ~ -GRADE ElfYABpl AYCORNER,~LOW POLNt , 77 f~ ,~ / / ~ ` ~ A ~~ rY i ~~i~ DRAW IINE~ ~ ~- ~. i/ li I 1' • ~ I ~ ~' ~~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ • 1 ~F . _':G ,~ ~ - ahtcHehsHwnNlacKeERMnEro.+~ v,,. '"~ ~ .' ~ ,~ ~ I / \~ ~ ~ SEECRAONG PLAN 1 fIIYLgM, IY~ .. ~ • - _ . __ . ~~ 11 ~ 4 ~~ •' 4. '~ ~ 7 / /i 11 1' ~ ~ IROPOSED 1 ~• ~ ~ 1\ ~ ~' ~ ~ ,,,~ I r ~~ ~ ~~;~ ~ ~: i~ ``.~ . - ~ ~ STOtYH0U5E ' ,, ~ aDES~ucK~auOSroRrl-as t W ~/ LowxoPELUitaR00P i ~ ~•>)y..S~~ i % ~ )• /_ ~~ ._ Low SIOPF AIEIM AOOF 1 - j ~~ I. I, ~ ~ __ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,, y / ' ~~~ CO•a lAlp ,~2~ ~ 1 ~ .~ ~ I^, / , ~i i ,~ i ~ ~ i/ Y I +; .' ', ~ I - / 1 ~ ~ I x \ ~ y( L_ ~ o•IO /IaR1 ', --@IIRr,RElL65RIICNRE /- • ; IR.OIpOFOYE.YNA , i r I I ~ Audw ~ _ \ ~ ,/ ~ FLOW UNE PFROUAVErOA 1 r. ~ I ~ - .! .._.. Al UOLm. I 1 ~ •• i ~_F.__,_~_; _ I I 11 ,A'I ` \ 1WOIiiM MpGI~RI00. p011~11 .' S . - ~ 1 ~~~LL1 ~~, I I I • ~ I _. , r rem / I (/1 ~• !! ~'~ Y I EMRC ALK~~BWOE AMA. 1 I ~~pp•• ..-~Jr .-.+r. :..,. i SrANDRIG¢M/MFAI ROOF, IYP.1 /'/ I~` -~ -" F FOR 101 I~~. \ '~ • , // , L fn - i ~ „ 101? 4 NS 0/ , / ~ ,Hy.... .... ~ ~ 1 `. •1', , ` .101 1{'•111? 11 31.9 F x -- • - - -4 I ~ ~ ~ r. -~ ~ ~ _ , ~ Ti 11 r. -- ~ / - - ~. _ IAWMO '-. • ' I 1 i..,. ~ ,'.9DEfE1 MLK~25'-4170AY N 8329'00' F 233.17' ~ - ~ -IN ~ ~• _ I~ ~ 1 II 1 ~ / i ~ . coNC.snewAU 7a'uu x ~~--! ~/ `~~ 1 ..\ , ,: wmlmalx A9v. .- ',' •- •r vEROwW~ , • 1 I _' --- - `` ~ ~ ~~ ,- j_ - 1~ ~ ~ II ~1 DOSA1AraPFRwESnuL d• i - ~'- ~ \ 1 ~. ~.. ~\ ~ I ~ ENGNE9INC ORAWRIG ! ~4DE SEr9ACK 17NDAOR17~2T ' Q~.. y/ ~ III~~~' 8 ~ ~1gtEPet ' ~~ ~ '~ I~~ ~ _ _ V ~~ ii A 1 i y~W ~ 3LRYE/. rrP. --\ ' X110 ~ : . ~ r ATM -.- ~---I \ I ti .1 I •, , ~A1` I 1~ _~ ~ ~ , ~ I .. I ~ y~ y ~ ORIYE NRNAAOLIND PEA.UAAIOGA NRE ~ •\\ ,~ I ~•~ \ d¢ ,~~5~ '~ ISI 1 I ^t h~~, t~ DE11..PMKiNG f0A2EMERGENLYVEMCLES ~•• ~ ~ .~. !y ~~ ~omaasANOCwmalon~vN,m. ~~.~ /:, ;~- ~ -woNrsnua~ao'-ESroar~l \ 'q~ , )t K ~ ~'~ y ~ ~ n _.. ~- - ~ SETBACK-30 ~ ~~ ; ' ,E ~ ~~ 1__11 I', \ , \ i A~ ~ v ~ I ~( 1 .~ ~ ~ i - -__ " I ' )' ~~ ' ~ , :~ I 11 ~~ I 1~~ ~ II I ~ 11L~~ b 1' - I 1 w~. 1 _-,- _ _- ~ /\ 11 ~ -_ '°. /; ,~ I t 1 •~wi-/.~ie ~ ,J, 'i'= :,~ awlFlawFm ~. ' r 3>• N~'''s~ I,' - 0/ \ ,-,r ~~/ /w ' ~' Wu18MIN eNRaIM•0 ~ - ~ ,1, ° I I b~ m.~ : , •, E PLAN /ROOF PLAN W~uu a rw • , '' _ /"'~s2~ ~ II ~"BrnklewgnAU ~ ~ ALL NROFAWA61/OIAIJRiq I,N•Rlr•1•FI11•yMw I ~y~~~~ ,'I m ,t 8.OIMA0014Yl1NQr1•iAxowroFUlLntueRwwhlloR. q~~r~'ll~~e~F~"' 1 "~'ao•E ~~.~.~ I ,- I ~ 193sr ~~/ --- I ~ ; rl~ ~, . 1, 1 , W <_ U ~ O N 9 ~~~ ~~ $3~~ ~f f~5~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~` r - ~--,r- - ~ ~~~ N n c ~~~ • • • .~~~ s ,~~ N Y ~ LL 1 N ~a n J ~ LL aZ ~~ ~3 ~o N ~~ • • • cEENSDRDPPEDDOrINFGRACaIEER+c/ -' .PLAN LEGEND OEING lNE N7ERpR WING TO FIttFED 1 S'-0' N IIXiff, TH6 LS C' ARFA FOR NFAI DUCTNG AND PiRIG, M. ~~ FNF0.A~ CCW097E 5[1NG AT WALL BF101D - 166 Pf9.51FELPa6T, rn. _ '.. 26 FT. NfLM 6ASFD ON AVG GRAB-2ND OAfliNG ~ __ _.__..., ~--- - - - ._.___ _ p _______ __ ______________________ ___ _____ ____________________ -~--~i SQ SECfgN OMwNG WRC01RttMDE1fVAiRYI ..__ _/82 uE a Nn9ua6 o~e66 -- ' ROOF PFAR • 2Ea D19FllllG UYT -. _ ~ a)g _ _ - - 1)P ~,~ _ STAEl191G SEAM MRAlROa'M111 __~_~~~ -_.._.. _. _ ' - MATCiMiG EAV[TW. _ _ t). ,a _ ~ - ___. ................. ~ _ I _ NRGIMI SRl000 fN6N AT F%fEi67q 719. - 4 ,c - - i - -Y - o0 4L6 . I ~ ~ ~ O uE a cn GWOf . ,~ - h ' p ~ _ Ur ~ p .--.-- -- aez ~. ~.--.--.- 4~~j• ~^~ - ~ ~ - -- ----- _ -.--.--.--.-- _ 162.5 y ~~ ~. 199 - - .-. _ __... i ' - fL000.-2ND DWEl1NG- - IA!,' - .--..--..--. ~. - _ ' a96 - -.--.--.--.--.'- IE)GRAR 162.5'-HGN __ PONE-HOUSE - 156 ~~~ -___~1YfYf>'Alflf_NODNFLU7G._'9$5.S___________________ .- ______________ ____. - _____ ____ COR9FN STFFL FDGE AT PATS NR(AAL SIUX7J FNSN AT DDFIIOP TW. _ '. 46a _ _____ __ (FIGAOE l57.S-NGX _ lFl MADE ISS.S' -LOW PONE - 21D DWFIIHG N1YA LFOGESTONE AT 6ux a PANiFD $iFFLSTRUf Fpl OVfANANG AP40RT _ PONE. 2P0 GWfLL11G METAL FPNE WNODW'S WFIH LOW E P6EPLA(E D 4sa - 'SQLLNFO' OAL QAZNf 1YP. 2NC SpIG AT COM~([fp EAST ELEVATION i AW4 DBL (iA2EO SKh1fM~Tro. HoNZZaNra WNPOSrrE MATFAw. AT ENrrtv roWER '~, ZNC. METAL ATFASCIA / MT ROa i~ METAL 6TANDNG SFAM ROOF, TP. - '~ L6 iT. Nf. LM, PFR AVG. GRAOF UAL ___ BIDG. Ni _MAA. __________________________________________ _________________ __________________________________________ ___________________________ _____________________________________ -. - - _ _ . - _ .s• 161.5 MATw9GMFruEAVE,ro6oa --- ToPaROa-uv~' I ~ ~ - 4 --------- ~------------- ~- - - - - ~ -. -.----------d-A9.7 Y ~I ~, ___________ 6EOIIOOM WNG r~ - 162.5 .r, a GARAGE FL00R ~ r t _ _ _ _ _ i ''_~ _____ y` ` _ _ _ _ NAN FLDOA HOIASE_ '' ~2 -_ - __ - -- _- ._161.0 i asx - 2NC. CIA-ORIG AT GIR4GE OOOPS aw.s.--.-~.~,-- --. -- ~~~~,~.--.-.199.0 - .6os ~. MiFGAK OOLOR STUCCO, TlP. ALIlI, FRAME WNWWS AMD EJITEAIOR DOOPS ~. a51 - NTEGRAL COLOR STLCCO AT EMRY WALL - Pro. METAL sTwErs, TrP. _ .s/ am _ _ I y_450 SOUTH ELEVATION ~ i ~e o. . STANMNG sEw METAL RDa WTM HOR120NTAL cowDArE MATCHNG METM UYE MATFIDAL AT ENIXY TOWER 466 - ~~ BLDG, ENVELOPE raP a Raa -le+'a^ - 662 = - 9:N - ~ - _ GILV. 59EF1 DECK LPPANIEO 1 8 - wrtxGALV.RaoRAANC ^'< - b , k - F - '~ 9.TSC--~LPPFk fLOOR~~0A0lM WNG .--.-- .--. - 466 - ~~. - HOUSEMAN FLOOR _ _ ~.~ ,; - 590---- LgBFA FIOQR _BFDIIOOM WNG 161.o~e AvGClunF- - -- _ --- - ------ - ~~ ~ -- -- -- - _ Hplg-+56.5 -_ ___..____. _ I M•MR. asa - w~MV66wuPUaAnuxoml9nrls9lMN ~ NIEGMLCd-dtSNCCA FNSN, tYP. ... - L___________l _- RON IVIR611U.11611101R Y11 AVO.•tM,P 14$~ (E)GRAOE x PARTIAL ELEVATION /SECTION - M. BEDROOM LDDI(NGSWIH p ~ MErAt Raa AT lUN STAEplG SEW METAL ROOF AT VALITFD AREAS ROPE ARFA __.____ __. ._______. ____________ _ ___ BLDG, HT. MA%.__ TOPaROa-lea'p' _ •__ _.~ h IM I _ h ~4 ~ __.__j I~ ~ ~~ ~~ - ~R ~~i ~ --.--.--.--.--.--.-_._ _ _LPPEA ROOK- _ BEp100M WNG '. ~` _--169.7 Q -166 n ~ ('~ _ ~ ~~I _ 162 I~i ~ - 94W FLOOR fgUSE ,~--^1/61.D _ -_.-- .--.-- -- /SAO BEal00NIWNG - asa (EI GNOE (E)GRAOE r SECTION THRU ENTRY / M. BEDROOM' ~~ ~_. _,,. ~\_ / WILSON ASSOCIATES CQRB~IIL•IOR ~~.4. ' rA n Fa POIO> e n~i~I VYO~.Iwr I ~wroa 1101! ICg91. 1111 MCnY Mo1wq GMtlO ~~>«~~ 11101! All tlllMlM • _ _.- - _ I BTAIaa SUN MFTK ROOF N11N MAAOEIG fAYL TIP. ' ___-. NRQIL SAULCO F-l4p AT ExiFJti0B 71P. - -- -r- -~..-~..._- .5.._....#MAX SI%'fNYNLPE___~ __~_____________•'___._.____...._-_________~_____•_•__ •__~___~_~~__•___•_•_ 'I TOP di AOOF-1814• - - --~- .. ~ -.-.-- I 4F.6 - '~I 16i - NOIRE MAN iLDOR I -X61.0.-._.~.-- --.--.~-.-- qv r ie - ANE apAOE ~HOIRE~/58.5' _ - MMLM•L R. lip ISa _ PMIW/. WMWOIARlM MOYE NRIIRIS IMAw IE)fAA0f 451.5 LOW ! - RMwAI61 PWT NQ.@ - r '~, - IIOE F01R:1FAP. IFONIORn; 41tA' 1N0,•1114' 45G - NORTH ELEVATION `~""~`°~""'""'"""` TEED ENO a Po0. ,'l CEIlJG DRDPPED WvM FDa Ac g1CER1G / 1911.-'Fro ll NTEppR GOING TO EXCEED 15'-0" N 116GHT, T{R51 AREA FOB NEOi. DUCTING Ara RPNG RECESSED UG1fp5 ,G 4815.__... ~'~•'~~~ .. ......... ........... ... . S7NP AT CFANG GLASS WALL ~..' ~ . WWG ROOM BEYOND ~ ~ _ ~ _~ - _ +.,. ~ GUAADAA$ AT POOL -L ~ IPATq I -+f-;+ ~ .__ . . gTCNFN / FAMB7 ra - IgUSE MAIN FLOOR L ~I~l .. '~ x610-_.. --- _ ._ _. .. _ _ - POOL r---' _ + ... ~ (EI GRADE _ COMPACTED FILL ;o palmxpusaE Ara rErAL wRmw 5751FM ATSTAN 1R1M91 STANOEIG SEAM IETAL ROOF WIiH 1411tlNG EAh.TP. u _ ~ ^ D _ _ _ UPPER FLODR -- __.__._ -_.-_.-- -- _.--.-_.__.--BfDp00M WING _e-_-69.7 I ` ^ ae~ - 5 ~ ~ ~ _ ~ 1 1 t..-= _-__- 4ti2 - - '- _. - _ LOWER FLOOR - - ~ __-_~--.-,_- --_._-.--.-- _~..,__.__._-.--.--.- BEDAOON WING '~--159.0 NIEGAAL SNCCO F-15N AT FXIEPoOA, TYP. _ +Sa y_p AEGRWM WNG _ ern rt1_ SITE SECTION LOOKING EAST • STAIaING SEMI /ETAL ROOF VBIH _.._C' ANFA Fql MECH. WCTRVG AND PVNG ~ ., ~• ~ 6 MATp/XG EAYE, TYP. ................................ .___._......_.______._.._____.____..____._..___..._..._...__. MAX aDG. B14ELOPE ~ _ .._.. _____ ___________________________________________________________________~_ ...~~5 - 482 - 478 ~76 _ 8 69.T-ar,L=~LPPfN FLDDB' -'.~~ '~";; BEDBOOII MMK --.--.--.--.--.-- --.--.--.-- - ~-.- .-_. -. Y oo - ^ OAIAOBAL AT P00. - o6c - _ 466- 0 - ~ ~ ~ ^ I~ __ -.. ~~~ _ 462 - ~~ -' ~' III I I• -,- _ ~(HOOSE MAINfL00R~.~2 - ~ _ I' III i li ~ ~l I-- --~--~ _ - 59.0-,~LOWEA fL00R• _.--.--.--.--.--.- -_161.0 _ .--._-._- - Z........ 46A - BEDROOM WPlG - -":~.-- -.- .--- _-.-- 158 - 451 _ HfEGAAL STIXR;DFN9I AT EXTENOR TYP. 154 450 - AAEGAAL STUQA FNISH AT FXIEPoOR, TYP. 450 - (E) MADE, GRIDED Mo - _ 1 c01tTENSTEELTEAAA(EwALLS-- (El f#AOE PIAN LEGEND Pf9. STEEL FAME / P06TS ALN. NH%1M ST51Bl. TYP. NoNmMru salt 166 - .- `~ _ 45~ MANiEO 7EMAQ5, WfIN COIRB! 57E6 FAn,G WILSON ASSOCIATES ~i0118D11L11011 ~~i sor r. ew4eer OMlI 61e~tlIab RM1n~ IFmiiM lbrls0. wir.~0•As IM FwoGMlo nncaw~mcro. nocm 4rmr • • • ,~ ~ IANDSCAIE lEG&ID ; , • "'~ ~ `,~ ,~ --- ' .~/ I I '` nANrnre corraNAre s~-- ~p ° ~I '~~, ~ ~_^, ,` ~ti/ ~\ '1 _~_- N09'96'00'W 41.90' TIQ IAIS'Ol' OITYlTI!! ISGAI A~/ - -i _ _~'~~ `, 1 N)N 4itA99B•1 f1~AruEalu 1DU Jf/ 1 I \ 1 ^. /~ ~ '-(. ' `` ` NSArAro11r9WNPALL rrN1laN60WwN0 r .. TALL OIAp99.1 rENN9lIOM AlgK1ROD~ 10A1 ^~. ~/ I ' 1 `~ "~ c ~ ` `` 1 I ~ " A TALL OIAf9q•A cA1ANAC9atm RAnroasTe 1 WLL . , ,', I I ~ - .. _... TMl UI!-9•u NsuuNSlrran999alovu u•wR I ~ II 1 ' 'w J• I I i19l IAA!•9•M 9DIACM1tl1ENAT1e R/WVU Irwx +~ ~~' I .'~'^ -~-w ,al \..,~'• \ 8 ..._ _ , . ,-:...,-." Irwz•Ilveou•(t! ~;. I a _ rA I \ _ '^ ~oiEtmenNCNleral9eeourN`c® I I ` A ~. .`• ~ ,\ •\ SOM9lrronoN•P~A9/01w1 1 ~~• -. ~ .' ~ -~•, r- ~canowturo~rom4w,m. ~~,.,. I "\ .... urotan xorm r ; ~ : A ~ w~ " 19tere I a ~ • ~ ~- raaour~ \'\ i ~ ~ - 1. rOYLL UIIDroArN09NALLCOWIT DIMA111c1119./119ATR lIIC1BR ,, '. WIDICA96'OITNl9AWroGA AMNNfJ1Al c009 • ~ ~I r 1h~r ,. ./,~ ///~"N919EP. m. 1`~ ~_` ' \ x ALL UNweAPero Nil~roTNlW DUr fY9NRt ~ _ t , I . I . `\ ~ ._,_ ' ' C ~ r J~~ .` Ol ~ ,\ )I IM bIIr11r _' ~ \~/ ~ ~\ ,\ ~. ~ ASr AMOrlI t1 ~ • ,. I II `$ v. tRCIrINMXpR ` `\ ,\ ~'' _ E ~`~•m34i, `S i A 4 1 A ~ / Ji ` `\ _ .. ~ ~ _ Y ~1 ~ sl 1 ~ I ~ ~ \I ~\ ~\~\ ~ I ` .2 I . r,I I .~, ~ \,~ AN \\a Y~~O°"I1 7 \I ` _~ I~ ~ v/ ti ~o`~ _ ' r l ._. _ rt 1 " ~ ~~ ~ - // OIAYrIIAII-gADRrAIN.(YINIIA731R) "- ~ ~ ~ I ~• ~, a '• ,' ~ IC ' 1 f - M ~~ , ~ `. ~E10AK IAFE WS rEN NAaYEO ,\ r/ ~' _ _ _ All r 'I \ '-' ~ I ~li\ ~, / \I Pn 1. ,, ~;_ II N '' 1` / I SS RAt ni Pp01 ®GE Y I ..... ~. OWNONEMMR'lIrALL NNIIN9lNM60UNING ; - y I yy~~ w 1 1-, casEw ~r "\ 1 I 1 1. / " I ~, • 1 I I ~ OIAVI ~ 1 J ~ ' ~ mislreR ` , I .wtOEPwn®rdRACe wm151aS OOwN io LOwER u~/ ~~ ;r ,~ ,\ y I rAlm,coNC. wAUS wIIN COmN31EaPACNC ypalAgrz ='c ;ywMauo•1 ~ \ ~ ~ W I ~. - '~. CA2111A91a t7, SEE ~,~.'~~ . . GRAdNGI dIAINAGEPUN ' ~ ry ~ lJ~ YVNrAE/ ~~, .~. ', ~IYlOW1r1 (, ``` ,,\ .. ~` / IMY.TMRIORIArNIRY10WN~ t d NrWAWIrI ~ Sl` \ `~"b I *E ~ ~ ~ u•wSmeaR }~ a ~ ~ioARn~roeiRdAO'vEO •' ~ ~ '" ' ' ~ -~ ~ ~ . 1 1•L fr r•y{M'-'Y"kf.USOI urNNAR/ ° ~.~ % \ ` 1~ I ~ , ~1 . e ~ AIN r ~ c" iM wgNApMRI roa c ' .' ' a \ uNAIOONEO CONiCHIR :~ i 811 sq. ft. _ ~ A.I ~,. , ~ ~ .~ ~ •~,• _- A 4w , ~ I , \ -- 31 ~~ '~ ., ~,~ •.~ 1 MOMiM wA-' ~ _ "'--YOxc.,Aw ~ 4 I ',f ,r .~. - o ~,/ I .r r, w 4ND v auu 1 .IL-~--~-~L f "' '~ Je ~ r • ' M '. DWlWND ~ --.. r ~ ~--r---_ 21.91' P / ^~I w ~' r .+.~r Irrrl PI ". 1 I 1 S' WILSON ASSOCIATES F-- > i y~y~~ uNnt rt Itl'tI1NN K6IRONN Nw~welaNlor+.~ p~~1WMQ IW1111114Mict~ANm nna:aRa NNnn ncle:tn uc>ar N y~ 1 I v y ~ ~ 1 ~\ r\ I munm. j, ''I / ~/oumooRN~ucelcnu, ~ r- ^~ rAla eowcrA~no I Ii "?~ ~'\ 1' ~i / ~r. ~ M ronrrRwvn / I ~ ref ~ / '~CA7CN Rn9N WITH N)CR BERµ7E 70, i. I~JS Sf 'I ~' \ ''•~ ~~~' \ 1 , `I ~ Jf ADJACBiI / ~- eoRAINUNE,sEFGRAdNCrw+ A ' ' / L ,} ^ ~ ~~"~ K ' (' \'g, / ~ °''~ N~ ~' ~ ~~ I , ~'1 " I r~ore~rr ~~ ~ / ~ ! j 1 ~ t y ,~ j' , 1 PROPOSED 2 s r i `~ I . ~1 ~ "~ ~ I ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ K J STORY HOUSE ~x-.v ~~~~ ~~ ~ ,, ~, r, i .. ,, i ,, /~ \ I ~ ;.; - _. ' ' ~ ,,~ ~ I ^ ^ ' Inarroum ow~uinwAU r, rll 0 r .1_~.. •' I W ,~ -% I ~, U- ,10~'OIAgr t I I ~ ' '~ I ,. , - ~ ~ % ~/ ,~ -~ ~ J_ ~~u` 1 ~ ~ f ._ r /,/ 44 ~ ~ f~/ . u4N0 rJ ~ ~ t / aawuNEPEesuRV' 1-~-~.~.J '~/~ 1 ' u ~ I r ~ raarrnvs p .,`" ~ N~c -.. `~ ~. r 1 ,~/• E,oR ` i" I , _ \ mlrocAtnN ~•. A~``'" SowaRAm r I ~ ] " ~ Ira rxamro ~ ~ rAN 1 ~~. / /,_\ ~ r _ OW0.1 I I I ~G~ _,tl-IiNIrNWWA1B •'Y// --'f - ~^I J ~tl ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ I ~ - _ / ,,/15~~~ M~ /tea F~D~ 1~.... r .,.. cJ~~; o. ~`'~~' u~rro ~.m. r ~fW •• _ - 1 ~~ .~wxcrAmlN - ~~"°i°IN° ~i' iu 1 `1 q do ~ P ' ._ Q ~ . , 34si'' -I ~ c ~Mr ~ ,'a/J rwx.m. ~ - .' 7 ~ ~? i ~ - 1 '"~, i n / ,/ ~. N93'2900'F 233.17' '~ ' ~ G J ~ ' , 1 r l ~~~; /- iCONC.SOE WAII.'R IALLi - ~ ; .' WRNiRHLLi A9V. ,~ ~ PAVNdINF --R • ~ / to ar' - - I 1•u / r J c ~ ~ ,~ \ ~'F~~~ .b ~4 / W 'PgO7ECMEfENCING N)R7RE6 WRING fEI rEE PER I V., .~ ~~r /' jWhy9 •.~ON9IRUCODN-PFRARgA01 ~Er 1YP ~11 110 1TA" I.A `.~ E YS 1 1A l ~ 1~ IEICartWRSnNO GRASSB roREA1NN. irP. --_.~ -~ ~ 1 __. R _- A + ~ _ _ ..00 - N 1 Y ~ _ INUC111BNR14 pp r ~~~-r ~ - k1CNr1RlN~141 ~- ~Y^ ~ `.% ~~.~~~ ~'- BSI g • ~-. t . -~ / V 13 ,' rl ` • _. tli- _ I R•N / `~* ."~ I r T 11 ". / I ~ __ I •'\ 1, _ • 1 I+R' , ~ a I ~ ~, I ~ ,, , r61101ECIfVE FBIC7N0 fORiRFB WNNC~ I _~ N I 111 ca+srNlcrloN-PERARN)NSf ,•- •~ L- t_ _ -~- .. .1-4•x11 :I~B2 ~ I' ±, ~/u ^ ~I~.w~s = ,.M DSCAPE PLAN nanml`Rwrr g111AU~ 1' ~ / II MOIRSP9 ALL lNONI ~ ALLNN • NNINrr16rIVN ,'I 00 ` I .. ~ /OI9WAaRRNONMI~OM ` Y 1 A~ /" ~ ((~+ A "` IIOIICIION IItw ~ 16 ~ ~ NNMRCOMw _ wp IrplNUr ,. I___.III I ~ N ~/ 1 / ~. I '11--}- dSUrAlgl`PER`WFSIFALL C` ?X ~c ~ C ~ 1 I \ `~ II III i ENGINE9ING DAAWAIG ~_ 1 I a+r ~ ' ,~ I 9~1 I I1 I. ep NI!l1'/ ~ COMVYrr 1 L ~ ~ / I, it ~l G It /. /"~;,g " \,MIRFAC'SMNnI~I I t I ~:''_~f2. 0 I rANH1AMNArWWt 3 {~~_ ~• N '1W~OIIN~II•I ( '~.\ I ~, k 11~~ b2~ rowwrrato ". ',~; I ^ 1 • r,,, .'/r~ 91" ~. ~F .~ , I ;, ` ) J:C j I 1 I ~~\ \ 1 y Y. I Ir 11 ! f.1 ` I 1 I ' 00 CtlMro1N1 NDOR,11ma .. iaauEe i .:~1` 1 S/_ ', ~ ~ r» erw,m. _ ,r 13 I / 7 , 1 9 ~_ JJ~•J: !n 1 I I ,W 110 I , 12 n0 /r• NOM NAMO ArAa1` ~ II ~ N0101 Wrr911N9l1 ~• ~J Y"~ AOC61roCS 101gf1 __- 2 r ( I I I W ~ta~ a,:a~/r•'~~ wwnlim \ n I r,, ~ ~ ~ G8 I 1 ' ~-'--..L~'~..~1 n N~~~"E 193.91' ~"~.--~~/ SsNrrlalglrew ` / r • • ~,... fEE fN@T L•1 I~ IOR AEOVE F IE'I CONIWRS AHD GRASSES tO REANN.IYP. --_.~ _ ~r 'tA -~. -.... ..... ._.. ---- __. ~ '~ n1r ~` S1CIwN19wIMLl /mar ~ A f'' \ ~'`~ 1. '" ~ ~. Idr' ~_ ~_ PROIECINE FENONG FOR IREES DLeNG ~ _ / I10NSfRUCrwN PER AReORISf ~ ' S ~~ ~~ 1 lS.