The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-12-2005 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Manny Cappello, Jill Hunter, Robert Kundtz, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, and Chair Susie Nagpal Absent: Schallop, Uhl Staff: Planners Bhatt, Oosterhous, Director Livingstone, and minutes clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 28, 2005 (Approved 5-0) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Goverrunent Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 6, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. APPLICATION #04-285 (386-10-049) - GABILLE, 17777 Saratoga Avenue: The applicant requests approval of a Use Permit to place a generator on the site near the intersection of Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga Avenue. The site is located in the Professional and Administrative Office (P-A) zoning district. The generator is proposed to be situated at the southwest corner of the property. An eight-foot high sound barrier wall will surround the generator.(SxwETA BHATT) APPROVED 5-0 2. APPLICATION #06-043 (393-14-010) - WINNINGHAM, 13201 Ten Oak Way: The applicant requests design review approval to construct a 895 square foot second- story addition to an existing one-story single-family residence on a corner lot. The total floor area of the proposed second-story residence is 4,257 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 22.35 feet. The gross lot size is 17,424 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 -12,500. (Cxrus~rx OOSTERHOUS) APPROVED 5-0 DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, October 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Janice Clark, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on October 6, 2005 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 3:30 p.m. PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Site Visit Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2005 FOR THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: • Rou. CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #04-285 GABILLE Item 1 17777 Saratoga Avenue 2. Application #06-043 WINNINGHAM Item 2 13201 Ten Oak Way SITE VISIT COMMITTEE The Site Visit Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties that 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. • r~ I '~ 2. A~~-T~E~I X06.043 : (393-14-O1A) - WINI~IINGHAM, 13201 ?~n Oa~c ~Vay: 'tie ~gpp~ar~t review approval to construct a 893 fr3oC mod- aratyr t~t- am cue-stiory single-faanily resideacc o~ a cornet lot. The Dotal floor a~~ the pip ~ . acc~o~td-~oc~ residt~c is 4,257 square leer The m~u~imum~~ lit of tlu ~ r i~ 32.E kct. The ! lot size is 17,424 :ad the Sfube is ~ R-i -13;500. (C C~Oi!#RNCI~7S) l~iT'1~'~l~x'i M~tr Worn r 25, ZOtiS at 7:00 pm. itm thQ Coal ~bean~l+C.f~c lluater ~A~aue, Ste, C.A •. leis ~~Act !„~, ~~fjrnu~eed~pac~l~iauoe+c [a~~aeQe~ c~rGl~yrsr f~=l~S9arcz~ferakrrc~OCCE~.1Vir~c~E~a~ ~8 ~' ~b~~r/~\c~b~c ~lrp/ryMw/(ro r~r ~uz~ ~ ear +e~-: m. thin . fifty of Srr~tagay is~~ Cbe ~' ~ Qf . tube Af ~ wrts+d Gtr +O~t+aaa'~6L ~pR3 At the A6~ of t.~e City ~f' G~! 9S137Cr ~i.~ b~~ n~ieir+ ~ t~ia' I ~dn the web~rcc~rtwwa~:axratrae~c~ - >~ ~ .woaid l~oe m ~ ~oa.•..~ ~. ~.~ y.ar ~-.aa~. ~ • ~ e MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Nagpal called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl Absent: None Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan and Planning Intern Suzanne Thomas PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of September 14, 2005. • Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, ,the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of September 14, 2005, were adopted with changes to pages 1,4,7 and 14. (6- 0-0-1; Commissioner Schallop abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. Ray Muzzy, 19518 Eric Drive, Saratoga: • Spoke to the issue of commercial antennas, saying that his concern is not with antennas themselves but rather their locations. • Suggested that it was best that these antennas not be located within dense residential areas, which is of concern. • Pointed out the article in today's Saratoga News regarding the antenna proposed for the Church of the Ascension. • Stated that while one cannot stop cell phone antennas there is a backlash from residents when these antennas are proposed for placement in residential neighborhoods. • Proposed having the Commission and staff work on modifications to the City's Ordinance pertaining to placement of cellular antennas. • Suggested that antennas should not be permitted when more than 75 percent of notified properties within 500 feet are residential. • Said that Saratoga should not do as other cities do and that he believed his proposed standard is one that should be set for Saratoga. • Chair Nagpal told Mr. Ray Muzzy that the Commission appreciates his information but is unable to discuss this item further this evening. Planning Commission Minutes for September 28, 2005 Page 2 Commissioner Hunter suggested that Mr. Ray Muzzy relay his message to Council. • Ms. Kathleen Casey-Coakley, Springer Avenue, Saratoga: • Stated that the City has an appeals process. • Reminded that she had made a statement about the house on Komina at the last meeting and that this house has since burnt to the ground. • Suggested that a reward should be offered to determine the cause of this fire. • Added that the new house constructed on this property should be made of wood and not stucco. • Stated the importance of stopping the proliferation of corporate businesses in the Village such as Starbucks. • Reminded that Memorial Park is not intended to be a soccer field. • Said that the sound barricade along Highway 85 is not worth the money spent on it. • Asked the City to "stop what you're doing to Saratoga." • Said that public funds are better spent on the library and heritage orchards. Chair Nagpal sought clarification from Director Livingstone that the Antenna Ordinance is on the work program list for revision. Director John Livingstone said that there are 15 Ordinances up for revision. The work program for the next year includes six of those Ordinances but the Antenna Ordinance is not one of those six. He explained that the City must respond to other Ordinance updates more . immediately due to changes in State law that require Ordinance compliance. Commissioner Hunter said that neighbors have to stay vigilant. Commissioner Kundtz suggested the importance of having an overall strategic plan for all cell carriers, which would offer a better vision than considering antennas one site at a time. Chair Nagpal suggested that this issue could be discussed further later in the meeting under Commission Items. She asked staff for an update on that residence on Komina. Director John Livingstone replied that an application had been made but was deemed incomplete. Commissioner Uhl asked if this matter would come before the Commission. Director John Livingstone said that since the proposal is for a new two-story home it would come to public hearing before the Commission for Design Review Approval. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that this older home on Komina burned down at 5 a.m. last Friday. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA *** • Planning Commission Minutes for September 28, 2005 Page 2 • Commissioner Hunter suggested that Mr. Ray Muzzy relay his message to Council. Ms. Kathleen Casey-Coakley, Springer Avenue, Saratoga: • Stated that the City has an appeals process. • Reminded that she had made a statement about the house on Komina at the last meeting and that this house has since burnt to the ground. • Suggested that a reward should be offered to determine the cause of this fire. • Added that the new house constructed on this property should be made of wood and not stucco. • Stated the importance of stopping the proliferation of corporate businesses in the Village such as Starbucks. • Reminded that Memorial Park is not intended to be a soccer field. • Said that the sound barricade along Highway 85 is not worth the money spent on it. • Asked the City to "stop what you're doing to Saratoga." • Said that public funds are better spent on the library and heritage orchards. Chair Nagpal sought clarification from Director Livingstone that the Antenna Ordinance is on the work program list for revision. Director John Livingstone said that there are 15 Ordinances up for revision. The work program for the next year includes six of those Ordinances but the Antenna Ordinance is not • one of those six. He explained that the City must respond to other Ordinance updates more immediately due to changes in State law that require Ordinance compliance. Commissioner Hunter said that neighbors have to stay vigilant. Commissioner Kundtz suggested the importance of having an overall strategic plan for all cell carriers, which would offer a better vision than considering antennas one site at a time. Chair Nagpal suggested that this issue could be discussed further later in the meeting under Commission Items. She asked staff for an update on that residence on Komina. Director John Livingstone replied that an application had been made but was deemed incomplete. Commissioner Uhl asked if this matter would come before the Commission. Director John Livingstone said that since the proposal is for a new two-story home it would come to public hearing before the Commission for Design Review Approval. