Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-27-2005 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 3:30 p.m. PIAGE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Site Visit Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 FOR THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: • Rou. CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #OS-124 ROSEVEAR Item 2 20283 La Paloma Avenue 2. Application #04-167 PG~stE/AT~tT Item 1 Cox Avenue SITE VISIT COMMITTEE The Site Visit Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission Agenda. The site visits are held on the Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing, between 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 that 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. • • MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Dppff4 DATE: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Nagpal called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Uhl Absent: Commissioner Schallop Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan, Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick, Planning Intern Suzanne Thomas and Planner Therese Schmidt PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE • APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of August 24, 2005. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of August 24, 2005, were adopted with changes to pages 8, 9, 12 and 14. (4-0- 1-2; Commissioner Schallop was absent and Commissioners Rodgers and Uhl abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION Ms. Kathleen Casey-Coakley, Springer Avenue, Saratoga: • Stated her belief that the City is failing the downtown area, particularly in view of some of the demolition being allowed. • Said that she cannot believe that Starbucks is being allowed into the downtown and that she is ashamed of that fact, as Starbucks does not belong in the Village. • Opined that while Los Gatos has become a mall, Saratoga should not follow suit. • Said that the redwood siding on the home at 20626 Camino should be preserved, as stucco is inappropriate. Commissioner Hunter agreed that redwood siding should be preserved over use of stucco. • Director John Livingstone advised that staff is working with the application on that particular project including an evaluation of historic significance. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 2 Chair Nagpal asked staff if this item would come before the Commission or be handled at the • Administrative level. Director John Livingstone said he believed it would come before the Commission but until the application is deemed complete he cannot be sure. Chair Nagpal asked if the project would also go before the Heritage Preservation Commission. Director John Livingstone reiterated that the application is currently incomplete thus the handling of it will depend on the information provided. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 8, 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 ITEM NO. 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. Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the attached memo with resolution requires Commission action with a motion and vote. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 05-035 granting an appeal and overturning the Administrative decision denying the removal of a Canary Island Pine tree on property located at 19152 De Havilland Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Uhl, Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal and Rodgers NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 • Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 3 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. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that staff is proposing an Ordinance Amendment that pertains to the establishment of Personal Service Businesses in the downtown Village. • Reminded that Council adopted an Interim Urgency Ordinance in 2002 that established a moratorium on establishment of any new Personal Service Businesses for an initial 45-day period. Council later extended that for one year in 2003 and then extended it again for a second year. 2004. That last extension will now expire in October 2005. It cannot be extended another time. The time provided has allowed staff the opportunity to develop permanent amendments to the Zoning Code for CH-1 and CH-2 Districts. • Said that the moratorium prohibited the establishment of Personal Service Businesses at any business location in the Village that takes front access directly from Big Basin Way. • Clarified that the definition of Personal Service Businesses needed to be more clearly defined and expanded to include other types of uses. • Reported that the Town of Los Gatos recently amended its Code and created a comprehensive list of uses. Staff is proposing a similar list. • Said that Personal Service Businesses should include any use that sells any personal service including barbers, beauty shops, piercing and tattoo businesses, psychics, dog grooming, etc. It would not include uses such as travel or insurance agencies, law or other office uses. • Added that it is easier to classify if this category encompasses any business that provides any type of personal service. • Said that while the moratorium outright prohibited the establishment any new Personal Service Businesses from establishing in the Village along Big Basin Way during the period it was in effect, the purpose of this Zoning Amendment for the CH-1 and CH-2 Zoning Districts is not to limit competition but rather to avoid any over-concentration in order to ensure a balanced mix of business uses in the Village. Personal Service Businesses are essential but also the purpose of Commercial Zoning Districts is to provide a healthy mixture of retail and office uses for the convenience of the public. • Stated that by requiring such businesses to go through the Conditional Use Permit process, findings must be made to find the proposed use to be consistent with the General Plan. This Zoning Amendment enables the Planning Commission to evaluate each prospective Personal Service Business on a case-by-case basis. • Reminded that the CH-1 and CH-2 Zoning Districts are in the Village. Personal Service Establishments will continue to be allowed by right in the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) and CV (Commercial Visitor) Zoning Districts. • Said that an over-concentration of Personal Service Businesses limits or excludes other • retail opportunities, which runs counter to the City's Economic Development Program. This proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 4 • Recommended that the Commission review the proposed text and adopt a resolution . recommending Council to take action to amend the Zoning Ordinance for CH-1 and CH-2 Zoning Districts regarding requirements for establishing Personal Service Businesses. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that there are several attomeys serving on this Commission but that they are not to function as attomeys but solely as Commissioners. Commissioner Uhl asked for clarification on the CN and CV Zoning. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that CN is Neighborhood Commercial and CV is Visitor Commercial Commissioner Uhl asked if those two zones are included in this amendment. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied no. The Urgency Ordinance was established only relating to the Village. Commissioner Cappello asked when these amendments, if adopted, would expire. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that the Urgency Ordinance would expire on October 14, 2005. One it expires, the Code as it is currently written goes back into effect unless amended. Commissioner Cappello asked for the time period for any approved amendment. Director John Livingstone clarified that an amendment approved by Council would be permanent unless action is later taken to change it. Commissioner Rodgers reminded that this Commission would be forwarding a recommendation to Council. She asked staff if it is believed that the prevalence of service based businesses is believed to cause a decline in viability of the Village. Director John Livingstone said that the intent of the Ordinance Amendment is to avoid that. Commissioner Cappello clarified that this amendment would not outright prohibit Personal Service Businesses but rather require a Use Permit be processed through the Planning Commission. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied correct. She reminded that the provisions would apply only to those businesses in the Village that are located, or take access from, Big Basin Way. Director John Livingstone: • Reiterated that the Amendment would not prohibit or outlaw any uses but simply turn them into Conditional Uses. • Added that this provision is focused on the Village because it is a unique area with different zoning than the rest of the City. • Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 5 • Reminded that the Amendment simply requires Personal Service Businesses to undergo similar review requirements as other uses in the CH-1 and CH-2 Zoning District that requires Use Permits such as restaurants. • Said that this review process allows the Commission to consider the big picture of the Village. Commissioner Cappello asked if existing uses would be grandfathered and, if so, for how long. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that if this amendment is adopted existing Personal Service Businesses are classified as legal non-conforming. That means that they are legally established pre-existing uses that would not be permitted to be established under can-ent guidelines without a Use Permit. If such a legal non-conforming Personal Service Business were to be sold, that use could continue unless the use is abandoned for more than 90 days. At that time, the legal non-conforming status expires and a Use Permit process would be required to re-establish any new Personal Service Business at that location. Chair Nagpal reiterated that legal non-conforming uses could continue to operate but if that use is discontinued for a prescribed period of time it could not be re-established without a Use Permit being processed. Planner Lata Vasudevan agreed and added that if an existing Personal Service Business were to intensify its uses, that intensification would also require a Use Permit. Commissioner Kundtz asked if the new owner of a grandfathered use would remain grandfathered as legal non-conforming. Director John Livingstone said that if the use were considerably different from what it had been, that would trigger the requirement for a Use Permit. He reminded that a Use Permit runs with the land. It is not unusual for an older business to be non-conforming since they can often pre-date zoning designations. Commissioner Hunter said that she was sorry to read in the staff report the statement that the Village struggles as it is not true in 2005. She added that processing a Use Permit is more expensive that the current requirement for a Personal Service Business owner to simply obtain a business license. Planner Lata Vasudevan reported that a business license costs about $100 while a Use Permit costs $2,500. Commissioner Hunter added that it also takes four to six months to process a Use Permit. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that it depends on the department's workload and the completeness of any application submitted. Commissioner Hunter asked if the Curves business in the Village would have required a Use Permit if this amended zoning were in effect at the time it established there. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 6 Planner Lata Vasudevan said yes since it does take access from Big Basin Way via a courtyard. Commissioner Hunter asked if coffee businesses would also require a Use Permit. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that restaurants already require Use Permits. Commissioner Rodgers asked staff for clarification that the Commission is not obliged to make the finding that the Village is in decline. Commissioner Hunter said that she did not want to see anything included that states the Village is in decline as it is not true. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that there is no statement in the draft resolution but could be added. Chair Nagpal asked staff how many Personal Service Businesses there are in the Village. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that through an informal walk about, she counted about 60 Personal Service Businesses that ranged from fitness, cleaners, day spas, and hair and nail salons. Commissioner Hunter said that this requirement for a Use Permit makes it tough on new owners. Commissioner Cappello said he agrees it is an obstacle. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Hunter said that it is important to preserve the Village, but she feels sorry for any new business owner and therefore has mixed emotions on this matter. Commissioner Cappello said that it seems to be creating obstacles for those seeking to open new businesses in the Village but he can also understand that there is less space for other types of retail businesses in the Village if there are too many Personal Service Businesses. He said that he would support the Ordinance Amendment. Commissioner Uhl said he too would support the Amendment. He reminded that this Amendment does not preclude these uses but requires a Use Permit to be processed. He suggested that the process be the less burdensome process possible. Stressed the importance of the Village. Commissioner Kundtz agreed that some sort of control feature has to happen. He said he would support this Amendment. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 7 Commissioner Rod ers: 9 Questioned the expectations for the Village. Is it retail or convenience to those in the area? If it is retail, than she supports the Amendment. If it is convenience, than she does not support the Amendment. Said that she questions the relationship between the number of Personal Service Businesses and the perceived decline of the Village. Added that if that were the case, she would expect to have seen an increase in retail establishments during the time that the Moratorium has been in effect. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that every other use goes through the Use Permit process and that this Ordinance Amendment simply closes that loophole. This way all proposed land uses are considered for the Downtown. Commissioner Rodgers asked what conditions would need to be in place in order to allow and/or deny a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Uhl said that same ones as were used for Starbucks. Commissioner Rodgers asked what would be a basis for denial. Commissioner Uhl said safety or consistency with the City's General Plan. Commissioner Rod ers a reed that the General Plan does encoura a retail uses. 9 9 9 Planner Lata Vasudevan pointed out that findings could be made that a proposed use for a proposed location is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. A good mix of uses provides choices for people coming into the downtown. Another finding could be made that a proposed location is a safe one for that proposed use and the use would not be injurious to the vicinity. Another finding could be that a proposed use is in compliance with the Zoning and enhances the mix of .uses. Chair Nagpal: • Said that this proposed Amendment does three things. It extends the intent of +the Moratorium, expands the definition of Personal Services Businesses and adds any retail business with personal services as a use that requires issuance of a Use Permit. • Said that this is reasonable, as one does not want an over-concentration of Personal Service Businesses in the Village. • Stated that she can support this Amendment but she too is concerned about the cost to new businesses. • Reminded that restaurant uses already are required to obtain a Use Permit to establish in the Village. • Said that she would support this Amendment as stated in order to support a healthy mix of businesses in the Village. Commissioner Hunter questioned the wisdom of a vacant space versus having someone in that building. However, right now there are no vacancies. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 8 Commissioner Rodgers said that she lives near the Village and likes having Personal Service Businesses located nearby. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that women love to patronize salons in the Village because it is so beautiful. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to Council to approve a Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Application #06-078) that will regulate the placement of Personal Service Businesses in the CH-1 and CH-2 zoning districts and will specify the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit for new Personal Service Businesses at the first floor level along Big Basin Way, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal and Uhl NOES: Rodgers ABSENT: Schallop ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #05-029 (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 atwo-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 UNGO-MCCORMICK) Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that there are three components to this application, a General Plan Amendment to amend the density from Low to Very Low Density, a Rezoning from R-1-20,000 to R-1- 40,000 and Design Review to allow the construction of a new home. • Reported that the Commission will forward a recommendation to Council who will take final action on the General Plan and Zone changes. • Explained the reason for the General Plan Amendment. She said that this is a very large site that is two parcels under the same ownership. Parcel 1, consists of 1.9 acres and has an existing home on it. Parcel 2, consists of 1.6 acres, and is a vacant lot. There are a number of trees located in the front portion of the vacant lot that are beautiful Oaks. Additionally, there is Wildcat Creek running through that parcel. With the current zoning, setback requirements make this parcel difficult to develop with a residence while retaining these beautiful trees. With a Lot Line Adjustment, the owner will borrow land from one lot Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 9 to allow an area that is developable with required setbacks while preserving these Oak trees. • Informed that the Lot Line Adjustment is an administrative level process. • Stated that if this application were approved, Lot 1 would continue to conform to all required setbacks. • Said that it is difficult to have different zoning designations for these two lots. • Explained that the General Plan document is adopted as a blueprint for land use, circulation, open space and housing issues. A General Plan is generally updated every 10 years. However, amendments to the General Plan are allowed as needed. The General Plan in Saratoga has not been amended in 10 years. Amendments are not taken lightly but rather are carefully considered. • Stated that this General Plan amendment makes sense here. The required findings for both the General Plan and Zoning Amendments can be made. • Reported that zoning cannot be downsized unless it can be proven that this downsizing is not reducing housing opportunities. • Recommended that the Commission forward a recommendation to Council to approve a General Plan Amendment from Low Density to Very Low Density and a Zoning Change from R-1-20,000 to R-1-40,000. • Assured that these changes result in a consistent pattern in this area. Chair Nagpal suggested that the Commission pose any questions regarding the General Plan and Zone Change prior to the continuation of the staff report on the issue of Design Review. Commissioner Cappello asked if Council does not approve the General Plan and Zone Change and the Commission has taken action to approve the Design Review, what would happen. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that there is a condition for the Design Review Approval that states that this approval is contingent upon the final approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Lot Line Adjustment. She added that the applicant will also be required to go to the Santa Clara Valley Water District to satisfy any requirements about developing in the proximity of Wildcat Creek and provided written documentation of this compliance to the City of Saratoga prior to issuance of a building permit. Director John Livingstone reiterated that any Design Review Approval is based upon General Plan and Zone Change approval. If these changes were not approved, significant changes would be required in the Design Review application. Commissioner Cappello asked if the Commission must approve the General Plan and Zone Change prior to considering the Design Review. Chair Nagpal asked staff if the City had asked the applicant to submit their Design Review application at this stage. . Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied yes and no. In reality the applicant was ready to apply last December. Staff felt that it is easier to understand the constraints of this parcel and Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 10 the need for the General Plan and Zoning Amendments if a Design Review Application is reviewed at the same time. Director John Livingstone said that this allows the Planning Commission to look at the big picture and the applicant to undergo one process instead of two. This is typically how such an application would be handled. Chair Nagpal asked why development would be difficult without these changes. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that the Lot Line Adjustment would allow a second living unit and pool on Parcel 2. Without these General Plan and Zone changes, the can-ent setback requirements would result in a house for Lot 2 having to be constructed exactly where the nice Oak trees are located. Without these changes and under current conditions this is essentially not a buildable lot. Chair Nagpal pointed out that this is an irregularly shaped lot. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick advised that the rear setback is the one that creates the most problem. She added that SCVWD wants to see any home that is built within 50 feet of a creek. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that Wildcat Creek has gone over its banks. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick advised that a neighbor has already mentioned that fact. • Commissioner Cappello asked if there are two Lot Line Adjustments required. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied no, just one. The existing line would simply be relocated. There is one property line now. With the adjustment it will be moved. Chair Nagpal asked Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick to continue with her report on the Design Review application. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick continued her report as follows: • Explained that the applicant would construct atwo-story single-family residence, a garage and a secondary living unit. • Said that the applicant is seeking the 10 percent bonus floor area that is allowed if the applicant processes a deed restriction that dedicates the second unit as a BMR (Below Market Rate) rental unit in the event that unit is ever to be rented out. • Described the proposed residence as being contemporary and post-modern. It incorporates stucco, wood and a metal roof. • Said that there is a mixture of traditional and contemporary architecture in the immediate area. • Reported that staff initially had concerns about this proposed contemporary architectural style. However, it was determined that this home would not even be visible from the • street. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 11 • Reminded that this proposal is designed so as to preserve as many of the mature Oaks as possible. They are removing only one Oak and it is not in great shape. Another tree, a Black Pepper, is also to be removed and is also in poor condition. • Said that a pool and patio area is also included and the required parking is provided. Most of the driveway will be pervious pavers. Minimal cut and fill are required so a geotechnical report was not necessary. • Stated that staff believes that this project meets all Design Review guidelines. • Reported that all seven adjacent neighbors were notified and that calls were received from four people, two of who are immediate neighbors and two of whom are from the vicinity of the project. One neighbor, who was unable to attend this evening, is in support of the project but has parking concems during construction. Another neighbor had screening concerns and that issue has been worked out. The Wertzes from 19965 Douglas Way were concerned about privacy issues. The applicant is willing to add screening landscaping. Drainage concems were raised. Two other calls came in with questions but no specific comments. • Recommended Design Review Approval. Chair Nagpal asked for the color board. Commissioner Kundtz asked about a response from the owners at 14552. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick advised that the owners of that property are the applicants . themselves. Commissioner Rodgers complimented Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick on a wonderfully complete staff report. She asked about the requirements imposed by the Fire Department. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that the Fire Department has agreed that what is proposed is acceptable. Commissioner Rodgers asked if there are not special Fire Department requirements for a heavily wooded site such as this one. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied on site circulation and parking, which are provided. Director John Livingstone clarified that standard Fire and Building Code requirements are imposed but are not outlined in the Resolution in order to streamline it. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that 50 people were sent notification and only four replies were received. That is helpful information. She pointed out that metal roofs are not typically seen in Saratoga and asked why it is proposed here. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that issues of bulk and mass are evaluated while specific materials typically are not. She said that she was initially concerned about use of metal roofing but given the location it is not an inappropriate choice and it is not visible from the street. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 12 Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. David Wilson, Project Designer: • Explained their process for developing this site with minimal impacts on the existing Oak trees. • Stated that there is one footprint available to them in order to preserve these trees. • Said that this is a contemporary design for Brian and Lauren Lee. • Reported that they have always assumed that the proposed Lot Line Adjustment would be necessary. If not, the site would require removal of nice trees or a Variance on existing setback requirements. • Described the home as consisting of stucco clad pavilions with side and metal roofing material. • Stated that they had been unaware of any impacts on the Wertz property but they are willing to add landscaping screening to mitigate those impacts. • Said he was available for any questions. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. David Wilson about developing near Wildcat Creek. Mr. David Wilson said that they would be 50 feet away from the creek and are not worried about it. There is an existing swale and two additional catch basins with eight-inch pipes are proposed for site drainage. These requirements will be confirmed by the project Civil Engineer prior to construction. . Commissioner Rodgers questioned the roof metal coloring. Mr. David Wilson said that they are flexible on which of the three presented metal roofing samples they are willing to use. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. David Wilson if he knows the reflectivity value of the three options of metal roofing material. Mr. David Wilson replied not right now but he could obtain that information at a later date. Commissioner Rodgers suggested that the metal used be as dull as possible. She also questioned the inclusion of a security gate at the top of the driveway. Mr. David Wilson reported that the gate at the top of the driveway requires inclusion of a Fire Department issued lock box. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. David Wilson for the rationale behind including such a security gate that would block view of this house from the street. Mr. David Wilson reminded that there is no view of this house from the street but added that the requirement for this gate came from the Fire Department. He complimented the Commission for its practice of visiting project sites as a group the day prior to the public • hearing. This is s a practice other cities should emulate. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 13 • Mr. Richard Wertz: • Stated that most issues have been covered. • Reported that he just found out about this hearing this week. • Said that he has lived above this site for the last 10 years and warned that a flood plain goes through this property. • Expressed concem about site drainage as the area does flood. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Richard Wertz whether he desires landscaping screening. Mr. Richard Wertz replied yes. His is the closest property facing the back of this proposed new home. It would be nice to be able to maintain privacy from his lot. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Wertz if his property is located to the north of the project site. Mr. Richard Wertz replied yes. Mr. Paul Germeraad, 14606 Horseshoe Court, Saratoga: • Said that he is a neighbor and has had no chance to see the proposed plans. • Pointed out that this neighborhood is a single-story ranch style neighborhood with no fences and no gates. • Said he is concerned about this two-story even though it is not within view from the street. . Expressed concern that it could set a precedent for the area. • Reminded that there are CC&Rs for this area. • Urged the Commission to reject this application. Mr. David Wilson: • Reminded that this is a very unusual lot. • Said that if forced to use the existing lot line, they would be forced to remove a beautiful element from this parcel, the Oak trees in order to build a home on the property. • Said that this request is a down zoning. • Pointed out that the home proposed falls within height limitations and that only a small portion of the home would actually be at the maximum height of 26 feet. • Said that this project conforms to the spirit of the land and the area and would have a minimal impact. They will mitigate any impacts. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Uhl asked staff about the noticing for this item. Director John Livingstone replied that it is a 10-day notice. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that staff might want to do an earlier public notice mailing. • Said that this looks like a great project that has been well thought through and with a lot of time spent upon it. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 14 • Supported the concept of preserving the Oak trees by use of a Lot Line Adjustment. . • Stated that the proposed architecture is both unique and interesting. • Opined that this represents a special situation and he fully supports this request. Commissioner Kundtz: • Agreed that this is a very creative solution to a very complex problem. • Said that there are not a lot of two-story homes in the Horseshoe area; however, this site is a depressed bowl lot that helps mitigate the impacts of a two-story home on the area. • Recommended approval and wished the applicant well through the Council process. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that this is a difficult lot that requires a creative design to preserve its trees. • Reminded that the new home would not be visible from Horseshoe Court. • Stated that this lot is adjacent to other large lots. • Recommended adding conditions to: o Require the restriction of construction parking to on-site. o Provide natural landscape screening for the neighbor to the north. o Return to the Fire Department for a discussion on the requirement and/or necessity for a security gate. If not required that gate should be eliminated from the proposal. Commissioner Hunter: • Reminded that this area has two remarkable historic homes. • • Agreed that this is a very interesting architectural design. • Urged the use of the darker roof material. • Stated that the proposed gate is uncalled for in this area. • Supported the requirement for screening for the neighbors. • Pointed out that a colony of woodpeckers resides on the property. It is extraordinary. She saw six to eight during the site visit yesterday. • Urged the property owners to enjoy observing these woodpeckers on their property with their children. Commissioner Kundtz joked that having these woodpeckers residing on site offers an argument for not going with a wood roofing material. Commissioner Hunter said that she would support this project. Commissioner Cappello: • Agreed that the Lot Line Adjustment is appropriate in this case as a means to save trees. • Stated that the applicant did an outstanding job minimizing impacts on the neighbors. • Supported the suggestion to go with as dark a roof as is possible. • Disagreed that this would be the only two-story in the area given that one of the historic houses nearby is also atwo-story. • Cautioned that the Commission might not approve the next proposed two-story for this area if it is not appropriate. In this particular case, he is not concerned with this home • being two-stories. • Supported the provision of additional screening for the Wertz property. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 15 . • Stated that everyone has done a great job, including Planning staff. Chair Nagpal: • Agreed with Commissioner Cappello. • Said that while she is not excited about amendments to the General Plan, she can support one in this case as it supports a better project. • Agreed that no precedent would be established with this approval. • Stated that she struggled with the proposed metal roofing material and supports the darker color. • Said that she too does not support the security gate and does support additional screening landscaping. • Suggested one of the Commissioners offer a motion. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick suggested that the Commission handle this project through three motions. One motion is for the General Plan Amendment, the second motion is for the Zone Change and the third motion is for the Design Review Approval. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential for property located at 14574 Horseshoe Court, by the following roll call vote: • AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop ABSTAIN: None Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a rezoning from R-1-20,000 to R-1-40,000 for property located at 14574 Horseshoe Court, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop ABSTAIN: None Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Chair Nagpal, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval to construct atwo- story, single-family residence, garage and secondary dwelling unit on property located at 14574 Horseshoe Court, with the added conditions: • The applicant shall submit a revised plan to the Community Development Director with the darker roofing material that has a minimum reflectivity; • The applicant is required to landscape screening at the corner of the lot near the Wertz property; Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 16 • The Community Development Director is to check with the Fire Department to determine if the security gate is required for this location and, if not, to eliminate that gate from the proposal; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 Commissioner Hunter advised that she resides within noticing distance and would have to recuse herself from this application. She left the dais. APPLICATION #05-204 (517-13-033) - ROBERSON. 16208 Cuvilly Way: -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 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) Planning Intem Suzanne Thomas presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the Applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow the construction of anew single-story single-family residence with attached garage and a secondary dwelling unit. • Described the new home as consisting of 6,600 square feet with a maximum height of 23 feet. The parcel is .93 acres. • Pointed out that color renderings have been posted behind the Commissioners. • Said that the proposed second dwelling unit and parking provided meets Code. • Explained that existing Walnut trees on site has been rated as being in bad to fair condition. Removal of all but one is recommended. Redwoods, Coast Live Oaks and ornamental trees would be planted. • Described materials as including stucco, stone accents and clay roof the in earth tone colors. Copper gutter accents are proposed. • Reported that the neighbors have been shown the plans and no negative responses were received. Supportive responses from all but two neighbors were received. • Said that this project is consistent and recommended approval. Commissioner Rodgers asked if there is a security gate. Planner Suzanne Thomas replied no. There is a requirement from Fire that if there were to be a gate, it could not be less than 14 feet wide. However, no such gate is proposed. • Commissioner Uhl asked if all neighbors were notified. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 17 Planner Suzanne Thomas replied yes. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that copper accents are not shown on the color board. Since this is a designated hazardous fire area, she asked if the Fire Department reviews and conditions the outdoor wood fireplaces and pizza oven. Director John Livingstone reported that such installations are over-the-counter through the Building Department and Fire does review them. Commissioner Uhl asked about the trees. Planner Suzanne Thomas said that some are dead and others are in poor to fair condition. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Park Miller, Project Designer: • Advised that their goal was to design a home that offers a low profile design that is compatible and comfortable to this site. • Said that this home is single-story with a variety of room heights and using light wells. The roof forms are low with a nice and varied texture using reclaimed clay the in earth colors that include buff and terra cotta tones. • Said that the project site offers good privacy to this home and to adjacent properties. • Said he is available for any questions. • Assured that the property owner checked with Fire on the issue of the outdoor pizza oven. Commissioner Rodgers asked where copper would be used. Mr. Park Miller said the gutters and downspouts. Commissioner Rodgers asked if they would develop a patina over time. Mr. Park Miller replied yes. Mr. Roberson, Project Applicant, advised that he had tried to find anything on the web pertaining to Code requirements for his outdoor pizza oven and fireplace. He assured that he is prepared to provide any required fire protection measures. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Commissioner Kundtz said that this represents his first time visiting this area. It is a great place and this proposal is consistent with the spirit and intent. He supports this application as submitted. Commissioner Rodgers said that this project is nice and there is no reason not to support it. Commissioner Cappello said that all findings can be made and this is a nice design. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 18 Commissioner Uhl agreed that this is a nice project. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #05-204) to construct aone-story single-family residence and a second dwelling unit on a vacant lot located at 16208 Cuvilly Way, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop ABSTAIN: Hunter Commissioner Hunter returned to the dais following the conclusion of Agenda Item No. 4. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 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/cabar3a. 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) Planner Therese Schmidt presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval to construct a 949.5 square foot secondary dwelling unit. • Explained that Design Review Approval is required in this case since the maximum square footage on site would exceed 6,000 square feet, going from 5,600 square feet currently to a total of 6,642.5 square feet. • Reported that a Very Low Income Deed Restriction would be filed for this secondary dwelling unit in the event that this unit is every rented. • Said that the placement of the footprint of the house was shifted by three feet following the recommendations in the Arborist report. This change has already been incorporated into the plans. • Stated that the neighbors were notified and no issues were raised. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Mr. John, Project Designer, JF Building Design, said he would be available for any questions. Commissioner Kundtz asked if any bridge enhancements would be necessary or is it strong enough to handle the weight of construction equipment entering the site. Mr. John re lied that there is another access route. P Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 19 Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Commissioner Cappello asked if the movement of the structure saves a tree. Planner Therese Schmidt advised that only one tree would be removed from the site and it is not an Ordinance sized tree. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Kundtr, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #06-015) to construct a detached, single-story, second dwelling unitlcabana on property located at 14456 Sobey Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtr, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Mailin • Chair Nagpal asked about the issue of mailing. Director John Livingstone advised that most notices go out way in advance of the required 10 days. He advised that he would direct staff to give mailings an extra week. Fire Requirement for Security Gate Commissioner Kundtz expressed his surprise that the Fire Department would impose a requirement for a security gate on a project. Director John Livingstone assured that he would look into this matter and report back to the Commission. Upcoming Study Session on September 15~' Director John Livingstone distributed an agenda for the next Special Study Session to be held on Thursday, September 15~', at 9:30 a.m. The Session will be held in the Arts & Crafts Room and will be on the issue of Village Parking. Commissioner Cappello advised that he is unable to attend. Chair Nagpal asked how long the Study Session might run. Director John Livingstone replied that it depends on the attendance and issues raised. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 20 Advance Planning Prioritization List Director John Livingstone distributed a list that prioritizes the advanced planning items that are underway by his department. The Annexation process has been expedited by the State for a short time. Council has expressed interest in two county pocket areas. One pocket consists of 104 acres and about 42 parcels and is located on Prospect near the Country Club. The other pocket consists of Austin Way and Hidden Hill Road that equals about 20 acres. Commissioner Rodgers asked if existing conditions on these current county parcels would be grandfathered once annexed into the City of Saratoga. Director John Livingstone replied that anything that was done with a permit but does not conform to Saratoga Code would be considered legal non-conforming conditions. COMMISSION ITEMS Chair Nagpal expressed her appreciation for everyone's involvement in today's meeting. Commissioner Hunter said that she is happy that Director John Livingstone comes on the bus with the Commission during site visits. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, Chair Nagpal adjourned the meeting at 9:47 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of September 28, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • • fir, ~~~',lr`g4 1 `t Item 1 REPORT TO T~iE PLArTNING COMMISSION ~~ Na/Loc~tion: CLIP 04-167; Caac Avrn~e srt RR a~mcks, a~ of Guaat Co~ut '~jrpe o~Applicxtion: ~o®ditfa®al Use Patnit Ap~xnt/Owna: A T. Est?JCfaogular Warless Service Staff Planner: Suzanne Ihos~s, Dates r°~' 28, 2005 APN: 38644.040. Deputme~t H~ead;~~'~ ~` Cox Avenue at R.R tracks, east. of Ga~ett .Court k • • Application No. 04-167, Cox Avenue at railroad tracks, east of Garnett • • ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: MEASURE G: PARCEL SIZE: AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: GRADING REQUIRED: STAFF ANALYSIS R-1-12,500 Medium Density Residential Not applicable 14,950.73 square feet Not applicable None MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: All antennas will be painted to match the existing P. G. and E. lattice tower and antennas. The roof of the proposed new structure will be tiled inreddish-brown and the structure will be painted a neutral color to match the existing Nextel fence. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project, which includes installation of equipment cabinets, a new 240 square-foot structure, and panel antennas, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to new construction of limited small new facilities, installation of small, new equipment and facilities in small structures. • Application No. 04-167, Cox Avenue at railroad tracks, east of Garnett PROJECT DISCUSSION re uests use ermit a royal to install six anel antennas and one GPS The applicant q p pp p antenna at the site of an existing lattice tower located at Cox Avenue, adjacent to the railroad tracks east of Garnett Court. Another wireless carver, Nextel, is akeady located at this site. The equipment cabinets are to be located in a 240 square-foot enclosure with a peaked roof that will be screened by landscaping. The enclosure will be situated adjacent to the tower and in front of the Nextel shelter. The height of the existing P. G. &r E. lattice is 143.1 feet. The Nextel antennas are located between 73.7 and 81.5 feet in height on the tower and the applicant requests approval to place the six panel antennas below them, situated between 60 and 62.2 feet. The dimensions of each of the six panel antennas are approximately 55.4 inches in length, 10.3 inches in width, and 5.5 inches in depth. The GPS antenna will be mounted at the 20-foot height and will consist of a small cone (approx. 2-3" in diameter) that will be attached to a pipe, holding it three feet away from the tower structure. A 12-foot by 20-foot equipment enclosure with a 14-foot high peaked roof is proposed and will be painted to blend with the existing Nextel wall. The roof will be covered with reddish-brown tile. Drought resistant native landscaping screening is proposed to screen the surrounding residential properties from the project. The applicant has provided existing and proposed photo simulations. Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC has exclusive jurisdiction over RF emissions from personal wireless antenna facilities. Pursuant to its authority under federal law, the FCC has established rules to regulate the safety of emissions from these facilities. The applicant has provided a cumulative RF exposure report, which evaluates both the proposed and existing wireless facilities. The maximum calculated cumulative level at ground for the simultaneous operation of both carriers is 1.7% of the public exposure limit; the maximum calculated level at the second floor elevation of any nearby home (located at least 65 feet away) is 2.0% of the public exposure limit. Revisions The following revisions were incorporated into the plans at staff's request: • The equipment cabinets were contained within the enclosure rather than behind a wall. • The file was changed from red to reddish-brown. Conditional Use Permit Findings The proposed project supports the findings for use permit approval; therefore, staff recommends the planning commission approve of the proposed project based on the following findings: • That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located in Application No. 04-167, Cox Avenue at railroad tracks, east of Garnett that it is a conditionally permitted use that is visually unobtrusive and that the visual impact of the facility will be less than significant. • That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity because the facility will be operated under the restrictions imposed by the FCC to insure safety with respect to limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy • That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter in that the location, height, size, and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district. The site already accommodates another antenna facility and the new fixtures will be painted to match the existing equipment and fence enclosures. CONCLUSION The project satisfies all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code. The antennas and associated equipment are not expected to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare nor are they expected to be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations applicable to antenna facilities. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve the conditional use permit application number 04-167 by adopting the attached resolution of approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Affidavit of mailing notices, public notice, and mailing labels. 3. RF Exposure Report. 4. Coverage Map. S. Photo simulations. 6. Neighbor letters 7. Plans, Exhibit 'A." • • Attachment 1 L Application No. 04-167, Cox Avenue at railroad tracks, east of Garnett RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 04-167 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA A. T. &t T./Cingular Wireless Services; Cox Avenue at the railroad tracks, east of Garnett WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Use Permit approval for the installation of 6 panel antennas and 1 GPS antenna on an existing lattice tower and equipment cabinets in a 240 square-foot peaked roof enclosure located near the tower; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which includes the installation of panel antennas, equipment, and a 240 square-foot structure, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to installation of small new equipment and facilities; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for use permit approval, and the following findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-55.070: • That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use that is visually unobtrusive and that the visual and audible impact of the facility will be less than significant. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties. or improvements in the vicinity because the facility will be operated under the restrictions imposed by the FCC to insure safety with respect to limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter in that the location, height, size, and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district. The site already accommodates another antenna facility and the new fixtures will be painted to match the equipment and fence enclosures. • Application No. 04-167, Cox Avenue at railroad tracks, east of Garnett NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 04-167 for Use Permit approval and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The enclosure shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A°, incorporated by reference. The file roof color will be brown-based All building materials and colors shall be subject to Planning Department approval prior to construction. 2. The proposed antennas shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. Applicant shall provide a final landscape plan that is subject to the approval of the Planning Department. The Planning Department has requested the following: • Landscape buffering along all exposed sides of the building consisting of a single row of oleanders (15 gallon) and a 15-foot mulch buffer. • One tree, which will grow to a maximum height of approximately twenty feet. • An irrigation plan. • 4. The applicant shall execute and record a Landscape Maintenance Agreement satisfactory to the City Attorney for perpetual maintenance of the landscaping prior to issuance of a building permit. The Landscape Maintenance Agreement may, in the City Attorney's sole discretion, require Applicant to agree to security by bond, cash deposit and/or otherwise, and to agree to allow the City (after reasonable notice to Applicant) to perform maintenance which has not been done as required (as determined by the Community Development Director) and to have the cost thereof constitute a hen and encumbrance upon the property, collectible in a civil action or as a special assessment for nuisance abatement at the same time and in the same manner as real property taxes. 5. If the subject site is decommissioned in the future, all antennas and related equipment shall be removed within 30 days of cessation of operation. 6. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Department for Building permits. 7. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Use Permit and may, at any time modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety and welfare. Application No. 04-167, Cox Avenue at railroad tracks, east of Garnett 8. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 9. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the community development department, shall be reconciled with a m;nimum $500 surplus balance prior to building permit issuance until final occupancy is granted Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 28th 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 • Attachment 2 • . 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 8th 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. igne ,p • 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 28th 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.saratoga.ca.us regarding office closures on alternate Fridays. APPLICATION/ADDRESS: #04-167 -Cox Avenue at the railroad tracks east of Garnett Court APPLICANT: Cingular Wireless Services, Inc. APN: 386-44-040 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests approval for a conditional use permit to construct a small unmanned telecommunications facility. This will consist of the installation of panel antennas on the existing PG&E tower and the installation of indoor communication equipment cabinets inside a new ground level shelter that will be approximately 12 feet by 20 feet. (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 20, 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. Suzanne Thomas 408-868-1212 Jam Free Printing ~ www.averytom Q AyE~y® 5160a Use Avery TEMPLATE 5160 '~~ 1-800-GO-AVERY JONES DOUGLAS C TRUSTEE BAKER THOMAS S JR & ABBY P LIPTON ROGER H & MICHELE A OR CURRENT OWNER I OR CURRENT OWNER I OR CURRENT OWNER GLEN ARBOR CT 3840 A 95070 20045 GLEN ARBOR CT CA 95070-3840 ! j SARATOGA ~ 20057 GLEN ARBOR CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3840 - TOGA, C APN 38639001 I , APN 38639002 ~ APN 38639003 ~ KTTELEY RAYMOND C & INEZ M SIDHU INDER S & DEEPNA DUNBAR HORACE E & ANN M ~, OR CURRENT OWNER ~ OR CURRENT OWNER , OR CURRENT OWNER 20079 GLEN ARBOR CT 19842 SEAGULL WY ', 19830 SEAGULL WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-3840 SARATOGA, CA 95070-3940 j ; SARATOGA, CA 95070-3940 APN 38639004 ~ APN 38644008 ! ' APN 38644009 GOMERSALL JOAN S TRUSTEE SCHILD KURT O & HANNA TRUSTEE i SISLEY DANIEL W & MARGIE E OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER ~ ~ OR CURRENT OWNER ~ 19817 VERONICA DR ~ , 19829 VERONICA DR ~ ' 19836 VERONICA DR CA 95070-3946 SARATOGA ; SARATOGA, CA 95070-3946 ~ SARATOGA, CA 95070-3947 ~ , APN 38644010 f APN 38644011 ii APN 38644012 ' ~ MONROE GEORGE A & PHILIPPA A , ,RICHES KENNETH W & KATHERINE R . TOPHAM LYLE C & KAT'HIE J TRUSTEE i OR CURRENT OWNER DR i ~ ~ ~ TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19812 VERONICA ~, 19824 VERONICA DR ~ SARATOGA, CA 95070-3947 19800 VERONICA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3947 APN 38644014 SARATOGA, CA 95070-3947 APN 38644013 ROSE FRANK T & HELEN F SAADAT VAHID & MOJGAN APN 38644015 WEBER CLARIrNCE L & LOIS D ~ OR CLfRRENT OWNER ~ ~ OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER ~ P O BOX 633 12679 KANE DR I. 12667 KANE DR TOGA, CA 95071-0633 ~ ' SARATOGA, CA 95070-3922 ' SARATOGA, CA 95070-3922 8644016 ~ APN 38644017 ! APN 38644018 i STAFFORD FRED & LORI LIAO YIH-MING & JUO-PING ~i RESE L TRUSATEE & ! G OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19848 KANE CT ' i OR CURRENT OWNER 12655 KANE DR CA 95070 SARATOGA ~ ! I SARATOGA, CA 95070-3921 '; 19836 KANS. CT , APN 38644019 ' '~ APN 38644020 ~ SARATOGA, CA 95070-3921 ~ APN 38644021 RUDRAKSHI CHARUDATTA M & RUTTER LUPE L & PAUL D EBEJER EDWARD & MARY ANJALI C OR CURRENT OWNER 'TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER ! 12646 KANE DR OR CURRENT OWNER 12634 KANE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3923 112658 KANE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3923 APN 38644030 ~ SARATOGA, CA 95070-3923 APN 38644029 APN 38644031 ! { ~~ ~U7AMJ111-MO-1 -~LS 71Y ~OIA~ ~•`^A~ ~i1~ Impression antibourrage et ~ s~chage rapidA ~ wrww.averyaoni ~ s,~ ,.soo~o ~-vi~r U AVERY® 5160 CHAN KAI Y & LISA M TRUSTEE KISPERSKY STEPHEN F & CLAUDIA CHAN STARRY S & SUNNY H - OR CURRENT OWNER ! M ! ' OR CURRENT OWNER 19999 COX AV ' ' OR CURRENT OWNER j ! 12675 K:INMAN CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3824 ' ' 12687 KINMAN CT ' SARATOGA, CA 95070-3926 APN 38644043 SARATOGA, CA 95070-3926 ! i APN 38649024 APN 38649023 ' ' ~' GOSWAMI ISHITA & DIPANKAR OR CURRIrNT OWNER 12663 KINMAN CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3926 APN 38649025 TIEN BOU NIN & NORA MING TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12674 ORELLA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3931 APN 38649029 CHUN KATHLEEN K & STANLEY K OR CURRENT OWNER 12677 ORELLA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3931 APN 38649032 CHUEH RICHARD J & IVY L TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 19984 KARN CL SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 APN 38649035 CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DIST OR CURRENT OWNER SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 APN 38901001 STEWART ROBERT E & CATHERINE M OR CURRENT OWNER 12751 GLEN ARBOR CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3802 APN 39310026 KHARE MANOJ & REENA OR CURRENT OWNER ~ 12650 ORELLA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3931 APN 38649027 i'~ BAUDOUIN FLORE L OR CURRENT OWNER 12686 ORELLA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3931 ', APN 38649030 TSENG HUEY-HUA D & HSIAOHUA OR CURRENT OWNER :12665 ORELLA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3931 APN 38649033 SOUTHERN PACIFIC ;TRANSPORTATION CO OR CURRENT OWNER SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 APN 38653017 SCHOEN LEWIS L & BEATRICE B TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 20089 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-3808 APN 39310019 PETERSON RONALD J & SANDRA L TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12771 GLEN ARBOR CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3802 APN 39310027 1la3Ad-09-008-L ~~ STEVENS GEORGE W & SUZANNE C II ' OR CURRENT OWNER 12662 ORELLA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3931 APN 38649028 i; i j SNYDER CHARLES A OR CURRENT OWNER 12689 ORELLA CT ~ SARATOGA, CA 95070-3931 ', ' APN 38649031 it DOHNER CLARK V & NANCY A TRUSTEE ~' OR CURRENT OWNER 12653 ORELLA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3931 APN 38649034 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO OR CURRENT OWNER SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 APN 38653018 • HOLMES PORTIA S TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 20095 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-3808 APN 39310020 SPIRAKIS GREGORY S & KERRI J TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12791 GLEN ARBOR CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3802 APN 39310028 ~09L5 31d1dW31 ~e~d es~ Jam and Smudge Fm! Printing ~ W~•a~'Y~ ~ AVEIZY® 5160e Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® ~~ 1-800-GO-AVERY CHU CHI-KUANG & CHAN-CHING TIMBROOK DALE N & EDNA M i LIN DANNY T C & JII.LIAN E W OR CURRENT OWNER TRUSTEE ~ OR CURRENT OWNER 0 GLEN ARBOR CT OR CURRENT OWNER 12750 GLEN ARBOR CT TOGA, CA 95070-3802 i 12770 GLEN ARBOR CT ', SARATOGA, CA 95070-3802 N 39310029 I SARATOGA, CA 95070-3802 APN 39310031 APN 39310030 WALKER CHARLES S & DANA D HUMPHRIES ALISON H & CURT E ZECHER MARII,YN P OR CURRENT OWNER I TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 19947 GARNETT CT OR CURRENT OWNER ~ ~ 19981 GARNETT CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3801 19969 GARNETT CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3801 APN 39316001 SARATOGA, CA 95070-3801 APN 39316003 APN 39316002 ' KIM YOUNG C & CONNIE H ANDRESON FRANCIS E & PATRICIA SCHAFI~'ER DONALD R & DOROTHY OR CURRENT OWNER j ~ M TRUSTEE , D TRUSTEE 19976 GARNETT CT OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER ~ SARATOGA, CA 95070-3801 19952 GARNETT CT 19930 GARNETT CT i ~ APN 39316004 i SARATOGA, CA 95070-3801 ~, SARATOGA, CA 95070-3801 APN 39316005 ' APN 39316006 KOCHHAR RAJEEV & SUNEET FASANG PATRICK P & KAZUKO K WILBURN WILLIAM K OR CURRENT OWNER ,TRUSTEE ~ OR CURRENT OWNER ~ 12845 CUMBERLAND DR OR CURRENT OWNER ~ !, 19937 WELLINGTON CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3817 19915 WELLINGTON CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3813 APN 39316007 SARATOGA, CA 95070-3813 ! APN 39316009 APN 39316008 KUO EDITH Y ~ POLLARD HOWARD E & MARY T NISHIMURA JOSEPH & ROSE OR CURRENT OWNER TRUSTEE ', TRUSTEE 19963 WELLINGTON CT OR CURRENT OWNER ~ i OR CURRENT OWNER TOGA, CA 95070-3813 ~~ 19975 WELLINGTON CT 12888 CUMBERLAND DR '. 9316010 SARATOGA, CA 95070-3813 SARATOGA, CA 95070-3818 ~ APN 39316011 APN 39316042 TSZTOO GARY R & MAY T SINGER WALTER H & MARY K CHEN BII.L J & JENG-PYNG OR CURRENT OWNER ~ OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 12866 CUMBERLAND DR ~ 12844 CUMBERLAND 12822 CUMBERLAND DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3818 SARATOGA, CA 95070-3818 ~ SARATOGA, CA 95070-3818 '. APN 39316043 APN 39316044 APN 39316045 '~ NGUYEN TEDDY & CHRISTINE MOK CHARLES S & ANNIE Y ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRIrNT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 12800 CUMBERLAND DR '~ 12778 CUMBERLAND 374 W SANTA CLARA ST SARATOGA, CA 95070-3818 SARATOGA, CA 95070-3818 SAN JOSE, CA 95113-1502 APN 39316046 APN 39316047 F APN 39317002 ~~ lV7AM~AL1affW.1 _ _ A~Q9~5 }~.IQQQB ~ =eSi~n • ~ et i- sbchage rapids ~ Im a ®AVERY® 5160 » ~ 51~ A __ _ _ _ - ~ . ~,; _ ,~ ,. :.. , .. G . r I ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT SOUTHERN PACIFIC OR CURRENT OWNER TRANSPORTATION CO 374 W SANTA CLARA ST OR CURRENT OWNER. SAN JOSE, CA 95113-1502. '; COX AV APN 39317002 SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 , APN 39317003 HOUL NANPING & JOIE M BARNES JOHN J ETAL MAROLDA FRANK C & MARY E ' OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER , ~ TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12660 KANE DR 12672 KANE DR i 19884 VERONICA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3923 SARATOGA, CA 95070-3923 , . ~ CA 95070-3947 SARATOGA APN 38644032 APN 38644033 , APN 38644034 WOOD GARY W & DOROTHY C LEMAN JACK R & HARRIET M : GAN WEN-SEN S & JIMMY N OR CURRENT OWNER TRUSTEE ' i OR CURRENT OWNER ~ 19862 VERONICA DR ' OR CURRENT OWNER ; 19848 VERONICA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3947 19850 VERONICA DR ~ SARATOGA, CA 95070-3947 APN 38644035 ; SARATOGA, CA 95070-3947 ! APN 38644037 I APN 38644036 SOUTHERN PACIFIC ; PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO ER MCBRIDE ROBERT & MARILYN I ~ TRUSTEE TRANSPORTATION CO OR CURRENT OWN ; ~ OR CURRENT OWNER COX AV OR CURRENT OWNER , COX AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 20015 COX AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 ~ APN 38644040 ~ SARATOGA, CA 95070-3824 •ni.r 40LA AAA7 - APN 38644038 • Attachment 3 ilAlviMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTII~IG ENGINEERS RADIO AND TELEVISION BY E-MAIL M.CONVERSE@VELOCITEL.NET August 23, 2005 Ms. Marsha Converse Cingular Wireless 651 Gateway Boulevard Suite 1500 South San Francisco, California 94080 Dear Marsha: Wut.tAtit F. HAMIu~Tr, P.E. DANE E. EsICKSEN, P.E. STANLEY SA[.Etc, P.E. ROSEirr D. WELLER, P.E. MAtuc D. NEttMANN, P.E. ROBERT P. Sl~n-1, JR. RgIAT MATHUR ROBERT L. HAba~-I-r, P.E. 1920-2002 EDWARD EDISON, P.$. As you requested, we have updated our study of the RF exposure conditions near the Cingular Wireless base station (Site No. SNFCCA2061C) proposed to be located at Cox Avenue and Cumberland Drive in Saratoga, California. An electronic copy of our revised report is enclosed, reflecting the change in power level. Fields in publicly accessible areas at the site are still calculated to be well below the applicable limits. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service and would welcome any questions on this material. Please let me know if we may be of additional assistance. Sincerely yours, ~ '"'`1 ('~ William F. Hammett tm Enclosure e-mail: bhammettlh-e.com US Mail: Box 280068 • San Francisco, California 9!128 Delivery: 470 Third street west • Sonoma, California 95476 Telephone: 707/996-5200 San Francisco • 707/996-5280 Facsimile •202/396-5200 D.C. ' Cingular Wireless • Proposed Base Station (Site No. SNFCCA2061C) Cox Avenue and Cumberland Drive • Saratoga, California . Statement of Hammett ~ Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of Cingular Wireless, a wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. SNFCCA2061C) proposed to be located at Cox Avenue and Cumberland Drive in Sazatoga, California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency ("RF") electromagnetic fields. Prevailing Exposure Standards The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15, 1997, the FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP"). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") Standazd C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes neazly identical exposure limits. A summary of the FCC's exposure limits is shown in Figure 1. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. The most restrictive limit for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency energy for several personal wireless services are as follows: Personal Wireless Service ADDtoX Frequency Occupational Lunit Public Limit Personal Communication ("PCS") 1,950 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Cellulaz Telephone 870 2.90 0.58 Specialized Mobile Radio 855 2.85 0.57 [most restrictive frequency range] 30-300 1.00 0.20 Power line frequencies (60 Hz) are well below the applicable range of these standazds, and there is considered to be no compounding effect from simultaneous exposure to power line and radio frequency fields. General Facility Requirements Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" or "cabinets") that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The ,~ HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. ~ ~~.I.INC ~rcIN~ CGAT2061596.1 se,N Pwwc~sm Page 1 of 3 ' Cingular Wireless • Proposed Base Station (Site No. SNFCCA2061C) Cox Avenue and Cumberland Drive • Saratoga, Califonnia transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables about 1 inch thick. Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless services, the antennas require line-of--sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are installed at some height above ground. The antennas aze designed to concentrate their energy toward the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power of such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas. Computer Modeling Method The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully formed at locations very close by (the "near-field" effect) and that the power level from an energy source decreases with the square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law"). The conservative nature of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests. Site and Facility Description Based upon information provided by Cingular, including zoning drawings by Velocitel, dated August 3, 2005, it is proposed to mount six existing dualband Kathrein Scala Model AP14/17-880-1940-065D directional panel antennas on an existing 143-foot PG8cE lattice tower located north of the intersection of Cox Avenue and Cumberland Drive in Saratoga. The antennas would be mounted at an effective height of about 60 feet above ground and would be oriented in pairs with up to 2° downtilt at 120° spacing, to provide service in all directions. The maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 2,566 watts, representing simultaneous operation at 1990 watts for PCS and 576 watts for cellular service. Presently located higher on the same tower are similar antennas for use by Nextel SMR, another wireless telecommunications carrier. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that Nextel has installed Andrew Model DB882 directional panel antennas and operates with a maximum effective radiated power in any direction of 1,500 watts. Study Results The maximum ambient RF level anywhere at ground due to proposed Cingulaz operation by itself is calculated to be 0.0061 mW/cm2, which is 0.78% of the applicable public limit. The maximum calculated cumulative level at ground for the simultaneous operation of both carriers is 1.7% of the • • HAMME'I'I' 8c EDISON, INC. CGAT2061596.1 • ~~ ~ ~~ c~ Page 2 of 3 • ~ Cingular Wireless • Proposed Base Station (Site No. SNFCCA2061C) Cox Avenue and Cumberland Drive • Saratoga, California . public exposure limit; the maximum calculated cumulative level at the second floor elevation of any nearby home' is 2.0% of the public exposure limit. It should be noted that these results include several "worst-case" assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual power density levels. No Recommended Mitigation Measures Since they are to be mounted on a PG&E tower, the Cingular antennas are not accessible to the general public, and so no mitigation measwes are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposwe guidelines. It is presumed that PG&E already takes adequate precautions to enswe that there is no unauthorized access to its tower. To prevent exposwes in excess of the occupational limit by authorized PG&E workers, it is expected that they will adhere to appropriate safety protocols adopted by that company. Conclusion Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the base station proposed by Cingular Wireless at Cox Avenue and Cumberland Drive in Saratoga, California, will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for • exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating base stations. Authorship The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2007. This work has been carried out by him or under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct. August 23, 2005 ' Located at least 65 feet away, based on aerial photographs from Maps a la carte, Inc. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. ~ CONSULTIIJG INGINE®t5 CGAT2061596.1 SAN FRANCISCO Page 3 of 3 FCC Radio Frequency Protection Gutde The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC's to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofi~equency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, which are nearly identical to the more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz." These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive: Frequency ApQlicable Range (MHz) 0.3 - 1.34 1.34 - 3.0 3.0 - 30 30 - 300 300 - 1,500 1,500 - 100,000 1000 _ 100 3 •~ ~ 10 a°, A ~ 1 v 0.1 Electromagpetic Fields (f~cLuency of e mission in MHz) Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far-Field Field Strength Field Strength Power Density (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cmz) 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100 614 823.8/f 1.63 2.19/f 100 18%~ 1842/ f 823.8/f 4.89/ f 2.19/f 900/ f 18%~ 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2 3.54ff 1.59ff ff/106 ~f/238 f/300 ,n'IS00 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0 Occupational Exposure PCS ~ Cell FM ~` ~ ~~~~~ ~~ Public Ex osure 0.1 1 10 100 103 104 1OS Frequency (MHz) Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections. • • HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. . ~ aoNSUr.,rwc IN~ FCC Guidelines s~ ~~ Figure 1 RFR.CALC"~ Calculation Methodology • Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC (see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposwe levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits. Near Field. Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip (omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications cell sites. The near field zone is defined by the distance, D, from an antenna beyond which the manufactwer's published, far field antenna patterns will be fully formed; the near field may exist for increasing D until some or all of three conditions have been met: 1) D > ~ 2) D > Sh 3) D > 1.6~, where h =aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and ~. =wavelength of the transmitted signal, in meters. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 199 gives this formula for calculating power density in the near field zone about an individual RF source: • 180 0.1 x Pnet power density S=~ X R x D x h' m mW~~2' where 9BW =half-power beamwidth of antenna, in degrees, and Pnet =net power input to the antenna, in watts. The factor of 0.1 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates distances to FCC public and occupational limits. Far Field. OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual 1ZF source: power density S = 2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2 x ERP ~ in mW/~n2~ 4x nx D2 where ERP =total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RFF =relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and D =distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters. The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to obtain more accurate projections. HAMMETT 8s EDISON, ]INC. i wtlsu[.~ru~c ~rc¢~t~s Methodology sir, Nwwc~sm Figure 2 • • Attachment 4 • SF2061 Coverage Analysis • • • • Attachment 5 • • • • Proper ~ endosure :7 • • • • 11520 simulated e~q~oeed appripate flnfeh usfnp form INter (227ac17041Q4b jpep) • _,,__ ~:~~~ _, :<: ~ ~' • • cae2a2 pier ave. piccned roor.l.mvo-o1a (1o2ax7ssx2ab jpe0> • Attachment 6 Neighbor Notification Template for , Development Applications Date: ~ `19 "ds • rROJECT A)DRESS: ~G+ ~ ~ COK !E Applicant Name: ~`'1furShu.- COt,JL~ ~QG~'~ - Tl~ - Application Number: D ~ ' ~ Co7 The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning. Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity.to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of ratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project }Mans; I understand the sco a 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): ~ T'(--~-fz'.- C~- (I~! ~ Gt ~. ~II'1-- f ~z N ~ c. o J' c~..G~,~ ~f.~>~~~- ~+~ . - . _ . Neighbor Name: ~ ~ ~- ~ ~`' Neighbor Address: r s 9 ~ ~ ~,~~ ~ ~ ~~- ~~=~g. Q QNeighbor Phone #: ~t ~~- / ~~ ~ l ~ ~ d 'gnature: Printed: ` ~ c~~~-ter S'. w~~K~.~ $~~3/ oS llo4-r~c,q--- ~, Ce]R-c.re~~/t- g" ~~3 / os • City of Saratoga Planning Department • Telephone message from concerned neighbor: September 15, 2005 Robin Arthur of 19937 Wellington Court was concerned about the appearance of the facility. She was very interested in the existence of landscaping to soften the appearance of the project. • Attachment 7 • ~ ~ • SM WIRELESS NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC SITE NO.: SNFCCA2061 C SITE NAME: HWY. 85 & NORTHAMPTON DR. TOWER #17/78, MONTE-VISTA-SARATOGA, 230KV SAP # 40863150 DIRECTIONS DRAWING INDEX REV. START: CINGULAR WIRELESS HEADDUARTERS: PLEASANTON, CA PROJECT INFORMATION 1. START OUT GOING SOUTHEAST ON ROSEWOOD OR TOWARD SANTA RITA RD 4897.512•A-SNFCCA2061C•Z01 TITLE SHEET 6 . . 2. TURN LEFT ONTO SANTA RITA RD. 3. MERCE ONTO I-580 W TOWARD OAKLAND SCOPE OF WORK: AN UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY CONSISTING OF THE INSTALLATION OF 6 ( ) P T 4. TAKE THE I-680 N EXIT TOWARD SACRAMENTO/ SAN JOSE ANEL AN ENNAS ON THE EXISTING PG&E TOWER AND THE INSTALLATION OF (5) 24897.512-A•SNFCCA2061 C-Z02 SIZE TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY SHEET E 5. MERCE ONTO I-680 S VIA THE E%IT ON THE LEFT TOWARD SAN JOSE 6. TAKE THE MISSION BLVD/ CA-262 INDOOR COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT CABINETS INSIDE LEVEL. A NEW SHELTER AT GROUND 7. MERGE ONTO I-880 S TOWARD SAN JOSE SITE ADDRESS: CO% AVE. 0 RAILROAD TRACKS EAST OF GARNETT CT. 24897.512•A-SNFCCA2061C•Z03 SITE PLAN s B. TAl(E THE CA-237 W SARATOGA, CA 95070 9. MERGE ONTO CA-85 TOWARD LOS GATOS/ SANTA CRUZ 24897.512•A-SNFCCA2061C-Z04 EQUIPMENT PLAN & ANTENNA PLAN B 10.TAKE THE DE ANZA BLVD. EXIT S 11.STAY STRAIGHT TO GO ONTO SARATOCA SUNNYYALE RD. APN: CURRENT ZONE: 386-44-4J R-1-12500 12.TURN LEFT ONTO COX AVE. 24897.512-A•SNFCCA2061C•Z05 SOUTH 8 WEST ELEVATIONS 6 13.ARRIVE AT GARNETT CT, SARATOGA, CA 95070 PROPERtt OWNER: P.G. d< E. 77 TR T 24897.512•A•SNFCCA2061C•ZO6 EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS s VICINITY MAP BEALE S , ROOM 2661 B EE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 24897~12•A•SNFCCA2061C•Z07 EXISTING TREE INVENTORY 8 .~ ~ CONTACT PERSON: BEN HIIDERBRPNO (415) 973-5539 ~ p , ~ (~ ~ ~'I ~~~ ~ l ' ' ~~ APPLICANT: NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC I ~ 24897.512•A•SNFCCA2061C•Z08 EQUIPMENT SHELTER SPECIFICATIONS 6 ~ ~ 4420 ROSEWOOD DRIVE 24897 512 A SNFCCA 1C ~~ ~ PLEASANTON, CA 94588 ' " `~ SEP ~ (~ l``' ~5 . - - 206 -Z09 EQUIPMENT SHELTER SPECIFICATIONS 6 ~ \'~_ tAnruoE: 3r 16 Ss.66 + ~~ LONGITUDE: lAT/LONG ttPE 122' 01' 18.67" NA (' ~~~~FS~, S ~ O 83 ~ ~~ a`„ q ~~ L ~ p ELEVATION; 328.9' AMSL ~~^F ~ KARN CIR. p~ ~~~~~(~~ JURISDICTION: CITY OF SARATOGA NOT TO SCALE ~ ~ KANE DR. ~c ~ . ~ iy~ LEASE AREA: aa3.33 so. Fr. ~. ~ VERONICA PROPOSED USE: UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY S p ~pp DRIVE SETBACKS: FRONT=25'; SIDE 10' p j Z SITE ~ SITE QUALIFICATION PARTICIPANTS ~~ ~ COX AVE. ~, ~ NAM COMPANY NUMBER m CUMBERLAND- \~ A/E ABE RAMIREZ VELOCITEL (925) 734-6631 PIERCE RD. DRIVE ~. SAC JIM MATTISON VELOCITEL (925) 734-6631 ~\ RF KELVIN AVNUKOV BECHTEL (480) 678-9376 LANDLORD BEN HILDERBRAND PGficE (415) 973-5539 ZONING MARSHA CONVERSE VELOCITEL (925) 734-6631 Exr 232 SCALE: N.T.S . Ve 1 o c ~Te l • HIGHWAY 8 & HAMP O ~ 1 -~- -~ :' CO-LOCRiE S I IiE WIiN SHEIiER EQUIPMENT 5 T N DRIVE ~ i SITENO :SNFCCA2081C X cin ular -r_- __ _ ---- ---~ i _ _ ____ __ _ _ __ ___ __ ARCHITECTUREANDENGINEERINGDIYISIGN . - 16 08/15/ O5~ ISSUED fOR REVIEW AND COMMENTS NNP ~, A.R. ~ AR. TITLE SHEET 11668 NAUENOA DRIVE WWEIESS COX AVENUE ®RAI 0E GARNETT COURT NENTS Ueo FaR CALIFORNIA i1S66 PIFASANfON O A D E ~ Y_. _,__, I , CINGULARWIRELESSSERVICES,INC. SARA TOGA CA 95070 eD S B ~ ~P R~ 16r~Iwa nx6~µ AR SeowN 24697-512 As i ~EO ev OE S oRAwN Iscu Rr: fc~ D I A-SNFCCA206 C-Z01~ 6 1 !~. ~!ki'~ ~ ~ 1 ~, J 0 z U n ij 0 a x x m 0 r ~ 0 W i r7' Tisox2s~aa' ~3c ESI CONTROL POINT INFORMATION LEGEND CINGUUR NIRELESS ~ ^ :~ E R CP 1 N. 5000.0000 E. 5000.0000 E1-329.5 k (p~~ L AA ry E%ISTINC h P 0 8 CP 90 N. 5010. 1765 E. dB13. 1200 E1.330.7 7 EDGE W PAVEMENT . . . PARCEL A LEASE ARE N A P CP 107 NOT SHOMN N. 5030.31 f2 E. d3B0. fB66 E]-332.5 a MANHOLE I 3 BY OTFIER • • H 4 4 O CP ~ N. 00000000.00 E. 00000000,00 EL=%%X.X' - E E - Sg J - 3 8 6 - 4 3 N 000 =%%X , OVERHEAD EXCIRIC LINE ~ fIRE HYDRANT X ' 77• \ DooR -] ~- w ryh~-t~ WSJ - TOP OF TOWER ' ~ LG1i POLE FENCE LME \ 7 ~~ ~ei J~ y.~~ EL-472.0 AMSL HT=143.1' ACl -_ --_ _ _ _ \ iCh P O MONUMENT PROPERTY LINE ~o p TO Oi INSUUTOR 4 E ' ~ ~ ( 7)__on_P VSO ^ ~ PROPtI~ l1 MDE \ 1 'Bl-= L= AMA 63.0 Hi=134.1' AGL • PP=POKER POLE TREE TP=TELEPHONE POLE r ~' GRAPHIC SCALE 1'- ZO' <25 POWrJt t0 ~ ~ ~ E Q ANA ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL ~ HANDICAPPED PARKING POST NORTHERLY 0 20 10 60 `jD, C~k D) /~ / • (PAR // // ~ ^ ~\ BO7TGA OE TOP OF k15UUTgt ' ( AGL ABOVE GROUND LEVEL • CORNER OF ' / 8 v o e ~ AMSL INSUUtOR E1=450.1 ' LOCATION TIC PARK / PARCEL B (55 MAPS 9) CONTWfl INTERVAL • 1 . . . CENTERLINE OF / / 6 • PROPOSED J' WIDE / A 7)• (vAe¢L e) ACL EL•455.0' AMA HT=121.2 HT=126.1' AGl F 0 CP /......ESI FIELD CONTROL PGNT 42.6 SPOT ELEVAUON • Ci1NSAAR MMLELFSS / , a° e' ~ T / ~ ~ I \. v, rn D (P E~ ,~/ ARC BOTTOM OF INSUUTOit i jfiL ~ EL=141.4' AMA 5' ACL TOP OF INSULATGi MT-112 DATE OF SURVEY: 01/09/04 I + / CENTERLINE OF awr / // PROPOSED 3' WIDE ~ b• . ar: ai~2' eYCiL I ~'- "~ /, / GNGULAR WIRELESS uNDERatou / / \ ANTENNA EASEMENT TRENCH i BOTTOIA OF SURVEYED BY/ OR UNDER THE DIRECTN)N OF CN l L E \ L-. S / / PARCEL B) BY OTHER ( TOP OF BRACE INSUUTOR vans : Or es 7 p h. r q ~) k ~' ~ 'U(q ~ CO / / P.O.B. /` / ~ PARCELS E k \ ~ E1=412.1' AMSL EL-422.0' AMA HT=8].5' ACL HT•9J.1' AGL LS ] 09 Espires O6/30/06 rr ' ~ ART 0'90 / / I ((P lELCO / ! 1YPICAL ( ) TITLE REPORT WAS N01 AYAIUBLE AT THE TIME OF THE FlELD I \' r r RO 7AH (`( $y ~ • ~ b ~'s SsV• ~1" SJ / BOi ~Y OTHERS GUY POST I MANHOLE \' fI CENTERLINE OF \ LEI I G'F I PROPOSED 3' WIDE 1 ~( CINCULAR WIRELESS F- aF ANTENNASWII BOTTOM OF ROW EL=410.4' AMSL) OF ANTENNAS ft) HT•81.5' ACL HT~6.1' ACL (TYPICAL) (TYPICAL) SURVEY. BOUNDARY SHOWN IS BASED ON RECORD INFORWTION AND FOUND YONUTAENTATION. TH5 IS NOT A BOUNDA1tY SURYE7, THIS IS A $PECI,W2ED TOPO- BASEDI ON~INFORWTION GATHERED FROM VARIOUSMSOURCES Of R CO OD~IOCiN)N EMENIS I \ p ?•~ `j ~p• EQ v ( \ 9 ~~ I " I^'( y.aa POWER EASEMENT I ~PA=aL t (PARCELS F g G) I C I TOP OF ROW OF ANTENNAS 2 BOTTOM OF ROW ) OF ANTENNAS ft) ( ' AVAILABLE uONUMEMATION FOUND DURING THE FlELD SURVEY. NO US WERE RESEARCHED OR PLOTTED E%CEPT AS SHOWN ON THIS PUN. PROPERTY LINES ANO UNES OF TITLE WERE NOT INVESTIGATED NOR SURJEI'ED E%CEPT AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN NO PROPEAtt IONUMENTS WERE SET I \ qF~ y-, 6 )S. pc y }-~.r ~ ~ ~'1,, ,aN / TREES 1 ~ J _ _ 1 ~ . _ ~ _ _ I ~3e.OS r So7aai7'w ~ N86~ W' Nees1'47w E x EL=106.6 AM EL•102.6' AMSL NT-77.T AGL HT•73.T ACL (TWICAI) (TYPICAL) TT F . . DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL: IN THE STATE DF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAND CLARA, BEING THE UNDS \I N I \ r -~ Q" ~ ~ ~ w4y~ ~ • ~ 3 ~) V I ~ ~ O - y,g• E varT PAPRQL H •~ OM O BO BRACE EL=405.5' AMA HT-7fi.6' ACL (TYPICAL) CONJEt'ED BY CRAM DEED, DATED 04/15/59, VOL. 3113 PG. 560 51NTA CLARA COUNiI' OFFICNL RECORDS. pESCRIPTION DF t£45E ARU (PARCEL A): COMMENCING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNEA Oi PARCEL B PER 55 MAPS 9; n \ \ Sp ' ~ 2 ~ ~ ` CENTERLINE aF PROPOSED 3' WIDE 7HENCE AIONC THE NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL SOUTH 5941'5]• FAST 278.10 FEET; THENCE SDUTH JOiB'D7 WEST, PEAPENDICUTAR TO F BE INNING THENCE M p 'y'^ ni •/ r • Jp. I+• 7wEE I ~~~ / EL•74e5' Rua - gNGULAR WIRELESS POWER k TELCO A S70'25'39•W 3 00 ; 5WD NORTHUSTEALY UNE, 25.07 FEET i0 THE POI O G SOUTH 7025'79• WEST 17.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 5934'21' FAST 25.31 FEET; THENCE NORTH 5934'21' WEST 25 THENCE NORTH 3025'39 EAST 17 50 FEET 33 \ ~"~ ? C~! HY.m7' AcL I c~ . EASEMENT PARCEL H ' ' ' ( ) GROUND , . ; FEET TO THE POINT OF BECWNINC. .•4 • W 0 ~ • \ 74 B 559 21 E 10.18 N86'SY4TW EL•J28.9' AMSL CONTAINING M3 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. V ~`•~ \ RV+Yr I ~I Clr K • wH ~ ~ C 503VB'13'W 3.04' LEASE AREA DETAIL N SCALEa"=10' OWER DETAIL NOT TO SCALE TOGETHER WITH AN USEMEM FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM THE LUSE ARU TO THE PUBLIC RDAD. LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED AT A LITER DATE. , ~ fl1 l ~•..` y I ~ ' A \ Bk) 1O 6\ •/1' Y 8 PRO~CT BENCH \ • • TOGETHER WIT,I llTlUtt AND POWER EASEMENTS NECESSARY TO SERVE THE LEASE AREA, SHOWN HEREON A5 PARCELS B, C, D, E, F, C 9 H. MMU <a W u s \,\~ 7p pC rv ! ~5( II \ S ~ \ t, $p • \ D SKS-BM GA1E l El=1JO.2 AMA R \,~ ~ •' ~~`~\ ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE BASED ON NGVD 29 DANM. I z 171 a I L l `• ~\` S( n ~ L ~ O \ I • MX ~, 1 • LIMBINC LEG Oigr RO,O / ~5 RO 1 rR \ - CO ~ ~`:\ BURRJCS SHOWN ARE BASED UPON 1HE CENTERLINE OF CUMBERLAND DANE, PER 229 P.M. I7, SANTA CLAfU COUNTY RECORDS. f PR NE X A5 SHOWN 2 ~ ~• o l \\ . 0 ~}7, b 4 ' 1) •S . \ ~S J * } \ `\ QIECT ARU IN , F100D PWN ELEVATION O 0 ON FEW FlRM MAP COMMUNfTY-PANEL NUMBER 06015100020, A P N 3 ~ ~ i 8 Cx - 44 43 F i eO S49'48'22•E ~~ DATED JULY 3, 7997. . . . Z I , \ / - ~,, ~ / ~ \ ~ PARCEL B '~ / / ~ ~ 32.10 •• r~ ~ ~ \ THE LOCATION OF E%IS71NC UTILITY FACILfiES HAS NDT BEEN RESURCHED. 1HE CONTRACTOR SMALL COMACT THE RESPECTNE UTIUtt COMPANIES i0 OBTNN (55 MAPS 9) ~ ~ / / "'•~ ~ \\ / % SEE / / ~, ~ \ i, • \ \ ? • \ .)- \ INFORWTN)N REGARDING E%ACT DEPIM OF BURNL AND HORIZONTAL LOCATKIN OF UTILITY LINES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. EVANS SURVEY, INC., ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBRItt FOR THE OEUNUTION OF SUCH UNOERGRWNO UTILITIES, NOR I (( LEASE AREA j/ / SERVICE eox `, \ \ } FOR THE EXISTENCE Of BURIED OBJECTS WHICH ARE NDT SHOWN ON THIS PLW. I , PROPOSED AWS \ DETAIL ~ i / / ~xOWE=P.O.C. ~ (E) PANEL + I / / \ ~ 7( ~Cc_~X // X / ' ~I ~\• •• ~~... ~ _ LAlITTdO k LONGITUDE • ~ ..\ \`~~`"-~~~._. FM IA CERTIFICATN)N: U7TiUDE AND IONCTNDE WAS OBTAINED FROM INFOAWTION PROVIDED BY A GPS SURVEY. THE GEODETIC POSITION SHOWN WAS DETERMINED UTILIZING FAST-STATIC - ~ __ _ _ _ 5674211 W I~ ) ~~ 5'17 ~ II I I \ _ ~ TAKEN"HERE-. • ~~` \ GRWND "' 1 , CPS OBSERJATIONS FROM USGS MONUMENTS USING EffHER TRIMBLE 4600L5 OR THE DATA WAS DIFFERENTLALLY CORRECTED WITH ERHEA SOKKU CPS RECENERS I _ UUUtt POLE --- ~_-_ ~ _ BY OTHERS ~ ' J - ~~_~ ...__„_ . \ EL•328.9' AMSL '~~•-,,, • ... PP W/LIETEA . TRIMBLE GP5 SURVEY OR SOKN41 LDCUS PROCESSOR SOFTWARE. ~ -__ __ _ _ ~ y _ -- 238 05 \ '` U7ITUDE AND LONCfTUDE DENOTED ON 1NIS PUN ARE ACCURATE TO WITHIN C O x , ~NB651YTW E . ~ • \ GUY S.P.R,R. BO% ~~_ - 1'S1'00'W~ - ~'~ - - ~~ ~ ~ ~ POST S.5' HIGH l ~ 151 FEET HORROFITALLY AND THE ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THIS PUW ARE ACCURATE TO WITHIN 3t FEET VERTM,AI.LY. A V ~ " \ 13'65 E~_ ~ E- ~ ~~._._, ___ _ P UTIIUDE: 3T16'S9.BT UTINDE: 3T16'59.66' ' _ ' (E) LATl1CE TOWER " (NAD 27) LDNGRUOE: 122'OP18.fiY (WD 83) LONGIlUOE: 12701'74,82 - -- - _~ _ _ t PACBELL BO% Y -- - ~ (SEE TOWER DETAIL) _ `- ' _ _ ~- PROPOSED 7 WIDE -T---- ~ CENTERLINE OF PROPOSED ' ~/ VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE gNCULAR 'WIRELESS ~ ' WIDE 3 tyi Z CINCULAR WIRELESS COX ,Q ~/ E POWER dc 'TELCO EASEM~T ANTENNA EASEMENT Q (PARCEL B) - F (PARCEL H) . ~~ \ ~s J , sF ) I LL N ,~ ` F y, ~9 KARN GR. ~ <<FF W LL ~T T i T ~ _~ NOT TO SCALE E OR 4 I W O ~ JP W/TRANSFORMER KAN . A R N A l f0 /j~ O IC VE w $ ? T DRIVE . 1 MON.~J ,,:' a PROJECT ca • ~ :. - '~ :LOCATION 1 I ~ / p CO% AVE. 1 % `~ CUMBERUND DR VE SITE MAP PIERCE RD. I E 08/05/05 REVISED PEA ENAIL E51 G.E. r0 T EVBIIS SIlT'VCf$ IIC. • 0 06/07/05 RENSEO PER ENAIL E9 C.E. YO l HWY S$ 6 HAMPTON DRIVE u lar ci n C OS/2B/OS RENSEO PEA ENML E4 G.E. YO 420 UNION AYfD1Ut FAIR/RID CALIFORNIA IN699 SITE N0. SNFCCA2061 d g ~ 8 06/04/04 RENSEO PEA ENAIL E4 G.E. YO SITE TOPOGRAPHY , COX AVE. ®RAILROAD TRACKS EAST OF CARNETT CL latw R1 A os/ta/o+ Issu6o FOR REvIEw AND coMMENr Esl c.E. ro SURVEY SHEET tel. (rm) 42e-nog Fws (Y0T) 426-5941 SARATOGA, CA 95070 KE3, /IC. gIGlI1M WlfiflE33 sE WZp ApSL•/ptp OMC 0. DATE RENSIONS BY CHN PP' 704 Nt. ORAYnNt HiIYBFR R vIFSSWTON. U 145ee SCA LE AS SH OWN DESIGNED EA CADD DEPT . 