~ rlaMreMrNwONY1 ,I.~'aZ' ~' ~ MRNBre INVl/ '~ ~~ s _' 1 r e _ _ tre ~ 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 ~ _----/ I 1 s ~~ n .I- _ " i~ ve I ' ~ ' ~ -tea-s - -.... . el I ' a ' mrfrsAtloem N r,' ILL _ ~- -- - -.. ~ 1 i I r n I N -w...... ~-- _. _ 4 8 . 8 ~ N.. , ..",:~ ,. PORTION roraw rAVr lwewrx ln. flwrat4 W1 _ , ~ OlcAearrlAelar warm. 1 ~PlrwreAnarlrrofl.m. I I 1 1 I 1 _ _ 1 WhDf OAnllR R. wIOE DAtl ACCW SNALLIFMAOUGNA YwYDO ~: ,: ,. tuult>K.ru~NAUD ~wrs~uroG~me wylun_ -, -~~ ~ENAY WALL ~ r•IALLNm NOms aANO0GNr ~; m wwafllwwAlrxrr (M)Aprlll LANDSCAPE PLAN - DRIVEW IOre lpl"•1'd 1 /1.alY^/OwOwwp f Nf lln'IIl Wall lowaullx • wswaAOS.am.ro Rworo.rwrcowAClw Nel DETAIL -POROUS DRIVE rt3. ' ~. ~ _.° = ARBORIST REPORT RESPONSES I tre ~ ~ ' ~` !~ eerlacale4GrbroAAla61 BOnA eeEerYErRnxrAAD UwPWaAmoPOS®newrsor«cEAr j. ! ~ IIyA MOeeNfXCOlRIN4roGA CAIRdbM,DA16 AUNN 15. ]f W. eY WNDL VBITI \av '~ ~~ . " ' ~ ~ UelhelmeeiYra ~~ E ~ laena.r.tts.r~,a i RrMbmlr kgat r.. - ~. ~ ~~ ~ ~ '. r 91;111MLBlby Nrai l3,Xw ~ .,~ Y~, I ' y ` ~ Tn bb.qulwporeb Le Tae h.mNrywdrrair revieYrdlhe papord r+UeAr®rmeidmoe. Adrn .,~ ; . 1 r r • ' r a / ~ Iwhhr r9°NErcmmi0moomrewbymbr; P, , , s :~ ~ J .~ ~ ~ .a~G~ ~. hiwmoaodnero®hr R17riMmwdbar~ohr ~ _ . µ ~.. r'R ~ 4`^•~1 a' COeiwewwdb rti~ds d Shwhtlriwrwdrpar6k aewri1pR111d11elMmlheemh,mmmpliu Herded re lnem a !` nlpllewmlar bmrprrw. e.I7riwmedermarewl0le. we rewilindlW. Heeatlad.eWiR eddlople®mlarbmwret , i ~ ; r •~ Nre;tlelSiyrhemin dewwnrilrraptlmfma te •.! v 1 SrrIwL7 (atrirn3 ger~Rm Wdwe dprrireerha. _ N /r v AI ~ /, v\ 3. Dminhrinhr 6lmmaVdboaoftbwnerbllr l (iod'gdcmbo/51, /IOhlw hoed otimirbd.er ebeNLl. s 1 3. seeeolee, ehwL1 ~~ ' 1 , y 1 Q srmr,ehwC1 7 SeelRb IhwLl 1 ~~ e ~ ' . . cE~mra.imdamns u m :Ln n nhreh.arna aasrLLLZneemaeNm.;u ' I . . . , , y me1mL ' r / 9. Tr trapw Aamuhber ro0emdrehwCl,LL lkodiedtraeueohowom0e plm ~, r Iw03'amedew oeo.v.areaosrae11e1~ ehonrwadeumprdgdrwryACabre e>a eWdriwa Shea L1.138oN 061nM1aapiRrl6"role. 0eiwwq'uolnrmmeha L2 1 II. TrreR w ehowem AO. Sr LI N d aae iEo. I30w shorn bnmeb 1'~ _ - ~ f \ _ 129eeehlrLl taNOmur daaen3. 1 _ ~~ I3.SrearmdWL2 It S n ~ ~8 . remrehw L2 u.srrwmrlds l2 ~ Ib.Sr eosmekr L2 raoe3 rAre ~i I1.3reabr ehwl2 DVn ~ eP II.Srldrrrher l2 19.Sr eaarehW L2 Y A IO.Soerwmeher L2 ? o ~ ll.Srmwmirl2 nsrrrrehrnLt '~ D.SraareYr L2 N.3r ererehrL2 ss.s«eormmllz - 26.Sr lowrehW L2 17.Sr sowrehWL2 ' 28.Sr eYrLl; edded7 k" hm ero I ,' 29.Sr ehwLl; eddd ar A"brace ]0. See cab w ehre l2 rrNrlr rr NI welNAw werrNl6 wrvrr Orhebr7nllwa Nos sr, r oe tt errep,a _... ~-mcowWrrrsurvn a e ~ ~ i ~~ g y pm pylrebr,ldr lz lWS and RNiw: _. .,r.~ ~ ~._ The fn0orba iesrPorebaw rbmilmviw dlk PWrod Der [Irlleimrmeldma. Refrm BMby lepNlfa ~FROIEC[NEFENCNG FOR TREES DOPJRG laammMlm aorta mrbr: ''-fANSrRUCrgN PER ARAOR6I ,~~ 1. PrrfirtarrlrehelmrhY Ll rd L2 ' L Rw'enY dNNlw hasmwld re ehw CZ. 3. wawhnraumoarslbsdbsrea>ioesammmeemes~pl.. A e. meu~hN.mmops,dawnoranmabnr~adR.,amoo,eomamnemti~nyrl.re dwL . 3. kdiq bemuh anopiee dawni14R36hnhm mried prwroweodedrMbreil laPOlL wLI. L ~ ~ E 1. Wil beetlro bew bam mirdnarpy wRb nermmmdNRaatddrrr mpoa, re ekd d L e. Sredew;rm~rd bbe- Umbrehrt Ll. g ~mt hereeal>, rrlo-lartimdbiorOd mraeenre i s" ° g o. w ee aM4I1~~yr Rmiamid orb npraoSptllq 3Aham[euadefioo. 11.9rIhw3dWW(i11911powm{ 'R 12 DworehNl be made eraedpmdq aMedfu geNypue aN5 ed'wpecooa bra gdifW aRauL NOASESHOE COURT f 1 I xon: route sAruan cwler. rrrl •{- NMWI rAYSi.wN{wwIr IAIARIE ') nelne~slrAelESwrAnrearow roAr1OW YlaEwawDarMwwve l snswnl - ouv~lArrela slaww rawrwmurolAUUSSea.nl Aeowl lArr. w1Ar wlleul5xw NO1rOrD11f WwAOeal 1/~/YV'"/'v'ti'V1~ ~Y oeo>onu rout prrrN rAwlcOro 1 snlNwm0lAq LANDSCAPE NOTES OANeEYS ('d(4flr'an ro ArOwi ®Oin A mH NIBLD IY AM Mw' d A MMJS®A! W lmBf,'f A r t4VI NaieNa CWn. SAfAIOGM1 CMIOrW, nAl®MANl1ILLb, rrnAVOL IArrf 0. All PoRIwW aMEDrrtWAY AND WADaAK NCLIaK AIw CVOpBIY.NG.MaOS®1@GMMIYtg G.iaes MAU r elAral®oN ror a Issrw soe cett Imo A waw ascNl. /~ suerAa a>I~ rtAM19 wmw rwr ieNau.srA1 u NaHIIROCLwromAlnCUW 5A1n, WDrlACro aN ourPOeaRwug Au1NWS1EG.rFA GGYflab N. rollnarNaAwi tartwacNOneEnesasurAa wusrrwrrtolrAan:MESS1ue wleerNSruN rrnsauDNOr~rs+acen.solsu CW wla®roi0rEUElo6aneDrvtweroomiw nmw GIAa.MElaFan/f1D06,f]lvi Aso YA16rf1aLwwAV\~®.IIM1E91GA0YUW MFf%VMAY N aril AID eCOr'd1AH M~ 71R11CA1w16 NIO MF 39E Al U'OR I/1[fCIIF 11IN. 1 ILL CdIn [ nA^.W w1M11FErOf00Na11Fn651M:WA19CalOFCMNIQ6FAM MFT~'CANpBN Wbi W1flC®MXIIa NMKt. A REaANAGE091fNLR7UDNadV914rtfID1RGSE6ACf 11Nar M1OwlK rGrMarER eWrt01S r0E II~Ifl1D wAe®. 7. I wIaARY a 19MY611 aMMt+E rEAUMB rLF IE OEOGN®SO wA19 n Nos o6GIMG®l1AM 1FE c W ore a r~ oAw a Nw ee rtue3 a orln mm. a3wwram flaw M euGNa slaw w BrMN1®Ar IFAir ~ s N9 r0 MR 30E Ax] oN[C I!D AwAr rgON 11F fiN5 a olq. u, aeNeOA~ lAlldOAlE rprwerva®ro NcdfaAlEMErasowNGleeowweDA,llae. Asher Arnr, Nro neaswN; A nANr AuIERW LwUDDOAfeHNOAwREMW 3Dr8CBf aeEAleA r3ev.MAlRlncworr. art wArtuu NflAl1ID IflFAM AN oAn calm swan r DeoualrrolerANr ANn COMArIE roe nuYrD eseAM oAlx canAO rre oveowA oAw rounAloN Ar www.GlPoreAavs.om rce A mr a sw.rE n W n. 1 ANYnIM AU1fl1Al aGrRMAI w7bOe RaeAltlaGNnON weAM W 0/17 ClewPYS1wUIDr 61A119~ A MBMII W OKIMICE NOw IIE IAIl a SF81 NL Ir OME79. c. nmAllou s Io.~D wa snAr eseAM ~w oAn CANm a wnsl m~E res woN Ire mxs a w once nee. ANY MwGA1wN d®ro RuCJ~mrl/Am IflfAM W OAR7CWmAwnwa A Dwfm S14BA D sores.AWDNce orNelwcafurE rnaAmsw~n rwIFMOIel00rrefreereeeapErA1 W 1em AAO rwr r N CONUR wm1 NF nllllo a NEw ~ E WING IfleAM 111E CNwre M161 w AYOD®. wclLaw raw®COImJI. E. setts eoAn a Dole ®Ge1G wAesu rearosm IrFAM ne rw~ UAwr1B war w IsrASEn®aw wr a EmmesadeeAns, IA. s.RSrrae ammo M r1OeaRe role's roxDArON, u+rleslcMw peal arse oeANAGE unms. sEawca, :gNYNG. RaGAl10N Fk I R1WIn rDNwhW AtA gsrAN[6e0w11e1wa1rNe3 d IOewBMw0uwfln.R Ica W nON wN6 AE OwICNeo e6O[ M DarANCE 114 nBIC16 wW EE N A RIaN dAEC eaI tO lle 1KMS AID rIAwN1PDNOCIaWMW RIEwr ae aawwa RENEN1winUR: a eD rqt if rpswE, NEIfBCW w nACm oN wr a EbPNO SOE aAa AND COYE1®w/M wood are a ono uAa. Is.INareortcme re+aDSUU rearAllmNwaroAW GeAnw. smAascwaw. caralelxrwN ce Nuvr rourAen ArNa1Ga41E nsuuECOW6mamuoalril aids Wf woudnoa ecrr+oorruE rwofRO1 aANOn GuvAU®°an. aevNR 1 e Iwle Nro ne GepM AID vAC®ND Aaa nu1R 1 h res ANAn. ONCE wAU9®, MF elwlD mole RANN w~Dlele®AND w ANMAeA Mq W N W l nE CAr1AUCe0H N0Cfl5 arm rru eexcnaw rws Dorf 1lIF ro ME NA WM a eEreww aaul®. wwew Nu Nor ew+ ovul®em wu r RwoN u+ew a m Rtruw nAw, 16. WdS OMrWIIEAFAOY®,ALLCONSIAIICTCNAC1NTe Mlar IFCOIDLCI®WRDEME 08wNA1®rBIC® AAW RYB+AflnFeRaweeNgV®I AID OaaR nOwe9ElMne GVAxIBia01wNN1cGS0®tlnexor Wrnou®roe rw eeorr. MrE ACAVAB erowDE srt AAE Nwr uw1~ ro. ME rouaASw: ceuarG. sueFAee ieeAw+G.rAelCNrw.[awA~BlraENINC,SeO[[nfDUO WwNG AUSdws MlttwxeSanul.ND E W vuenhwnaE aeutwN Aw rASlu+e. v. reol w>ROrtem'Ere¢rw ea+G wnAUSO.ArartxrcN UraacoAesEwomarsvaaAAlRacoAVUrc saaDeeSrrAOweAMneeneRCUwrea w.wlon~ @CIIORK wNBIEne roLwAnaNa MFNOIe Aros~owrnwu rr1A~. ADanoNVUr.A ltawx urflracausE wo0ocln rarwuvuusr v1eAo Alew ME sEala a aNNVAr our a r1eAM nE cArlore lur amwE ME tesDNVro IBRC®AI W. na wooD a1r5 swuD xrunnaraa>Mtbm+GlW u11e WDUS DaM wWnAM®NeoLr+lancoramltna+.ne CNR SIIODU N DI E N COIAACf w1M of sew' 11NNw AND Orir MC®AID I6NOVED IY NuIO. 1e. Axv AWROV®SaDUVArwa. eeADewcerwwrwlflGM eerllm'CANONBSUU IEAUNwIr PwaAYD Veli'r r10VH3. IE W Aari 70l E%GVAnON. ALL ROOK 9w0aN19®aA1G 111E PROf85 SI W L!F CLEAMlY5fIt9~Arne®GFd NCAVAeON RFA161MEmfferU111 ArDwwrolAmr COVPIn WIINSOIMf r~ranewsanonwnxnAreea a IWO NCNBAEDGIFAIrSNNI wCOA7®WIM IARx /AW OR uweDIAiHY w1tAAa®N A C1Nd1. PIAtrO SANnNlfll eAG our a 1wNEY aA181 aNG NlCIAIC.IL UNF OR AIIEA eArnt 1/ OVEA W r OCCUNVO weAM ne III CAAOIB SNNl N01IXC®ME NONRS PoNDAndI a! ANI' WALL51r woNMW 1A Ncea ~. ANY UNUS®, EpRNG UNaeGAaJW unmeawa e1NEAM ME rem'CANOweelaNnw uw+DON®AND CN 01P ArFIaIMGSaaAa 21. ANY FIpSRIGnANa, GeaRKOVn, SMALLIe~ a5xewww erfOVID Ir[AMMIFm&f CANOreruLLlF AuNwur cur ro eeAa ND n4 moors lar ulow ueonw. ne SILNMS cµ enw r AI®Aw.vr a Groan ro erOW GeAOr. tL MESnwn a ne6 nsAND>bwsloun alt w rAwv®ereaiG GeouNDrosaowveRAnEUMUMAN rBDrwlrflvueNO W ncAVAroe. ne eoonaMESmNfswun AL306MAH I80w eeauD, n. MEDwaALa xuAnA rrnxn Isua ASUIEw/IVS.S a WDGASaee) a reClwl®v r3uMCANdece ArmnDe ON RIE our AI W ws DeuuGE ee+uM CMwPES. w ADpIwN Nfl.9wuD Na eE SwR®Na wu.wr eelaND ce AuwrflwRaa NASUSfa:We wmN lmrelaserlle3'nufsruatoNMEmfftl. zr. srnawnu wAlasuu eESwrulnro re~Nnoxwmroce IuenereovDl®avea+lfllrAalwle.M DoNCw, I RECOMNBA W uCflnOmApOrSlw wuNEDroexmrnemFe REGUerRGwA1a WD Netnlrw mAAloun.rrtGwwr. Aw APPCCAMeI wEnwD. A 1srIER nMFAAl0answuowsawm®roRemrs COMAM.W SY av11CPMR11 aEK10e 7KIFYHG 11E WAIFRINO MOGANA. f5. alaIAVAYAINY, W/W 1NOWe161NEn10105®leDnGeaMD In11re AIn5Eh1Ctl AID WwSGVNGHOM PVMNG ArDrAIGAEIONJ YKYJIDIEAFw[WFO EORIAFFIWACIS MORw11MWBlrAIl0r1. Ra. xrrasSNGUn w1eE ArvleorNUM necWaea wAlreo q®. wxelEa®a SeEwFY alert uraroroasAxuErAeMYaa ll. WYrRHPNNNG. wAWA13alANWUMS ISIN:NAS IRHIRSIAVAiw IdWeMW UDEASIA9Y610N a W GA cEmeDAneoKrlrwrrredaminwxrEaone4 ArDACeoeawro aA swNO+va. efoeAUlloN eEr»uDNG cmnroAReorssw nEArA cW EpIA11®ArlminrwwnAUeloe.row.MEnlerD aAUOAw sxoun r uw11®w ee w.gvu a Duo scow le ore+Ra ND Geuw N aAAerle.BrAN W RlC veNCe+1 aEMANCe now MExDAe WorAnaar~v~ AW elWwlw AMY xPAVr~we wrcNr. w. ACCarAe1E wGWBIIX[CBNCIIDEOanCUSAGaW W, G.9CWLOMIA aIBCLLS fHIOGGr.01,9C1b DOUGIARI.GUflwUS OJNCaA ACn MACNIPII'maMA6CrUSCNNOrlwA, nEn015UGA Md'DE9AAp A~OaaA SGS°Erv'Iwa, nE leaa®IOCAa0NA1D RlwaNEW nlFg SllawiF NgWN ON nFIMnwN4 PW15AMw Ar IFAI IS IHr MAn AID IS rffi0N3a iROM BrfAM Me ACNALCNpea RflNN®1A85. MEY MIISIIf MfAI!® PRORLO FNNNSnCiwrl Arn N NFCBARYraP SOROn r00UNESU!]n WRN AUYnlnfE116. iAaGATGN Ma51r ADw OR SOASn xaFSYAW nACFD ON neSa AINAa ANDNOIN A SI@Vf. WILSON ASSOCIATES Deeipn >m F¢ m>Irrr orwr alrrlrN.a.N.~. 1~xo.rea 1Oe AEawa eMl iMGar INr MOGrrR W~Lae tlplMmW :\. P.E~M • • Jti ~ `, ~ , -~ _, a,.90' EARTHWDRI( DUANnnEs ,p I> ~ ~ \ ~ ~ N85'S6'0°"E p)IUME OF CUT FT)ft RESIDENCE 257 C.Y. ~ ,-!~ 1A7lIJME OF CUT FCR SITE 133 C.Y. ,r ~ ~~P i;~, ~ ~ ~ V~DI.UgE OF FILL FCR BACKYARD 397 C.Y. z°osn~'a ocw[uriir+~c ~ ,C~~9o r^c~60.. r ~ \ ~ ~_ ~ e ,o° uMrt '' /`~ gyp. 7 ~ { ~_ ~~,, . _ ~~ ~ V ~ N~ ~ c<~aE ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,r ~< A Y ~ ~ . ~ <_`~~ ry' '. / ~~ ~' 0 ~~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F " J~ / ~ a ~ ri` 1 ~ 4 d \~ J 1 ~ `4 ~ l9 ~i r( ~ ~ - ti 1 { ~, i ~"_ ~"'V •4. ~//$/q/~~ ~~ /~ ~~ nT^ `lam-: ~j.? Pod:. ... ~ ~. E[t a ~SiA ~~~ ~'~. k ~~~~ ~_/_~" ~~~~ _ ~ ~\ ~~ VICINITY MAP ~5 ~ I ~c.r 1 } 9z _- .___ ~ ,~~ - - ~ _ 0. r q~~ j~~ ~ ~'o r ~:'~ ~ '- ,~ aA, n ~ :, ~ ° ~; 1 ~ rl~ ~ ~ ' 19), ~ ~~ ~ `~'~~ uMir ~ r ~".4Z ° r;l~r S~" o-. r., /( C I ~ 2~., 7 / fF,45Y. p ,1 ~~. ~ F ~3. n) ~~ S'/ F L ,1~ lt~ r~J Q' ~ .~ I ~ ~.'c" of ~wV ~ ~Lti.t~ ~.,~,,.N`'~ 'rt -~~~ ~~~~ SS 4K ~ ~ % a ,0~' ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "Y ~ ~y"~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E. OIGpNO NOTES ,~y~ p` ry/ ^ ,1 ` yra '^ ~ , , ~ " / `•~ ~. ~a`~ V ~ ~ ~ 1. SLOIES Of ?W OR CA[ATER AWAY FRON iF[ FOIMDATNM SHALL AUJIITAW AL0110 THE dTNIE ~" r" `Yn ~ »5 ~ - {`~ Plla/0~~""- r S~ ~ _ ,~ PDWEIEII f011 A OISTAHCF OF 6 FEET WIWM. y ' ~ ~ ~ ~` ' ~~ ~ ~ ~ /'A~ ,e`~~ fiF ,r _ ~~,~I ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~^" 2 ALL AOOFS p1AN5 TO BE dSpIAROp) ONTO AN ADEOUAIE SFiA91 BLOCIIB AND DMKCIED AWAY IRQr ' ~ i ~~ ~ i .Y- ~0 _ r >~ ~ o- e 1 ~FOINOA710N. r , r fl ; , ~ ~~_r~ - THE ATION AND RETAMINO WALL W ACCORDANCE rATH ea,; we-Dnw -aaAa von~Tra Fax~D ,~ .: ~ i0 S' ' .>~, _ j y' "' ~ ~~_ ~ ~- ' ~ ~ sacs n+eMaR's RECOIrIENDAl10H wNp uNpu pi~ECnpn. B r p ,,~ ~ p ~ ~ -, ~~ ~ ~~I. ~ '~~~ ~, rnor~i o~ ra T swu e~ vurwm N+D eu~T so ~s to D~cr rums AwAr v ~~ ~ i ~ C ~ ~~ ~~Q~ • Y` ~- ~Y.'~ ~ D• '~ S, 9LA8$ G15T ADJACENT 10 f'OINIDA110NS 51W1 RAPE AWAY F110M THE F'~OtMDA710NS Ti Yl~ - - s L k ~ l ~ ,P9 ~d'~ppl '1F fi4SS.0', F"' `~ ~-~-~. VI ~ DRANIAOE NOTES T ~ ~~~ h „~~ ~ r l 4 ,t' k'~ T~~AESO _ ~ a~ l~ ~ yip ,E6,0 11 , NL RUNOFF COLLfCTEO NIIO CLOIED OONDUT TO !E DISpIAAOE N70 ENERGY DI~IPATEA AND OMI[CIED v ~~~ ~ / , ~~ .'~ PIA 101:6 ~ ` ~ 6~ i ~. '~ ~ Y 2 - NTO BIO-SWNE FOR AE1EN710H 9Ff 9ilEET 2 F'OR pETNL} i. ~ ~_ '~ .~ _ _ ~ r , ~ ~ ~• V1 ~ w-iT-~ ~unMU. wAml S. \ _ ~ ~~,k.. ~ J-r ~ - it `~ _ j ~ PIIOPOSFD BIG-SWAlES lb PR0110E d! SIZE DETFNININ AND AlSOIIPTION lb NIIM3 RIRIOFF FROM 1llE ^? ' t t' r,~' ~ ,r.F m so ~ ~'~;~~' ~~ ~ 3p ~ ~ s r. `~`?~~~- -rr' m 6, ~` uQ. ~~ '.n ~ r~ ,~' J °''F ~~ ~ ~~ < '" _ 4J1M y. ~ ~ 01Y'~~ "'~*. e~cAt Sly. S z l- - ~ '' ti ~~ ~~ ~ it ~ ~ti is erovc s 7s" ~ ~~ ~ ° ~ y y ~ se _ •c.~ --~ ~ 5 v ~ i ., 1 ~ d r rr+' ~ ' __ ~ ,. w -- - ~ ~. ~' ~f ~. r ti . y ~ .~ ,~ ~ ~y~ a ~~~ ~ ~ -,- -~= -~ --~ ~~ - ~ ~,r --- _ I ~~ L \ ~ ~, v 9e•oo'o • ~ 29a sr Z E~ti \ 0.Ni ®Rtt4[ Q (II6~I14 WAN . ~ `MttYi YLL oN 6NPI[I iw0 0.•LRO~ v~1•`S~o•~. ~~ o DRIVEWAY SECTIGN ,- o 98°6~, r q~.:, /1 corvswucr ~s' reoE oei~wwv aAOine EoA ME oaNEwnr ip eE ' ~ NEPi t0 MINIMUM. SEE SECTION. ~ OQ ~ ~ ppOFEBgI PELCY~ F - ~~ ~ ~ ~ N°. BY DATE REVISi°M - BAT A ,-JIJCY ~°s ~~, ~ GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN J°B'~ SL E. " ~ T=6 ~ ss WESTFALL ENGINEERS INC. ~"°B DE I@iEV Tk BYE KAREL LYM t `,CPL ~~34534 A SHEET - C CKED~ - BATE 14563 BIG BASIN uar, SARA70Ga, LA 950)0 c,08)667-02,a DEXHE I MER RESIDENCE I t R ~ R' HDRSESHpE COURT, SARAiOGA OF 2 • • T~_ -'~--~ I - t-- _' GRADING SECTIONS 4'ERTICAL SCALE 1 inch = 20 feet HORIZGNTAL SCALE 1 'inch = 20 feet I SVgLE ea aswowsiwam STANDARD GRADING DLAN NOTES t Prior to the commencement of any earthwork/gratliny octlvities. the perrnlttn shall omange a Dre-construction meeting. The meetlnq ehdl inNude Ua City of Saratoga Cradnq inaDecta at (a0B) 866-t2Dt, the grading aantracta and the project Sohe EngMear. The permitlee or repreeatatiue shall arronge the pre-construction meeting at least 48 hours poor to Ue start of any earthwork/grading oclivltiea. 2. Approval of this plan applies only to Ue excavotlon, placemaC and compaction of natural earth. Thb approval does not cooler any rights of entry to either publlc properly or Me private property of othae. Approval of thin plan oleo doer not constitute approval of any improwmeota. Any proposed Improvements are aubJect to review and aDDrovo-' oy the reaDoneible authaitiea and all other required parmih/approvals shall de obtained. 