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that this older home on Komina burned down at 5 a.m. last Friday. **. • REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Planning Commission Minutes for September 28, 2005 Page 3 Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 22, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Nagpal announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). *** CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #04-167 (386-44-0401 - CINGULAR WIRELESS SERVICES, INC. -Cox Avenue at the railroad tracks east of Garnett Court: 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 communications equipment cabinets inside a new ground level shelter that will be approximately 12 feet by 20 feet. (SUZANNE THOMAS) Planning Intem Suzanne Thomas presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a small telecommunications facility on Cox Road, adjacent to the railroad tracks, consisting of six panel antennas and one GPS on an existing PG&E Tower. Additionally a 240 square foot shelter (12 feet x 20 feet) would be constructed at 14-foot height. The shelter will be screened with native landscaping. • Explained that the shelter will match existing structures for another facility on site with beige stucco and the roof. • Reported that the proposed plans have been shown to neighbors and that the project meets required findings. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Cappello asked if there are any other proposed Cingular locations proposed for Saratoga in the near future. Director John Livingstone replied no. Commissioner Uhl asked if a 12-month plan is required of cellular providers when they submit a cell site application. • Director John Livingstone replied typically no. Planning Commission Minutes for September 28, 2005 Page 4 Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Ms. Marcia Converse, Representative for Cingular Wireless: • Explained that cell carriers are required by law to cover specific areas. • Said that when given a radius that must have coverage, they are told to find three to five viable locations and to co-locate whenever possible. • Stated that they first attempt to locate in industrial and/or commercial areas. Next they look at churches, schools, PG&E sites, fire stations and water company facilities. • Said that she is not certain if concems are health based or aesthetics. • Assured that they want to work with neighbors to alleviate any concerns and will do so to work out an acceptable design. Commissioner Uhl asked why cell sites are processed one location at a time and whether carriers have along-term plan in mind. Ms. Marcia Converse replied that there is a long-range plan and that a coverage map is provided with their application that demonstrates where coverage is lacking. They do not have along-term site map for pending locations. Planner Suzanne Thomas agreed that a coverage map was provided and was inadvertently left out of the staff report. Commissioner Uhl asked if there is potential for another Cingular cell site in the next six months in Saratoga. Ms. Marcia Converse said that Saratoga is not a big build out city. However, they are mandated to provide coverage in certain corridors such as Cox Avenue. Commissioner Cappello asked Ms. Marcia Converse what the legal requirement is. Ms. Marcia Converse said that she did not prepare for that type of question. She pointed out that the networks are overburdened and are necessary to serve as a reliable source of communication for many. There is a three-year forecast for areas with limited coverage. Director John Livingstone added that some cell site applications are started with the City but never completed. Commissioner Rodgers asked if this proposed installation would offer coverage up to Prospect. Ms. Marcia Converse said that the coverage range is up to two miles. She said that unfortunately she is here without an RF Engineer who could answer more technical questions about coverage. • Commissioner Uhl said that in looking at the coverage map it appears that another site is necessary on DeAnza. Planning Commission Minutes for September 28, 2005 Page 5 Ms. Marcia Converse agreed saying that they have looked for such a site on DeAnza fora • number of years and have not yet located one. Commissioner Cappello asked why the existing site at Congress Springs Park was not considered in place of this location. Ms. Marcia Converse said that it probably did not meet coverage needs. She added that they have a Master Lease Agreement with PG&E for location of cell sites on their towers. She said that three sites are considered at a minimum for each installation. Commissioner Hunter asked if another carrier is located at this proposed location. Planner Suzanne Thomas replied yes, Nextel. Mr. Ron Muzzy, 19518 Eric Drive, Saratoga: • Said that requiring along-range plan for carriers is a good idea. • Pointed out that another source of connection for wireless when inside buildings are the existing phone lines. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Cappello: • Stated that it is difficult when the applicant's representative can't answer technical questions to substantiate need for this location. • Added that he does not have any idea why Congress Springs Park is not a viable location. • Said he would request that in future a cell carrier's technical support staff should attend public hearings to field technical questions. Commissioner Kundtz agreed that technical representatives of the carrier should be present. Chair Nagpal asked staff if they advise applicants to have technical staff present at hearings. Director John Livingstone said that they always recommend that everyone possible attend. Commissioner Hunter suggested a continuance. Commissioner Uhl suggested that along-range plan be provided as well. Commissioner Hunter said that she does not agree that all cell sites must be clumped together but could be considered one by one. Commissioner Kundtz said he does not think clumping is necessary but that collaborative efforts should be made when possible to share locations. Commissioner Schallop: • • Reminded that there are potential interference issues. Planning Commission Minutes for September 28, 2005 Page 6 • Said he does not support requiring the provision of a long-range plan by this carrier if it is not required by Code, as that would not be fair. • Said that it is helpful to look at what other cities do and it is important to make sure that what is asked for is reasonable from a business standpoint. • Stated that consideration of changes to Code must be considered as a separate item from this specific application at a future meeting. • Reminded that in the past the RF Engineers who have attended hearings have simply stated the need for any specific location. • Expressed his preference to go forward with this application. Commissioner Rodgers: • Expressed her agreement with Commissioner Schallop. • Said that the Commission has asked for coverage maps in the past and that sites be co- located as much as possible. • Pointed out that this company has done what the Commission has asked. • Said that she does not see the need for delay of this application. • Reminded that these cellular providers cannot go that far out into the future as their technology changes so quickly. Commissioner Kundtz said that he does not care to lumber along one cell site at a time when it might be possible to reduce the number of towers and cell site. Chair Nagpal asked Commissioner Kundtz if he is ready to vote on this item. Commissioner Kundtz replied yes but he prefers a continuance. If a vote is taken, his would be no. Commissioner Cappello said that he has no intention of making an example of this applicant. However, there is an existing site at Congress Springs Park and he needs to understand why it is not possible for this cell installation to be located there instead. Commissioner Kundtz pointed out that Congress Springs was not even one of the three sites considered with this application. Ms. Marcia Converse said that it was not located within the search range. Chair Nagpal asked if it is technologically not feasible to use Congress Springs to meet this coverage need. Ms. Marcia Converse said that it likely would not provide the coverage needed. Commissioner Uhl said that he is not supportive and pointed out that there are classic merging issues apparent here with the recent merger of Cingular with AT&T Cellular. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that Mr. Ray Muzzy provided the list that Commissioner Uhl is using just this evening during Oral Communications and not by the applicant or staff. Planning Commission Minutes for September 28, 2005 Page 7 Commissioner Cappello said that he knows for a fact that the Congress Springs site is an AT&T location and that AT&T and Cingular are on a shared frequency. He said his experience is personal since he is an AT&T customer. Chair Nagpal said that it appears that members of the Commission want to know why Congress Springs could not be used in place of this proposed site. Commissioner Uhl reminded that there is a merger/consolidation going on here with AT&T and Cellular. Commissioner Schallop asked where in the Ordinance it calls for asking these types of questions. They must be justified and clear guidance must be provided to the applicants in advance. Chair Nagpal said that it is important to the Commission to clearly understand the need for this specific location. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that adding a new building has visual impacts on the neighborhood. Chair Nagpal asked if the Commission would be able to find this unobtrusive if the other location is clearly not feasible. She reminded that RF issues are not within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Commissioner Hunter said that it is not unreasonable to continue this item and called for a vote on that proposal. Commissioner Uhl agreed that there are lots of concerns and called for a vote. Commissioner Rodgers said that the installation is unobtrusive and consistent. Commissioner Hunter reiterated that there is nothing unreasonable about a continuance. Chair Nagpal said that antenna issues need to be dealt with on a larger level and issues need to be looked at for future applications. Commissioner Uhl advised that he was supportive of this application when he arrived this evening but is not so sure now. Said that he needs to understand if there is an opportunity for co-location at Congress Springs and investigating that is worth a month or two of delay. Commissioner Rodgers reminded that no neighborhood concerns were raised for this location and it meets all requirements. Ms. Marcia Converse suggested that the Commission make it a condition of approval to have additional information provided to staff to verify that Congress Springs is not a viable location in place of this one. Planning Commission Minutes for September 28, 2005 ~ Page 8 Commissioner Hunter said that it might be possible to accept this with that sort of condition. Commissioner Cappello said he still prefers a continuance. Commissioner Uhl agreed and said he wants to see what the coverage need is based upon. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission CONTINUED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN consideration of a Conditional Use Permit (Application #04-167) to construct a small unmanned telecommunications facility including panel antennas on the existing PG&E tower and installation of indoor communications equipment cabinets inside a new ground level shelter on property located at Cox Avenue at the railroad tracks east of Garnett Court (APN 386-44-040), by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz and Uhl NOES: Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ~* PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #05-123 (397-23-044) - ROSEVEAR, 20283 La Paloma Avenue: -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. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow the demolition of an existing single-story residence with detached garage and the construction of a new two- story 2,880 square foot residence. • Described the property is being on the sloping portion of La Paloma Avenue. • Said that the prevailing architecture in the area is bungalow style homes of one and two- stories on narrow lots. • Explained that this proposed English Cottage style is compatible with the area. Materials will include stucco, green clapboards and shutters and shingle roofing. • Said that neighbor responses were incorporated into the staff report. • Reported that the owners of 20295 La Paloma, which is two doors down, have expressed privacy impact concems as well as concems over bulk and compatibility of design with the neighborhood. These owners have concerns over side elevation windows that overlook their property. • Stated that in response to those concerns the applicant is willing to explore other options for placement and glazing to be used on the windows on that elevation. Planning Commission Minutes for September 28, 2005 Page 9 Said that there are three Ordinance size trees. One, an American Sweet Gum, has been approved by the Arborist for removal due to its poor condition. Additionally, there are two Coastal Live Oaks located at the rear of the property, which are expected to survive. Said that findings can be made in the affirmative and this home would be a charming addition to this neighborhood. Recommended approval and said that the applicant, architect and neighbors are present this evening. Commissioner Hunter asked if Tree #1 proposed for removal is a City-owned street tree. She added that since the homeowners wish to retain that tree they should be allowed to do so since it is a tree that benefits the entire neighborhood. Director John Livingstone said that the Arborist evaluates all trees on a project site. This tree is indeed in the public right-of-way. Residents typically maintain these trees and request Tree Removal Permits in the event they want them removed. In this case, the Arborist felt the tree was not in great shape and authorized its removal and replacement now if the homeowners wish to do so. Commissioner Rodgers reminded that during the site visit, the applicants indicated a desire to keep this tree. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Michael McKay, Project Architect: • Reported that the home was designed so as not to impact this tree and his clients are open to keeping it. • Advised that he tried many design approaches to minimize bulk and that a variety of architectural styles were considered. • Said that there is a predominance of Craftsman style architecture in this immediate area. The Modern English Style, now known as the English Cottage Style, is an appropriate one for their needs as it minimizes the bulk of the second story with its informal asymmetry. • Said that it was challenging to design this home using Saratoga's rules and the way that floor area is calculated. • Advised that they have used two roof slopes, front to back and side-to-side. This design fits nicely into the neighborhood in terms of architecture and massing and he is proud of it. • Said he hopes the Commission feels it is a good fit for the neighborhood. Commissioner Hunter clarified that the master bedroom has a balcony. Mr. Michael McKay replied yes. He added that they had considered options to the proposed windows on the side elevation including use of skylights. However, skylights do not belong in this architectural style at all and he was reluctant to use them here. Commissioner Kundtz asked if there is a walkout both to the front and back of the house for this master bedroom. Planning Commission Minutes for September 28, 2005 Page 10 . Mr. Michael McKay replied no. The second bedroom also has a walkout toward the back. There are not two for the master bedroom. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Michael McKay to walk the Commission through the options provided for the side elevation windows. Mr. Michael McKay: • Explained that Option A blocks the view near the bed. Option B has obscured glazing of the windows near the bed. Option C has a raised windowsill and head. Option D has a raised sill and obscured glazing. Option E has a clearstory with no view other than sky. • Stated his strong preference for Option A. Mr. Brian Rosevear, Applicant and Property Owner, 20283 La Paloma Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that he and his wife, Katrina, have worked hard with their architect on the design of their new home that will be a wonderful improvement on the existing 1960s style ranch. • Said he has obtained letters of support from his neighbors and the only known opposition is from his neighbors two doors down, the Bonds. • Advised that he and his wife would prefer to keep the tree even though it has a large hole in its trunk. • Pointed out that their new home meets square footage and height limitations. • Distributed an email of support from his rear fence neighbor. • Said that they would be removing anon-compliant five-foot high retaining wall. . • Pointed out that the percentage of impervious surface would be reduced from the current 39.71 percent to a new level of 31.88 percent. • Assured that this project would help site drainage not hinder. • Reiterated that their proposal is in compliance with requirements and requested approval. Mr. Ken Bond, 20295 La Paloma Avenue, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for the opportunity to address his concems. • Explained that he has submitted a letter outlining his concerns over bulk, height and privacy impacts. • Reported that Planning staff was not responsive to his concems. • Said that this project is built out to the max. • Pointed out that he had heard about the Filice project, under construction at this time, way in advance while he learned of this proposed project at the last minute. • Said that he is asking for the removal of windows that overlook his home. • Stated that he is willing to consider options as long as the Rosevears enter into an agreement to not swap out the windows agreed upon at a later date. • Informed that his home was constructed in 1914. When he called the Planning Department before, he was told that it was not likely that atwo-story home would be permitted in this neighborhood and this project is not in compliance with the Code that was in effect at that time. • Opined that these windows are not necessary and asked that the project not be approved • as proposed but rather with the elimination of the windows or a revision of the windows with a private agreement to ensure they stay the way agreed upon. Planning Commission Minutes for September 28, 2005 Page 11 Assured that he does not want to deny the Rosevears the opportunity to provide for their family but not at the cost of his loss of privacy. Commissioner Kundtz asked if any of the options proposed are acceptable to Mr. Ken Bond. Mr. Ken Bond said that he is willing to agree to a middle ground with a legal agreement that assures that what is decided upon is what is kept in place. Chair Nagpal said that there are several alternatives offered and asked Mr. Ken Bond if there is a particular option that he