24$97-512 A- SNFCCA2061-Z02 E 5 4 T 3 S~~ s„8a _~~~ Offal F`m$ Wg~e 39~~ R~zg H"pa 3~?~ •d~~K CP~~ NW3= aA;B g$~i o°o$ C B A ~\ 1. TREE INVENTORY APPEARS ON SHT. Z07 ~ ~~ 2. AVERAGE SLOPE IS 2.9 FEET. ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ 3. LOT SIZE: 14,950.73 I ` ~V \~~ - S0. Fi.: 0.3432 ACRES ` `~ 4. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA= (426.18 S0. FT., ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ APPROXIMATELY 0.02857. OF TOTAL LOT AREA. ~ , I ~S' p ~~~ ~ 5. PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION BY THE CITY, I C~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ THE LLS OF RECORD SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN • f RAC ~ \ ~ \ b7 ~~ 6 ~~ .44\3 \l 8 - ,~ ~ N ~'I~_ IW r -:~ z l J I.J ~ rye/ la o ~ ~/ a \ ~ to IN 53'-5" ~ ^\~ -PROPOSED CINGULAR SERVICE TRENCH FOR ANTENNA CABLE coNOUlrs CERTIFICATION THAT ALL BUILDING SETBACKS ARE PER THE APPROVED PLANS. r Rg2 ~ %~ ~ 6. RE-ROUTE (E) IRRIGATION AROUND CINGUTAR COMPOUND FOR PROPOSED CINGULAR q ~ 0 ~ PROPOSED E911 CPS '9p Sp l ANTENNA ~ LANDSCAPING. ~ T ~ RgO ~ 0 / i ~' ' 7 REFER TO SHT Z07 FOR LANDSCAPING AND ks ~ V 0 ~ , + ~ . . / PROPOSED (6) CINGUTAR IRRIGATION. ~ ~ ANTENNAS MOUNTED TO ~Pj i ~ ~ EXISTING PCkE TOWER. SEE O/,pT ~ ,~ ANTENNA PLAN SHT. Z04 /`, Rpq l\~ ~ /~ ~ + O \k r~ / Jp, ~F ~ ~ ~F p ~ ~A fkr ~. . `qOp ~ ~ \ \' ~/ ~ ~~~ (E) CLIMBIN i 4i ` LEG / 4 ~ \ ~~ -~----____; ~ ,9 // v ~ ~ T A.P.N. ~ 2~ I .~~,; a 386-44-40,~ ~~ ,,~ ~~ / <u~ ~ a~ ~ ~~, "`~ s~~` ~ j--(E) POWER POLE ' E ~~ E ~ - ...__ FRONT PROPERTY LINE 238_05' ~ \'~\ ~ ~ (E) S.P.R.R. BOX ~ ~ E ""'^~--~ ~ \ 5.5' HIGH `-(E) TELCO VAULT ~ ~-E~~_ ~~ 1 ~ POWER ~J29 o~_, A, ~~ (E) LATTICE TOWER ~~_ ~ ~' (E) MANHOLE - (E) UNDERGROUND \ ~ I Op kqY ~` I s~. 3 3p. ~ 45 \ pC SO(, `Y I 0 I \ R/c ~ ~ yl { OF \ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ k ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I \ 8 70 pG S \\~ \ ~J ~ A P N 386-44-43 . . . pR OSED LANDSCAPING WILL DROUGHT CCEEO~ TOLERAN NATIVE SPECIES-~ 5 R 9 (5 MAPS ) ' ' " I PROPOSED 25 -4x17 -6 CINGULAR LEASE AR SEE EQUIPMENT PLAN ON SHT. Z04 ~ I ~, I POSED CINGUI.AR JOINT SER E TRENCH FOR POWER l k TELC CONDUITS J I PROPOSED C ULAR HVP iELCO I I (E) HUP TELCO X~ (E) PG&E SERVICE BOX. - - - -- _ _ _ _ - PROPOSED CINGU~H' x x _ ~ ~-' -' -- - - _ _ __ POWER P.O.C. \ (E) UTILITY POLE ~ Pn PROPOSED CINGULAR TELCO P.O.C. PLACE PROPOSED _ TELCO RISER ON UTILITY "' - = _ _ .- _ POLE ~sz~_ u .___._ _ ~ _ __ _ \ D ~, TRENCH BY OTHERS ~ ~ x v ~ Z ~~ ExISTINC uralTY '~ ~ E ~ ~~: ' Q POLE. ~' ~ J 1 I I~I 1 I, ~ Cmo ~ W L ~~ I ,1 i U ,_ ~-, SITE PLAN o ~ ~ ~' SC4E 1:P74 GRAPHIC SCALE ~ T NORTH LEGEND ~~ (E) JP W/TRANSFORMER - A - UNDERGROUND ROUTING FOR COAX CABLE -P-P- UNDERGROUND ROUTING FOR POWER LINE -r-r- UNDERGROUND ROUTING FOR TELCO LINE -P/r- UNDERGROUND ROUTING FOR POWER/TELCO LINE Ve 1 o c iTe 1 ~ R G E ~ I Ir 1- ~ __ 1_-,--~~ II CO-LOCAIE SIDE WI1H SHELTER EQUIPMENT AFICHfiECTURE AND ENGINEERING DINSION wE N O.: SNF CA206 C H a rw X c i n g u 8 OB/I$/OS ISSUED FOR RENEIY AND COAI4ENT5 ' 'NHP AR A.R ' ~ T-; i SITE PLAN I16P9 HAdFNDA DPoYE o '. coX AVEN ® E RN ETT COURT WIPELE55 ~ oz os issu F R R ~ u+o couuENrs S / / ED 0 Evl F.C. AR.. A.q, I PIEASANfOH CWFDRNIA9151! (9Y7)T74lbDl SARATOGA, CA 95070 ~ VICES, INC. ~. •~ f -~ - - -- NO DATE REVISIONS BY CHK APP'D ATE N0. ~ DMNING NuMBE9 REV ___-_._ -_ ...._ __._ _ _ __. (P25)r77LnJ FAZ wwW.wlxNN.nN :. ._. - _ ___.- _.... ~SCAIE: AS SHOWN !DESIGNED BY: A.R. ._... -. _.. DRAWN BY: F.G. ~ _ ~ 24B9I-SI2 A-SNFCCAZO6IC-ZO3.6 6 5 4 3 2 l D C B A • D • PROPOSED I ANTENNA M( EXISTING PG FIELD VERIFY LOCATION OF (E) UTILITIES FOR NEXTEL AND 00 NOT DAMAGE WHILE LAYING PROPOSED CONCRETE PAD _ FOUNDATION. 1 Y PROPOSED (5) CINGULAR EXISTING NEXTEL INDOOR EQUIPMENT CABINETS COMPOUND INSIDE SHELTER (2-INITIAL k (E) BLOCK WAIL 3-FUTURE/GROWTH) PROPDSED ANTENNAS M EXISTING PC. SEE ELEVATII xtw ~ iloe xn ru,uo~J'~~/~ ~ ssa aee°iaoe 0P0M~" I fi III II ~ I ~ 111 I II I In ~ _~ u>_- III III III III III III U I III III I1~ VIII 111 Ill ~II III III III Ity ~ ' III IIl III III III III III III W I~ GENERATOR ~ RECEPTACLE A_A I~ ~4 A ~ \ A ~ ~'~~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~--PROPOSED CINGULAR SERVICE TRENCH FOR ~ ` ANTENNA CABLE CONDUITS ~ ~ - -' - - ~~- Al -r-- • ANTENNA MAUFACTURER/MODEL L W D CABLE KATHREIN AP14-17-880- 51.8" 10.3" $.$" 7/8" 1940-O65D ANTENNA PLAN 9'NEVldf 0 f 7 4' B ® O~yS~ GRAPHIC SCALE ~ ~ I • 'RING LEG '" n ~-------~-------------~~ PROPOSED SHELTER OVERHANG LINE E TOWER NGULAR INT. X81709 MICROFLECT TELCO BOARD / ~P~ C\ ~ I ~` at ~~ ~. I 7 I . o ~ I W I J a ~ W ~ f I W ~ ~n I ¢ w ~ ~ I~ I LEGEND - A - UNDERGROUND ROUTING FOR COAX CABLE -P-P- UNDERGROUND ROUTING FOR POWER LINE -r-r- UNDERGROUND ROUTING FOR TELCO LINE -P/T UNDERGROUND ROUTING FOR POWER/TELCO LINE a ~ I 20'-0" ~ SHELTER ~~~~ a 25,_4" L LEASE AREA J PROPOSED CINGULAR SERVICE TRENCH FOR POWER AND TELCO CONDUITS EQUIPMENT PLAN ~u6dd 0 T 7 7 4' ® aa~~ GRAPHIC SCALE FLUORESCENT LIGHTS (TYP. OF 8) CABLE LADDER MAIN DISTRIBUTION PANEL .... V ~ ~ ~ i e _ ~ - ~ I ~ CO-LOCATE SITE WITH SHELTER EOUIPh~ENi 0 C ~ e e HIGHWAY 85 & HAMPTON DRIVE ~ I _ ~ I T _~_ - __ - ---- -- ARCHITECTURE AND EN I D I N SITE N0.• SNFCCA2061C X c i n u ar~. oe/zs/o 11sss11555 UED FOR RENEW AND COMMENTS r NHP AR iA.R,i EQUIPMENT PLAN & IIIOBHACIENDADRIVE cwFORaA Sxsee FIEASANiox COX AVENUE ®RAILROAp TRACKS EAST OF GARNETT COURT wIRE~ESS _ OB/O7~ /DSO ISSUED FOR RENEW AND COMMENTS ~s ) ' ~- ~ +-- :f.C. AR A.R. ANTENNA PLAN , ~ SARATOGA, CA 95070 CINGUL4R WIRELESS SERVICES, INC. '- - - ~ - - ' -- ~ -- IWU) ~~ DATE RE ASIONS NO i BY CHK A-P'D srt xo. oRAwx+e xweq xev __ _. _.. _.--___.. w,w.velockel.net - ._ _ -. . _- -- -- __ ISCAIE. AS SHOWN ', DESIGNED BY: AR. ~ DRAWN EY, F.C. 24897-$12 i A-SNFCCA2061 C-Z04 6 6 5 4 3 2 C B A • r~ L ~ TOP OF E TOWER Y 143,1' A.G.L. -_ - ~ T 1U=~1 BOTTOM OF ROW OF~BOTTOM OF ROW OF (EE NEXTEL ANTENNASANTENNAS ~73.T A.C.LA.C.L. TOP OF CINGULAR ANTENNAS t62'-2" A.G.L. .~CING~UTAR ANTENNAS RAD CENTER 'r t60'-0" A.G.L. - - - PROPOSED (6) CINGULAR ANTENNAS MOUNTED TO (E) PGdcE TOWER. SEE ANTENNA PLAN SHT. Z04 PROPOSED E911 GPS ANTENNA MOUNTED TO (E) TOWER. ~GPS ANTENNA RAD CENTER 1ANTENNA RAD CENTER 1 t20'-0" A.C.L. (E) NEXTEL SHELTER (E) CMU WALL o a I I ~~GR~O~UND LEVEL ~ - 0Y0' PAINTING NOTES: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHALL BE PAINTED ANON-REFLECTIVE LIGHT GRAY TO MATCH THE EXISTING TOWER: 1. CINGULAR ANTENNAS 2. ANTENNA MOUNTS (E) TOWER I PROPOSED CINGULAR ANTENNA CABLE RUN VERTICAL UP ALONG (E) TOWER LEG PROPOSED CINGULAR ANTENNA CONDUIT STUB-UP. (J) 6" PVC 10' UP TOWER LEG _. 0 I a_ +I LANDSCAPING -PROPOSED (5) CINGULAR INDOOR EQUIPMENT CABINETS INSIDE SHELTER (2-INITIAL & 3-FUTURE/GROWTH). SEE EQUIPMENT PLAN SHT. Z04 WEST ELEVATION SCALE 3/37=i-0' 0 Z 4' 8' 17 b' TOP OF ~E~ TOWER 472.0' AMSL) 143.1' A.G.L. - - ~ TOP OF INSULATOR _ Y 101.2' A.G.L. hBOTTOM OF INSULATOR Y 93.1' A.G.L. ~ TOP OF BRACE ~ 83.5' A.G.L. ~ TOP OF ROW OF (E) NEXTEL ANTENNAS 81.5' A.G.L TOWER BOTTOM OF ROW OF (E) NEXTEL ANTENNAS 73.7' A.G.L. TOP OF CINGULAR ANTENNAS I t62'-2" A.G.L. CINGULAR ANTENNAS RAD CENTER _ _ _ f60'-0" A.G.L. PROPOSED (6) CINGULAR ANTENNAS MOUNTED TO (E) PC&E TOWER. SEE ANTENNA PLAN SHT. Z04 PROPOSED CINGULAR ANTENNA IQ \~ CABLE RUN VERTICAL UP //~~ ALONG (E) TOWER LEG ~- ~~ PROPOSED (5) CINGUTAR INDOOR EQUIPMENT CABINETS INSIDE SHELTER (2-INITIAL. & 3-FUTURE/GROWTH). PROPOSED SEE EQUIPMENT PLAN SHT. Z04 LANDSCAPING PROPOSED CINCULAR ANTENNA CONDUIT STUB-UP. (3) 6" PVC )~~ 10' UP TOWER LEC ER ~i !~ \. ~ GROUND LEVEL ~~-0" - SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE 3/ST=f-0' O Z 4' 8' 17 18' ~ Ve 1 o c iTel I HIG IVE ~ l ~ I CO-LOCATE SITE WITH SHELTER EQUIPMENT ~I SwE NO.: SNFCCA2061C cing ~ ar„ u -~- ~ --- ~ ARCHITECTUREAND ENGINEERING DIN910N 16 :O9 25 OS ISSUED FOR RENEW ANO CONNENiS i AA. I A.R. ' SOUTH d[ WEST ELEVATIONS nsaeNaClenOAOrov6 RNETT COURT wIRe~6ss ~, ISSUED FOR RENEW ANO CONNENi$ 509/03/05 __ F A C A I A P ' ' PLEAS0.NTON, CAUFOIINIA W6kB i SARATOCA CA 95070 VICES, INC. CINGUTARWIAELESSSER , -- - - --- . . . . . . _..._ __-.. __ _- - -- -- ..__ Inslrs~sest , , - REN5wN5 N ~T Er CNNAPP'O _ - sttENO_ oaAVnNCNweEa a6v Isssl isrum rAx : ' - -` . ~ _ ~ C A _ _.. ___ wwn.wlakelnN ~ NOWN ~OESICNED 9Y: AR. AEE S S S DRAWN BY: FC 24891-512 A-SNFCCA2061C-Z05 6 6 5 4 3 2 f-~, D C B ,Q ~ O~.J X.U.I. \ EF A TOP OF ROW OF (E1 NEXTEL ANTENNAS ~ 81.5' A.G.L. • ~ ~ --~~ II ~ 10.3" j A I i SECTION °A" io i a N ~ ~ ANTENNA SPECIFICATIONS ~, SCALE: NONE -- ATTACHES TO ROUND OR ANGLE ~ LEG OF LATTICE TOWER. F1TS ~ 1 3/4" TO 8 5/8" O.D. PIPE • ~ LEG AND 2 1/2" TO 6" ANGLE LEGS r VALMONT MICROFLECT UNIVERSAL / WIRELESS ANTENNA PIPE MOUNT / 3 FT STAND OFF (PART No. 83100) ~ e • r PS ANTENNA 0 e w 0 -1 1/4" NOMINAL DIAMETER (1.66" (~: ~ ACTUAL OD) 1. THE WEIGHT OF ANTENNA 3 -0 ~ X 2'-0" MAX. SCHED 40 ATTACHMENT (INCLUDING PIPE) ~ ~ IS 50 LBS. GALVANIZED 2. MOUNT STAND-OFF IN LOCATION THAT STEEL PIPE ODES NOT INTERFERE WITH CLIMBING RUNGS. PIPE ATION GPS ANTENNA ATTACHMENT TO LATTICE TOWER ooz SCALE: N.T.S - Ve I o c i e 1 ~ I ~~ ------ - ! _~_ ; _ ~ ~ EOCAiE SITE WIiN SHELTER EQUIPNENT CO T HIGHWAY 85 & HAMPTON DRIVE - ---- ~--~ - ~-~-- - l , _ _ EERING DINSION ARCHRECTUFIE D E I SITE NO.: SNFCCA2061C }C c i n g u a r,~ 16 O6/YS/O5 ISSUED FOR RENEW AND COMNENTS N P ~, A R AR. EQUIPMENT $PEGFICATIQN$ B ~ ~ e+eaeNACleNOaoRivE ~ COX AVENUE ®RALROAD TRACKS EAST OF GARNETT COURT ~ _ , A wme~ess ~ { 5 ~De/o3/ostlssueD FoR REHEw AND toNUENrs FG AR f0.R' ~ RuasurtDN,cAUroRmAwsee SARATOCA, CA 95070 . WIRELESS SERVICES, INC. ' ~ ~~. - ~ CING .. 'NO DATE RENSION$ ' CNN pPP'D .-- - - ----- - ---- L1E ND. DMWING NWBER -~pEY . (92])i]T-077J FAX - -; . __ _. - _ _-_ ... _ __ wvn'rNwtlN'"„ iSCALE, AS SHOWN ', DESIGNED BY: A.R, ~ DFAWN RY: f,G. ~ 24697-SIP A-SNFCCA2O61C-ZOB. 6 1 • • ~. c; 18`/ KNOBCON INE ;~ - -. --- (PIYUSATTEYCATE) - ~~ ~ I I0'1 N. CAllFOR)ly WAL~f ' 1~~X , ~ - - - pccuvsHLYDSU) ~ - _ ` ~_~, -CIO`/ N. GWFORNU WALNUT\ \~ (IUGLAVSNIND51f) ~ I ,, j~ sari -. i . ~~> t 6'/ N. CAUFORNW WW~ I \ ~. I6'/ MONTEREY %NE \ \ vvusRADUrA BY N. dLIFGINIA wAUAUr ~ ~ (A'CU5'SNLYD511) 10`/ CHINESE ELM 10'/ NORWAY SPRUCE I A'/ N. CALIFORNLI W/1HUT (L'LUL'S PARYIFOLIA) - '' (P/CEA ABIES) (/UGUYf HLYDS//) ~- _ /i ~ --6`I ASPEN 6'1 ASPEN ~~ `~ 'ice (POPL'LUS TREMVCOrDES) -7Y N- GUFORNIA WALNUT ' ' (POPL'LIISTAENL'LOIDES) - ~~ .LX~% ,; ~ ` (JL GU45H15 OSl1) 6`/ NORWAY SPRUCE ~ <! x~ / ~ ~ -- -' 12 1 MONTEREY %NE P1N.VL'S RADUTA ( ) r6 a MONTEREY PINE f .~ I (PP.V.YL'SRADUTA) (PMEAABIES) . - , '~ '/ MONTEREI~INE ;; usxnputA) - ~' L- ~_ \` - ~ 12'1 NffREY PINE - ' I 1~ ~~~ NUS IATAJ ~ / l rl~ .•. ~6/ ~~'. ~~, L~ ~Y~I / 1Mlexrnc lfnr V ) I ~ ~-~` ~ ~~ (PI.NNL'S RADU ~ ~ ' ~C V < ~~ `' 1 r V~ pC ~ / ~ 12'e consT udE oAx~ I ~ ~F Ri' (QUERCUS ACRlFOr1A)- \ I ~,\ ~T~ \~\`~ \\ JO \ ~~J J ~ \`\ I sit' ~~ dq~~ a {yo C ~. ~S R/Cyl 0 \ 9 ~ ~ I \ R \ I \ wqr a~. ~ \ 8Z I ~ A~ I I \ S~J BY PAPER BIRCH / (een'uPAPrRrFEAA) , I s 1 I ' I ~ ~~~~ 1, -t0'1 M ERTEY >' (P1N.4L'S A) ` 7'/ I/'/ M( (PI.NNL'S -~ - - - --- 10'0 WEEPING &RCH (BEfL'U PEYDL'U ) - - - -- -- 6'o MONTEREY PINE 6`/ WESTERN CHONECHEIERY (PA L! V L'S YIAGLNIAVA ) ~ ~ -..- 8'/ RALUN CYPRESS .,/ rJ *.~ j T' j ~ /- i~ j ~ ' (CL'-AESSL'S SEMPFRVIRENS) Y ~y ^ ~~ - ~ ~~ ~ J \~~ i' ~ 10'/ RAIJAN CYPRESS L;Y \\ ~' ~ . j -. i I 'J ~ ~ (CUPAESSL'6 SENPERV1AE45) I EN H Y 6' C EY PINE ..-+ ~.~'-~,J ~ ~ / GL S HOLL (ILfSAQUIFOf1UMl ATA) ' / ~^~ / ;5/ ~ -10`/ MONTEREY PWE PINE {TA . ~ 1, / ~ -ate . (PIN,YL'S RADfATA) \ ` ~-^j -1fi'1 MONTEREY PINE 7 ~ 5 (PIN:YUS RADIATA) j ~II`I CHINARER'p`~'~\TREE '~1 I (MEIJA AIEDARCH) \ CRD,gO r~ j 6`/ CHINABERRY TREE Rq( ~ (M£LIA ATfDARCH) ~~. I'c J ~1R r i I \` /~(E) BUSHES R~qO (E) IRRIGATION LINE TO BE RE-RWTW - ey ffALyN prpRESS I 6'/ CAUFORNU UUR0. (CUPAESSUS SEMPERVIREYSJ I (UMBRELL'LORIACALfORNUJ PROPOSED I UNOSCAPE ~~ ~~"1 \ 1 I A.P.N. 366-44-43 ~ ~E"~',~ ' ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ 0~ r ~' ~ (55 MA $ 9) ~ ~ I ~~~rrreee"'l~l~l~ ~ PARCE~ B F„~„~ ~ I _ ti `tiJ --x x~_X I IA`/ DEDDM{ cEDAR (CEDRUS DEODARA) ~`~pp qAN R>~ e ~ ~ J s. \tie sy\3 8 ~ ~ 0 I > ``~,~ Y~ ~~ ~~ I ~ B'/ BIGLEAF 4APLE (ACER MARCOPHYLCL'M ) % 10'/ ME%ICAN FANPALM + ~, '~/ / (WAEHINGiONU ROBUSIA) / X10'/ MONTEREY PINE / (P1NNU5 RADUlA) r / / 1 I'/ BICLEAF MAPLE 7~/~ l~ ~(ACER MAACOPHYILUMJ 9 v ` ~ A.P.N. / ~e `\ ~~ 386-44-40/ TIE PRDPOSED IRRIGATION UNES (u~ ~ / TO (E) IRRIGATION ~~ ~ \ J O ~ ~• ' E -""'-----.-~,_P OPERTY LINE 238.05' ` ~~ ~~' ~ _~ __ _ _ _ (SEQUOIA SEM-ERVIREYS) E - E - --~ `~-_-_-___ COX qUE - D C ~ 16'1 BLUEGUM EUCALYPTUS (EUCALYPNS GLOB L'LUS ) 24'/ BLUEGUM EUCALYPTUS (EL'CALYPNS CCOBULVS ) \+ a~ k \, ;\ ~~ ~ B ,S (~~ 28'9 BLUEGUM EUCALYPTUS 12'1 DEOOAR CEDAR <\\ 1~1 (EUCALYPTUS CLOBULUS)~ ~10'/ MONTEREY PINE '-10Y MONTEREY PINE \ (/C, /f'~, ~ ~^ "~-^ / (CEDRUS DEODARA) ~ (p1NNUS RADUTA) / (PINNUS RADIATA) \ \~ (l V / 1 _ l / i 0 ~ --6'/ BLUEGUM EUCLYPTUS \\ 7.r1 Y J, ~'~ r ~J'n ~~( ~ '~„ l ~ (EL'CALYPTL'S CLOBULUS) F \ V / 12'1 MONTEREY PINE i ~~ I 1 ~f~ ~~~1nf~ /'"+J~`j l S ~ ~'l ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~-6'o RUSSUN OLNE ) ~ ~.,. r J P1.N.NUSRADIATA "U 2D'o etuEaM Eucuwrus / , '1 Q ~ _ ` (EUECnrvusANCUSTrfauA) 6'/ SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA ~,k, ', ~ ~~~ (EUCALYPNSCLOBULL'SI-~~'-L ~~ ~~~( ~ ~~.^ 7 ~ I,AT . (MAG.YOllAGRAND1fCOWl) 4 .i_' a ~j ~'. ~ ~ ~ ~"'~. ~~41 ~-~ 1, 2A"/ BLUEGUM EUGLYPTUS ~l`f t~.~ ~_3 ~-~' y~ j Iv ~ ~-~~ (fL'CALY-TL'SGLOBL'LUS)-~ ~ y'~. U ~ S -- I ~ ~~~' ( ~ ~ ~ ~': -6Y RED-IRONRIRK EUCALYPNS ' I -) r ~ ~~~ r. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ .~IL~-, ~ ~ t_~, 1-a ~~ - (ECCACUfressm~eoxrlax) ~ j ~~- ~ ~~ ~ --. 80'/ BLUEGUM EUCALYPTUS _ ~ ~ ~ .~~~. ~ ,'>I"S. ~~ ~ ~( ~ ,r 1'.~i{ (EUCUrPrL'scLaeueus)~ ~:` O ~-<,,~ ,~a' ~~ !1 -~ ~ `Z _ WC ~.~ l -6`/ OEOOM CEDM i n; .. it 1 -~ v, 60'/ BLUEGUM EUCALYPTUS ~ ~ ~ ~~ 5~ (CEDRVS OEODARA) I~ ~ Y~ y '~ f ~ r~ 7 ~~ ~ ~V ~/ (EVCALYP7L'SGLOBULUS) _~ I ~ ~ '" I'. " I< T 6'/ JAPANESE RED MAPLE (ACEF PALMATL'M ATROPURPLRE{M)-- ~ i I II ~ -6'/ EUROPEAN IAACH II r'~ /C I ~ ~ ii 1 _ r2Y SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA ~~ U (URIRDECIDL'A) -IO`/ CALIFORNIA PALM -10`/ MONTEREY DINE t\ -r ,1! v (IYASHINTO.YIA f1llFERi) ~- (P1.YYL'S AADGT.{) ,~- !/- , (M{G.YOLIA CRANDIFLORA }-\ 2]`/ YELLOW-POPWi ~\. _ ~ -~ _ ~ ~~' (!JR(ODEYDRO.YTL'IIPIfERA)- - - - __- ~~ I - -9'/ MONTEREY PINE t 38'/ MONTEREY PINE ~ 4 L / 1 ~ _ - ~~~~ p~~ 0 ,Iry p~ ~ (PCVSesxADUrA) - (PLV.vuswlDUrA) ~ ~ ' _ ® '0 MON EY PINE 2/'/ MONTEREY PINE ~~ ~`~- ' SCAEhNJ ~ -2a rER '--- GRAPHIC SCALE NORTH (PLY1'L'SRADIATA) (P/VYL'SRADUTA)-- '` ~ i A ~_ , pp ~•+~• VG IO lr j~~~ ~ ~'~ HIGHWAY 85 & HAMPTON DRIVE i~ ~ ~~~ -~~ - ~ ___~~_ ~ ~ C~-~OCAJE SATE W~1H SHELTER EQUIPMENT SITE NO.. SNFCCA2061C ~ ' ARCHRECTURE AND ENC~INEERINC DINSION '~ i X c i n g u a r,4 6 ~'~~06/25/O6'i~ ISSUED FOR RENEW AND COMMENTS _._N_H~P_.. A.R. ' A.RJ ~ EXISTING TREE INVENTORY /IIOB HAGENDA DRIYF '. COX AVENUE ® RAILROAD TRACKS EAST OF GARNFTT COURT WIRELE65 '~ 5108/OB/05~ ISSUED FOR RENEW ANO COMMENTS I F, G, I AR ' A.A. PLEABANTON, CAMFORNIA9151H $ARATOGA, CA 95070 (mI73rNpl CINGULARWIAELESSSERVICES,INC. _.i - - ----- ------ _ _ _ _ _ (/7317B7azrD PAl( ~ ~ • ... ~ NSGLE OAi~ SHOWN DESICNEOI BYS A.A. DRAW BY CHK APP'0 _ _ ~ uD_ . _ - _ ,-_ _ _ DMWINC HuuBER TALv wwM.wlaA/LnM '~-. ~_~ ~- ~NBrF.G. 24891512 A-$NFCCA2061C-2076 6 5 4 ?' 3 2 • D • • 20'-6' 20'-0' Veneklion Fan Intake (TYD• C 2 Lowtbm) ® Seol Around Vanb 1 1 D" See Drawing + 29001-21A 'I ~ 3' P4C Plug) 14 EXTERIOR ELEVATION VIEW'A' 2o'-s^ ,, 20'-0" ul I e ra:ra ~ d® srrrr~ nea.m.n, i b k~1II 4' P1C skew ~ akN Fmr nac.pNl' 3' ~ 9' 6. IroigNO Plate I~ t~l ! `lam ~ 0 0 7-1' iv I EXTERIOR ELEVATION VIEW'C' 12'-0" ~- 1" Slope 1' Slope -- -~- I I I ~ I ~ ~ I I I ~ 014 I Q ~ 11 -6 EXTERIOR ELEVATION VIEW'B' i 0 I 14 I 11'-fi' , EXTERIOR ELEVATION VIEW'D' O 4' Sq. TKO Bar 0 Fhe Extlngubher © 411116' Sq. TKO Box Emer{pnay Llght W8h ExR 3grl 2 Inlnzbn Alelm (MapneBc) O G.F.I.01llel(211A1120V) Box: 4' Sq. TKO Box Cu OrouM Bar (Cenbr Over Cast In Nippb) ® DoaCalapy8'x44' ® 1' PVC ~ 45' Angle Down To Exterior ® 4' Sq. TKO Bax ® Dlxulnek Holder ® HVAC ConUder ® Low Tanp Serroar Tako Board © Exlalor Llght ® High TAP Senmr © Tie Dam Plsle © 5 Ton AK; Udta ® Main DkdriEudon Panel ® W~"y Nat toed 0 8 HR TErer 6 Ext LIBM 3Wdldl (20A) ® 25.5'x25.5'WaveGuide Blank Plate East VeBry ® Door Pull Handle With Beat Z1 Cord Caro And Keys ® Smdce Deledar © Not Used 0 411118' Sq. TKO Box ' ' ' ® 2' (LB) Enlry Elhow k6 x4 Junetlon Box O 8 O PowerFalNroBox ® Not Used ® Generelor Receph9de And klalntlllp Box Supe Artesbr ® AlennTermind8ox ~ Ve 1 o c iTe 1 HIGHWAY 8 & HAMPTON D ~ CO-LOCATE SITE WITH SHELTER E4UIPMENT 5 RIVE SITE NO SNFC X c i n g u l a r ARCHITECTURE AND ENOINEERINO DIN910N .: CA2061C ~ 6 08/25/05 ISSUED FOR RENEW AND COkNENTS NHP AR. AR. EQUIPMENT SHELTER SPECIFICATIONS H6ae MALIENM DPoVE PLEASrxroN,cAUron9uwsee CO% AVENUE ®RAILROAD TRACKS EAST OF GARNETT COURT SARATOGA CA 95070 "'"E`EN CINGUTARWIRELESSSERYICES INC S 09/03/03 ISSUED FOR RENEW ANO COkkENTS F.C. A.R. A.R. 192a1~~~ , , . ~a^0 AOStlY00D ORNE N0. DATE AEdSION$ i BY CHx paP' SOE N0, aRAWINa NUMBER REV IEY817774'liB FA% www.rolatNnet i tt[a;.wrar~. o v+sae GAL E: AS SH OWN DESIGNED BY: AA, DRAW N BY: F.C. 24891-512 A-SNFCCA2061 C-208 6 6 5 4 3 2 C B A • • ~_,~~,. • • Application No. OS-123; 20283 La Paloma • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential M-10 (Medium Density) 4.35 Max Dwelling Units per Acre MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 7,441 square feet (gross and net) SLOPE: 7.13% GRADING REQUIRED: 225.7 cu. yd. of cut; minimal fill will be used for this project. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of 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. PROPOSED MATERIALS AND COLORS: The materials and colors for the new home will be • off-white textured stucco, sage (light green) colored for the wood dad doors and windows, and taupe-colored pre-cast stone caps for the retaining walls in the front yard The roofing will be lass "A"composition roofing that will resemble individual concrete tiles with color variations in shades of gray. A "materials and color board" is on file with the Community Development Department and will be presented at the site visit and public hearing. • Application No. OS-123; 20283 La Paloma PROJECT DATA Lot Coverage: Floor Area: Setbacks: Height: Residence Driveway, Patio, walks, walls TOTAL House: ls` Floor 2nd FlOOr Garage (attached): TOTAL Front Lot Line: Rear Lot Line: 15C Floor 2nd FlOOr Lt. Side Lot Line (West): ls` Floor 2nd Floor Rt. Side Lot Line (East): ls` Floor 2nd Floor Highest Point: Lowest Point: Average Point: Top most Point: Proposal 43% 1,788 sq. ft. 608 sq. ft. 792 sq. ft. 3,188 sq. ft. 1,767.4 sq. ft. 676.1 sq. ft. 436 sq. ft. 2,880 sq. ft. 26 ft. 63 ft. 74 ft. Eft.-3in. 11 ft. Eft.-10 in. llft.-gin. 25 ft. 109.02 107.28 108.15 133.00 Code Requirements Maximum Allowable 60% 4,464 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable 2,880 sq. ft. Minimum Requirement 25 ft. 25 ft. 35 ft. 6 ft. 11 ft. 6 ft. 11 ft. Maximum Allowable 26 ft. • • Application No. OS-123; 20283 La Paloma • PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests design review approval to demolish the existing single story home and the detached garage structure and construct a new 2,880 square foot two-story home at 20283 La Paloma Avenue. The property is situated along a sloping portion of La Paloma Avenue. The properties in this neighborhood are primarily bungalow-style homes that are either one or two stories situated on relatively narrow lots. Staff finds that the proposed English-style home has awell-articulated, `terraced' facade that is compatible with the character of the neighborhood Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has shown the plans to neighbors, and their responses are attached to this report. The property owners at 20295 La Paloma have submitted a letter describing privacy as their primary concern with the proposal, as well as other issues related to the bulk and compatibility of the proposed design with the existing character of the neighborhood. Their letter is attached for reference. 20295 La Paloma is two properties to the west of the subject site, and the property owners are primarily concerned with the two side elevation windows at the second floor level of the proposed home which would face their property. Given the distance between the neighbor's home and the proposed new home of at least 70 feet, Staff finds that the proposed home would not create an unreasonable interference with privacy. • Trees There are three ordinance-sized trees that would be impacted by this proposal. One of the trees, an American Sweetgum in the front yard, has been approved for removal by the City Arborist. Replacement trees are required. The other two ordinance-sized trees are Coast Live Oaks at the rear of the property. These two trees will remain on the property are expected to survive during construction. All of the recommendations of the City Arborist report dated June 6, 2005 report have been made conditions of project approval. Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The applicant is proposing a 436 square foot attached two-car garage. Geotechnical Clearance Geotechnical clearance is not required for this proposal. Design Review Findings Staff finds the proposed project supports the findings for design review as discussed below: • Application No. OS-123; 20283 La Paloma (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The primary view is across La Paloma Avenue, towards the southwest direction. The proposed home would not obscure this view from other properties. The project vicinity has a mixture of one and two-story residences that are situated close together compared with other areas in Saratoga. The proposed new home would not create an unreasonable interference with privacy in that the proposed windows are not in close proximity with windows on homes in adjacent parcels. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The property is in a developed area with existing homes situated in relatively small lots such that there is not much remaining of the natural landscape. The front portion of the site akeady slopes down to the street such that there would only be a gradual change between the street level and the garage. The two Oaks at the rear of the property are in good condition and have a high suitability for preservation. These two trees are expected to remain in good condition since the applicant will be required to comply with all City Arborist recommendations. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees There are no heritage trees in proximity of this project. Both of the native Oak trees are expected to survive if the recommendations stated in the City Arborist Report of June 6, 2005 are followed. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed home is in an English style with sweeping roof lines. The charming style of the home combined with the `terracing' of each level of the home provide significant visual interest, thereby diminishing any perception of bulk • (e) Compatible bulk and height. The project vicinity is a mixture of one and two-story residences. The proposed home has been designed in a manner that minimizes the appearance of its height. The height of the proposed home does not exceed the maximum height allowed in the area and the zoning district. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods The proposal is required to conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods so as to prevent impacts on neighboring properties. (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 avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views and minimizing bulk as detailed in the findings above and the staff report. Conclusion Staff finds that all of the Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative. Application No. OS-123; 20283 La Paloraa • STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the proposed home would be a charming addition to the neighborhood and recommends that the Planning Commission approve design review application OS-123 with conditions by adopting the attached resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval for Design Review 2. Arborist Report, dated June 6, 2005 3. Affidavit of mailing notices, public hearing notice, and mailing list for project notification 4. Neighbor review letters 5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit 'A" r~ • • Attachment 1 • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. OS-123 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Rosevear; 20283 La Paloma WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to demolish the existing single story home and the detached garage structure and construct a new 2,880 square foot two-story home at 20283 La Paloma Avenue. The maximum height of the structure will be 25 feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project consisting of 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 specified in Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 and the City's Residential Design Handbook have been determined: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The primary view is across La Paloma Avenue, towards the southwest direction. The proposed home would not obscure this view from other properties. The project vicinity has a mixture of one and two-story residences that are situated close together compared with other areas in Saratoga. The proposed new home would not create an unreasonable interference with privacy in that the proposed windows are not in close proximity with windows on homes in adjacent parcels. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The property is in a developed area with existing homes situated in relatively small lots such that there is not much remaining of the natural landscape. The front portion of the site already slopes down to the street such that there would only be a gradual change between the street level and the garage. The two Oaks at the rear of the property are in good condition and have a high suitability for preservation. These two trees are expected to remain in good condition since the applicant will be required to comply with all Ciry Arborist recommendations. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees There are no heritage trees in proximity of • this project. Both of the native Oak trees are expected to survive if the recommendations stated in the City Arborist Report of June 6, 2005 are followed. Application No. OS-123; 20283 La Paloma (d) Minimize perception of excessive br.~lk. The proposed home is in an English style with sweeping roof lines. The charming style of the home combined with the . `terracing' of each level of the home provide significant visual interest, thereby duninishing any perception of bulk (e) Compatible bulk and height. The project vicinity is a mixture of one and two- story residences. The proposed home has been designed in a manner that minimizes the appeazance of its height. The height of the proposed home does not exceed the maximum height allowed in the are and the zoning district. (f) CUnent grading and erosion control methods. The proposal is required to conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods so as to prevent impacts on neighboring properties. (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 avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views and mini,,,;~ing bulk as detailed in the findings above and the staff report. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Sazatoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, azchitectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 05-123 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" incorporated by reference. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Report, dated June 6, 2005 shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for permit plan check review. 3. Front yard landscaping and replacement trees shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection. 4. Any changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. No downgrading in the exterior appeazance of the approved residence will be approved by staff. Downgrades may include but are not limited to garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, etc. Proposed changes to the approved plans aze subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and may require review by the Planning Commission. Application No. OS-123; 20283 La Paloma 5. 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" 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. If water can not be maintained on site, an explanatory note shall be included on the plans. 7. Water and/or runoff from the project site shall not be directed toward the adjacent properties. 8. 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. CI•TY ARBORIST 9. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Report dated June 6, 2005 shall be followed. 10. 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. 11. 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 $27,300 to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees. 12. 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 (if applicable), a favorable site inspection by the City Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. PUBLIC WORKS 13. An Encroachment Permit shall be issued for any improvements in the right-of-way prior to commencement of construction. FIRE DEPARTMENT 14. The applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions. • Application No. OS-123; 20283 La Paloma CITY ATTORNEY 15. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, includuig attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. Construction must commence within 36 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen days from the date of adoption • Application No. OS-123; 20283La Paloma PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, the 28th day of September by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • • Attachment 2 ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care • A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT 20283 LA PALOMA SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: Rosevear APPLICATION #: 05-123 APN #: 397-23-044 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 . June 6, 2005 O ~~ ~~ ~0~ Nob ~ \,''^~~~ ~FS ~°os 0 '~Y~F~~~~Cq tires, P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 6, 2005 INTRODUCTION • The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with [ 1 ]the addition and remodel of an existing residence, and [2] the demolition of an existing garage and driveway at 20283 La Paloma, Saratoga. This report presents my findings and recommendations. Plans reviewed for this report include [ 1 ] Sheets P 1, P 1.1 and P6 (by McKay Architecture, dated 5/18/05) and [2] an Exhibit Map (by MDL and Associates, dated 1/30/03). The trees' locations, numbers and approximate canopy dunensions are presented on an attached copy of Sheet P 1 (Site Plan). FINDINGS The proposed project will impose potential impacts on three trees regulated by City Ordinance. They include one American Sweetgum (# 1) and two Coast Live Oaks (#2 and 3). Specific data compiled for each is presented on the attached table. Tree #1's trunk is approximately six feet from the existing northwest driveway edge and a new curb/driveway cut is proposed within four feet of its trunk. Consequently, the tree will be considered a loss whether retained or removed as its stability and longevity will become significantly compromised. Given its poor overall condition due to a cavity within . the main tnuik and a dead top, I find its removal and replacement would be the most prudent course of action regarding site development. Please note the project plans identify the tree's trunk to be within one-foot of the existing driveway edge and plans should be revised accordingly. The proposed lawn layout should be adjusted slightly to achieve a 15-foot setback from tree #2 and a 20-foot setback from tree #3. Based on the proposed plans, I anticipate trees #2 and 3 will be adequately protected provided the recommendations presented in the next section are carefully followed and incorporated into construction plans. Per City Code, the tree protection bond amount required for achieving adherence to the below recommendations is $27.300.1 ~ This amount represents the combined, appraised values of trees # 1 and 2. It was calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`h Edition, published by the ISA, 2000. Rosevear Property, 20283 La Paloma, Saratoga Page 1 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 6, 2005 • RECONIII~NDATIONS The recommendations presented below are based on my review and the proposed plans. If plans become modified, the recommendations are subject to change. Design Guidelines 1. Tree #1's location should be adjusted to be six feet from the existing driveway edge. 2. The location of protective fencing shown on the attached map should be reflected on the Site Plan. Additionally, the Landscaping Plan should be adjusted accordingly. 3. The proposed lawn should be adjusted to be at least 15 feet from tree #2's trunk and 20 feet from tree #3's trunk. 4. I presume the proposed new power drop will be overhead and is not meant for below ground. In the event this is not true, further recommendations and plan revisions are necessary. 5. All additional utilities/services must be established outside from beneath the canopies of trees #2 and 3. 6. The future temporary or permanent drainage design, including downspouts, shall not • require water being dischazged towazds or beneath the canopies of trees #2 and 3. 7. Any unused, underground pipes or lures beneath the canopies of retained trees should be abandoned and remain buried; plans should indicate this will occur (where applicable). 8. The "Tree Schedule" on Sheet P6 should be modified to incorporate the trunk sizes presented in this report. 9. The following guidelines should be followed during the design and installation of plant material and irrigation beneath the canopies of trees #2 and 3: a. Plant material must bedrought-tolerant and compatible for planting beneath Oaks; a list of compatible plant material can be obtained by contacting the California Oaks Foundation at (510) 763-0282 or oaksta~a californiaoaks.org. I further recommend that plant material comprises no more than 25-percent of the azea beneath the trees' canopies. b. Any irrigation used to water plant material beyond two feet from the lawn edge should be of adrip-type system. c. Any trenching for irrigation or lighting should be designed beyond the trees' canopies. If inside this distance, the trenches should 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. • Rosevear Property, 20283 La Paloma, Saratoga Page 2 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 6, 2005 d. Stones, mulch or other landscape features should be at least one-foot from the • trees' trunks. e. Tilling beneath the canopies should be avoided, including for weed control. f. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the trees' canopies should be established on top of existing soil grade. Protection Measures before and during Demolition and Construction 10. Sometime prior to demolition and the establishment of protective fencing, afive-inch layer of coarse wood chips from a tree company should be manually spread on the exposed soil surface beneath the canopies of trees #2 and 3. The wood chips should not be in contact with the trees' trunks. 11. Tree protective fencing must be established precisely as shown on the attached map and installed prior to any demolition, surface scraping or heavy equipment amving on site. The fence shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link mounted on eight-foot tall, two-inch diameter steel posts that are driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain intact and not be disturbed until final inspection. The fencing should be established no further than 18 inches from the driveway edge and gazage foundation. 12. All construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced azeas (including before and after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: demolition, grading, stripping of topsoil, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling/dumping of materials, and equipmentlvehicle operation and pazking. • 13. The section of existing driveway and garage foundation (i.e. all handscape) within 25 feet of tree #2's trunk and 30 feet of tree #3's trunk should remain in place until he home is fully constructed. This will allow use of the backyazd during construction that would otherwise not be available if the existing handscape within these areas was removed at any eazlier time. Once it is removed, a jackhammer should be used to break the handscape into small pieces. The pieces should then be manually lifted onto a loader that must remain on paved surfaces at all times. Within one hour of concrete being removed, soil having a verifiable percolation rate of about 0.5 inches per hour should be manually spread and watered in until the height is achieved to be level with the surrounding grade. 14. The removal of the existing garage must be carefully performed to avoid damaging the overhead canopy. 15. Any approved activity beneath the trees' canopies should be manually performed. 16. Any unused, existing pipes or lines below ground and beneath the canopies of retained trees should remain buried and be abandoned. 17. Herbicides should not be applied beneath the trees' canopies. Where used on site, they must be labeled for safe use neaz trees. • Rosevear Property, 20283 La Paloma, Saratoga Page 3 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 6, 2005 18. 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. 19. Any tree pruning or removal must be performed under supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (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. I 20. The severity of impacts to or the removal of tree #~can be mitigated by one tree of 36- inch box size being installed at a suitable location on site. Acceptable replacement species include Quercus agrifolia, Quercus lobata, Quercus kelloggii, Quercus douglasii, Quercus dumosa, Acer macrophyllum, Aesculus californica, Pseudotsuga menziesii and Sequoia sempervirens. The new tree should be installed prior to fmal inspection and, as necessary for support, bedouble-staked with rubber tree ties. Automatic irrigation must also be supplied and consist of a drip or soaker hose system placed on the soil surface. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table • Site Map (copy of Sheet P 1) • Rosevear Property, 20283 La Paloma, Saratoga Page 4 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department E ((I~~ gz b ~ a ! g} r f sN ~ ~$ i } •4~ F ~nN ~~ O ~ ~ r _ N f t rn -a f .,d ~ _.: ~ , o i a ~, IN' ~' N ~ Q rn =1 ' N ~ / '~ ~~ ~ ~. 1"' r D Z ~ •j + Q ~ v N - ~ }~ i 1 ~ ~, ~~ ~ a ~& `~`~ J ~~ iQ ~} L 1 ~-1 r 1 '~ .,, r. ~ -,_,~ A -~_ ^ s N D ~. IN ~'. • • • ~~e~ ~ •~ $s ~~ ~~~a~ ~~ 0. ~ ~~s ~~ y.,.y Attachment 3 • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the ~ 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 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. igned • 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 28~ day of September 2005, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the Civic Theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details of the project described below will be available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. PROJECT LOCATION: 20283 La Paloma Avenue APPLICATION NO: 05-123 APN: 397-23-044 . PROPERTY OWNER: Rosevear The applicant requests design review approval to construct a new multi-story residence with a maximum height of 25 feet. The total floor area of the new home including the attached garage will be 2,880 square feet. The gross lot size is 7,491 square feet and the site is zoned R 1-10,000. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above tune and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you maybe limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be 51ed on or before Tuesday, September 20, 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. Lata Vasudevan, AICP 408-868-1235 APN OWNER STREET CITY STATE ZIP 39722027 SINGLETARY RICHARD B TRUSTEE ETAL 20363 PARK PL SARATOGA CA 95070-5936 39722028 GALVIN THOMAS A TRUSTEE ETAL 20369 PARK PL SARATOGA CA 95070-5936 39722029 STYSLINGER BRIAN & DENISE 20375 PARK PL SARATOGA CA 95070-5936 39722032 ORCHARD ROAD PARTNERS PO BOX 95 SARATOGA CA 95071-0095 39722033 CHEMERIS PETER 20370 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 39722034 LYNCH DAVID J & KATHLEEN E 20360 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5937 39722035 SCHUPPERT RICHARD & MARY 20350 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5937 39722036 YOUNG RICHARD A & JEAN L 20340 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5937 39722037 PROCTOR FRED J & AILEEN M TRUSTEE ETAL 20328 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5937 39722039 DENARI GREGORY A TRUSTEE ETAL 20300 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5937 39722040 SMITH JEROME A PO BOX 3093 SARATOGA CA 95070-1093 39722041 DUKES DARRELL E & ANGELIN M TRUSTEE 1156 N FOURTH ST SAN JOSE CA 95112-4944 39722047 SINGER PAUL H & TERRI M TRUSTEE 20320 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5937 39722048 SHORT WALTON & JENNIFER K 20312 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5937 39722052 PALMER PETER & ANASTASIA 14473 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070-5928 39722053 MARTLAGE DALE E & CHERYL L TRUSTEE 14475 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070-5928 39722061 GUN LEVENT & HEDIYE 20385 PARK PL SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 39722062 CRANE DENNIS M ETAL 20379 PARK PL SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 39723001 DONOHOE JOE 14441 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070-5969 39723002 ROGAN PAUL F PO BOX 1687 CRYSTAL BAY NV 89402 39723003 DAVIS MARCIA F & MATTHEW L 20301 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5938 39723004 GREENLEAF THOMAS F 8 JANET M 20315 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5938 39723005 RYAN ROBERT J IV & MELISSA B 20331 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5938 39723006 STEWARD PHILIP H & DOLORES K TRUSTEE 20345 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5938 39723007 BIERACH KIRK B & KAREN J 20355 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5938 39723008 TU JIMMY W ETAL 20314 LA PALOMA SARATOGA CA 95070-5960 39723009 PHILLIPS JEFFREY & HAZEL 20306 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5960 39723010 SWAN CHARLES W & MARIANNE TRUSTEE 20300 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5960 39723011 HARWARD JAVONNE TRUSTEE 20294 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5960 39723012 FILICE MICHAEL E JR 20288 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5960 39723014 KIRK GEORGE E & NANCY G TRUSTEE 20270 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5960 39723015 GARLAND JETTE TRUSTEE 20264 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5960 39723016 EVANS-RYAN JANE 20260 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5960 39723017 HEID WARREN B 8 SHEILA S 20250 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5960 39723018 KARDACH JAMES P & CATHARINE L 20271 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5959 39723020 BOSE JOAN B TRUSTEE 20289 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5959 • • • • • 39723021 BOND BARBARA F 8 WILLIAM