3. It shall be the reaponaibility of the Demlltee to identify, locate and prpteel all underground focillliea. 4. The permittee shall maintain the streeh, eidewolka and other publlc rlghb-of-way in a clean, ea6 and usable conditlan, All epllla o} eon, rock err construction debrla shall be removed from the publlc property. All odpceel property, both public and privoG, aholl be maintained M a dean, eab and ueobb condition. 5. All grading an0 earthworN actlvitlea shall be performed In ouch p mannp as to camDlY with the dandada eetabllahed by the Bay Area AU Ouolity Management Dbtrict for airborne partlculatea. 8. All known water well locatlone on the site shall be maintained or abandoned according to current regulatlona adminletsred by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Call (408) 265-2600 Ext. 2660 to arronge for Dlatrict obprvotlon of all well obondonmat. 7. This plan does not approve the removal of any trees. Appropriate tree rsmowl permits shall ba obtained from the Community Development Department. My required tree protection meaeurea anall be maintained Uroughaut conaWctlon. 6. The project CiNI Engineer, Weatlall Englnura, Ina, hoe dinged this protect to comply with the grading recommadotfone In the protect geotechnlcal report prapand by ________-_ 9. All grading and earthwork actiNtlea shall conform to the approved Dlam antl speciflcallona. All grading and earthwork adlNtles shall Da abaerwd an0 approved by the Soib Engineer. The Salle Engineer shall De noPifled at least 48 Moon prla to any grading a earthwork actlvltbe. Unobserved or unapproved work shall de removed and replaced under observation of the project soil engineer. 10. All construction eltea ore to be winterlad wIU approDriote eroalon control meaauree in place from October 151h to April 15th of each y~ac 11. Grading activitlee era only dlawed Monday through Friday 7:,70 am to 6: pm. ~ CCVER PERFORATED PIPE DRAIN PIPE WITH LAYER CF ROCK PROVIDE THREADE END CAP AT EACH END NON-WOVEN POLYESTER GECTEXTILE B' PVC PERFORATED PIPE WITH HOLES UP 5 7 PLACE PARALLEL To cGNTGUR ~~ ENERGY DISSIPATOR • ~`.~_ N0. HY DATE REVISION BY DATE DATE MAY 2005 ~' $CAEE~ "DR. 1'=2°- ~~ ~ ~ ~ GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN JOB N0. VERL 1'=20' ~ ~~ ~ WESTFALL ENGINEERS INC 981900 DE$IGNE°' JL BY. KAR(=J `~ AE,'.~fIC~ '°534 , . XH M $MEET CHECKED KC - DAi6 14583 HIO BASIN 4AY, $ARATOGA, LA 95°70 U08)867-0244 E I DE ER RESIDENCE 2 I(1RSESkipE COURT, $gRAT00A ~ 2 4 e .e • .e • TRACT 4651 ', MAXFlELD ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ a. , $ `,. xesx oo e , ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ RS 203-M-4 .,~~ ~ /" ~= -~~ ~~Pof ~ MARTIRE 2 ~ ~~ \ ~. TRACT 247 ~} ~ ~~ ~ ~~ \ o~' '~ $ A ,~ ~ - .C ~ ,rte.. !,, ~ _ ~ ~. ~ ~ -~ sas, ~P ~ ~ s ~ ~ q{,4~d /nT ~ - a _ ~~ ~~" ~2wp3.61 ~ n ~ ~ r I s ° --- ~ v ADJ. 4Z 823 egiJL ~ '~ ~ ~ J ~.;z ay,a "~'~l, '.~ \-1f p 3YT~20-3h ,xw~ ~ ~ ;r. /'v ~~ .h r + _. s~as, '1tgJ. _ _ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ `` 4'~ ~ 1~ \~ bq, ~_ ~~,„~, ~ ~ ~;, ~ _ s ~~ ,~~~ ~;~,,,,,,, ~ ~-- ~ ~ _ ~~ /~ S~ ~ 2o- ~ ~ k ,ra ,3 a 14( 'i /^u yl ~ ~ ~ ,, „rr a ~ _ ~o'd -~~ t~-w ~ a,*a ~ '"t,_ ;,"W ~/. a i ~ oh EX. 69,459 e¢ ft (grpeRr s 'h ~~ ~~1µ-t , '~ cx `. ?~ 9{p~,~ N' I~.: E% 59,86) >~-ft (et) `,~ ~ 1 ~ _m~~. N `k:''~ ~ 'J ~^'~ ~ ,~ ~u~ Y~ ~~`~ ADJ. iJ1}347req, tt (g out ~~ p ~~ `~ 5 _- -AD~r 100,751 q. Il (net) `'p 1 d ~ ,+s ti~ / <. ~ `A APN 397-20-4 ~ ~ ~ >. r .r r e ~'fi q ~ Q n - Av' ~~.. _ x '~ ~ , I ~, ~ _. o n e3•zs oa• [ e3~ u' rRacT 247 HIBBETH IMPERVIOUS SURFACES (LOT 1) RESIDENCE 3,316 S.F. PAVEMENT 2,212 S.F. CONCRETE 4,041 S.F. WALKWAYS 171 S.F. GARAGE 598 S.F. POOL 630 S.F. TOTAL 10,970 S.F. ~~ d~ ~; _ j 0 FLANIGAN •. `i r .. r ~W .l ~ ~- - ~ , ~ti. ~~ .~' ~ e 4~a., _~,~ l~~l -yI ~ s ? ~~1( . .'a~a W o ,~ -~ ^~ ~ _ ~ ~ o: LL { 471 ~J, „1 ~ ~ ~. a v yg io-.u ~ c ~ ~',E ~~ T'S/A'3P ~+ =J . -f¢w ~' '~0P4 ~ ~ PM 379-M-40 _ ~ __ __ ___ V___ A '' BILLNER `} : ~, PM 379-M-40 RUSSELL `4_ ~~ .a ~ . ~a R -a__-- Nali69 g ' ~ FJPYM12A10! _ _ : 1 _ x .~ 1' +'~ . S ..,~ FS ~~~~ .~ ~`'~~y~F ~' T LOT LNE ADAISTIENT TAME PARCEL AREA EpSiINO PROPOSED CROSS PROP06ED NEr NNINUN 1 13611 &f. 42843 SF. JiEIA f.F. 20000 2 SB40i SF. 110347 SF. 10D761 iF. 40400 TOTAL 153470 4F. 153370 SF. 1436'14 SF. NET AAEA CALCULATA7FI$ PARC4 AREA CONTOUR AYERACE AEDUC110N NET (AC) INT, LENGTH SIAPE AREA 1 1.006 2' 1701' 7.Sf 0 1.006 I 2313 4' 4770' B.Sx 0 2313 ' Ng1E99, EGRESS AND SMITA CLARA VALIdY WATER E Al10wA61E FLOOR AREA CALCUlATARlS PARCEL NET ARG NAX tL00R AREA EX FLOgI AREA MP01NOU5 (S,F.) (SA.) (AFJ AREA (S.i,) 1 42823 6060 4606 10.070 2 100761 7010 0 0 LEOENO: OYNFA91p SOUNDMY E70S71N0 PARCEL LINES PROPOSED PAACEL l-IES LNRT Of EASEItNT _ _ NOTES ------ 01VlElk lrtan ak loriw DndnlnRr 16101 TrN Cnb ueAa Sereno, CA. 9eD3o m. +as_s54-3oos ENaNEER RESTFALL ENOMI[FR'RS, N1C. 14663 110 SASH WAY SARATOOA CA. 16070 T2L 406-567-03M fA% 401-MT-6401 DATE aF PRL-MATNNi - DECBIIER 3004 U1U1KS wAm1 - SAFI JDSE wATa1 C04PANY. SANITARY SEREII -REST VALLEY SANITATNIN 011116CT OA6 k [IECTRN: - P.0. k E. CA61E T.V. - AT. k T. STORN ORAMIAOE - TO E)OSiNO NANRAL 6wALES THE 511E IS NOT SUI,ECT TD HN11DAfI0N N0. BY DATE KtY IS IOH BY DATE DATE. JUNE 2005 , ~ ~ TENTATIVE MAP FOR LET LINE ADJUSTMENT 98190D SEALS "DR. I•=3°- ~ ` WESTFALL ENGINEERS, I NC, VERT. ~ LANDS OF DEXHEIMER DESIGNEO~ JC BY. KARE C R 3453 SHEET CRECKED~ KC DATE 11553 BIG BASIN 4AY, SARAiOGA, LA 93070 (408)867-0244 14522 HORSESHOE -RIVE AND HORSESHOE COURT, SARATOGA °~ 1 l VICINITY MAP • Attachment 9 ~~xheimer ~~~ ~. `: ice Y,.~. .~ `q -~-- ~ ~ + I, ~: '~ i \I 1 __*. • i :,, ;~Ho~ses ~e Court, Saratoga CA - ~ ~~-- ~~ ~~ ..t ~, - ---- `~,\ ~' li 1 ~t ~I ' ~ ~ ' ~ i r i ~~ ~ i I ;l \~ - r~ FJ`' it ~ ~ .r "~--' ` ~ _:.: A ~ ~'~ ~ .F ~~l ~ 1 ` ~ ~ - rte- t t .~ 4 } ~y ~ s ~ l~~ -es , -'~ ~~ ~ - - "- `\- ~ °~ ~, -. _ .. ~~ ,~ ~ ~- ,~-= ~ - ~ i - - ~ _ - ~i `~ ~. - , .,_.T-. ~- ~_ ~~ , ~ - i I - -- - ~ ` ~_ i t, l ~~ 4 ._ ~ 1 ` 1 ~, Y ~ + ~~ ~ ' ~ ~ __ _ \: ,~ ~~ ~ ,., ,Y ,-~ ~~tl 1. Ill ..\; i '~ ~ fix ~?,~ ~ ,!~ (~~ ~ _ G~ ~ ,_~ ,,~ .. r ,y Item 4 -~ ~~:. ~\ y.. ~1. ~r~^. REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application NoJLroc~tioa: App # 05-20~M 162t~ Cw1~lq Way ApplicantlOwner. David and Mary Rolx~on Staff P]anna: Suzannc Tbom~rs, P1Anning Intrrn ?ype of Applicadan: D Rcview Datc. scprcmb~s 14, Zoos APN: ~ 517-13-033 Dcputmcnt Hcad: ~~Q~ ,_ . 16155 CUVILLY WAY ~, • i. • ~~ Application No. OS-204;16208 Cuvilly Way • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 42,166 gross square feet and 40,903 net square feet SLOPE: 7.0 % average site slope; 5.6% slope at building site GRADING REQUIRED: There will be 1,030 cubic yards of cut and fill with a maximum depth of 2.5 feet. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. . MATERIALS AND COLORS: The proposed exterior finish will be a combination of wheat- colored stucco and natural stone with a clay file roof in earth tone colors. Brown wood windows and trellises, beige cast stone columns, and copper gutters provide accents. The interlocking pavers and the concrete terraces will be in natural sand and buff colors. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. • f.1~10f}f~3 Application No. OS-204;16208 Cuvilly Way PROJECT DATA: Lot Coverage: Floor Area: Residence Attached garage AC Drive Swimming pool and spa Walkways, landings ~St porches Terraces Interlocking paving system driveway SUBTOTAL Deed-restricted secondary dwelling unit (Allowing 10% increase in coverage) TOTAL Residence and attached garage Deed-restricted secondary dwelling unit (Allowing 10% increase in floor area) TOTAL Proposal Code Requirements 34.9% (6.5% of the Max. Allowable coverage is the interlocking paving system driveway 5,155.3 sq. ft. 873.5 sq. ft. 1,764.0 sq. ft. 505.0 sq. ft. 1,526.0.0 sq. ft. 1,206.0 sq. ft. 2,672.0 sq. ft. 13,701.8 sq. ft. 14,316.0 sq. ft. (35% of net lot size) 591.0 sq. ft. 1,431.6 sq. ft. (10% increase for deed restriction) 14,292.8 sq. ft. 15,747.6 sq. ft. Max. Allowable 6,028.8 sq. ft. 6,060.0 sq. ft. 591.0 sq. ft. 606.0 sq. ft 6,619.8 sq. ft. 6,666.0 sq. ft. • • • • L` Application No. OS-204;16208 Cuvilly Way Setbacks: House and Garage Front Rear Upper Left Side Lower Left Side Upper Right Side Lower Right Side Secondary Dwelling Unit Front Rear Upper Left Side Lower Left Side Upper Right Side Lower Right Side Height: House and Garage Height Lowest elevation pt. Highest elevation pt. Average At the topmost point of the structure Secondary Dwelling Unit Height Lowest elevation pt. Highest elevation pt. Average At the topmost point of the structure Proposal Code Requirements Min. Requirement 84 ft. 30 ft. 69 ft. 50 ft. 35 ft. 20 ft. 45 ft. 20 ft. 22 ft. 20 ft. 40 ft. 20 ft. 132 ft. 30 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. 136 ft. 20 ft. 83 ft. 20 ft. 45 ft. 20 ft. 50 ft. 20 ft. Max. Allowable 23.0 ft. 26 ft. 617.8 ft. 623.5 ft. 620.65 ft. 643.65 ft. 16.9 ft. 26 ft. 615.0 ft. 618.0 ft. 616.5 ft. 633.4 ft. n~n~n~ Application No. OS-204;16208 Cuvilly Way PROJECT DISCUSSION The a licant re uests desi review a royal to construct a sin a sto ,sin e-family • PP q gn PP ~ rY ~ residence, which includes an attached garage and a secondary dwelling unit. The total floor area of the proposed structures is 6,620 square feet. The maximum heights of the proposed residence and secondary dwelling unit are 23 and 16.9 feet, respectively. The net lot size is approximately 40,903 square feet and the site is zoned R-140,000. The project site was created as part of the Les Chateaux de Notre Dame eleven-lot subdivision created by the Sobrato Construction Corporation. Conditions of approval of said subdivision state that all new residences shall undergo design review. Additionally, each lot must obtain geologic clearance before any development can be approved. The average slope of the property is 7.0% and 5.6% at building site. The site is currently vacant and contains several ordinance size trees that were planted by the developer around the perimeter. The property has frontage along Cuvilly Way, which is a private street. The design of the proposed residence utilizes the slope of the lot to mi_nimi~e mass and bulk, and incorporates the healthiest trees on the site. The proposed structures are a contemporary approach to the Mediterranean style including a stucco and stone exterior finish and file roof. Identifying features include gable rooflines and wood windows with stone accents along the front f a~ade. The project also includes a swimming pool, terraces, and retaining wall on the west side of . the residence. The landscape plan for the project includes the retention of the three Coast Redwoods and five Cedars at the rear of the property, the addition of four 36-inch Coast Live Oaks and eight Coast Redwoods, seventeen 15-gallon ornamental trees, three olive trees, and a small vineyard. Revisions to the Original Submittal The following project revisions were made by the Applicant to comply with Staff recommendations and are incorporated into Exhibit A: • The impervious surface coverage was reduced by over 1,400 square feet: o The Bocce Court was eliminated. o The fountain in the middle of the circular driveway was replaced with a planter. o The driveway and the mid-level and lower-level terraces were all reduced in size. • The house was redesigned to reduce impacts on the Coast Live Oak. • The driveway was redesigned to accommodate preservation of the English Walnut tree at the property line. • Off-site storm water flow into the storm drain has been reduced in the following ways: o A drainage line adjacent to the left side of the pool has been eliminated and the run-off, instead, will dissipate into the ground in that area. ~~n~~s Application No. OS-204;16208 CUVilly Way o The catch basin at the corner of the driveway has been replaced with a w filtrating dry well and overflow. The dry well will be 3 feet square and extend to 5.5 feet below natural grade. The overflow will connect to the storm sewer 4 foot above the bottom of the dry well. o The reduction in impervious surface and the use of interlocking pavers will also help to retain storm water on site. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has provided the City's neighbor notification templates for the adjacent properties. Mr. Matthew Kansky (lot 10) indicated that the project "looks nice" Mr. John Sobrato stated: "I strongly support your approval of the application as submitted" There was no negative correspondence. Trees The Arborist Report dated July 5, 2005, identified thirty-three ordinance size trees on the project site that could be exposed. to potential damage. These consist of one Coast Live Oak (#151) and thirty-two Walnuts (California Black or English) (#88-91, 93, 94, 98, 99,101,103- 110,132,133,136,137,139-142,144-17,150,152-154). The health of the Walnut trees ranges from Fair to Dead. Due to their condition and low suitability for preservation, the Arborist finds that, in general, their removal is appropriate. The one exception is an English Walnut (#137), which is at the top of the driveway, and is of an overall size and condition that merits its retention. Therefore, thirty-one of the thirty-two Walnut trees will be removed and tree #137 will be retained. The Coast Live Oak (#151) is in overall good condition and is the most significant tree on site. The house and driveway have been redesigned to protect and preserve these two trees (#151 and 137). Four Coast Redwoods and four cedars are situated at the rear of the lot. The Arborist Report also references two California Black Walnut, two English Walnut, two California Black Oaks, and one Valley Oak that are on adjacent property and are generally of fair or poor health. Fencing and other measures for tree protection shall be applied as described in the Arborist Report and in the Arborist's letter, dated August 2, 2005. Twelve 36-inch Coast Live Oaks and Coast Redwoods will be planted as mitigation, in addition to seventeen 15-gallon ornamental trees and numerous shrubs and perennials. Irrigation design and underground utility/service design will be reviewed prior to the issuance of building permits. Based on the proposed plans and location of trees, the tree protection bond will be $106,530. Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The applicant is proposing a 873.5 square foot three-car garage. • 0~10f~f3 Application No. OS-204;16208 Cuvilly Way Secondary Dwelling Unit City Code mandates that secondary units must be a minimum of four hundred square feet, shall not exceed twelve hundred square feet of living space, and must have no more than two bedrooms. A minimum of one off-street covered parking space within a garage is required. The proposed one-bedroom 591.0 square foot secondary unit complies with code. The adjacent three-car garage is sufficient to provide parking for the main residence and the secondary unit. Geotechnical Clearance The application requires geotechnical review conditions. The geotechnical conditions Resolution. Grading and Drainage Geotechnical Clearance was granted with have been incorporated in the attached The grading and drainage plan will provide some on-site storm water retention to the west of the residence by incorporating pervious pavers at the turn-around as well as turf-lined bio-swales and a catch basin. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in MCS 15-45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The single-story project has been designed in a manner that minim~es interference with views and privacy to adjacent properties, including setbacks that meet or exceed the minimum setbacks required by Code. Trees and shrubs will supplement existing wood fences to enhance privacy for adjacent properties. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The proposed landscape plan will incorporate the healthy mature trees on the site and add twelve native species trees, in addition to seventeen ornamental trees and numerous native shrubs and perennials. The use of earth-tone stucco, stone walls, and a clay file roofing will blend with the natural environment. These measures serve to preserve and enhance the natural landscape of the site. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The project has been designed to preserve the existing redwoods and cedars along the rear of the site, the mature healthy Coast Live Oak along the west property line, and the English Walnut adjacent to the driveway. Eight Coast Redwoods and four Coast Live Oaks will be planted as mitigation for the Walnut trees. All arborist report recommendations have been made conditions of approval of the project to ensure a high degree of survival for all trees retained on site. • • • n~1nnQ~ Application No. OS-204;16208 Cuvilly Way (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. Architectural details such as varied rooflines, varied and recessed wall planes, arched windows, precast stone columns, stone trim, wood frame windows and doors break up building lines to create architectural interest and reduce mass and bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed residence is set back more than 84 feet from Cuvilly Way and is screened from the street by existing trees. While the immediate area contains primarily vacant lots, the residence has been designed in a manner that m?nimi~es the appearance in height and bulk and does not exceed the maximum height allowed in the area and zoning district. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. The house is located where the lot transitions and approximately 1,030 cubic yards of cut and fill will be required to accommodate the project. (g) Design policies and techniques The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and staff report. Genez~l Plan Conformity Conservation Element Policy 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The existing walnut orchard is in declining health. Although there will be a temporary loss of canopy due to their removal, their replacement by twelve native trees, seventeen ornamental trees, and shrubs and perennials along the property line will continue to promote a rural atmosphere. Land Use Element Policy 5.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed structures are single-story and are below the maximum allowed height. They follow the contour of the land and the proposed materials and colors will blend into the existing landscape and be compatible with the adjacent surroundings. • f1~1n[lQ~ Application No. OS-204;16208 Cuvilly Way CONCLUSION Staff concludes that the Design Review findings can be supported. STAFFRFCOMMFNDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATI"ACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval with conditions. 2. Arborist Report, dated July 5, 2005. 3. Arborist letter, dated. August 2, 2005. 4. SCC Fire Department Development Review Comments 5. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 6. Letters from neighbors and landscape architect. 7. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." 8. Color rendering of project. • • • On0(1~1~3 • • Attachment 1 • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION N0.05-204 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Roberson; 16208 Cuvilly Way WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to build a new single-story single-family residence with an attached garage and a secondary dwelling unit. The project site is a vacant lot. The total floor area of the proposed residence, garage, and second dwelling unit is 6,620 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 23 feet. The net lot size is approximately 40,903 square feet and the site is zoned R-140,000. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the proposed project consisting of the construction of a new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences; and • WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review Approval, and the following findings have been determined: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The single-story project has been designed in a manner that minimizes interference with views and privacy to adjacent properties, including setbacks that meet or exceed the minimum setbacks required by Code. Trees and shrubs will supplement existing wood fences to enhance privacy for adjacent properties. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The proposed landscape plan will incorporate the healthy mature trees on the site and add twelve native species trees, in addition to seventeen ornamental trees and numerous native shrubs and perennials. The use of earth-tone stucco, stone walls, and a clay file roofing will blend with the natural environment. These measures serve to preserve and enhance the natural landscape of the site. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The project has been designed to preserve the existing redwoods and cedars along the rear of the site, the mature healthy Coast Live Oak along the west property line, and the English Walnut adjacent to the driveway. Eight Coast Redwoods and four Coast Live Oaks will be planted as mitigation for the Walnut trees. All arborist report recommendations have been made conditions of approval of the project to ensure a high degree of survival for all trees retained on site. (~(10~1~ (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk Architectural details such as varied rooflines, varied and recessed wall planes, arched windows, precast stone columns, stone trim, wood frame windows and doors break up building lines to create architectural interest and reduce mass and bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed residence is set back more than 84 feet from Cuvilly Way and is screened from the street by existing trees. While the immediate area contains primarily vacant lots, the residence has been designed in a manner that minimizes the appearance in height and bulk and does not exceed the maximum height allowed in the area and zoning district. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. The house is located where the lot transitions and approximately 1,030 cubic yards of cut and fill will be required to accommodate the project. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and staff report. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review, and is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: • Conservation Element Polic 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by caref ally considering the visual impact of new development. The existing walnut orchard is in declining health. Although there will be a temporary loss of canopy due to their removal, their replacement by twelve native trees, seventeen ornamental trees, and shrubs and perennials along the property line will continue to promote a rural atmosphere. Land Use Element Policy 5.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed structures are single-story and are below the maximum allowed height. They follow the contour of the land and the proposed materials and colors will blend into the existing landscape and be compatible with the adjacent surroundings. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for Design Review has been approved and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: O(l0(i~.3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A' date stamped August 26, 2005, incorporated by reference. 2. Any changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes. Staff will approve no downgrading in the exterior appearance of the approved residence. Downgrades may include but are not limited to garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, etc. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and may require review by the Planning Commission. 3. The following shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building and grading permit plan check review process: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: i. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace in each structure is permitted and it shall be equipped with a gas starter. All other fireplaces shall be gas burning. 4. No retaining wall shall exceed 5 feet in height, and no retaining wall within the front yard setback shall exceed 3 feet in height. • 5. No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. Any existing fences or walls not meeting the zoning ordinance standards shall be removed prior to the project being final. 6. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices, shall be submitted along with the complete construction drawings. 7. Water and/or runoff from the project site shall not be directed toward the adjacent properties. 8. Landscape plan shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and min;m;ze use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution. 9. 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. 10. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 11. 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. 12. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 13. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. 14. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection. 15. The height of the structure shall not exceed 26 feet as defined in Section 15-06.340 of the City Zoning Code. 16. The finial shall be removed from the top of the entry column. 17. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the community development department, shall be reconciled with a minimum $500 surplus balance at all times. In the event that the balance is less than $500, all staff work on the project shall cease until the balance is restored to a minimum of $500. • CITY ARBORIST 18. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Report dated July 5, 2005 and letter dated August 2, 2005 shall be followed. 19. Tree protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist, shall be installed and inspected by Planning Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. 20. Prior to issuance of City Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security equivalent to $106,530 to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees. 21. The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after the planting of required replacement trees, a favorable site inspection by the City Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 22. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans to ensure that the plans, specifications and details reflect the consultants' recommendations. The results of the plan review shall be summarized ~~~)~~~ by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of permits. 23. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for fill keyways, and foundation construction prior to placement of fill, steel, and concrete. The result of these inspections and the as- built conditions of the project shall be described by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final Project Approval. 24. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to issuance of a building permit. 25. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil-related and/or erosion-related conditions. FIRE DEPARTMENT 26. The applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions (attached). CITY ATTORNEY 27. 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. 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, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • C1~(1(l~. h PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 14`h day of September 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 • O(~O('1~.'~d • Attachment 2 j i ~~~~~ ARBOR RESOURCES ~ Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF A PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT 16208 CUVILLY WAY SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: Roberson APPLICATION #: 05-204 APN #: 517-13-033 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A ~ l~(~C~Od[~ JUL 1 1 2005 CITY OF SARATOGA "eAItU1TV I1F\/FI n"' July 5, 2005 __- P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 c~~n~c,~.~- David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July S, 2005 INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the new residence proposed on a vacant lot at 16208 Cuvilly Way, Saratoga. This report presents my findings and recommendations. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheet 1 by Park Miller Architect, not dated, and Sheets L-1 and L.2 by Strickland Design, also not dated. The trees' locations and numbers are presented on an attached copy of Sheet L.2 (Tree Protection Plan). The numbers assigned to trees within this report correspond to those shown on Sheet L.2 and the tagst attached to the trees' trunks. One exception to this includes trees #111-116, in which their numbers have been assigned by me. Please note that tree #116 is not shown on the project plans and must be added; its approximate location is presented on the attached map and should not be construed as being surveyed. FINDINGS There are 39 trees regulated by City Ordinance that are exposed to potential damage during site development. They include -two Walnuts (#88-91, 93, 94, 98, 99, 101, 103-110, 132, 133, 136, 137, 139-142, 144-147, 150, 152-154); one Coast Live Oak (#51); three Coast Redwoods (#95-97); one Valley Oak (#100); and two Black Oaks (#98, 99). Specific data compiled for each is presented on the attached table. The trunks of trees #114-116, 139, 142, 150 and 154 are situated on adjacent properties. They have been included in this report as their canopies and/or roots are exposed to being potentially damaged during site development. The proposed plans indicate that all 28 Walnut trees located on the subject site would be removed and include #88-91, 93, 94, 101-110, 132, 133, 136, 137, 140, 141, 144-147, 152 and 153. I find all trees, but #137, are appropriate removals due to their condition and low suitability for preservation. Tree #137 is an English Walnut with a trunk diameter of 24.5 and estimated height and canopy spread of about 35 to 40 feet. It certainly does not appear in ideal condition as its leaf color and canopy density is less than normal. However, in my opinion, it provides a significantly greater value than other trees on site given its overall size and condition. Based on the amount of trees being removed, it appears the retention and protection of this tree is necessary to achieve compliance to the City's Tree Ordinance. In doing so, the proposed driveway will require being redesigned to be at least 18 feet from the tree's trunk. 'Free #151, a 28-inch diameter Coast Live Oak, appears in overall good condition and is the most significant tree on site. Given its stature and being only one of the few trees that 1 The tags are rectangular in shape and comprised of aluminum. They were attached by others years ago for review of the subdivision. • • • Roberson Property, 16208 Cuvilly Way, Saratoga Page 1 of S City of Saratoga Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July S, 2005 will remain on site, the reduction of impacts to this tree appears appropriate and necessary. To achieve this, the home should be shifted or redesigned to be outside from beneath its canopy, a minimum distance of 25 feet from the tree's trunk. Additionally, the proposed grading and wall should be established at least 20 feet from the tree's trunk, and any other landscape components should be at least 25 feet towazds the northwest and southeast of the trunk. There are two additional Coast Redwoods slightly smaller than Ordinance-size situated neaz the eastern property corner. Though they were not inventoried for this report, they must be retained and protected as they were installed as conditions of approval for the subdivision. The bond amount required for adhering to the recommendations presented in this report is determined to be $106.530.2 I anticipate trees planned for retention can survive provided the recommendations presented in this report aze cazefiilly followed and incorporated into construction plans. RECOMMENDATIONS All recommendations presented below are intended to mitigate any foreseeable impacts to trees on site. Should plans be revised, the recommendations may require modification. Design Guidelines 1. The home should be redesigned to be situated a minimum distance of 25 feet from tree #151's trunk. 2. The proposed driveway and grading design should be redesigned to be at least 18 feet from tree #137's trunk. 3. The grading design should be revised so that no soil cuts, fill or retaining walls are established within the following distances from tree #151's trunk: 20 feet towazds the northeast and 25 feet towazds the southeast and northwest. 4. Each tree presented in this report should be shown on Sheet L.2. Furthermore, the trunks, canopy dimensions and numbers of each retained tree (including those on neighboring properties) must also be shown on the site, grading and drainage and landscape plans. 5. On Sheet L.2, trees #84, 86, 100, 111 and 135 are shown on the neighboring site along the southeastern property boundary. However, they do not currently exist and should be removed from the plan. Z This value represents the combined value of trees anticipated to be retained (#111-116, 137, 139, 142, 150, 151 and 154) and is calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`h Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. Roberson Property, 16208 Cuvilly Way, Saratoga Page 2 of S City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~~,~~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July S, 2005 25. Throughout construction during the dry months of April thru October, supplemental water should be provided to each retained tree every three to four weeks. I suggest an application rate of 10 gallons of water per inch of trunk diameter supplied to the soil areas beneath the trees' canopies by deep-root injection or using low-pressure (water should not be applied against the trees' trunks). 26. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. In addition, fuel should not be stored nor shall any refueling or maintenance of equipment occur within 100 feet of the trees' trunks (unless on the street). 27. Herbicides should not be applied beneath the canopies of retained trees. Where used on site, they must be labeled for safe use near trees. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (a copy of Sheet L.2) • • Roberson Property, 16208 Cuvilly Way, Saratoga City of Saratoga Community Development Department Page S of'S California Black Walnut 88 Ju lans c. hindsii 10 15 20 50% 25% Poor Low X S70 California Black Walnut 89 Ju lans c. hitulsii 19.5 SO 40 50% 50% Fair Low X 5310 California Black Walnut 90 Ju lans c. hirulsii) 23 50 40 25% 50% Poor Low X 5290 California Black Walnut 91 Ju fans c. hindsii 17.5 50 30 25% 50% Poor Low X S180 English Walnut 93 Ju lairs 16.5 20 I S 75% 25% Fair Low X 5490 California Black Walnut 102 Ju fans c. hindsii) 12, 7, 6 15 20 2590 0% Poor Low X SO English Walnut 103 Ju fans 'a) 11.5 10 10 0% 0% DEAD Low X SO California Black Walnut 104 Ju fans c. hindsii 13.5 15 20 25% 0% Poor Low X SO California Black Walnut 103 Ju fans c. hirrdsii 20.5 35 40 25% 50% Poor Low X 5240 English Walnut 106 Ju /mrs 18 10 20 25% 50% Poor Low X 5410 English Walnut 107 (Ju lams 19.5 15 20 509/0 50% Fair Low X 5690 English Walnut 100 Ju fans b 13.5 15 20 25% 50% Poa~r Iow X 5230 English Walnut 109 Ju fans 13 15 15 25% 25% Poor Low X 5160 ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE INVENTORY TABLE ~ o ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ a TREE ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~ o NO. TREE NAME ~ .• •» ~ • REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 1 S = S 120 24-inch box =3420 36-inch box = 31,320 48-inch box = SS,000 32-inch bos =57,000 72-iadi box = S 15,000 Site: 16204 Cu-'~' Wey, Same 1'r~orja; ~ ojs®+eor~o cor,.»~r~y ne-e~,rr~rr vac Plq~ered by: Derid L i+Jebby, RCA 1 oj3 7/J/2005 OQ~C1~12J ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE INVENTORY TABLE .. ~ .. ~ .~~ ., ~ b 2+3 0 ~~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ & . NO. TREE NAME •~ -~ ' English Walnut 110 Ju Ions 14 10 10 50% 25% Poor Low X 5250 Coast Redwood 111 Se is sera rvir+ens 6 20 10 100% 100% (food 5770 Coast Redwood 112 (Se oia sera rviriens 6 20 10 100% 100% Good 57'70 Coast Redwood 113 Se oia sem 'rens 6 20 10 100% 100% Good S770 California Black Oak 114 kell 'i 32 60 80 50% 50% Fair X 521,300 California Black Oak (Quericus kelloggii) 39 65 70 75% 50% Fair High X S: Valley Oak (Quencus lobata) 25 65 80 75% 75% Good High X X S: California Black Walnut 132 Ju Ions c. hindsii 19.5 40 40 25% 50% Poor Low X S220 English Walnut 133 Ju Iww 18.5 25 25 50% 50% Fair Low X 5620 English walnut 136 Ju Ions 'a 14 15 15 50% 50% Fair Low X 5360 English Walnut 137 Ju Ions ) 24.5 35 40 50% 50% Fair Moderate X S1,080 California Black Walnut 139 Ju Ions c. hindsii 30.5 45 55 25% 50% Poor Low X 5480 English walnut 140 Ju Ions 18.5 15 30 50% 50% Fair Low X 5620 English Walnut 141 Ju Ions 21 15 35 50% 50% Fair Low X 5800 English walnut 142 Ju Ions 20 25 30 50% 50% Fair Moderate X 5720 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES is oo =silo Za-~a ~X =sago s6-~ ~X = si,sao as-;~>~X = as,ooo sz-~ boX = s~,ooo ~s-;>~ boX = als,ooo sta: ~6s~a ~ w.~, seaa. p-'4P~Io-~ ~ M's~• co,~~~ ~: n~..vtr. aaby, xcA s of3 vsnees (~~~~~~i~;~ • ' ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE INVENTORY TABLE English Walnut 144 Ju Iota 12.3 13 20 SO% 2S% Poor Low X 5200 California Black Walnut 145 Ju Imat c. hindsii 13.3 33 33 23% SO% Poor Low X 5140 California Black Walnut 146 Ju Ions c. hindsii 20.3 33 30 23% SO% Poor Low X 5240 English Walnut 147 Ju Ions 'a 1 S 1 S 20 SO% 73% Fair Low X 5490 English Walnut '150 Ju lanJ 'a 11 20 20 73% 23% Fair Low X S220 English Walnut 153 Ju Ions 'a 11 20 20 309/0 23% Fair Low X S160 California Black Walnut 154 Ju Ions c. hindsii 14 33 30 23% SO% Poor Low X S120 .. .. .. .~ -~ "~ ~~ ,-, ~ ~ p'b ~$ ~' b ~$ c ~ o ~a~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ > ~ .. ~ ~ TREE ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ RRb ~ a ~b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a NO. TREE NAME =-~ • REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 1 S- Ion = 3120 24-inch box =3420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = 35 000 32-arch box z 57 000 72-inch box = 51 S 000 Silt 16268 CuriRy Wiy, Saratoga Prq~ared fa: City of Saratoga Com~anity Devd~nunt Drpart P-eparsd by: Darid L IitaGby, RCA 3 of 3 7/Y100S I ~(w/(~~-1-~ ~I1\~VI ~~V 1 ~v ~I Yr~rV r l ~ ~ I!1 SIR STS}~Gi~ ~~ ~~'y I~-__ 1 / '1 / 1 I ~ L~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ \~~ ~\ f~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~~ a \_ :. __~. I ~ I x ~ I ~ .~~~ i .. j s I~ i t ~- ~ ~ ~~ ' ~ ~ - ~ ~ -- - I_ ~ ~'A {~ )~ 1~ ,~ ~ ~ .~ ~ \ / _~ ~~ _,.- J~ ~ A ~ ~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3~~ sj ~: i ~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~5~~~1~~~~82~1~~~~~~i~~ ~ i~~ ~; ~ ~~~ ~ r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ I ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ i ~ ~ ~; ~' pgt~~a~~r-~ptp~rYparhpAbrpxp~ ~ ~ ~ ~~t ~~ ipsPi}t~$~~~~5~4~8~1~i~~~l3~i~1 _ ~Qe a ~ l.,M fl rl 7~ O ~~ t N I \~ ~lw ~ / y ~ J _~ O ~~ \ .. ~\ `` /~ :~ ~ ~ I ~' Attachment 3 • •~ ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care • August 2, 2005 Suzanne Thomas Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: REVIEW OF PLANS for the Proposed Residence at the Roberson Property; 16208 Cuvilly Way, Saratoga; Application #: OS-204 Dear Suzanne: I have reviewed the revised set of plans for the proposed new residence at the above- referenced site. My comments are as follows: 1. The plans reviewed comply with my report dated July 5, 2005. I recommend the irrigation design and underground utility/service design are also reviewed prior to issuing building permits. 2. Upon protective fencing being installed, it should be established at least 20 feet from tree #137's trunk and remain in place throughout construction. Upon the driveway being installed, the fencing can be adjusted to conform to the location shown on the project plans. 3. Soil fill is piled against the southeast side of tree #137's trunk and should be manually removed, using shovels, to match the' grade on the opposite side of the trunk. Great care should be taken during the process to avoid damaging the trunk or roots. 4. The trench for the future water line should be routed along and against the inside edge of the existing curb where within 20 feet of tree #137's trunk. Any trenching within tree #137's designated fenced area shall be manually performed using shovels. Roots encountered during the process should be cleanly severed on the tree side of the trench and immediately covered with soil. 5. The tree inventory table from my report is shown on Sheet L2.0. However, the entire report (i.e. title page, report body, table and map) should be presented on the plans and can be incorporated into the final construction set. • P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@comcast.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.240.0777 • Licensed Contractor #796763 ~~~~~~~ ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care August 2, 2005 16208 Cuvilly Way page 2 6. Please note item #1, page 3, of my report contains a typographical error and should be amended to read as follows: "Sheet L-1 should be revised so no new trees are installed beneath the canopies of existing trees." The project set of plans comply with this amended recommendation. . Silncerely, L~ David L. Babby, RCA Consulting Arborist P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@comcast.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.240.0777 • Licensed Contractor #796763 (1(1nn;~1 • Attachment 4 • SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 14380 SARATOGA AV. SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 Telephone:408-867-9001 Fax:408-867-2780 www.saratogatire.ora PLAN CHECK REVIEW TRANSMITTAL FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT FII,E #: OS-204 DATE: June 20, 2005 # OF LOTS: One APPLICANT: Roberson LOCATION: 16208 Cuvilly Way PROJECT: new 6,028 sq ft dwelling and 591 sq ft secondary dwelling. 1: Property is located in a designated hazazdous fire area. 2: Roof covering shall be fire retardant and comply with the standazds established for Class A roofing. Replacement less than 10% total roof azea shall be exempt. (City of Sazatoga Code 16-15.080) 3: Eazly Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained. Eazly Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to Saratoga Fire District for approval. (City of Saratoga Code 16-60) 4: Automatic sprinklers shall be installed for the new 6,028 sq. ft. dwelling including any gazage, workshop, storage azeas and basement and 591 sq ft secondary dwelling. An NFPA 13D sprinkler system is required (see S&R SP-1 for requirements). The designer/architect is to contact the appropriate . water company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to Saratoga Fire District for approval. The sprinkler system and underground water supply must be installed by a licensed contractor. (City of Sazatoga Code 16-20.165 for designated Hazazdous Fire Area, all new buildings except accessory structures <_ 500 sq ft) 5: Driveways: All new or improved driveways shall be a minimum of fourteen (14) feet wide with a one foot shoulder on each side. (City of Sazatoga Code 16-15.200, as required by Sazatoga Fire District) a: Unobstructed vertical cleazance shall be not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) b: Finished slopes from level to 12.5% shall have at least a six inch aggregate base and adouble-coat oil and screening surface. 