prefers. Mr. Ken Bond said that the prospect of someone being able to look directly onto his bed is unacceptable. He said he is flexible and is more concerned that the agreement be formalized. Commissioner Rodgers asked if there is a reason why the Bonds keep their blinds open at all times. Is it to keep windows open for ventilation. Mr. Ken Bond replied yes. They need to keep the window open at all times for ventilation. He added that with the elevation differences between the two properties, the Rosevears would look down onto their house and he would look up at them. Commissioner Rodgers asked about lowering their blinds for privacy. Mr. Ken Bond said that this would not work. Commissioner Rodgers suggested having the Rosevears provide the Bonds with bottom up blinds. Mr. Ken Bond said that as this is their one view, they prefer a change in windows to preserve their privacy. Ms. Barbara Bond, 20295 La Paloma Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that she had considered the concept of bottom up blinds but they really need the ventilation and light. • Stated that they have casement windows that open upwards. • Added that they use three fans 24R during the summer and have lived in this home for the last 11 years. • Advised that they have two concerns. One is the loss of privacy and the other is the size of this project. Their concerns were outlined in their written communication. • Assured that they are not "privacy hogs" but that they are only 12 feet from their adjacent neighbors in a neighborhood with an average lot size of 7,400 square feet. • Said that their adjacent neighbor has views into her living space, which is not as big a concern as the loss of privacy in their master bedroom would be. This would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy. • Reminded of the ventilation issue and asked that the existing privacy be honored by the • Rosevears by eliminating or changing their windows. Planning Commission Minutes for September 28, 2005 Page 12 • Said that she was advised by Planning staff that no windows were required on the side elevation for ventilation purposes since the French windows are included in the Rosevears master and guest bedrooms. • Supported having an agreement in place if the windows are installed with obscured glass to ensure that they stay that way into the future. • Said that previous Zoning regulations were in effect when they purchased their home that would not have allowed this project as proposed due to setbacks at that time being more strict. Mr. James Kardach, 20271 La Paloma Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that his home is from 1917 and it too gets hot upstairs. • Stated that he had looked that the Rosevears' plans and likes the design and the fact that it does not require any Variances from design standards. • Questioned the setback question raised by the Bonds and asked for clarification. • Advised that he and his wife are supportive of this application. Mr. Michael Filice, 20288 La Paloma Avenue, Saratoga: • Advised that he and his wife, Jennifer, have live in the neighborhood for 8 years, across the street and over one house to the west from the Rosevears. • Said that his home is currently under construction and he was before the Commission himself about a year ago. • Said that this is a tight neighborhood, very unique and has great neighbors. . • Said that there has been a positive transition with new families coming into the neighborhood, some with younger children and others with older children. • Stated that he is happy to be raising his family close to town. • Pointed out that there are a lot of 50-foot wide lots here that results in privacy issues. • Said that upon review of the plans he finds that the project is well done and well thought out with time spent on the details. The scale fits well. • Advised that there have been about 20 new homes constructed in the time he has lived in the neighborhood with a number of new and remodeled two-story homes. • Expressed support fortwo-story homes as long as they meet guidelines. • Said that the City has wonderful setback standards that makes the final architectural product look great. • Said that the City is on the right track and thanked the Commission for its time. • State that he is confident that his two neighbors will resolve their issues.' Mr. Michael McKay: • Said that the clear issue is the privacy concerns of the Bonds. Said that they have already come to an informal agreement and that his clients are willing to formalize with a private agreement any reasonable suggestion. Suggested that everyone agree on the final window configuration and move forward. Commissioner Kundtz asked if it would be possible to use the original window design and • obscure some of them. Planning Commission Minutes for September 28, 2005 Page 13 Mr. Michael McKay replied that yes they could obscure some glass while maintaining the • Bonds' privacy. Mr. Brian Rosevear said that they are willing to provide shades for the Bonds and pointed out that double hung windows open from both ends. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Chair Nagpal asked staff to clarify design Ordinance changes mentioned by the Bonds. Director John Livingstone said that the original Ordinance erroneously required a wedding cake style. The typographical error was amended and is correct now. No variances are required to support this proposal. Commissioner Kundtz: • Said that he likes this design a great deal and this is agood-looking proposal. • Stated his preference for the original design conditioned upon the Bonds' approval for obscured glass to respect the Bonds' need for privacy while also retaining a maximum of light and view for the Rosevears. Commissioner Schallop agreed with Commissioner Kundtz and suggested that the Commission give guidance on the compromise on the side elevation windows. Commissioner Rodgers: • • Said that she likes the design. • Stated her fondness for this neighborhood where all the houses are just a little different but reflect the same vintage. • Said that windows are needed to maximize light on small lots while still respecting the preservation of privacy. • Said that a compromise should be reached that obscures some windows to ensure the privacy of the Bonds. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that this is a beautiful design. • Stated that it may be a bit bulky but that is not a major issue here. • Reminded that tie applicants are seeking to save a tree. • Suggested reaching a compromising and giving the applicants their new home. Commissioner Cappello: • Said that this is a classic neighborhood in transition. • Stated that the side elevation would look odd without any windows and he would like to see Option A, which retains two of three proposed windows, as a compromise for both sides. This eliminates any direct view into the Bonds' bedroom and gives the applicant a view of the hillside. • Commissioner Hunter: Planning Commission Minutes for September 28, 2005 Page 14 M • Said that she has always been crazy about La Paloma Avenue. • Said she felt bad about a previous application before the Commissioner whereby the applicant was required to use opaque windows for a bedroom and later she personally regretted that requirement later. • Encouraged the use of different blinds by the Bonds and supported the option using two windows on the side elevation. • Reminded that the primary view for the Rosevears' master bedroom would be that of the front rather than side windows. Chair Nagpal: • Said that this is a wonderful architectural style where height is needed to retain the integrity of the English Cottage style. • Agreed that this is a great community. • Expressed respect for the Bonds' concerns about privacy impacts and appreciated their sense of compromise. • Admitted that obscured windows bother her as well. • Stated that she could support either option regarding windows for the side elevation but that she prefers not to condition a requirement to have homeowners enter into private agreements. Commissioner Kundtz suggested approving this project and conditioning the applicant to work • out a final window option with staff and the neighbors. Commissioner Cappello said that the applicant prefers that the Commission assign the final option. Commissioner Hunter expressed support for Option C. Chair Nagpal asked about enforcement in the future. Director John Livingstone said that once a project has received final occupancy, it is treated like any other existing home in the neighborhood that can change out windows with issuance of a building permit. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #05-123) to allow the construction of a new multi-story residence on property located at 20283 La Paloma Avenue, as proposed with the additions to: • Add a Condition of Approval that requires the applicant and neighbor to agree on the type of glazing, number of windows and duration that those agreed upon windows must remain; • Allow the retention of the Sweet Gum tree located in the public right of • way, by the following roll call vote: Planning Commission Minutes for September 28, 2005 Page 15 AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Fire Department Requirement for Fire Gate: Director John Livingstone advised that the requirement by Fire to install a fire gate for a recent project was a misunderstanding that was caused when a standard boilerplate Condition of Approval was imposed when it was not intended to be. General Plan Updates: Director John Livingstone reported that an RFP (Request for Proposals) for the updating of two General Plan Elements, the Land Use Element and the Open Space, Trails and Conservation Element, was issued. Three companies have submitted proposals. Staff is seeking one Commissioner to serve on a review panel to select the consultant for this update. Commissioner Rodgers and Uhl were both willing to participate on this committee. Director John Livingstone will email the meeting date to both Commissioners and whomever is available to attend on that date will serve on the selection committee. COMMISSION ITEMS The Commissioners discussed bringing up the urgent need for an update of the Cellular Antenna Ordinance during the joint session with Council on October 12~'. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, Chair Nagpal adjourned the meeting at 9:42 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of October 12, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk C7 17777 Saratoga Avenue ,~.-~ ~-- FXECUTNE SUMMARY CASE HLS?4RY App~ieatiaa #~ 09!09/04 A~~ca~i~t ~ 09/LS/OS r~o~ p~ o9nsros ~: 09rza~os ~~~r n~sc~ipnorr The ~ ~P'P of ~ Cow Use Fers~ to ~ emcy ge~ecstoz on r~ sae yeas the ~ ~ Lervnsee ~~~' smd k The siae #s fa the Fs~oa~l,EOdAdQ~~e Oboe (P-~): ~t 3~t t ~ P~r~ be ®tu~ed a~ w+cst caer~r of t~ pt+©p~tir. 1~ surd brier ~lI rvitt ~d tau t c~ end aria`. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Awe the tJee P~erre~it ~pp~catcio~ with cvnditia~e ~ ~ cb~e stt~od R~aoluticm. A'I`FAC~~i1~+~E1r i. ~ aE~ ,. ~ ~~, ~.;' Y t • • Application No. 04-285 (Tony Gabllle);17777SaratogaAven~e STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: P-A (Professional Administrative Office) GENERAL PLAN: P-A MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 11,519 square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: level GRADING REQUIRED: None MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The generator and attached fuel tank will be seven (7) feet high and will be surrounded by an eight (8) foot wall that will be painted to match existing ground equipment on the site. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project, which includes placement of an emergency generator and associated sound barrier, is categorically exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to new construction of limited small new facilities; installation of small, new equipment and facilities in small structures. • Application No. 04-285 (Tony Gabllle);177TT Saratoga A venue PROJECT DISCUSSION k un Srte Characterlstlcsand Bac gro d The project site is located on a triangulaz lot on Lawrence Expressway and is on the edge of the city limits with two sides bordering San Jose. Access to the property is off Saratoga Avenue, over an adjacent pazcel within the City limits of San Jose. Presently on the site aze a cellulaz transmission pole, a billboard sign, and paint storage containers, all of which aze enclosed by a six feet high chain link fence with red plastic slats and bazbed wire. The remainder of the site is used for commercial pazking. The site has several approved antenna facilities on the subject property. In October of 2004, both AT~zT Wireless Services and Verizon Wireless obtained approval of Conditional Use Permits to install antennas on the property. Sprint PCS, who also has antennas on the property, obtained approval of a Use Permit in September 2004. Proposed Equipment This application for a Conditional Use Permit is to install an emergency generator surrounded by an eight (8) foot high sound barrier at the southwest corner of the subject property. To meet requirements of the City's Noise Ordinance, the noise assessment study recommends the sound barrier be one (1) foot higher the proposed generator. Subsequently, Staff has asked the applicant to lower the height of the generator such that the required height of the sound barrier is consistent with the six (6) foot high fencing that currently surrounds the property. However, the applicant has indicated that it is not possible to lower the height of the generator, as the fuel storage tank is located underneath. Since state regulations recommend fuel storage tanks be located above ground so that any leaks are easy to detect, the applicant has maintained that it is not possible to .reduce the height of the generator and the sound barrier. However, the landscaping that surrounds the property provides buffering to the visual impact of the generator and wall. Furthermore, the plans indicate that the proposed ground equipment will be painted to match the existing. With the sound barrier, the proposed project meets the objectives of the City's Noise Ordinance. Additionally, the generator will be used for emergency purposes, as it will be utilized to provide electricity to the Verizon Wireless antennas in the event of a power outage. In order to ensure that the generator is working on a continuous basis, it will operate for a total of twenty-six (26) hours or less per yeaz based at a rate of thirty (30) minutes per week. Variation From Setback Requirements The subject site has three sides, one of which fronts on Lawrence Expressway. Therefore this side is defined as the "front" of the property. Based on the site's P-A zoning dedication, the front setback is twenty-five (25) feet and the site's width and depth yield side yard setback requirements of ten (10) feet. Due to its triangular configuration, the site does not have a rear parcel line and therefore does not have a reaz setback requirement. The application as proposed shows the generator located within the front setback. Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC) §15-55.030 permits variation from standards subject to a Use Permit if +~ Application No. 04-285 (Tony Gabille);1T177Saratoga Avenue certain findings can be made. Given the triangular configuration, the proximity of the site to a major arterial street, and the existing uses on the property, Staff finds that a variation from the setback requirements is warranted; the language of the findings has been provided below. Usc Permit Findings The proposed project supports the findings for Use Permit approval; therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed project based on the following findings: • That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use in the designated zoning district. The generator encroaches into the required front yard; howevergiven that a major arterial street (Lawrence Expressway) abuts the front lot line and given the height and quantity of vegetation surrounding the perimeter of the property, the encroachment of the generator does not negatively impact the visual appearance of the site. Additionally, factors such as substandard site area, site width, and site depth, combined with the property's triangular configuration create a situation where the strict application of the code creates difficulty in maintaining thegenerator within the building envelope. • 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 in that it is in a location that is adjacent to a major arterial street and is surrounded by primarily nonresidential uses. Additionally, the generator will meet requirements of the City's Noise Ordinance, as a sound barrier will be installed around the generator on the North and East sides. The visual impact of the generator will be mitigated with the sound barrier wall in addition to the existing vegetation that surrounds theperimetcr of the property. Furthermore, the generator will be utilized for emergenry purposes when there is an outagc for electrical powcr. The weekly testing to ensure it is in working order will not exceed twcnry-six (26) hours per year at a rate of thirty (30) minutes per weep. • That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter in that the site already accommodates numerous antenna facilities and theproposal would not be a substantial visual impairment over what currently exists. Conclusion The project satisfies all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the SMC. The emergency generator is not expected to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare nor is it expected to be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations applicable to generators. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve use permit application number 04-285 by adopting the attached Resolution. • Attachment 1 • Application No. 04-285 (Tony Gabille);17T17SaratogaAvenue . RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 04-285 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Roger Haas; 17777 Saratoga Avenue (Tony Gabille of Crown Castle) WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Use Permit approval to place an emergency generator and associated sound barrier at the southwest corner of the property neaz the intersection of Lawrence Expressway and Sazatoga Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heazd and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which includes placement of an emergency generator and associated sound barrier 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 in the designated zoning district. The generator encroaches into the required front yard; howevergiven that a major arterial street (Lawrence Expressway) abuts the front lot line and given the height and quantity of vegetation surrounding the perimeter of the property, the encroachment of the generator does not negatively impact the visual appearance of the site. Additionally, factors such as substandard site area, site width, and site depth, combined with the property's triangular configuration create a situation where the strict application of the code creates difficulty in maintaining thegenerator within the building envelope. • 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 in that it is in a location that is adjacent to a major arterial street and is surrounded by primarily nonresidential uses. Additionally, the generator will meet requirements of the City's Noise Ordinance, as a sound barrier will be installed around thegenerator on the North and East sides. The visual impact of thegenerator will be mitigated with the sound barrier wall in addition to the existing vegetation that surrounds theperimcter of the property. Furthermorc, the generator will be utilized for emergency purposes when there is an Application No. 04-285 (Tony Gabllle);17777SaratogaAvenue outage for electrical power. The weekly testing to ensure it is in working order will not exceed twenty-six . (26) hours per year at a rate of thirty (30) minutes per week. • That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter in that the site already accommodates numerous antenna facilities and theproposal would not be a substantial visual impairment over what currently exists. 