K 20295 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA 39723022 ZAMBETTI EUGENE L PO BOX 34 SARATOGA 39723023 ALLEN JAY W 20315 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA 39723027 FLOYD ANN K 2 & DAN W 14280 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA 39723028 KATZ AARON L PO BOX 116 SARATOGA 39723029 MECWAN CYRIL B & JYOTI 14268 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA 39723030 CYMBAL KAREL 8 JITKA S TRUSTEE 14262 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA 39723031 CANCELLIERI ROBERT 8 SHIRLEY TRUSTEE ET, 14860 CODY LN SARATOGA 39723032 HULME MICHAEL L 15222 MONTALVO HEIGHTS CT SARATOGA 39723033 CANCELLIERI ROBERT 8 SHIRLEY TRUSTEE 14860 CODY LN SARATOGA 39723037 ANTHONY P & NANCY G PEREIRA REV LIV TRT -14241 LUTHERIA WY SARATOGA 39723038 GRAHAM JACK L & JANET L TRUSTEE 14285 LUTHERIA WY SARATOGA 39723039 JOHNSON STEPHEN G 8 LINDA TRUSTEE 14307 LUTHERIA WY SARATOGA 39723040 RUSCA CARMELA 14321 LUTHERIA WY SARATOGA 39723041 GUERICKE KEITH R TRUSTEE ETAL 14341 LUTHERIA WY SARATOGA 39723042 FARAONE TEDD E TRUSTEE ETAL 14041 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA 39723043 MC HUGH MARY E ETAL 6363 ESTATES DR OAKLAND 39723044 ROSEVEAR BRYAN 8 KATRINA 20283 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA 39723045 PATRICIA HARDT 14310 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA 39723046 MASON NORA M 20282 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA 39723047 THANAWALA ASHISH A & SHEFALI 20276 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA 39723048 MARK HEATH 5339 PROSPECT RD 261 SAN JOSE 39724001 PARAVAGANA JACK M & LOTS J 14452 OAK PL SARATOGA 39724003 KINN CHRISTOPHER K & SUZANNE 20230 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA 39724004 WALIA ANTHONY & CATHERINE M 20220 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA 39724008 EMERSON JAMES C & C S 20221 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA 39724009 TELLEP DANIEL M & PATRICIA B TRUSTEE 20231 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA 39724011 HOWMILLER JOHN R 8 CYNTHIA TRUSTEE 20247 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA 39724012 MARKWITH JAMES W & SHELLY D 20253 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA 39724013 KAISER WILLIAM E & VICKY V 20261 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA 39724014 STIRM DENNIS M TRUSTEE 14366 LUTHERIA WY SARATOGA 39724015 KRASSOWSKI WITOLD & E. THERESE TRUSTEE 14360 LUTHERIA WY SARATOGA 39724016 DAVIS ISHBEL & ANTHONY M TRUSTEE 21770 CONGRESS HALL LN SARATOGA 39724017 SPARACINO MICHAEL G TRUSTEE ETAL 14325 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA 39724018 DEBOER BRUCE 8 KARYN 14310 LUTHERIA WY SARATOGA 39724019 FARAONE GLORYN J TRUSTEE 14290 LUTHERIA WY SARATOGA 39724040 BRAMLETT BOBBY E & CHARLOTTE A TRUSTEE 14440 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070-5959 CA 95071-0034 CA 95070-5959 CA 95070-5931 CA 95071-0116 CA 95070-5931 CA 95070-5931 CA 95070-6018 CA 95070 CA 95070-6018 CA 95070-5979 CA 95070-5979 CA 95070-5914 CA 95070-5914 CA 95070-5914 CA 95070-5437 CA 94611-3120 CA 95070-5959 CA 95070 CA 95070-5960 CA 95070-5960 CA 95129-5033 CA 95070-5929 CA 95070-5913 CA 95070-5913 CA 95070-5912 CA 95070-5912 CA 95070-5912 CA 95070-5912 CA 95070-5912 CA 95070-5915 CA 95070-5915 CA 95070-9714 CA 95070-5889 CA 95070-5915 CA 95070-5976 CA 95070-5929 39724041 PRABHU NARENDRANATH 8 RAYNA 14434 OAK PL SARATOGA 39724070 EDSON JEFFREY & KUHOO 14035 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA 39724079 SPAICH SEKUL 20010 SPAICH CT SARATOGA 39724092 39724102 JUDI A. RUEHLE 20680 SEATON AV SARATOGA 39724103 RUEHLE JUDI A TRUSTEE 60 RIORDAN PL MENLO PARK 39726063 PORTNOY ALAN H & DIANNE J TRUSTEE 14265 WORDEN WY SARATOGA 39731001 PECK WILLYS 18~ BETTY W TRUSTEE 14275 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA 39731003 BUCKMAN ROLLIN E & VIRGINIA D TRUSTEE 14285 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA 39731004 WILLSON MABEL M TRUSTEE 14301 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA 39733001 LONG JOSEPH P JR AND SUSAN D P O BOX 2095 SARATOGA 39733002 KENT MARGARET E 261 HARTZ AV DANVILLE 39733003 HSU GRACES 14347 SARATOGA AV UNIT B SARATOGA 39733004 HUYNH MINH Q AND BUI PHUONGKHANH VAN 14349 SARATOGA AV UNIT A SARATOGA 39733005 MATSUMOTO KAZUYO ET AL 14349 SARATOGA AV UNIT B SARATOGA 39733006 LINDSAY NOEL P JR ET AL 1270 S WINCHESTER BL SAN JOSE 39733007 CUSTODIO JAMES 14351 SARATOGA AV UNIT A SARATOGA 39733008 KING DENNIS W AND SHIULIEN KUO 14351 SARATOGA AV UNIT B SARATOGA 39733009 BURGNER ROBERT T AND KAREN E 14351 SARATOGA AV UNIT C SARATOGA 39733010 PENNELL AYLENE TRUSTEE 14353 SARATOGA AV UNIT A SARATOGA 39733011 KATHARY WANDA G TRUSTEE 14353 SARATOGA AV UNIT D SARATOGA 39733012 PIERCE ROBERT B TRUSTEE & ET AL 23500 CRISTO REY DR UNIT 50' CUPERTINO 39733013 PONTIER LENA N TRUSTEE 14353 SARATOGA AV UNIT C SARATOGA 39733014 MANN MORTON S AND GERALDINE E TRUSTEE 19986 MALLORY CT SARATOGA 39733015 BONNET GWENDOLYN TRUSTEE 14355 SARATOGA AV UNIT D SARATOGA 39733016 CANNIZZARO ANTHONY J AND MARGARET 19540 REDBERRY DR LOS GATOS 39733017 BURGNER KAREN E 14355 SARATOGA AV UNIT C SARATOGA 39733018 PERSICO JOSEPHINE J 14357 SARATOGA AV UNIT A SARATOGA 39733019 WARRINER HARWOOD TRUSTEE PO BOX 217 SARATOGA 39733020 LEY GERALD M AND DOLLIE S TRUSTEE 1944 CHARTERS AV SARATOGA 39733021 HENRY RUTH M TRUSTEE P O BOX 798 SARATOGA 39733022 DICKERSON LAUREL 14359 SARATOGA AV UNIT A SARATOGA 39733023 BUENROSTRO MARJORIE M TRUSTEE 14359 SARATOGA AV UNIT B SARATOGA 39738001 TABARI K KAM AND DORIS M TRUSTEE 16177 RIDGECREST AV MONTE SERENO 39738002 MCELWAIN DOUGLAS 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 2 SARATOGA 39738003 CAMPBELL JAMES M JR 1171 S DE ANZA BL SAN JOSE 39738004 SHAH YOGESH R AND JYOTSNA Y 1171 S DE ANZA BL SAN JOSE • • CA 95070-5929 CA 95070-5437 CA 95070-0000 CA 95070 CA 94025-3589 CA 95070-5434 CA 95070-5930 CA 95070-5930 CA 95070-5930 CA 95070-0095 CA 94526-3309 CA 95070-5945 CA 95070-5949 CA 95070-5949 CA 95128-3911 CA 95070-5950 CA 95070-5950 CA 95070-5950 CA 95070-5964 CA 95070-5965 CA 95014-6534 CA 95070-5965 CA 95070-4437 CA 95070-5951 CA 95030-2931 CA 95070-5951 CA 95070-5952 CA 95071-0217 CA 95070 CA 95070 CA 95070-5947 CA 95070-5947 CA 95030-4137 CA 95070-5939 CA 95129 CA 95129 r] • • 39738005 ANDERSON JACQUELINE D TRUSTEE 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 5 SA,RATOGA CA 95070-5939 39738006 RAJU FAMILY 1999 REVOC TRUST 19015 SPRING BROOK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 39738007 YANG HUI-YING 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 7 SARATOGA CA 95070-5939 39738008 CHRISTENSEN JOSEPHINE A 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 8 SARATOGA CA 95070-5939 39738009 RAO K V AND K S 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 9 SARATOGA CA 95070-5940 39738010 MACOY JANNA C TRUSTEE & ET AL 6627 DARTMOOR WY SAN JOSE CA 95129-3817 39738011 BUTTER NORMA 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 11 SARATOGA CA 95070-5940 39738012 CLIFTON, CATHERINE ANN FAM TR 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 12 SARATOGA CA 95070-5940 39738013 POURANI RASSOUL AND SIGHARIAN SHAHLA 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 13 SARATOGA CA 95070-5940 39738014 CHEN TOM TA-LIANG AND KUO GRACE Li-CHUA 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 14 SARATOGA CA 95070-5940 39738015 COOLURES CHRIS P AND PHYLLIS TRUSTEE 485 DOE RUN RD SEQUIM WA 98382-3803 39738016 ZHENG PERRY T AND QI HUI FANG 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 16 SARATOGA CA 95070-5940 39738017 BRIX HARRY G AND MARIANN TRUSTEE 16127 GREENWOOD LN LOS GATOS CA 95033 39738018 KIM WOO H AND BYUNG D 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 18 SARATOGA CA 95070-5941 39738019 ZHONG ROGER YUEZHI AND LI LILY LI 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 19 SARATOGA CA 95070-5941 39738020 WANG CHIN-HSIN AND MAYLING 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 20 SARATOGA CA 95070-5941 39738021 HOWARD MARGARET E 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 21 SARATOGA CA 95070-5941 39738022 SU CHIA F AND HUELLING 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 22 SARATOGA CA 95070-5941 39738023 JOHNSTON DORYNDA TRUSTEE 13434 OLD OAK WY SARATOGA CA 95070-4207 39738024 PERRY RICHARD L 1172 SHORELINE DR SAN MATEO CA 94404-2007 39739001 BILLINGTON JULIE R TRUSTEE 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 11 SARATOGA CA 95070-5942 39739002 OSTERMAN JAMES W TRUSTEE 8 ET AL 268 APTOS BEACH DR APTOS CA 95003-3027 39739003 CHASE GERALDINE I 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 13 SARATOGA CA 95070-5942 39739004 HUBER KARL AND SHIRLEY J TRUSTEE 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 14 SARATOGA CA 95070-5942 39739005 SILVEIRA LUCILLE M TRUSTEE 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 15 SARATOGA CA 95070-5942 39739006 CHUNG JOO H AND WON J 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 16 SARATOGA CA 95070-5942 39739007 KRAMER ALYCE M TRUSTEE & ET AL 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 17 SARATOGA CA 95070-5942 39739008 CRAMER ADELE 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 18 SARATOGA CA 95070-5942 39739009 LAGERSTROM DONALD F TRUSTEE & ET AL 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 21 SARATOGA CA 95070-5943 39739010 VICK GARY J AND PATRICIA A 14137 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5417 39739011 PALAIMA MARK AND YOGI SHARON 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 23 SARATOGA CA 95070-5943 39739012 SMITH LANI R TRUSTEE 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 24 SARATOGA CA 95070-5943 39739013 CRITCHFIELD RUTHANN TRUSTEE 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 25 SARATOGA CA 95070-5943 39739014 SEIPEL ROBERT S AND JOAN V TRUSTEE 14127 SQUIRREL HOLLOW SARATOGA CA 95070-5417 39739015 VON HELLENS C R 2141 E HIGHLAND AV UNIT 155 PHOENIX AZ 85016 39739016 LEVY RITA TRUSTEE 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 28 SARATOGA CA 95070-5943 39739017 NATER CHARLES AND LEONORA 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 31 SARATOGA CA 95070-5944 • 39739018 REES LEANNE 8701 BELLWOOD RD 39739019 ABINGTON ROBERT B AND MARY R TRUSTEE 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 33 39739020 REED GLENN C 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 34 39739021 TAFARELLA PETER A ET AL 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 35 39739022 BRUCE KEVIN R AND PAULINE A 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 36 39739023 NADIMI BAHRAM R 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 37 39739024 YOUNG PHIL Z AND JEAN L 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 38 39739025 SEBAN SUZANA 172 CLIPPER ST BETHESDA MD 20817-3032 SARATOGA CA 95070-5944 SARATOGA CA 95070-5944 SARATOGA CA 95070-5944 SARATOGA CA 95070-5944 SARATOGA CA 95070-5944 SARATOGA CA 95070-5944 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94114-3817 • • • • • Attachment 4 • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: Z02 S3 !-,~4 /di9~MA Alm Applicant Name: sE ~ Application Number: ~5 -1 ~ 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 taJEe this opportunity to express arty concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ©My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed My concerns are the following (please • attach additional sheets if necessary): 0~~ /~N~~2o5 Ty ~~ rMUN/~~~E~~~~ q Neighbor Name: ~ t Gl~a- e. ~ ~* th r. ~ fex ~~ ~ - c c, MFNT Neighbor Address: Z• O Z 8 g ~ A~ ~~a 1"1-t/3- ~- SA'fLAc4 oG~+~ 9J"o? O Neighbor Phone #: ~ o Q~ ~6 8 - O 7 ~f 2. Signature: Printed: Ci o Sarato a Planning Department • h' .T g Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications • Date: 5 t ~.t O ~ PROJEC ADDRESS: ZOZS 3 ~ piq l-0~1~4 Avg Applicant Name: ~ SE~,/~/9/2- Application Number: OS- f' Z3 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 appl icants prior to the public hearing. Stu,; ff and tl~ Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express arty 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 yr~ur opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion . with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): _~ Neighbor Name: S ~ H~'~-~ s~NNr~ Neighbor Address: ~^ 20`L'? L P~ 61'l ~ !T~ is 5 ~ ~ ~ S~b ~~D Neighbor Phone #: ~ V ~ $-6 `~ ~ ~ 6 I ~ 1 S1N F+l4 Signature: / )I.~.g~ ~~ Printed: S H E F A Z ~~ • City of Saratoga Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template for , Development Applications Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: 71028.3 ~ 1~~~`'~i4 /4l/~ Applicant Name: /yVs~ ~~~ Application Number: ~ s - ~ Z3 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 arty 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. UMy 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): Neighbor Name: i ~ ~~ f -~ R ~! d N Neighbor Address: ale Tfl~ ~ ~ ~~ S s D 7 0 Neighbor Phone #: ~1 ~ ~ ~6 7 - 0 36~ Signature: ,. ..._ ~~~ Printed: l m D~ j tiV ~'. G v~ ~, City of Saratoga Planning Department • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: ZOZc`33 Lr1 pi4[-Gw1~} Applicant Name: ~05,E(/F~IIZ Application Number: ~S- /Z3 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 arty 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 o~f Saratoga. IIaM signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I Y 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, Gave not been addressed My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~~ ~~ • ~~SQ Neighbor Address: Ci «f ~-~ Neighbor Phone #: ~~' ~~~~ Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template for . _ Development Applications Date: ~ ~ ~ ~j PROJECT ADDRESS: Z.OZ$ 3 Gy9 ~/9LD/`7~ ~QI/>G Applicant Name: /p `3~(/~~, Application Number: Q s- r Z3 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 arty concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signana~e 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. ~vly 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: l have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which afiter discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please • attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~~1~ Tt~l~/~t`"fl Neighbor Address: 2©2~S ~~ ~Gn~,Q ~~~, ~S O7v ~ Neighbor Phone #: -Tug -- .3Jr.s - ~ 7J Signature: Printed: /~.;ryll 4 l ~`"~-~i~Cf ~~ City of Saratoga Planning Department • • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: 2~ Z$3 L+II PAc.o~1'-lA al/~ Applicant Name: ~ $,~l/~f1~- Application Number. QS' l ~ 3 The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concer~rs 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 arty concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion • with the applicant, have not been addressed My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: J ~ a~ 1~j Q 5~ Neighbor Address: .~ r~ ~ q ~u ~u ~Uma, C.t /~ ~~~ra o C,,('j L A Signature: ~ ~ ~ ,, S City of Saratoga Neighbor Phone #: ~~ ' ~~p f ] -Q ! (~ C~ Printed: ~ p ~ N ~ . "{~U S ~ Planning Department KEN & BARBARA BOND 20295 La Paloma Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 741-8511 September 19, 2005 City of Saratoga Planning Commission c/o Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Proposed Project: 20283 La Paloma Avenue Requested Design Review Approval Applicant: Bryan and Katrina Rosevear Application Number: 05-123 Hearing Date: September 28.2005 Dear Planning Commissioners: We reside at 20295 La Paloma Avenue, and wish to submit our written opposition to design review approval of the proposed project located at 20283 La Paloma Avenue (the "project"). We have three major concerns about the project, the first regarding how the project will directly affect our privacy and enjoyment of our home, the second being our concern for the overall character of our neighborhood, and the third being specific objections to elements of the proposed project. Privacy Issues As you may be aware, La Paloma Avenue slopes up fairly steeply from Saratoga Avenue. Both our home and the project are on the East side of the street. The proposed project is at the crest of the slope, two homes above ours, and has a calculated, but unverified, slope of 7.13%. This places the proposed project higher than our home. If a second story is permitted to be built at the proposed project, our view and privacy will be directly impacted. The two bedrooms on the second story of the proposed project include North-facing windows facing directly into our upstairs master bedroom. Because the project is elevated relative to our home, these windows will overlook not just our bedroom, but straight on to our bed. C7 If permitted to be built as proposed, we will be forced to keep our bedroom window blinds closed at all times in order to protect our privacy. The only other windows in our bedroom are a small window facing the street, which is obstructed by our chimney, and a second small window set into an alcove. Neither of these provides adequate light to the room. Our home, which was r~ r~ ~. r~ City of Sazatoga Planning Commission September 19, 2005 Page 2 of 10 built in 1914, has lathe/plaster walls and ceilings, and therefore we do not have standard insulation. In the summer months we rely on being able to open all of our upstairs windows and use numerous window fans for ventilation. If we are unable to raise our blinds, we will also lose this necessary ventilation. We have expressed our concerns to Bryan Rosevear, the homeowner at the proposed project, as well as to the city's planning department. To date we have not been able to arrive at any agreement regazding our concerns about the windows specifically, or any other concern of ours for that matter. He appears unwilling to consider any changes and has not returned our phone calls since our initial meeting. Given the relative height differences between our homes, it is very likely the Rosevears would not have the same privacy issue we would face. In our opinion, there is little need for the North-facing upstairs windows as proposed. Both of the upstairs bedrooms at the proposed project have balconies and large doors which provide egress, light, and views. Skylights could be an appropriate alternative, as could alterations in the plans to provide that the proposed bedrooms face South, and the bathroom/closet face north, thereby eliminating the need for the lazge windows facing our bedroom. Alternately, and a much better proposal from our perspective, would be for the project to include a basement with windows, instead of a second story. Our understanding is that the goals of the homeowner are to (i) gain access to their backyazd for their children by moving their garage to the front of their property; and (ii) gain additional living space. Abasement with windows would provide the requested garage as planned, as well as additional living space for a family room as requested by the homeowner, but preserve the overall above-ground size of the structure. Neighborhood Issues Our second and more over-arching concern is for the chazacter of our neighborhood. La Paloma Terrace was one of the first (if not the first) subdivided tract in Saratoga, and has a historical nature. While a few of the homes on La Paloma were built as recently as the 1960's, these are anomalies. Most of the homes on our street were built in the 1920's. The street consists mainly of small bungalows; the average size of existing homes is 1,655 square feet. Recently a project was approved for anew/remodeled structure to be constructed at 20288 La Paloma Avenue which, at 2,465 squaze feet, is really too lazge for the chazacter of our neighborhood, but includes a basement which minimizes the overall bulk. Photos, lot size, and home size descriptions of the homes immediately surrounding the subject property is set out in the Appendix to this letter. When put into graphical Chart 1 form, the average size of the 3500 homes in our neighborhood can be demonstrated by the m. 3000 following chart: W c 2500 0 In Chart 1, the blue line across the top shows the maximum allowable square footage that could be built on any particulaz lot of a W 2000 `~ i 500 i o00 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 Lot Size City of Saratoga Planning Commission September 19, 2005 Page 3 of 10 given size. The teal dots show the array of existing homes in our neighborhood, their size in proportion to their lot size, and the relative maximum allowable size. The red dot shows the proposed project, which is at the maximum allowable size, and is clearly not in line with the balance of the homes in our neighborhood. To represent this in balance another way, the following two charts may be helpful: In Chart 2, we calculated Chart 2 (eefore) the maximum allowable 100% square footage for each ~ ~° home in our neighborhood m ~% based on its lot size to a 3 70% determine how "built out" a ~,~ each lot was. In other '~ words, the proposed ~ ~% project uses all available ~ 4~° and buildable space, but 3o°i° how does that compare 20264 20270 20275 20276 20282 20283 20289 20294 20300 20288 20295 with other homes on the Address street? What you see in Chart 2 are columns for each home and what portion of their maximum allowable square footage they are currently using. The blue line running across the chart at 56% is the neighborhood average. The green column in the middle is the subject property, which is currently 58%, already above the neighborhood average. There are three exceptions in the neighborhood: The property located at 20300 La Paloma, which is a single story structure built in 1976; 20295 La Paloma, which is a two-story structure built in 1914; and 20288 La Paloma is a project currently under construction, which, in hindsight, doesn't fit into the neighborhood either, and probably should not have been approved. Chart 3 looks at the same information as Chart 2 except that the proposed project has been substituted in for the current structure. As you can see, the plans call for the project to use all available and allowable