6: Security Gate: Gate width shall not be less than 14'. Gate access shall be through a Medeco lock box purchased from Sazatoga Fire District. Details shall be shown on building plans. (CFC 902.4) 7: Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided for all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. (CFC 901.4.4) APPROVED: HAL NETTER LAN CHECKER: HAL NETTER cuvilly wy 162081ot 9 fire letter ~-~~~~~~ • Attachment 5 • Qnnn.~~ City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Sazatoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 14t~ day of September 2005, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.sazatoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION/ADDRESS: #OS-204 -16208 Cuvilly Way APPLICANT: ROBERSON APN: 517-13-033 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests design review approval to construct cone-story single-family residence and a second dwelling unit on a vacant lot. The total floor area of the proposed residence and attached gazage is 6029 squaze feet. A 591 square foot second dwelling unit is proposed. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 23 feet. The maximum height of the second dwelling unit is 17 feet. The gross lot size is 42,166 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 40,000. (THOMAS) All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be~filed on or before Tuesday, September 6, 2005. 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 prof ect. 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. Suzanne Thomas 408-868-1212 `7i7~(i~(~'3~ ti AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, Suzanne Thomas ,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 23rd day of August , 2005, that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within S00 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. Signed • • HUNTER DENNIS A & JILL S TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 20606 LOMITA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-6024 APN: 51712031 SOBRATO JOHN M TRUSTEE ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER 106000 N DE ANZA BL 200 CUPERTINO, CA 95014 APN: 51713025 BUTLER JUDITH L & GERALD D OR CURRENT OWNER 20622 MONTALVO HEIGHTS DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6346 51718031, 51718034 ERSEN BARRETT C & WANDA C OR CURRENT OWNER 20870 JACKS RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-5711 APN: 51707028 CHRISTIAN SCIENCE SOCIETY SARATOGA OR CURRENT OWNER 20548 LOMITA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-6088 APN: 51712029 SCHAUB KATHLEEN B 3 ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER 14732 OAK ST SARATOGA, CA 95070-6058 APN: 51712004 • FOX GREGORY T & BONNIE OR CURRENT OWNER 15175 NORTON AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-6334 APN: 51713021, 51713022 SOBRATO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION OR CURRENT OWNER 10600 N DE ANZA BLVD 200 CUPERTINO, CA 95014 APN: 51713027, 51713030-51613035 PIDWELL CHRISTINE C & DAVID W TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 20628 VICKERY AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-6347 APN: 51718032 ' PEARCE DAVID B & SHARON A OR CURRENT OWNER 20932 HIDDEN VIEW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-6344 APN: 51736001, 51636004 SARATOGA CEMETERY OR CURRENT OWNER BOHLMAN RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 APN: 51712001 JASWA RAJEN & KALPANA R TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 20972 HIDDEN VIEW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-6344 APN: 51736002, 51736003 SOBRATO DEVELOPMENT CO - BOBBI MAZZONE OR CURRENT OWNER 10600 N DE ANZA BL 200 CUPERTINO, CA 95014 APN: 51713028 THURMAN ROBERT L & JOANNA C TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 20634 VICKERY AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-6320 APN: 51718033 DARLINGTON JOHN C & BEVERLEY L OR CURRENT OWNER 20604 LOMITA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-6024 APN: 51712030 TEETER JOHN M & NICOLETTE J OR CURRENT OWNER 14760 OAK ST SARATOGA, CA 95070-6058 APN: 51712002 nnnn.~~ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) SS. I, Suzanne Thomas ,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 1st day of September , 2005, that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. gned • • MADRONIA CEMETERY OR CURRENT OWNER 14766 OAK ST TOGA, CA 95070 51712001 • Mail returned from Saratoga Cemetery was resent to this address. ~~n~.~s 4 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) SS. I, Suzanne Thomas ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 6th day of September , 2005, that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. igned • • • (1~1Q1(14Q .~* City of Sazatoga • Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING It has come to our attention that you may not have received the attached letter. For notification purposes, we rely on data received from the County Assessor's Office, which reflected the Sobrato Construction Corporation as the owner of your pazcel. If you have any written communication that you would like shazed with the Planning Commission prior to the hearing, please deliver it to the Planning Department on or before Tuesday, September 6, 2005, at noon. Please note the application number and name on your communication (#OS-204, Roberson) and send it to my attention. Suzanne Thomas Planning Department City of Saratoga 408-868-1212 sthomas@sazatoga.ca.us • (1(1(1n4~ ..k ERIC AND CYNTHIA YOKOTA 719 PEACHTREE COURT CAMPBELL, CA 95008 APN: 51713031 GREG A. PINK 20855 SARATOGA HII,LS RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 APN: 51713027 VALENZUELA RESIDENCE 15244 MONTALVAO HEIGHTS CT. SARATOGA, CA 95070 • APN: 51713030 • ~n~~~~ • Attachment 6 • (1(1(1043- Mr. and Mrs. John M. Sobrato 16000 Cuvilly Court, Saratoga, CA 95070 August 24, 2005 Suzanne Thomas Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Application No. 05-204 -16208 Cuvilly Way Dear Ms. Thomas: I currently reside at 16000 Cuvilly Ct. (also know as Lot 1) and was the original developer of the Chateaux de Notre Dame subdivision. In addition to Lot 1, I still own Lots 2, 4 and 5. • I have reviewed the plans for the construction of the new home by Mary and David Roberson and am very pleased and supportive of the design for their residence. I believe the home is consistent with the overall plan for the development and compatible with the other homes that have been approved or are in the planning stages. The concept was to allow a variety of high quality architectural styles to give each home a unique traditional character. I know that they have worked hard to meet all the requirements of the City and of the development for design and landscaping. I am pleased to see that the walnut agricultural trees in poor health are being replaced with a variety of native speaes trees to enhance the appeal of the site and development. I am familiar with both the architect and builder and know of the high quality work they have done. I strongly support your approval of the application as submitted. est regar j M. Sc • ~1n~)n44 • • • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications 3/~~s Date: (, Z D G~ j G Uy/~ ~ PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ Y wR ~; sfEk~¢ToGf{, ~ Applicant Name: DA ~!D ~ t't''~R `~ RoBERSo~ Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta,,~`'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): :~ i • ~ ~~ Neighbor Name: / ~'~ !~ ~ f ~'/^~,~J f~f ~ i Y ~: l~' `7 Neighbor Address: ~bt S~ ~V'J~ LLY ullt~ ,~ / ~ .~. ~~RR-T~ ~~, ~ Neighbor Phone #: ~~ S ~ ` {~ ~ "=>' :.~' Signature: _. f .z ,-• :. ~ F.. t+ t/` City of Saratoga Printed: Planning Department (1C1(1(14S Jun 07 05 05:43p r ~ Date: 6~? DS PROJECT ADDRESS: Applicant Namc: DA fD Application Number; The Saratoga Planning ore{ address issues aAd come n~ the pabliC hearing on the rr jati+orably upon neighbo w~ appliconts prior to the p li{ neighbors take this oppo r! to the applicant, Please ns1 residents residing ore you p .nay reserve the right to ~ City Of Saratoga. My signature below c . '1 stand sc o tit to be address by the ap id My signaNrt below a understand the scone of w with the applicant, have attach additional sheets if Neighbor Namc: IJF~V Neighbor Address: 16233 Cu~tl.c.Y roc~.4_ c~ Signature: ;hbo Notification Template for Dev iopment A.pplicatians 161 S Cuv t~t-Y I~U~Y ~~/~.4rca~h c~1 ~n requires applicants to work with their neighbors to ding development applications prior to the evening of 'project. The Planning Carntne'ssion does Rot look to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by ng. Sta,~'and the Planning Commission prefer that express any concerns or issues they may have directly signature on this document is representative of all ~. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below; you 'r opinion at a laterdate and cona-tunicate it ro the Ges a following: I have reviewed the project plans; 1 .; I do :~iO? have any concerns or Ensues which need ant or co the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ies following: I have reviewed the project plans; I and I have issties or concerns, which after discussion t be addressed My concerns are the following {please _--- -~- Y Ent Neighbor Phone #: ~DB " 8~ " 3 7D G Punted: LtGq C. `~ City of Saratoga JUIV U'1, GUS 1d:2? Planning Department p.1 • *~ TG7aL PAGE.~2 ~+~ • Page 1 i ~l Il ~l !~V 0825/2005 09:13 6509628136 STRICKLAND DESIG PAGE 02 Suzanne Thomas Planning Intern City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 25 Aug 05 Re: Application No. OS-204 -16208 Cuvilly Way Dear Planning Commissioners, STRICKLAND DESIGN 745 Distel Drive, suite 110 Los Altos, Ca 94022 (650) 962-8139 The existing trees proposed to be removed are part of an aging Walnut orchard- agricultural trees planted long ago and neglected for ages.lvlany trees have continued to decline as evidenced by tzee reports written by Barrie Coate (1999), McClanahan Tree Co~anpany (1999) and David Babby (2005). The replacement trees are large, long-lived California natives: Coast Live Oaks and Coastal Redwoods. Twelve 36" box trees will be planted as mibigatiort, plus an additional seventeen 15 gal ornamental trees. It makes sense to replace declining trees with future heritage trees that will enhance the landscape for generations. In the short term, some canopy will be lost, but in the long run, the new trees will greatly enhance the residential community. The large Oak will be preserved and protected by maintaining 25 feet between the trunk and house corestraction. Also, the tallest and least feeble of the old Walnuts wilt be saved, to minimize the impact of the orchard removal. Special on-grade construction of pervious paving will be used under the Walnut's tree canopy to m;n;mally disturb ~ roots. Strict tree protection measures will be employed throughout the construction phase to ensure the health and preservation of the trees to be saved. Furthermore, the rest of the proposed landscaping accomnnodates the existing trees and uses water conserving plants and irrigation systems. There will be full compliance with the recommendations set forth by the City arborist. In summary, the landscape plan proposes a solution that will add to the wooded character that is so desirable in the City of. Saratoga. Small, decrepit trees will be replaced by natives with taller and wider canopies that, in the future, will be seen horn afar. Respectfully, Kathy Strickland, ASLA ~~n~~ • Attachment 7 ~7 (1(1(ln4$ • • • • • Attachment 8 • a ~ • • • 1 ' _. _ ._ .. ~~ ~~ F~ ~a ~~ ~ ~ ~ ^~~ ~~ > ~ ~ ~ ~ .. r --r- ,, -' . ~--~ ~ I I \ ~ ~ r .gyp .''~ ,~..- • ~ ~ " w~) ,r,% ~'• ~ ~ 1 i _ ~/~ 1 '!. 1 ~ ' . ~~~.~ s .,.s y' ~ 1 ~, ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ;r ,~ ~* 3 1 1 `~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 11 ~ ~ i v y . ~ ~ ~~ ~ .1 1~ r D P i~ I / ( ~2 f ~ r ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~< 1 x 1 , ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ i ~ 1® ' ~ ~' Ky,~c ~y A ~ / i~ l ~. . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a i ~ 1; ~ .~ ~ ~. _. 1 ~~~~p~ ~ ~ f ~ ' ~. ~~ _ ~ ~~~, ~ ~' ~ 1 g ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ 1 ~~ ~~ ~~p~ ZS ti ~ ~ ~~ ~ e £ -- °-° ~~ ~~~,o: ~ _ c ~S u~J LL`s' ~`~' ~ LoT °i ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~~~~~ R~ ~~ 2. 6 2005 ~. . ,r ~AR~~u•,r, ~ ~ , v Fti'E~ OPMk' ,. ~, ~,~.~ T _ n • • ~~ ~' /~ Ygp 4 ~i0 6~ r -- - ~ ; ~1 ~ ( ~~ ;'~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ -, V ~;; T ~ (: W "M ~?~ 14 b h^ (1~ -I~ ~~~N f~s~l~r~c~ ~ ~ ~~ b ~~ B ~ 1~ 10'7 ~,~vp~f ~TH~n~ ~~~~ ~ • • • A A G d I \.J G ~ ~,~D~ ® L~a<i ~~~~ RBYISIOMB ~ i-:: ~s v ~ Z ~~ Il ~F ~-L~~IT~ Y~~~~~~ cry- wed r-u~~ad, ~ ~fi -r _; ,'~ ~- a ~) + ~~,~ ~~~ ff ~ ~ ~ e log ' ~ ~~ (]~ ~~ r "~~N ~7QISR3~1 N~~~~0~ ~}- L~J ~~~ 6 ~ ~ ~' ~ ~~~'~ ~~ ~ i~ ~'s j~~ ~~ ~~ ~~,~~~~~~~~t ~~a ~~ ~~ dt~ ~ ~ ~ ~# ~~~ ~~~ ail, aq~ "7 ~ /~ .p z. • • • S ~~~~ ~ ~9~ ~L~~ ~-L°'a ~ ~ .~,'711nt1~ `~~N~a1~ N~I~ ~+- 6~1~1 .p d ~ ~ ~I ~ ~~ J _ ~, a • ~ • ~ ~ ~ d9i J I 4 ~~ 4 {i v . ~) 6 ~ ~~ ~i~i ~p • .: • s i f F f F I f {f i f 4 'r i i • ~- ~~~ a ~a N~ ~~ ,~ w I ® ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~* ~ ~ ~;-r ~ 4 • a ~a ~A r ~ as - ~~ • ~ '- • • • o W aZ ~,~~'~,S ~cP~Pss~~~4~rc~~o~48~ ~xQ2~~~a~ ~~~'~ U1 W ~~J. NN WbQ, 0•N~NIJ~+4 A A ANNb /Jb AUN~NA yy; ~~ .. PQ• O ~~"~~ RRgRR NuNNNNNNNNNNNaNNNaN N~~NNNNN ~~°"~ 3 ~~ T S r ~ s~~~- ~~s ~ ~ ~- o i # ~ ~ ~~p Q.E d~ ~ d ~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ 4 ~~~ ~~~d r ~q~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ n Y w~~ n x,. o ^~ 3 ~ E i i is ~~~ ~ ~?Sz T~ V °~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~'~~~ A C ~ ~a T'D ~'~ ~ ~~p z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b ^V rn ~~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ' << 70 n $ ~~ ~ ~6 7p a `~ r ~~a rr o ~ ~ r ~~ ~ ~~ ~. ~ ~ vv i SLY ~ w h~ 11 ~~ . M. ri T .