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 04-285 for Use Permit approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNTY DEVELOPMENT 1. The proposed emergency generator and associated sound barrier shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", which includes plans and photo simulations, incorporated by reference. 2. The height of the generator shall not exceed seven (7) feet and therefore the height of the sound barrier shall not exceed eight (8) feet. 3. The enerator shall be used for emer enc and eriodic testing urposes only and shall g g Y P P not be utilized on a regular and continuous basis. 4. Applicant shall obtain necessary permits for any and all work within the public right of way within the City of San Jose and the County of Santa Clara jurisdictions. 5. If the subject site is decommissioned in the future, the generator 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. 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. Application No. 04-285 (Tony Gabllle);17777SaratogaAvenue • FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire Department (attached). Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months from the date on which this Use Permit became effective or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 12th day of October 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 f ,~ i • • • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CIARA ) I, Shweta Bhatt, being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 20`h day of 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. Signed • 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 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2005, AT 7:00 P.M. The hearing will be held in the City Theater, located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue in Saratoga, California. Details regarding the project described below are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. PROJECT LOCATION: 17777 Saratoga Avenue PROPERTY OWNER: Gabille ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 386-10-049 APPLICATION NUMBER: 04-285 REQUESTED ENTITLEMENT: Use Permit PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests approval of a Use Permit to place a generator on the site near the intersection of Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga Avenue. The site is located in the Professional and Administrative Office (P-A) zoning district. The generator is proposed to be situated at the southwest corner of the property. An eight-foot high sound barrier wall will surround the generator. 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 by noon on the Tuesday before the meeting (October 04`h) 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. Saratoga Planning Department Contact: Shweta Bhatt Assistant Planner Ph: (408) 868-1266 • Email: Sbhatt@saratoga.ca.us lam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery TEMPLATE 5160® APN: 38610004 Current Owner ouret Dr ~itas Ca 95035-6801 APN: 38610033 KATO, YASUTO TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner 1745 SARATOGA AV C SAN JOSE CA 95129 APN: 38610038 CAMPBELL UNION S D Or Current Owner SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 APN: 38610043 RUSSO, RAY A SR TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner 20380 TOWN CENTER LN 170 CUPERTINO CA 95014 APN: 38610046 Current Owner 1777 Saratoga Av Jose Ca 95129-5208 APN: 38610055 DAMICO TIRE SERVICE INC Or Current Owner PO BOX 969 SAN JOSE CA 95108-0969 APN: 38610059 GREAT WESTERN SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION Or Current Owner PO BOX 7788 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658 APN: 38623045 AGEE, JOHN T & DORIS F TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 12348 LOLLY DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3515 APN: 38623048 CROSS, ROGER L & JEAN C Or Current Owner 18670 SAN PALO CT RATOGA CA 95070-3531 :38623051 H0, HAE CHON & JOONG SIM Or Current Owner 18651 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3531 ~ www averycom ~~ 1-800-GO-AVERY APN: 38610006 PATRICK, EDWARD H SR & VIRGINIA E TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 645 E MISSOURI AV PHOENIX AZ 85012-1369 APN: 38610035 SALINAS VALLEY SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSN Or Current Owner PO BOX 7788 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658 APN: 38610040 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF QUITO PARK Or Current Owner 1735 SARATOGA AV SAN JOSE CA 95129-5203 APN: 38610044 Current Owner 1777 Saratoga Av San Jose Ca 95129-5208 APN: 38610049 Current Owner 1777 Saratoga Av San Jose Ca 95129-5208 APN: 38610056 SARATOGA AV BAPTIST CHURCH Or Current Owner 1735 SARATOGA AV SAN JOSE CA 95129-5203 APN: 38611046 FARRAR, GEOFFREY A ETAL Or Current Owner P 0 BOX 1701 CHICO CA 95927-1701 APN: 38623046 CHO, TIK-FAI & TERESA M Or Current Owner 12336 LOLLY DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3515 APN: 38623049 MATISON, ROBERT C & MARY L TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 18668 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3531 APN: 38623052 RASTEGAR-PANAH, MOHSSEN ETAL Or Current Owner 18663 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3531 Q AVERY® 5160 APN: 38610007 SEGALL, JOHN B & REVA A TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 456 CORNELL AV SAN MATED CA 94402-2204 APN: 38610036 KATO, YASUTO TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner 1745 SARATOGA AV C SAN JOSE CA 95129 APN: 38610041 MALONE, W B & MARY Or Current Owner 1735 SARATOGA AV SAN JOSE CA 95129-5203 APN: 38610045 Current Owner 1777 Saratoga Av San Jose Ca 95129-5208 APN: 38610054 GAZZERA, STEPHEN III Or Current Owner 1134 W EL CAMINO REAL MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94040 APN: 38610058 EARL, JOHN A TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner 9 FORRESTER LN YOUNNILLE CA 94599 APN: 38623039 RUSSO, RAY A SR TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner PO BOX 41057 SAN JOSE CA 95160-1057 APN: 38623047 DESAI, GITA & ANIL Or Current Owner 12324 LOLLY DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3515 APN: 38623050 PHILLIPS, STEVEN M 8~ JYH-HUA S Or Current Owner 18656 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3531 APN: 38623053 HOLLOWAY, GARRY L & MISTY M TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner 1500 EL OSO DR SAN JOSE CA 95129 --• _ _.._~e _. ~_._ _ Jam and Smudge Free Printing ~ vrww.averycom Use Avery TEMPLATE 5160® ~ 1-800-GO-AVERY APN: 38623054 APN: 38623055 YEE, ALBAN & ANGELA Or Current Owner BECKER, DARYL V Or Current Owner 19746 VIA GRANDE DR 18699 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA CA 95070-4467 SARATOGA CA 95070-3531 APN: 38623058 APN: 38661021 RUSSO, RAY A SR TRUSTEE ETAL Or UELMEN, MARTHA A & GERALD F Current Owner TRUSTEE Or Current Owner PO BOX 41057 18727 CABERNET DR SAN JOSE CA 95160-1057 SARATOGA CA 95070-3562 APN: 40333014 SUNRISE PENGUIN SARATOGA LTD PARTNERSHIP Or Current Owner 200 W MADISON ST 37TH FLOOR CHICAGO IL 60606 a AVER'1f® 5160 APN: 38623056 LOOS, DUANE E & LISA A Or Current Owner • 18711 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3531 APN: 38661022 DENNIS, DAVID E & SHARLENE E Or Current Owner 18735 CABERNET DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3562 • • ~ \t7 w-Ar~J-INt~ ww • ~ ~•.wwwr. ~.. ~.vuw w • Attachment 3 • Charles M Salter Associates Inc Consultants in Acoustics ~ AudioNisual System Design 130 Sutter Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel 415.397.0442 Fax 415.397.0454 Email ethan.salterQcrosalter.com Fax Transmittal Date: 2 September 2005 Pages (including Gover): 1 Name Company Email Roger Haas Haas Consulting roger@mail.cruzio.com From: Ethan Salter, Consultant Subject: Verizon Wireless Generator Project, Saratoga, CA CSA Project No. 05-0126 Roger, We have completed our review of the project drawings received on 1 September 2005. The purpose of our review is to verify that the drawing set complies with the requirements of City of Saratoga Noise Ordinance cited in our environmental noise assessment of 12 Apri12005. Based on our review, the project drawings comply with our acoustical recommendations and the requirements of the City of Sazatoga Noise Ordinance. This concludes our comments on the subject project. Please call with any questions. • .. ConMa7W+~ in ,4aouaia Au6d1l~ Systant pesipn and Talat;01Ar1MfliCaAOtU ,ao soar su..t San Francisco c.wromt. s41tx TM: 416 3!7 D442 Fats: 41S 3D7 0454 info ~ omailsr.com wyrw.atlfaltar.tom Charles M Salta. PE Davrd R Srltwlne, FAES Anlhaty P Hash. PE Ea DueNar TMmtl 4 FClNnela, PE Y,e1MNlh W GraWn, PE Erk L tyraa~ual. PE John C Fnyny. PE Mirnsal D Toy, FE Thanes J CoAet1 Durand P 8paull Ph.D. RaN A Jaeral PhMp N Sartdsrs Jasbn R DuY CnflXta L AMyar Robert P Atvantlo Jwy O D'Anpelo &ian enuao arena R v« Eric A Yae Troy Cminbel Pod Langer Joshes M Roper GnNopher ~ Pelna Raney waaeu: Jen %kacey ardraw Sunny PMa HaM Elhan Seller E4ine Y HsaM ClauWa WaeM Kandite LM Ganda riwy Joaaelyn £•eher &un Goud Charles 12 Apri12005 ,- { s ` ~~,~ > ~, ~~ ,. ,f.:~ M Salter Assoei =:#-F:inc .;r"` 7~ r., ;; art ,- a~ ~ .,. z ~t #y: Roger Haas Haas Consulting 117 Spreading Oak Drive Santa Cruz, CA 95068 Email: roger@mail.cruzio.com Subject: Verizon Wireless Generator, Lawrence Expressway, Saratoga, CA Environmental Noise Study CSA Project No.: OS-0126 Dear Roger: We have completed ow environmental noise analysis for the subject project. This report documents the City of Saratoga Noise Standards, the existing levels at the nearest residential and commercial property lines, and how the pmject compares to the criteria. In summary, we find that the project can be made to comply with the City noise standards. To meet the standard, we recommend that sound rated barrier, one-foot taller than the equipment height be constructed around the generator on the northern and eastern walls. CITY OF SARATOGA CRITERIA In Chapter 7, Section 7-30.020, definition (a), the City of Saratoga defines "Ambient noise level" as "the composite of noise from all sources, near and far, constituting the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location, excluding the noise source in question." Definition (h) defines "noise level" as the "maximum continuous sound level or repetitive peak level produced by a noise source or group of sources, as measured by a sound level meter." Chapter 7, Section 7-30.040 of the Municipal Code promulgates standards for ambient noise which are summarized below: ion Graven Marva D Norn*.ttee pebble Garay Roger Haas 12 Apri12005 Page 2 Land Use Da 'me Evenin i 6ttime Residential utdoor dBA' S0 dBA 5 dBA ce/Commercial door 5 dBA 5 dBA 0 dBA Chapter 7, Section 30.050 states, "(a) no person shall cause, produce, or allow to be produced, in any residential zoning district, any single event noise measured no more than six dBA above the ambient noise level at the location where the single noise event source is measured" Sub-section (b) sets a limit of eight dBA above the ambient sound level for office areas. Section 30.070 of Chapter 7 also specifies, "All exhaust fans and mechanical equipment shall be enclosed for the purposes of soundproofing..." Based on the language promulgated in the Municipal Code, we have assumed that the ambient sound level is the average equivalent sound level (L.y) of each of the specified tittle periods, i.e. Daytime, Evening, and Nighttime. The City of Saratoga Planning Departrnent and Santa Clara County Sheriffs Department were not able to confirm our assumptions regarding the definition of "ambient noise level". SITE The proposed Verizon generator site is on Lawrence Expressway near the intersection with Saratoga Avenue. The closest residential property line is across Lawrence Expressway to the west, approximately 150-feet from the generator site. From the site plans, the closest commercial property lines are 16-feet to the east and 20-feet to north of the proposed site. The nearest occupied buildings to the north and east are three stories tall. They are located 120- feet to the east and 150-feet to the north across asphalt parking lots. EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT We performed continuous 24-hour acoustical measurements between 24 and 25 March 2005 to quantify the existing noise environment at the proposed generator site. Traffic on Lawrence Expressway was the predominant noise source. Those readers not familiar with the fundamentals of environmental acoustics please refer tp Appendix A and Figure A-1. ~ A-weighted decibels - A-weighting is a spectrum cortrction that de-emphasizes certain octave frequency bands to closely compare to humans' range of hearing response. • 2 Between S and 11 April 2005 we placed calls to the City Planning Department regarding interpretation of the definitions in Chapter 7, Section 30.020 of the Municipal Code. The planner that we spoke to did not specify the L„ used by the City to define the "ambient sound level." They suggested that we contact the West Side Station of the Santa Clara County Sheriff s Department for further clarification. The Sheriff s Department responds to noise complaints from the community by measuring the sound levels at the location where the complaint was lodged. Both the City and Sheriffs Department have recently purchased sound level milers. Roger Haas 12 Apri12005 Page 3 Figure 1 below shows an aerial view of the site. GENERATOR SOUND DATA We understand that the proposed generator is a Generac 60-kilowatt diesel unit with a Series 2000 Sound Attenuated Enclosure. This unit with enclosure produces a sound level of 65 dBA at 23- feet. The generator is approximately 80-inches in height with fuel tank attached3. • 3 Source: Conversations with Generac Corp. customer service confirmed the unit height. Fi~un 1-Proposed Veriwn generator aite Roger Haas 12 Apri12005 Page 4 CALCULATIONS The City of Saratoga specified three time periods in Chapter 7 of their Municipal Code, "Daytime", "Evening", and "Nighttime". Our calculations addressed the nighttime criterion, which was the quietest level. The L~ of the nighttime hours (10:00pm to 7:OOam) was 62 dBA during the measurement period at the project site. We calculated that the nighttime Lam, will be 59 dBA at the setback of the nearest residential property line. At the closest commercial property line, we calculated the nighttime Lp to be 62 dBA. The generator sound level is calculated to be 57 dBA at the residential property line and 65 dBA at the closest commercial property line. For barrier calculations, we assumed an average human receiver height of five-feet. RECOMMENDATIONS • Meeting the City's criteria will require barriers one-foot taller than the equipment height for the north and east sides of the proposed Verizon generator equipment. These barriers are calculated to reduce the sound level from the proposed generator to meet the City's criteria. . The barrier will need to be constructed of a material having a minimum surface weight of three pounds per square foot surface weight and be sound absorbing facing the equipment, such as two- inch thick wood with sound absorption panels (e.g., IAC 2" polyethylene wrapped with acoustic spacer Noise-Foi1TM, www.industrialacoustics.com) or sound absorbing concrete masonry units (e.g., Proudfoot SoundBlox®, www.soundcell.biz). The barrier must not have any visible gaps or cracks at the connections of the boards or at the base of the barrier. The sound absorption is to be specified with a minimum NRC of 0.70. The western side of the generator is sufficient distance from the nearest residential property line and does not require additional attenuation. This concludes our current comments on the subject project. Please call with any questions. Sincerely, CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC. Ethan Salter Consultant • Roger Haas 12 Apri12005 Page 5 APPENDIX A FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF ENVIltONMENTAL NOISE This section provides background information to aid in understanding the technical aspects of this report. Three dimensions of environmental noise are important in determining subjective response. These are: * The intensity or level of the sound * The frequency spectrum of the sound * The time-varying character of the sound Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. • The "frequency" of a sound refers to the number of complete pressure fluctuations per second in the sound. The unit of measurement is the cycle per second (cps) or hertz (Hz). Most of the sounds, which we hear in the environment, do not consist of a single frequency, but of a broad band of frequencies, differing in level. The name of the frequency and level content of a sound is its sound spectrum. A sound spectrum for engineering purposes is typically described in terms of octave bands, which separate the audible frequency range (for human beings, from about 20 to 20,000 Hz) into ten segments. Many rating methods have been devised to permit comparisons of sounds having quite different spectra. Surprisingly, the simplest method correlates with human response practically as well as the more complex methods. This method consists of evaluating all of the frequencies of a sound in accordance with a weighting that progressively de- emphasizes the importance of frequency components below 1000 Hz and above 5000 Hz. This frequency weighting reflects the fact that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and at extreme high frequencies relative to the mid-range. The weighting system described above is called "A"-weighting, and the level so measured is called the "A-weighted sound level" or "A-weighted noise level." The unit of A- weighted sound level is sometimes abbreviated "dBA." In practice, the sound level is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes an electrical filter corresponding to the A-weighting characteristic. All U.S. and