square footage such that the home will be almost double the current neighborhood average. What we fear is that as older residents die or relocate, new owners will all want to build new "McMansion" style homes with the maximum square foot allowable for the size of the lots. The lots in our neighborhood average LESS than 7450 square 100% 90°~ 80% 7o°i° 60% 50% 40% 30% z m 3 a 0 Chart 3 (After) 20264 20270 20275 20276 20282 20283 20289 20294 20300 20288 20295 Address • • • ., City of Saratoga Planning Commission September 19, 2005 Page 4 of 10 • feet. Generall s akin ,this would allow for a new structure to be built u to 2 880 s uare feet Y Pe g P ~ q , coincidentally the exact size of the proposed project under review. This is 175% of the average size of the existing homes on La Paloma Avenue. The Planning Commission has design review authority specifically to address these issues. If the only question was, "Does the proposed project comply with the code?" there would be no need for a Planning Commission -the analysis would be purely objective. However, this is not the case. Sazatoga has zoning regulations and development standazds which require that the Planning Commission shall not grant design review approval unless it is able to make the following findings: "(a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy.... (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surroundinP region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be • compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. (Ref.: Zoning Ordinance IS-45.080 Design review findings, emphasis added). Our concern is, "What would happen if each homeowner on La Paloma built such a lazge home?" We do not doubt that each project would inevitably be charming and well-designed, intended to fit into the "character" of the neighborhood. However, at the end of the day, the size of the homes would still be doubled and the neighborhood will have lost its essential chazacter. Eventually each large home would be compatible in terms of bulk and height. Where does the Planning Commission draw the line if it is to take its duties seriously? We would like the Planning Commission to consider that, as each new project is approved for the maximum allowable size, eventually there will be little to set apart La Paloma as a unique and historical area. Each home would be competing for light and space on its own small lot, built to the maximum allowable dimensions. In fact, we have been informed by Bryan Rosevear that the owner of the home located at 20275 La Paloma also intends to request permission to build his home to the maximum allowed size. • We are awaze that the development/preservation issue is a slippery slope, and that the Planning Commission must consider competing factors: The rights of homeowners to utilize their property, the nghts of their neighbors to privacy, the overall character of the neighborhood, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission . September 19, 2005 Page 5 of 10 "not in m backyard" mentality of entrenched interests, the cost/value anal sis, and other • Y Y individual issues that come up which are unique to each property. However, it is clear from recent court cases that municipalities have broad flexibility to undertake preservation measures, including even a total freeze on development. And in fact, when the Rosevears bought their house in 2000, they would not have been permitted to build the proposed structure. Until recently, the city of Saratoga had increased setback requirements for homes in excess of 18 feet in height, which required one extra foot of setback on each side of a property for every one foot in excess height. This would mean that to build the proposed project would require 13 foot setbacks for each side of the ground floor, and 18 foot setbacks for each side of the second floor. This would be difficult with a lot only 50 feet wide, which is the width of the proposed project site. When we purchased our home in 1994, it was our understanding that this was the code, and that it would effectively limit the size and bulk of second-story development in our neighborhood. Now that the code has changed, there is nothing to prevent such development. We question whether this is an improvement, especially in our neighborhood where the lots are especially small. Saecific Obiections to Proaosed Proiect In addition to our general concerns for our neighborhood, we also have specific objections to the proposed project. The plans call for atwo-story home with an attached garage/basement. Because the property is on a slope (from back to front, and also from right to left), in order to install the garage along the left side of the property, the grade of the hill will need to be dug out • for the driveway. They will, essentially, be digging into the slope to put in the garage. Apart from the bizarre appearance of this arrangement from the street, on top of the garage there are two additional stories, which will give the appearance, for all intents and purposes, of a three story house. Measured from street level the home will be 33 feet tall, and from the garage floor, where it begins 2 feet below street level the home will be 35 feet high. We would request that because the garage is included in total square feet, the garage be calculated also into the height of the building. In addition, some of the high ceilings on the first floor of the proposed project could be eliminated to reduce the height of the building. La Paloma is partially on a slope. The proposed project is at the crest of the slope, which drops approximately 40 feet in elevation towards Saratoga Avenue, a distance of just four houses from the proposed project. As a result the proposed project, which is already 33 feet tall, will be further exaggerated when looking up at the property, which will "stick out like a sore thumb" in our neighborhood of bungalows. Another issue which is certain to be caused by the proposed project is drainage problems. The proposal to excavate a portion of the slope to install abelow-ground garage, which will be surrounded mostly by impervious side yards and walkways will leave little natural landscaping around the property to absorb water. French drains can only provide so much drainage, and after that the excess water runs the path of least resistance. The property directly down hill from the • proposed project already has periodic flooding stemming from run off during the rainy season and we are concerned these problems will be further compounded and extend to our property. City of Saratoga Planning Commission September 19, 2005 Page 7 of 10 • • Appendix Address: Lot Size: Current Sq Footage: Maximum Sq Footage: % of Maximum: Address: Lot Size: Current Sq Footage: Maximum Sq Footage: % of Maximum: Address: Lot Size: Current Sq Footage: Maximum Sq Footage: % of Maximum: 20264 La Paloma 6,970 1,008 2,720 37% 20270 l:a Paloma 6,870 1,536 2,720 56% 20275 La Paloma 7,405 1,669 2,880 58% . ' City of Saratoga Planning Commission September 19, 2005 Page 8 of 10 Address: Lot Size: Current Sq Footage: Maximum Sq Footage: % of Maximum: Address: Lot Size: Current Sq Footage: Maximum Sq Footage: % of Maximum: Address: Lot Size: Current Sq Footage: Maximum Sq Footage: % of Maximum: 20276 La Paloma 6,970 1,532 2,720 56% 20282 La Paloma 6,870 1,660 2,720 61% 20288 La Paloma 6,970 2,465 * per plan 2,880 91% • • • Appendix • • City of Saratoga Planning Commission September 19, 2005 Page 9 of 10 Appendix Address: Lot Size: Current Sq Footage: Maximum Sq Footage: % of Maximum: Address: Lot Size: Current Sq Footage: Maximum Sq Footage: % of Maximum: Address: Lot Size: Current Sq Footage: Maximum Sq Footage: % of Maximum: 20289 La Paloma 7,405 1,316 2,880 46% 20294 La Paloma 7,841 1,207 2,880 42% 20295 I.a Paloma 7,405 2,056 2,880 71% ~_ - __ • City of Saratoga Planning Commission September 19, 2005 Page 10 of 10 Appendix Address: Lot Size: Current Sq Footage: Maximum Sq Footage: % of Maximum: Address: Lot Size: Current Sq Footage: Maximum Sq Footage: % of Maximum: 20300 La Paloma 8,276 2,100 3,040 69% 20283 La Paloma 7,405 2,880 * per plan 2,880 100% U C, • r~ ~J Attachment 5 • • • • ~ y a FRONT PERSPECTIVE z, yN ~ SITE I'-14Y1, 14-7-I/C ~ 27.7 wS.R 21'47a 10-2.Y 219.5 s4.R a-r, zza . IL9L s4.R 27.7 s4R + 2193 s;R. + IeDDs R. 4340 s4 GARAG` BASEMENT VICINITY MAP NO SCAIf 14'-I ra 4047 - 596.7 s4R. a-I P.3'4 • -26.7 a4R 14'-I I'a I IG9.7 w 0 IF a r-u' K.5 r4R ralca' 63 s4R tl1's 3-9' .2 syR. 106.5 s4R + 496.3 r4R + U.2 s4R ~+ 50.1~~aaR •- G76.I s4R SECOND FLOOR r-ad' a cr •'A.I a4.R yrye Messwmtr 436.0 d4R. Mar ba: 1,767A ayR TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE '°m"-~ FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS scat:Xd= r-a aArad P~+ 'r"°"`A'° ~. ~' ~ ~J Mda tir~,m,=aa-~e~a~~aea~u raaa~n drenare tree diaM be abrfdwded and ' burrE. wad, 9~'k'9~ 543' '00'E 50.00' (e) he D# bee ~ 1- 1 \ ~ ` ~ ,~ 11 --- ~ ~ d t4 yrAd 1 °~ I ~ 1 1 ` ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ° I 1 R ~ ~ ~ 1 r ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ krre aw~tl to l \ 1 W lat Oak tree 1 1 I a 1 e1 mx k) a ly,, sadm, surd ~ ~~~ ` { I I'{7 aecnd t \ 1 ~ t r xer,,.dc xma \ / C-0' hat stay ~ ~ mde seelbaa~ fQ ~ hghet rya d oaxmsgraaex hwx rarieta - '' ~ m Aa i ~ r ,/ +IOb.G3 +IOD.31 ~ ~ _ +I 17AD +I 17.59 -II ~ ( d de3rcal ~ ~ 1 rd I w 0 0 +ICn.w +105.07 0 +Inza +114.79 N rra+'X ~ a da.,ta dev. ptM rp v EXISTING I e c EXISTING Ix~ w a,a RESIDENCE aetwd RESIDENCE O Cfi hat ~ sdc aeWt (e1 porch +1o7.a c5~ WA=R \ `~ +1 12.0 `lowtx owa~ IQ ~~~ ~c 107. -~> II 107.45 I +116.70 ",I W akavq/ 1 cubob m be imud l W 4' x d retanny t - dtabeiawrl it R.O. rotary d ~ 101. ~ 4 W`Mw -~ ~ Pn~ab M.dem mv~h ~ tk CRY, McLLSdrarad dlr powder a a#m kaAAraha ~~ tlrt~buldiy atllrLMKrQ ~+PP~1~ W sdenR .~~ ,QOM trz SRt rI.W IGAID: +101.2 ~' sr1~e>t°I'knyrK W oaA ORM I 1 ®'rO dWsaard Boor %2r47 ade~'~ \ ~ ~ LA PALOMA ~A.XE~N ~ UE(50') O ^- wn d W bolpR mve easoMAS! a=Iwldlapy fa fa MIAs s4a adaasl0ai PROPOSED SITE PLAN " scan: I • = I a - 0• ORIGINAL SURVEY BY MOL and A55(X;IATES SITE DATA: ~ 5~: .1719 aaa 7,491 sq.R. Accessors Parcel Nwnber : 397-23-044 2orKd : R I - 10,000 Aocragc sRe sbpe : 7.1396 Age d StrvcWrc : (udmal) 197ds7 A1oWa6e IIOOr arts (110 fCCAIG{IDrI based dl SRC 51070): 2,400 sq.ft. + (3 a 160) - 2,980 sq.R. Palstan Bwlckm tbux (corldRrorlyd) : 1,674 sq.R. 6a u g90sg.R oral IodpmR 2.164 sq.R. Proposed Buddrg Rrst Poor (cadRlalee) : 1.767.4 Sq.R. Secad Fbor (cordrtrmee0 : 676.1 sq.R. Woge (corrdRlorledl: 436.0 sg.R Total 2,879.5 Sq.R. fxebng Impervaus Coasrxle Patios, Walks, { WaNs: l 55+76+66+8+21- 326 sq.R Dmeway: 1,481 sq.R. BulkAra Pnotpnnt: 1.674 + 490 ~ 2,164 sg.R. Total ImAemmisCaverage: 3,971 x}R. Manmum ANowabk Cveragc: 6096 ~ 4,494 sq.R. New Imxrnaks Caseraae Paters, WaRS, 4 WsNs: 392+99+ 239+47+ 15~ 792 Sq.R. Omrcway: 609 Sq.R. Budd F 1788 .R. dal Impervlolrs ,188 sq. . Mammum Abwablc CNerage: 60E ~ 4,494 sq.R. PROJECT ELEVATIONS: Iel k7wcst grade err bulNing Ammeter: (c) hghest grade err bddmy peranetm 1 28 ~~ 10211_ ~ (Ifs YJ ~ I Averagedhgh<bw: U I~.IS ^ Ekatntl at 26' hegM Mad:: I ~`~+ 15 ProAoSed hghest ridge eleMlarl: 133.00 2005 (e) 4 Aroposed frst floor eleratgm }09.~F SA RATOOA ••rrl~l, ~7~rn~l'~'I(1Bdan,. SCOPE OF WORK: The r~rd colpnt9 a the rY,nlodd a the mat fbor d a sngle 5rory home and the addRlan of a secad 5tary miter bedroom sate. The evstalg garage m the nadde d the tack prd s to be raMkrd and a new garage a to be pMced undo a oar hoot patio alowrg ~ b^9 drrvewq W the sde of the house to be rellaked. PROJECT NOTES: • Fa Survey nfomutal, refer to survey dated Janary 30.2003. by M.D.L and ASSOCntes. . AN IdShty servres (elodm~l. g», water, sewge, and tdeplartra are entalg and sRdl be rekboted a yagaded depeldmg on the oar lends mpoxd M thn prolat. • Pnar W foulldatnn rrfpectlon by the CRy, the 115 of recall shal grade a written certRv~tan that aA blAcMg setbacks arc perthe aPP^~d f~• • AN haR yard laldsaprrg shah be netaNeA poor to frol omAatry mspectrm PROJECT TEAM: Cwner Bryan { F:atnro RoxSex Phone: (4081 74 1-5905 20263 V Pakana Akaue Par: (650) 849.9906 Sxatoga, G, 95070 Ancnted: Mdud Mdry Phone: (510) 527.5996 601 Gmdu Sired, Pax (510) 527.5999 SURe C Beridey, CA 94710 Survelw: MDL and Axcaaks Phone: (415) 243.9940 329 &yxlt Street, Sate 3B GN: (415) 559-0991 Sa Prarasw, CA. 94107 DRAWING INDEX: P I) Cover Sheet and Site Plan P I . I) Drainage aria ~rading Plan P2) first asd Second Floor Pbns P3) E+asement-Garage Plan and ELevatlons P4) Elevatwns P5) Sections P6) Landscaping Plan P7) As-~11t Plan ~ Site Plan, DemolltlaT Plan P8) /~-Bu1ft ElevatNm mckay ~ architecture 801 C~el'u Sheet Stite D BvYeley, CA 94710 Office S 105275996 Fu: 510.5275999 wlrw.mrltayard~itaroae.com PROGRESS PRINT: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION .. ~ • Rerinv Sa X PIm Cbedc Set Cemtrlkrtion Sel 0 l~ U W 0 W ~ 0~ O H ~ 0 ^~ W M N Q M N 1~1 Dac 05/1&2005 say As xorrn Dmr¢ MM, PC, r~ FOc WVER )ee; ROSEVEAR seat: PI of 9 r6eea ~XHI~i +9.4 s4R + 596.7 s4R - Z6.7 s4R + Ip.7 s4R + 9N.0 s4R i 343 R X1,7 .4 sY FlRST FLOOR r~ U N 70 O Q N rn D 70 D Z G7 ~ z°o ~ ~~ ~ ~A CC>55 ~ D ~~ z D G~ ~rn r z b ~ ~ ~. ~' ~ _ x ~ ~ , • ~~ V ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~R ~`~~ ~~ ~a~ 9. D ~ °3 ~~ ~~ ~~~~SL s~ ~°~ ~ Z ~~~ ~a y~u~~ng~ t~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~S ~ ~s3~ NN ~~ eF 'J '~~ i~i`~ ~ 1" "NN ~s$ n ~~ A 1 Z C ~ D ~~~s ~aR ~~~ a ~~ ~ ~ ~s ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~~ ~~ y~ ~ NppN k ~ 6p Q, UAW N ~P~~~ ~ f M'~ eee ~~~s~~~~~~~$ Y A NEW RESIDENCE FOR: BRYAN AND KATRINA ROSEVEAR 20283 LA PALOMA, SARATOGA, CA, 95070 6Q~ . R~ ' ~~~~i k ~fi ~`~ a°~~~ gW~ N ~~~ f~ ~~~5~3 ~ c~ a. ~'~ as a ~~~ °. ' ~~~~~ ~~~~,~ ~ ~'C~~~~S ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~ g ~ a ~~° ~,~ ~ ~~~S~~R ~ a Q ~~x~R~ ~ ~ ti~ ~~~~ ~~~~g ~ ~~ ~~ s~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~s ~~ ~ ~' .a{§ qs ~ % ~ q ~ Ti~R ~~g ~ ~ ~y ~ii ~ ~ ~ ~ .. C'1 ~ O y0~ 7d "~ O N z°'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ =~ ~ .~~ ~d~ ~~ o 3 0 D Z //D~~ V, fTl Z O n 0 0 n c' • • ~ M Q rn C~ O Z r O O 70 r Z ..-. _,~ `-_~• A, +~si y 'n N N a ~ r O O "~ ~Z ~~ `~ I I M I Q ~ y ~ I S ~ I I A ggi~ 9~ n~ I I I I L - T~ 'p~~ ~A ~ h~ppv ~AO = ~~ ~ i I H I I ! ~~ ~' °' w D ~ N ~ _ ~ t I , ~' > ! I N rL__J f P Q ! I ~' ~~ r-- ~I~~ A pp P ~ ~ ~R ,~ i ~~~ , 4 I I ~~ I ~.` ; ! ~ ~ fial d' ~ ~ ~ A g y I I ~ A I n . I eg E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ N ~ ....~.. r ....., .............. I , Y ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~~ i ;, , .I. .....I...... ~.,,,....; ; ..,.,,.....,~ ............: t - - ----, I I li 1 ~------~ f I I jl I I I I ~ Q ; I y ;; I ~ ~~ ~ §~° f q~o I ~ ~ f I j! I 1 I I I ~r"~ 6 I ~ I I it ~~ a ~ I I I $ I ii ~ l i ~ I I I I I ~ I i = I L------~ I ~~ _ ~ ' I .. ----- ;; ----- ..........................1........ ............ ............... ; ...,,,., c ~ .. ---- ~; n I ~' ; I I I I brn I I i ., , . i .............. . ..... ,., .,. ,. ., , ~ I _ II r *__~ ~ `~ I , 1 ~ I I I ~~ 1 11 I ,iL____J ~ I ~ I ~ I I ~ I I j ~°~ II I a ~' i i .............. ~ I................ ; ,.... .,,,, ___ 1~ v I I ,~. ~~) 11 I I I I ,I, I ~ ~ I I I I I I J r b Z I I ~ I 7e' 1 ...... ..... ... ' 1 ;:r;r.lrk::~,' ,.»..... ~...~.....,, . 1 ~.,, fi r::. ,..., ,.. ..._....~..m . ...... ....... I I I: I; 11 I +~ I I I ~ s II g I __ __ ~rw _-f- ~, At• ______ ________ _~ II I I -_-_ ---- _ -~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~N ANEW RESIDENCE FOR: BRYAN AND KATRINA ROSEVEAR 20283 LA PALOMA, SARATOGA, CA, 95070 B . ~~~~ k~ ~ ~~ n ~ ~z~ 0 ~ o~ ~~ ° ~ z 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ oo ~~~ ~ u ~° . ~ ~ ~ o f1 } C A ~.. nd3e ne.}A (Maom 133. A _ in. ndge heyd Idcreecn ~ 33. -. - - - - - - _.. - Inl Oae'A'mnpoeKn - - - - ~- 9.yc god - . _ _ _ -Inlesa1ae.KU¢e - - baa av lowered yMe end.ae (nl e4rme we~--- W ew~w ve W e1d rom, melafeN 3yat W daD'A'ewiq.- - - ended ke dowe b wells n.ye ~ - -- - _- ^~~ Wwtemne aq - - - ~t_ (4 ~uynt can n+g bekrc mncdd (d IwN G5M - I W demntxe nwyt~ .m ben cee buerrd able end ee+b W e4cm Men W ed.cod emuleree - 3ye aewe ~ ~ ~~~~ w wt eeme ay we~yA.en,wr, doers eyab N W ebirm Mli - .. ~-~W eGrw Mel 4 Inl dd wW, ewlded ® I ~~~ I eee~e r.w.e I j ., I ~. ki boebon(e~erboe io§ 131' :': I n -ro+etne,.mn iln ~m REAR (EAST)ELEVATION scats: Y; = r - a .~_ r I I I~ I~ I I I I I W taRege nave ~~d~ ~~ raydw~ ~~.~ -W.ayld.an bn wv wnvee yeue ell we (AYZ d RJ nwee bey c raeodd w ae.aa.>.,dr a 3y.r dndrd ke doaf d «d,e, Webun MfhAw, n.me iar.ze _ ~.wepat(elewbm I FRONT (WEST) ELEVATION SCALE: Y; = I' - ~' ""°_ I I' I I I I I i ~ ~ • ti ROOF PLAN W 4a'A' mnWyoan ~~ ~- mckay ~ orchitecfure 801 Gmdu Stress Snite D Batelry, CA 94710 Offilx: 3105275998 Fu: 310527.3999 re~vtr.mdeaycehileepue.eom PROGRESS PRINT: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Sa ' 8evieev Set X PIm (3eck Set Cmuueioo Sa o O W~ ~ U ~ ~ 0 ~ U Q; O W H ~ ~ A O ~z~ ~~~ M O M~j N W Dare; ON18/2005 Sak ArNard Det~a MM,PC,DS,DB FOt A3(u)devetimieel ~; ROSEVFAR Sheet P3 ~ 9 eheeb GARAGE PLAN ~, scats: Y; = r - ~ • ~N i rn 4 N ~f 9 rn r rn D O z II ~~ 3 '^ 1 a~ b $ v ~ ~ ~ ~ • I I r- I I I I t I JI I I - J Cn ~~ rn Q Z 70 -i ~_______ I -~==r==~ I I 1 11 II j ~~~~~~ 4 II ~ I ~I II I 1'll ~ i ~~ II I II ~ I III I~ II II IIII II I I I j jll__ I flT V I I 1 11111 ,1111 ,1 1 U Ilu I I I ~~ 9 I~ o ~' s cgs I I I ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ANEW RESIDENCE FOR: BRYAN AND KATRINA ROSEVEAR 20283 LA PALOMA, SARATOGA, CA, 95070 ~ . ~~~ ~' k f'1 ~ 0 ~ ~ .~~ H ~.i OO ~ r ° ~ z • a W 9 ~~~~o U_ . ~ N ~ ~ Qqy C Sl 3 0 n c • • • +~ M Q I~ t ~~ Q rn C~ _~ O z C~ C~ ~~,~~ s ~ s s Igo ~N n 0 rn C> _~ O z 9 ~~ g s ~8~ ~ ~ 4 ~ $ ~ ~ ,,~ d ~ _$ r ~ e v1 ~ ANEW RESIDENCE FOR: BRYAN AND KATRINA ROSEVEAR 20283 LA PALOMA, SARATOGA, CA, 95070 ~~i~~ k ~ . n ~ 0 ~ ~ O H 1Oy ~ 1w ° ~ z .. 3 n Z~ ~ ~ ~ ~, • • " N O ~ ~ e. ~ ' J N ~ G ~ J { ~~ g • • ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~R~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - p ~ - ~ ~' 3 S g ~ A ~ n ~ ~. ~ s x~~ ~ ~ ~ ~I °~~Im ~ N ~' n o a z rn ~~~ v ?~~ s ~~ r D Z N C1 D Z G1 -o r IZ r s b a r 0 s~ ~,. a •'' ~t C~ \ 1 /~/~\ V. `/ ~ ~ z c ~ b ~ ~ r !" A NEW RESIDENCE FOR: BRYAN AND KATRINA ROSEVEAR 20283 LA PALOMA, SARATOGA, CA, 95070 ~~~~~o~x~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~ o ~~ ~~s~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~R ~~R ~µRs~~~ ~ s~ Y i ~~ c~~ ~~~~~s x ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ x A ~~~° ~ A ~~~~R~~~~~ ~ ~ ~- ~~~~~ orn ~ ~ ~o~~~~ g~~~ 4 _ J0~ ~~ '~`3~~A'S ~a~~iA ~R rn~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~~ r y ~~~~~~~ ~~~~ w ~ _ ~ ~ ~~~0~i~~~ ~~~~~ mqY G 9. ~v~~~ ~ ~ 4~^~~ ~~ .i~..S A.T .7 O R~~~ S Z ~~~~,~ U1 ~ff ~ Q~ r~ ~~ ~ ~ x 6 . ~~~~ k ~~~~_~ H 0 c ? E. •~N ~v~' ~~ o 3 n 0 0 Q 7 .g. a ate ~ 8 ~ ~a ~ ~a ~ - ~ S ~~ ~4 S~ ~~i \ ~A ~ AIV~ ~ \~ I aQ \_1. .. ~~ ~~ • n • o~rheaaPawera Live oak Phone Lines 5.43°E. 50.00' ~Ep~ ~~ 1 ~' ~ TOTAL LOT Fence „r SLOPE ANALYSIS CONTOUR CONTOUR ELEVATION LENGTH f~ 4 s ~ Live Oak 111.00 6.59 ~ 110.50 53.12 110.00 62.14 10950 13.41 109.00 57.90 108.5D 58.88 108.00 54.79 107.50 50.00 1D7.00 58.20 tx ~~. ui 106.50 59.06 106.00 58.42 1.50 56.11 z Z w 105.00 56.10 m rn 104.50 55.84 104.OD 55.23 ~ m 103.50 54.35 ~ ~ 103.00 53.28 102.50 52.31 102.00 38.49 .Existing House ° 1D1.5D zss3 FF=109;1 ~ iD1.00 15.26 ~ 100.50 T.57 100.00 5.00 a. „A° 1068.68 AggregatecorAoulerrgtlr h scale feet (L) 0.50 Car4ax (I) 0.17 Area, in aaes (A) ~- 7475.00 Square lest S~.00229(IHI.) A Top d Retaining i 7.13 Average 5bpe % Watl =104.0 ~ Where 5= %average sbpe ' ' k ax4ou inlerral (at in0erwals d S.43 E .00 Bads d nd mae than 51eet) S .. ~ L=aggregatea~nbukrg8rsh Cub Face Drip Line M rret ale area e~ressed'n saes ~~~ Exhibit Map MDL and Associates of 20283 LaPaloma 9zs B ant street suite sE ~ Saratoga California San l ranci.,oa CA 91107 1" =10' 1130103 1'os101 AS-BUILT SITE PLAN- CI'.IOd(U' aemv dh N ramp W hnn and bvx) a f:-. J dome tie ear Izr.lydcU~ df b be ienwCd arr~uoRwru magma ovtuurlai W aeav db: IEC-4 d~aeheew Izr-I I• ~ ~.~ .. .: .._.__ ................. WALL LEGEND: ~ m,yr :.--'---- d..ddrir DEMOLITION PLAN SCALE: Yi = I' - ~' ""`•• 1 I I I 1 I I I I i I I I I I I I r I L----°------------------~ AS -BUILT 6ARA6E PLAN Note: Erlpre structure to be dandlshed. ~11 II II II II II n II II II II II I 1 II II AS -BUILT PLAN ~ salt: Y; - r - ~ "'- Note: See darohbon plm, above k:R. nom, mckay • architecture ~~ CAIIICIIa SQed Suite D Berkeley, CA 997]0 o>a«: slosns99s Fu: 510.5275999 wwwmdayacLitecoue.oom PROGRESS PRRVT: NOT FOR CONSTRUC7TON Sa Dori Renew Set X PI®Cbedc Set Cmmu~tion Sa ~, O O W~ ~ U a 0 O U Q; 0 (W ~ E-1 ~ W~ r'~ f-I ~ ~ ~ M N _J O (M1'1 N W D.« os.•rsrmos Scale A, Nakd Dmrrc ~. PC. DB, DB Fr1e: A7(c)phtaies bb: ROSEY&{R seeec p 1 o[ 9 rheeb • • • .i ~r ~ ~ ~ ~ !~ M.a,,,-aio9.i - -- EXISTING SOUTH(SIDE) ELEVATION 41277, y}. I/L .er rNry ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ eo., a~ rd•~ ----- rti~r-r.,.ios.i -- EXISTING NORTH (SIDE) ELEVATION gaol fArY¢md fleYs ^nhy }~~ P~ ~ , b .,mom. ~ ~~ aee \~ ,eeo, d~u+R*+a.i ~~~ ~~~ w,,e. .ooa,ur~,,,r viz qr. ,~ csar yr~ ~ m.ro~a ~rt~ ~ « ~aa.~ey ~.~.~..iw.i vizgr. Q ~J®I III¢I~ ..,ay..~ ~y a wd • W~+ee EXISTING WEST (FRONT) ELEVATION scut: Y; = I, _ ~, ,...__ ~~ EXISTING EAST (REAf~ ELEVATION scut: Y,' = r - ~ ~-- ~' mckoy • orchitectu re 801 Gmdia Seca Suia D Bakelry, CA 997]0 Once: S10S2J5998 Fu: S 10.52JS999 wwn.mduyacLitacnm.wm PROGRESS PRINT: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ' kevie+r Sa X PlaofbadcSa Ceornroaasa ~, O W O -~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ Q O W ~ ~ ~ (%TC,~, O ~""' M O Ma N W D~ae: o1rI120D3 soak As NoJID Fr7a ASBUII,TOLNS ~,h; ROSEVEAR Shoat P8 of 9 thaw • • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ rn M O Z 4n N Q rn O Z A NEW RESIDENCE FOR: BRYAN AND KATRINA ROSEVEAR 20283 LA PALOMA, SARATOGA, CA, 95070 ~~~ ~~ k N rn C> _~ O z D n ~ ~ ~ o H ~ o~ ~~ ° ~ z 3 n ~~ ~ ~ o .~u z ~ ~ ~o o i ~~ p~ W