~ ~ per b J ~ n ~ ` 6' A F ~ ~ ~ ; •/ I ~ • ~i e ~' ~ .a ~ I a~ ~~ p I I _~ M I 1 (N Z ~° ~ ~' Er ~ j ! ~ i ,~^ ~ ~ ~o ~~ F , .~ ' I ! / `r / r r A r I 7 ~ II`~D I ' ~ I ~, I. L ~~ '°`J "' J ~/ I. ~.. ~. m n ~I i ~ I s I A~ 'I~ ~ ~ I II ~ ~~ If ~ uo / M ~ I _ ~ ~% _ ~ ~~ I ~ ~ J~ ~~ ~ _~ /~ ~ _ ~' H n ~ ~~f ~ ~ dA I •F~ ~. ~~ • ~•. ;, v ~ \~ ='~ ~ ~ £ cd~ / O N.1 Qy ® ~ / C . ~ A X11 • °~~ • f ~~~ ~~ ;~ 1 ~~ i ~ w s ~7 ~ , ' ~ I ' ~` c f ~~ C \ ~,~ t'f I I ~ IA 0 I' - P II ~ ~ 4/ _ p Q, i ' ~ ' r 8 ~ ~ / ~ ~® ~ ~ ~ .~~ o~.~F~ ~ ~ b• r ~ ~ 1 / 1 e~~ ~~ 1 ~ ~ It • . I j • `y I = T. ~ I • ~ r ~ ~ \ ~ I r I wy r •°o • A ~ ' ~ . ~.c ~~ ~ ~ 1 ~ aP ~,, ~ ' ` ` ~ iuk ..~~ c Ji ~L ~~M~ Ll1 t l~t~, Conceptual Landscape Plan A ROSER50N RESIDENCE ~ a ~ °~ <~ S ~'~ Guvilly YVay, lot 9 , ~ 4 ~ ~ Saratoga, California ~ `. K:' i i ~~ ~ _ ~.. ~~ ~~ ..' ~sy..r.~j.. ~.ar.~»wa.pi. W~~..ly ~ ~ !~/1~4RMI~WWYKGfY11 1 • • _ • {~ (a~ :~~ E ~~~,,.~ ~ -.~~ ~ ~ ~~' j1 1 ~~~ I _~ r 1 r ~ I ~ `' % / j ~ Il ~ ~ ~ , • ~ ,~ 1 ~ ~ \ ~' /• ~~ i ~ _~ ~~ I ~ I~` ~ 1 _ ~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / \ ~'• // ~ \\ ~~ / k \ ~ ~~ J `\ I /~ i F v - ~ ~ o ., _' ~- ~. '' t ~ ~ ,+: \ / ~ ` ~ `- ~ ,r ~~ ~ ® '~ ~ ~ X 1~ ~ , ~1 ~ ~~f~ ~~ ~.~ ,~ ~ I i^ t ~ ~ ~ ~\ ~ ~l `~ ~ ~ ~ %~~ ~~ i~ ~ ~/ I ~ ~' `` ~ \\ I \ I \ ~/~ ;+ Y ;~ I~ r ---, /'-~~ , ~~ ~~ ~` ~ ~ ~~ 1 ~~` 1 \~ / ,~ ~. ~, / / ~~ ~ ~~. .~ ~~ -~ / ~x~ ~~/ ~ \~ ~, ~" i, ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~-- ~ N® ~~ ~ J ~ ~,~ -- _r ~ ~ ,~ 1\ c~ z r ?~ ~ , ~ ~~ ~ ~I~~~/ ,Tree Protection Plan 0 r ~ " ;t ~ ~ ~~ ~ C' A 1~, ~ P i ROBER50N R~51DE1~1GE Guvilly Way, tot 9 Saratoga, Gallfornia J ~4 k w~r l~rd,wsu k t d as ~~ Y ~n ~rt p,,wyu4lr u~Gwu ..~ ~`.u.+w~i.n..w.... __ - • • • N ~~ 9' a~ ;i ~ $$gg ~ ~ ige `k~.~~ $'' ~ ~~ ~ ~ gg.~° ~~$A ~~ ~ M a s~ z e ~~ ~ ~ M ~€ a ~ g~~: ~ ~ Ad~~~~~ S.E.@ 88 R~`!&r~. ~ ~• ~ - - Y°•• ' " z '$~ ~ ~~.~~~ ~ g ~ E~ Y g~$ X ~ ~t~~~ ~ 6 ~ E E ~ ' y - - ~ ~8~~a ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ r ~ '' ~'"~• ~} ~ ~~e~ ~ 666 a ~~1 ~ ~q - ~~ ' F _~ a ~ ~ - ~ ~~` ' ~ ~ ~~ ~e< ! j ~ ~~ ~ ss ~ g~ ~ a ~ M ~~ ~~ ~ A!'iP ~ i~ =A~ 4~~ B i~ y88 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ $~ ~,~ . a $o ~~ti ~' ~ 1 ~ g~ ~ A p $$ 7~ % 1 6 ~ ~ ' a~ t d ~ '~'>g E~~S$i-= ~ ~ ~ S 8 w ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 gg ~ ~ A ~ 3Q g ~ xS~~ a ~E A $. ~ +~ A q S ~ e E ~ ~ g ~ ; ~ ~~ q g: $ ~ :e. $ o7f t 6: ~ g a g § ~ fC ~ ' a A ~g ~ ,.f a v>?~ ~:~ ~~~~ ~~ 6 ~ 4>F ~ @e~ p~~ f ~ ~. .~~~'~~ c~7s &~ a~ ~; ' ~~~ ~,yy ~~~'¢g~~aa p7 g~~. ~ ~I F ~~ g. ~ 8 3 a ~.$ ~ : ~~ ~g~~ a~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~. ~ s ~A 5 9.N ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ a L~ ~~a ~ •!!C'~ RRag~ ~ ~ @q¢ 1 ii ' 5 $j Bpi X; y~° F ~ .~,. a>" . ~~'~ ~ p ` g }2 8 i R ~q~ ~ i 7~ ~ 3 q A ~~ ~ iiiLLL ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i~ 7Y I~ t ~~~ ~ $E~ ~ ~ ~RQ $ S 'L t s 8~~ ~~~' ~ z S 3~ ~ ? Z ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 3 r~~'R ~ a,y~ 9 t B ~~ ~ ~ E. ~P $ 8 qk ~ C3 6 ~_g '`~ ~. ~ ~ r A S a f A r ~ r ~ ~ S ~1~ 6 ,~ B~ $ ~ D~ 9 ~ C a ~g g A fn w ~ ~ ~ • ~~ gg~. g 2 ~ a &,~ - $~ ~s ~ ~ COs ~ g~ £~~•R ~ Q ~ ~ ,~ ~~ a p aK~a ~gi R Y '° ~y'{gggg@~ 7 @~ • g 9ggg8 ~~ @ 3 ~ , C ~ p q ~ ~ ~ S ~~'~~~ _ ~ P ~~F i ' ~ g F g p q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~g. d & yg a~~R~ ~NS ! ~ a y_ ~ SR ~ ggg[55g~ _~ ~g~ gq p~ 4 ~ s Q ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ g s ~ " ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~.~ gi g ~ ' E ~ 3pp $.,~, 7 iL g ~ d ~ d~38 a g 38 ' ~a~',~8 S ~i~ ~ ~ 'R~ ~ ~~' ~ a $ ° ¢ ~ A~~ ~& ~g' ~ S} 4 ~~°~' "~ e~ . c A' d ~ 3 a p• !^ 5j~g . a ~ ~t ~ ~ r o eR ~_S B~ Rr ~~':r a~i€~a ~ ~ a,~'SA ~ ~ S q~(~ 3a ~ e A6 ~ q a . . R ~~ aFf RI $' ~ a b N_ + ~ ~ b ~~ ~ O L ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P ~ I ~ >n ~~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~P ~ I ~ ~~ IO MAY. I I ~ c ~ ~ re~l• I I 4'1J ~~ / 1 ~ W I ~~) ~ ~n C~ I ` Y ~ z~r r n ~ 1 ~~ ~ ~~ M 5~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ b ~ X ~ N ors o ~ ~ ~- vr ~ 4 J ~ ~ is ~ ;.. .~ 4 / G ~ ~ L 1 N z O } ~ b z \s, / m .p ~ ~~ a ae ~ ~• ~ ~~ ~ ;x ~S ~ ~ ~ ~ G ~ ~ j~Ciy d~ D ~ % ~j•'i q 51 Q ~^5~l ~ `i: ~M ~ + „ 'i ayS 1 ^ ~ Ly 9M AS a~ 1 (~ C Ip ~~ ~ _ ~ C ~~ ~ n oi°~ ~ ~ S ~ $ Q~ t~ 8~ b;°. , 7 QM ~ S >~ 3 ~; ~~ ~ Y~~ i ~$" 0 TG ~ N ~ ~~ 4 ~~~ ~ I > ~> ~'~ c ~ ~ g ~ o R ,~ a N R1 N I ~j ___ _. _.._ __ > O ~ ~ ~_ O '^ '^ V' K ~' ~ ~ I i ir~m ~~v ~ Z ~ ~~ 1g z ~ m 3 m m ~v $ ~ g v Notes anQ Details 0 • ~, r ~+ ~ " I ~ ~"r ~.~LR. ~ Q~ ~~ t ~€ ~ obi o' o : x ~~~ `~~~ ROSER501~ RE51DE~1~GE ,~,,.~.,~eu Guvilly Way, lot q ' {• '~ -~ 4f ' i,`r~"a~Jpi. naar~w. w o~pr. garatoga, California ~~~-; . ,' ~~.~+~~-~•4+~ .~C '~JI I I /I ~I \K 1 1 I f---~ 14456 Sobey Road Qt1tH~C31 r ~~ V 1 1. L V V itil-iL~11\ 1 • • • i ~~~ Application No. 06-015,•14456SobeyRoad • • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 61,855 Sq. Ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 6.8% GRADING REQUIRED: Minimal grading will be required. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. PROJECT DATA: Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Existing Residence Existing Hardscape 2nd Dwelling/Cabana Patios, walks, and pools 5,693 sq. ft. 9,250 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable 35% Floor Area: Setbacks: TOTAL Existing Residence: Secondary Dwelling Unit TOTAL Front Rear Left Side Right Side 949.5 sq. ft. 6,873 sq. ft. 22,765.5 sq. ft. 23,814 sq. ft ~" 5,693 sq. ft. 949.5 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable' 6,642.5 sq. ft. 7,085 sq. ft. Min. Requirement 201 ft. 30 ft. 106 ft. SO ft. 23 ft. 20 ft. 112 ft. 20 ft. O~ln~(~3 Application No. 06-OIS,•14456SobeyRoad Height: Secondary Maximum Allowable . Dwelling/Cabana 14' 6" 26 ft. '"Includes an allowable 10% increase for secondary dwelling unit deed restriction that states if the property is rented it shall only be rented at below market rates. PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests design review approval to build a 949.5 square foot detached secondary dwelling unit/cabana. The height of the structure will not exceed 14 feet 6 inches. The materials and colors of the secondary dwelling unit will match the main residence. The applicant is currently in the final phase of construction of the new driveway, which was approved by the Planning Commission in October 2003. The applicant received design review approval for the primary residence in January 2001. Zoning Code Section 15-45.060 states that whenever, as a result of the proposed construction, reconstruction or expansion, the gross floor azea of all structures on the site will exceed 6,000 square feet Design Review is required. The proposed project exceeds 6,000 square feet; therefore, Planning Commission review is required. The secondary dwelling unit is a permitted use; therefore, only the design of the structure is subject to Planning Commission review. The secondary dwelling unit includes a bathroom, bedroom, kitchen, dressing room, and living area. Attached to the secondary dwelling unit is a covered, unenclosed patio. The patio is enclosed on one side thus excluding this area from floor area calculations. • As part of this application for a secondary dwelling unit, the applicant is permitted a one time ten percent increase in allowable floor area based on a deed restriction that requires the unit to be rented to below mazket rate households, if the unit is ever rented Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has shown the proposed plans to neighbors as indicated in the attached letters. No negative comments have been received at the time of the writing of this Staff Report. Parking For a second dwelling unit, parking requirements include a minimum of one off-street pazking space within a gazage. The gazage requirement may be waived if the second dwelling unit is deed restricted so that it may only be rented to below mazket rate households. Nonetheless, athree-car garage is located on the site thus meeting the parking requirements for both the main and the secondary dwelling unit. In addition, the site also has ample open parking in the driveway azeas. rre~ An azborist report was prepazed. The proposed project will impact eight trees of Ordinance-size. Through appropriate conditions of approval and relocation of the proposed structure impacts to the trees have been significantly reduced. The azborist recommended shifting the proposed unit three feet south to avoid damaging a Coast Live Application No. 06-OIS,•14456SobeyRoad Oak and a Monterey Pine. The applicant agreed to the request and has already redesigned • the proposal with the new location illustrated. The proposal would result in the removal of one Silk Tree, which would be mitigated by installing trees equivalent to its appraised value of $1,760.00. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in MCS 15-45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The maximum height of the proposed secondary dwelling unit is 14 feet 6 inches. The structure will be 200-feet from Sobey Road, 106-feet from the rear property line, 23-feet from north side-yard and 112-feet from the south side-yard In addition, there are several large trees providing screening along the north side-yard. The proposal will not unreasonable interfere with the views from Sobey Road or the privacy of abutting neighbors. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Since the building site is flat, minimal grading is proposed. The proposed secondary dwelling unit will be in keeping with the general appearance of the site and neighborhood (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees One tree is proposed for removal; however, • the tree is not a native or heritage tree and new trees will be provided as a conditional of approval. (d) Mllllmize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed secondary dwelling/cabana unit is one-story, approximately 950 square feet, and less than 15 feet in height. It includes a hipped roof to minimize bulk. Architectural details such as bi-folding French doors, columns, and exposed rafters, create architectural interest, and reduce mass and bulk. The secondary dwelling unit is situated far back from Sobey Road and will be surrounded by existing trees. The use of stucco and file roofing matching the existing residence will blend with the natural environment. (e) Compatible bulk and height. By definition, the proposed secondary dwelling unit is physically incidental and subordinate to the main structure on the site and other residences in the vicinity. (f) Currentgrading and erosion control methods The proposal shall conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. (g) Design policies and techniques The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and • views as detailed in the findings above and staff report. 4~ln~li t~5 Application No. 06-015,• 14456SobeyRoad Conclusion Staff finds that all of the Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Affidavit of Mailing Notices. Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 3. Neighbor Notification Letters 4. Reduced Plans, Exhibit 'A.' • C7 C ~1~~(1~(S~i APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 06-15 • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Formico;14456SobeyRoad WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review Approval to build a 594 squaze-foot detached secondary dwelling unit/cabafla, swimming pool, deck, out-door pizza oven, out-door fireplace, and sports court. The height of the new secondary dwelling/cabana will be 14-feet 6-inchest. Zoning Code Section 15-45.060 states that whenever, as a result of the proposed construction, reconstruction or expansion, the gross floor area of all structures on the site will exceed 6,000 squaze-feet Design Review is required. The proposed project will result in the pazcel's gross floor area exceeding 6,000 squaze-feet and therefore requires Planning Commission review; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the proposed project consisting of construction of a 594 square-foot detached secondary dwelling unit/cabana, swimming pool, deck, out-door pizza oven, out- door fireplace, and sports court is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences; and WHEREAS, the applicant shall deed restrict the second dwelling unit so that it may only be rented to very low and low-income households. Zoning Code section 15-56-050(d) allows aone-time ten percent increase in site coverage and allowable floor area with a deed restriction. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review, and is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Polio Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. HOUSITIQ Element Goal l Accommodate the City's fair share of the Bay Area regional housing needs. Land Use Element Polic~.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. Ol.)[IE~CI~s The proposed house is consistent with the above General Plan Policies in that no trees will be removed thus protecting the rural atmosphere of Sazatoga. The proposed materials and colors will blend the proposed house into the existing landscape and be compatible with the adjacent surroundings. A deed restriction shall be required restricting rental of the proposed secondary dwelling to very low. or low-income households. WxExEas, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The maximum height of the proposed secondary dwelling unit is 14 feet 6 inches. The structure will be 200- feet from Sobey Road, 106-feet from the rear property line, 23-feet from north side- yazd and 112-feet from the south side-yazd. In addition, there aze several large trees providing screening along the north side-yard. The proposal will not unreasonable interfere with the views from Sobey Road or the privacy of abutting neighbors. (b) Preserve Natural Landscapes Since the building site is flat, minimal grading is proposed. The proposed secondary dwelling unit will be in keeping with the general appeazance of the site and neighborhood. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. One tree is proposed for removal; however, • the tree is not a native or heritage tree. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulls Th sed secondary dwelling/cabana unit is one-story, approximately 950 squaze-feet, and less than 15 feet in height. It includes a hipped roof to minimize bulk. Architectural details such as bi-folding French doors, columns, shutters, and exposed rafters, create architectural interest, and reduce mass and bulk. The secondary dwelling unit is situated faz back from Sobey Road and will be surrounded by existing trees. The use of stucco and file roofing matching the existing residence will blend with the natural environment. (e) Compatible bulk and height By definition, the proposed secondary dwelling unit is physically incidental and subordinate to the main structure on the site and other residences in the vicinity. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods The proposal shall conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standazds. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and staff report. • n~~~~~~ Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" date stamped September 1, 2005, incorporated by reference. All changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes and are subject to the Community Development Director's approval. 2. The following shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building plan check review process: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. b. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted and it shall be equipped with a gas starter. All other fireplaces shall be gas burning. c. No retaining wall shall exceed five feet in height. • 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 7. 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. 8. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 9. The applicant shall record a deed restriction for the secondary dwelling unit that restricts it so that it may only be rented to below market rate households, prior to Building Permit issuance. FIRE DISTRICT 10. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 11. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. ARBORIST REPORT 12. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Reports dated July 23, 2005, and letters shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. Prior to issuance of Building Permits the applicant shall obtain a tree bond, or similar funding mechanism, in the amount of $27,830.00. b. To offset the impact of removing tree #4 the applicant shall install trees, as discussed in the arborist report, to its appraised value of $1,760.00. c. 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. d. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the drip-line of any ordinance protected trees on the site. 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, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • O(1(1n1.~ PASSEn ANn ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 14th day of September 2005 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: NONE 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 • ~~1nn~~ • • ATTACHMENT 2 ~~~~~~ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLAR.A ) I, S-l ~ c.~irl~' ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I azn a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga City Council on the ~ 3 day of , 2005, 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 aze those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regulaz communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. ~~ Signed • O(1~00~~ 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 14`x' day of September 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Ciry 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 #06-015 (397-04-026) - FORMICO, 14456 SOBEY ROAD; -THE APPLICANT REQUESTS DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A DETACHED, SINGLE-STORY, SECOND DWELLING UNIT /CABANA, SWIMMING POOL, AND DECK. DESIGN REVIEW IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA ON THE SITE EXCEEDS 6,000 SQUARE-FEET. THE MAXIMUM . HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS 14.6-FEET. TOTAL FLOOR AREA ON THE SITE INCLUDING THE MAIN RESIDENCE AND GARAGE WOULD BE 6,642.5-FEET. THE GROSS LOT SIZE IS APPROXIMATELY 61,855 SQUARE FEET AND IS ZONED R-1-40, 000. (SCHMIDT) All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Therese M. Schmidt, Associate Planner Email: tschmidt@saratoga.ca.us Phone: 867-8555 n~nn~~ T~iINH Q & HANH TRAN Or Current Owner, APN, 39703005 14341 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 RAYMOND K & NATHA OSTBY Or Current Owner, APN, 39703045 PO BOX 2474 SARATOGA CA 95070 VINAY K:HANNA Or Current Owner, APN, 39703012 14451 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHN A CHMIEL Or Current Owner, APN, 39703046 14469 OMEGA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 AVID G REED Or Current Owner, APN, 39703039 18801 TEN ACRES RD SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHN R & PHYLLIS FEEMSTER Or Current Owner, APN, 39703056 18800 TEN ACRES RD SARATOGA CA 95070 JAVAD & MITRA ASHJAY RUSSELL T & MAUREEN TIMOTHY & CAROL ~r Curren caner, -- ---- 14403 SOBEY RD Or Current Owner, APN, 39703058 Or Current Owner, APN, 39703059 SARATOGA CA 95070 14425 SOBEY RD 14437 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 PARIBORZ & AZITA JA-FiANIAN Or Current Owner, APN 39703085 14482 EMERALD HILLS CT SARATOGA CA 95070 FORMICO Or Current Owner, APN 39704026 14456 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 CORDON E DAVIS Or Current Owner, APN 39704091 14466 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 RAYMOND L & OPAL LEAP Or Current Owner, APN 39703086 14525 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 FORTE Or Current Owner, APN 39704054 14474 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 CORDON E DAVIS Or Current Owner, APN 39704092 14466 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 ROSSANA B & EUGENE CHAU Or Current Owner, APN 39704022 PO BOX 9270 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 NOELLE Or Current Owner, APN 39704055 14470 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 RUTH H CREMONA • Or Current Owner, APN 39705042 14416 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 BLAKE ROBERT Or Current Owner, APN 39705043 14394 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 HOYLE Or Current Owner, APN 39705046 14336 CORDWOOD CT SARATOGA CA 95070 VITO A & BETTYJANE DIMUCCI Or Current Owner, APN 39705054 14343 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 ROBERT H & SHIRLEY DONZELLI Or Current Owner, APN 39705057 14268 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 LORETTA A HILLIG Or Current Owner, APN 39705044 14372 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 ALI H ALKORAISHI Or Current Owner, APN 39705048 14292 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 4 QUARTERS INVESTMENT CO Or Current Owner, APN 39705055 14377 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 BRIZGYS Or Current Owner, APN 39705061 14529 EVANS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 MARIO N CORDERO Or Current Owner, APN 39705045 14358 CORDWOOD CT SARATOGA CA 95070 SAIID & MAHNAZ SHAHABI Or Current Owner, APN 39705053 14307 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 NELSON L & MARY WALKER Or Current Owner, APN 39705056 14415 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 ROBERT E & ELLEN COUS~ Or Current Owner, APN 3970 14330 CORDWOOD CT SARATOGA CA 95070 O~O~~~i- BARBARA G MCKENZIE Or Current Owner, APN 39705086 18680 VESSING CT TOGA CA 95070 ANTHONY G & SUSAN BOZZINI Or Current Owner, APN 39705100 14314 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 C, U MOORE Or Current Owner, APN 39705087 18691 VESSING RD SARATOGA CA 95070 ~CHAEL A & CAROL VAN BUSKIRK Or Current Owner, APN 39705085 18653 VESSING RD SARATOGA CA 95070 • r APN Name Address City State 39703005 THINH Q & HANH TRAN 14341 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 39703012 VINAY KHANNA 14451 SOBEY RD • SARATOGA CA 39703039 DAVID G REED 18801 TEN ACRES RD SARATOGA CA 39703045 RAYMOND K 8~ NATHA OSTBY PO BOX 2474 SARATOGA CA 39703046 JOHN A CHMIEL 14469 OMEGA LN SARATOGA CA 39703056 JOHN R 8 PHYLLIS FEEMSTER 18800 TEN ACRES RD SARATOGA CA 39703057 JAVAD 8~ MITRA ASHJAY 14403 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 39703058 RUSSELL T & MAUREEN SCHNEIDER 14425 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 39703059 TIMOTHY & CAROL CORCORAN 14437 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA _-------397fl3985-~P~AfZ~$AR-~-8~-AZIT-A-dAF~AN~IAAI ~,d~Q~ Fn~Faoi n uu i c y A------------ 39703086 RAYMOND L ~ OPAL LEAP 14525 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 39704022 ROSSANA B 8~ EUGENE CHAU PO BOX 9270 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 39704026 FORMICO 14456 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 39704054 FORTE 14474 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 39704055 NOELLE 14470 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 39704091 GORDON E DAVIS 14466 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 39704092 GORDON E DAVIS 14466 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 39705042 RUTH H CREMONA 14416 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 39705043 BLAKE ROBERT 14394 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 39705044 LORETTA A HILLIG 14372 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 39705045 MARIO N CORDERO 14358 CORDWOOD CT SARATOGA CA • 39705046 HOYLE 14336 CORDWOOD CT SARATOGA CA 39705048 ALI H ALKORAISHI 14292 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 39705053 SAIID 8 MAHNAZ SHAHABI 14307 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 39705054 VITO A 8~ BETTYJANE DIMUCCI 14343 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 39705055 4 QUARTERS INVESTMENT CO 14377 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA • 39705056 NELSON L & MARY WALKER 14415 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 39705057 ROBERT H 8 SHIRLEY DONZELLI 14268 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 39705061 BRIZGYS 14529 EVANS LN SARATOGA CA 39705062 ROBERT E 8~ ELLEN COUSINS 14330 CORDWOOD CT SARATOGA CA 39705063 39705064 39705085 MICHAEL A & CAROL VAN BUSKIRK 18653 VESSING RD SARATOGA CA 39705086 BARBARA G MCKENZIE 18680 VESSING CT SARATOGA CA 39705087 MOORE 18691 VESSING RD SARATOGA CA 39705100 ANTHONY G 8~ SUSAN BOZZINI 14314 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA O(~~~1 • • ATTACHMENT 3 • ~~~~~.~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date:_~~ PROJECT ADDRESS: ( ~ S, Applicant Name:~r~y'rv;« Application Number:_~_ ~~ TI7e Saratoga Planning Commrss~on requires applicants to work with their nei hbors to address issues.and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evenin o tl~e priblic hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look f .favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited b up~licaws prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission re y rreighbo,•s take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may haveed lrectl to tl~e applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative o all y resedents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opi~rion expressed below, ou may reserve the right to amend your opi~~ion at a later date and cornnru~ricate it to the Crt)~ of Saratoga. ~My signature below certifies the followin : I h understand the scone of work; and I do NOT have an reviewed the project plans; I to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on theu ro osed need • P P project. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project lans• I understand the scone of work, and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): r . Neighbor Name: ~' ~ Neighbor Address: ~'` ~~-~ Signature: City of Saratoga Neighbor Phone #{: Printed: ~ ~- t ~ ~-~ 4. -~ LJ~~~~ I Planning Department • • • O(10n~U Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: '~•~ PROJECT ADDRESS: ( ~o ~ S . Applicant Name: ~ tin-i11~ Application Number: (~D-~~?~ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to tl7e applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the Ci of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; 1 understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~~~~~~kZ~. -~ Neighbor Address: ~ ~~f t ~ t~ ~~_~s s~1 ~._'~ .~~[ `~ C~ Neighbor Phone #: y~~ ~~ 2~q ' ~ ~ Z ,~ Signature: Printed: ~~-v ~~ t~ 4~~Z~~ • City of Saratoga Planning Department O(10Q)~$ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~'~~~ PROJECT ADDRESS: ( ~o ~ S . Applicant Name: ~ I~VY)tC~7 Application Number:~D- nl~~ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all ,~esidents residing on your property. h-respective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. LL.IMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: 4 Crty of Saratoga ~. Neighbor Phone #: '`~~ ~~ ` ~/~%-(/ Printed: Planning Department l!l ,~~~I~..r • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: -~-~ PROJECT ADDRESS: ( ~ c~ C Applicant Name: ~j~ryj~~j Application Number: ~(pr -~~~ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work x~ith their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this oppo;7unity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~M si ature below y gn ceri~fies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need ((t~~o 1~be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. UMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~( ~ p ~ J~p~~l'~L ~~~ ~ Neighbor Address: s~'~--~~- Neighbor Phone #: y-0$ ~7 (,p~~-L7 Signature: Printed: ~, oc~octiz:~ City ojSar-atoga Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: •~-~ PROJECT ADDRESS: S Applicant Name: ~ Application Number:_~p~ nl~ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to nddresr issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of rlre public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may resen~e the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. UMy signature below certifies the fo llow~ng: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project lans• I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been .addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: / ~ ~~j~- Neighbor Address: Signature: Neighbor Phone #: Printed: ~~a~ ~~.~% ~ / • r~ u • City of Saratoga O~lOn2~ Planning Department • Attachment 4 •