international standard sound level meters include such a filter. Typical sound levels found in the environment and in • industry are shown in Figure A-1. Although a single sound level value may adequately describe environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise is a conglomeration of distant noise sources, which results in a relatively steady background Roger Haas 12 April 2005 Page 6 noise having no identifiable source. These distant sources may include traffic, wind in trees, industrial activities, etc. and are relatively constant from moment to moment. As natural forces change or as human activity follows its daily cycle, the sound level may vary slowly from hour to hour. Superimposed on this slowly varying background is a succession of identifiable noisy events of brief duration. These may include nearby activities such as single vehicle pass-bys, aircraft flyovers, etc. which cause the environmental noise level to vary from instant to instant. To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, statistical noise descriptors were developed. "L10" is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded during 10 percent of a stated time period. The L10 is considered a good measure of the maximum sound levels caused by discrete noise events. "LSO" is the A-weighted sound level that is equaled or exceeded 50 percent of a stated time period; it represents the median sound level. The "L90" is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded during 90 percent of a stated time period and is used to describe the background noise. • As it is often cumbersome to quantify the noise environment with a set of statistical descriptors, a single number called the average sound level or "L~" is now widely used. The term "L~" originated from the concept of a so-called equivalent sound level which contains the same acoustical energy as a varying sound level during the same time period. In simple but accurate technical language, the L~ is the average A-weighted sound level in a stated time period. The Ley is particularly useful in describing the subjective change in an environment where the source of noise remains the same but there is change in the level of activity. Widening roads and/or increasing traffic are examples of this kind of situation. The effects of noise on people can be listed in three general categories: * Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction * Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning * Physiological effects such as startle, hearing loss The sound levels associated with environmental noise usually produce effects only in the first two categories. Unfortunately, there has never been a completely predictable measure for the subjective effects of noise nor of the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and habituation to noise over time. Thus, an important factor in assessing a person's subjective reaction is to compare the new noise environment to the existing noise environment. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the existing, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged. With regard to increases in noise level, knowledge of the following relationships will be helpful in understanding the quantitative sections of this report: Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of only 1 dB in sound level • cannot be perceived. Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dB change is considered ajust- noticeable difference. A change in level of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable • Roger Haas 12 April 2005 Page 7 change in community response would be expected. A 10 dB change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and would almost certainly cause an adverse community response. • • Roger Haas 12 Apri12005 Page 8 A-WEIGHTED SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL, IN DECIBELS 110 130 THRESHOLD ~ PAIN CIVIL DEFENSE SIREN (100') JET TAKEOFF (Z00') 170 RNETING MACHINE DIESEL BUS (1S) BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT TRAIN PASSBY (10'j OFF HIGHWAY VEHICLE (50') PNEUMATIC DRILL (50') SF MUNI LIGHT~iAIL VEHICLE (35') FREIGHT CARS (100 VACUUM CLEANER (10'j SPEECH (1 ~ LARGE TRANSFORMER (Z00') AVERAGE RESIDENCE SOFT WHISPER (57 RUSTLING LEAVES THRESHOLD OF HEARING (100 = DISTANCE IN FEET BETWEEN SOI~CE ANO LISTENER i10 1D0 90 00 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 a • o soo4 macs r. sKTCS iwoa~ics, Mc. Fns ~oousncu ovoe ss~nr~now aar TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS MEASURED IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND INDUSTRY ROCK MUSIC BAND PILEDRNER (50') AMBULANCE SIREN (100') BOILER ROOM PRINTING PRESS PLANT GARBAGE DISPOSAL IN THE HOME INSIDE SPORTS CAR, 50 MPH DATA PROCESSING CENTER DEPARTMENT STORE PRNATE BUSINESS OFFlCE LIGHT TRAFFIC (100") TYPICAL MINIMUM NIGHTTIME LEVELS-RESIDENTIAL AREAS RECORDING STUDIO MOSQUITO (3~ FIGURE Al ,~a~ „~~ • • Attachment 4 • ~~ Q X W oN ~~ N ~~ R ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ 3~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ .. ~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~:i6UdO"1:I:1:,; I ,, ,:, ... ,~ ~,:, 5000 0 c; dd5 O ~~0~~~ ~ 0~ ~~ '~'^ ^v• ^ .N i 8 ^v W~ ~- a~ o W ~~ N 'O as ~ OV ~ W _ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ W ~ m ~~ a ~ W ~ d ~ ® © d W 3 U ~ ~Q Q ~ w ~ ~ ~ H ~ r 1- a~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ n W ~~ gR~ ~~ ~~ ~ m R~g ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~ s~ ~a~p~gjp ~~~~ ~~ °yg~~ gg~ ~ n ~a~64Q ~~ 6 ~Y~ 46 ~~~ °~ - ~ t~ ~ .~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~b~ ~ ~ ~~ N ri N d tl 8 y £ ! ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ d a ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ n~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ Z ~ ~ n • r • rf ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ W W ~Q z~ ~~ ~n W 3 CO N N (0 T ~~ W~ m ~ Z Z~ W m H `~ U U U 4 ~, OI ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ o$ ~~ ~~ s~ _~ ~~s ~~~ ~~ ~~ s ~~ ~~~Z gNg NZ7J` > NS 8 N H v rI n h N ~v ~S W n ~ ~~ m~ z ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ I~~~ ~~~ 1 Z O a o~ U cn W 0 ~~~ ~~~} ~v~ ~~p N U ~o 0 z Z~ >~ ,~ ~ ~''- ~ ~ X22 ~- 3 ~8362/-e~ ~~ 2~n. 2' 27gC. 2 • ~R. t5q~ NEr, i `~ ~~ PCL • A j~\ 9~~ 9~y ~. F \4\ A4 ~~ `. r~ ., too ~ ~S. nJ. :~~'~t~ .,' ~ ACS. ~'~ JJI =~•J ,~ _s .~ 3.?SAC. ~' ~'$. A ~- . • .••••.. ~ ' ~••... .. GT .... .S•e.E.2s~ ~FpR~~a it •• ~. 2 •.~~ '• `...: +ZO o P M• ~$~. - ~ 29 /~ ~ ,.. •. ~.. FI' ~~ '~ • ~8~so ,~ *• .... N a ~'CC AC. ~~ ~~ /~N 1 I ? ~.~ '" +~. PRpS~~ r~q ~r PqL MS .. ~ . ~~ -~-.._ r ~ ~84~p _~ ~ ~`•••~ t `~ s3~o 1 i ~ •~ e~ r (~ i ~ ~ . 0 ~ ~ d I ~~K ~- ti 6 I -- 58 ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t~ 1 4,9 l $~10 ~' ~ i, 3 ~ C, r 1 '°1'~spECT ~ ` I ~ ~ '~ 59 ~ __~ I 2 ~ r ~ ~' L ~ 82p',l ~'-_ ~ .._ ~~ Z 1 ,~ ~~r ~~) r-~x~~-o' coo ~o ~sr~woe~r e~aa~ J3p ' .~ h~ ~ ?53 -•. ~ ~!1 ~\ ~~m rt 36 ~~~ . ~/ ~~"~~1~ ~~ Q' ry ~ ~91~ ~P ~P \~0~ ,V ~~t ~~~ ~~~ ~~ s o f -IIIm(gpfMMD,Gf® lit71B~)l6L11 PA1hMW7b1t11 Au DRArrw:s AND weTrEn MATERIAL caNTARED NERERI ARE COP1RfpIlED AND 111E TIE SqE PROPERTY aF THE ARCNTEOT/ENOfEEft/SIIR1ElOR AND YAY NOT RE OLFLICAIED, USED. OR 06ttOSED MIIFIOUT THE MtlTTEN CpISENT av THE ARClITECT/ EN411EFR/SUR1Elpt rsEV+sla+ ®OItlf11A1 RELEASE ms ~~/17/0~ ~AEDLlE UPDATE ~]Z(~ ®PLAN CNFCX BLL91Lm9L4~. o _ DRAMI 9!: RLT M,E OIENNt 06/17/04 ~ f a-Im WWE WESTGATE CClC BUNK 816226 ADDRESS 1777 SARATOGA AVENUE SARATOGA, CA. 95070 SANTA CLARA COUNTY !SHEET mLE OVERALL SITE PLAN SCALE: SITE SETBACKS: FRONT SETBACK = 25' Q SIDE SETBACKS = 10' ~zE aF Lor. //, Aso Fr AREA OF IMPROVEMENTS: 322 SO FT SITE COVERAGE PERCENTAGE: i&S \,~1 i Ir A SIGN SHALL BE PLACED AT THE MAIN ELECTRICAL SERVICE PANEL STATING THE TYPE AND LOCATION OF THE EMERGENCY POWER SOURCE. A PORTABLE FlRE EXTINGUISHER (MIN. 2A:20B:C) SHALL BE PROVIDED. GUARD POST/BOLLARDS SHALL BE INSTALLED FOR VEHICLE PROTECTION. ALL BUILDING COLORS AND MATERIALS ARE TO BE THOSE SPECIFIED ON THE APPROVED PLAN SET. ALL NEW MATERIAL SHALL BE PAINTED TO MATCH THE HXf$'~NA4d GROUND MOUNTED EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PAINTED TO MATCH THE EXISTING GROUND LEVEL EQUIPMENT. THE T1TLE REPORT NOTES 2 EASEMENTS, NEITHER OF WHICH CAN BE PLOTTED. 1) THE ACCESS EASEMENT IS A NON-EXCLUSIVE BLANKET EASEMENT PROVIDING ACCESS FROM SARATOGA ~ AVENUE. 2) THE UTILITY EASEMENT DESCRIPTION IS NOTED AS "UNAVAILABLE". DETAILED SITE PLAN 1" ~ 4' (for 22•x34• plot) t'-8'par11'xt7•pot) _ ~ t40 ~ `~~-~ `-~E) 6'-O" CHAJN LINK ' .~ ~~ ~ i ' -i~ I ' ' I I I ~ a1 I > (E) BUILDING 1 I (E}ICE BRIDGE 1 ~ 11'-4"x20'-0' I 2'-0" WIDE I ~ 10' HIGH ~~'+ ~ ~+ + i ~ ~ ~ VENT +~+ + + ~+ i +I+'~ + + + T 1+. i ~ 1 i t ~ } }~ \~. ~+ i i ~ ~ \4 t +~ t i t f~ .i { } ~+ i i + ~` + + + + ~~++. .+ .t + + i + (E) CI E BRIDGE 2'-0"x14'-6" "AND ._ (N) 1-1• AND 1-2 1/2• U/G CONDUIT FOR POWER AND CONTROL CABLES (N) POWER AND CABLES TO PENETRATE SHELLER AND ROUTE TO TRANSFER SWITCH. VERIFY LOCAnON OF EOUIPNENT AND ROUTING PRIOR To coNSTRUCnoN (N)NECESSARYFO~R P~RO1~ECnON ~+ 4i / 4 i~ F+i ++ i ~ i i • ~ +~ ~w Ni it ~~i i * MM4 I ~ I~ i l ~ t i i . + 10~ ~' N [1j • °I (N) 7'-9"x13'-9• CONCRETE PAO AND BACKUP GENERATOR TO BE PLACED BETWEEN EbSTMG BILLBOARD POSTS (E)61'-O" MONOPOLE ON 4'-O• DlA PAD -(E} PARKING BOLLARD (TYP. 2~ a: d . o I . °° ~- lE} 12'-0" BILLBOARD ~-(E}FENCE TO BE REMOVED 1 i r .' ~, ta'-o• _`~ ~ ?nor: ~ ~~ ~, ~ ~~ ~IW ~~ ~d ~'~ ~n m ., 25' ~ ~~l ~TBA~ ENE M S 0 G s rA1OfpOMRlfAGfleN !®ll MOlmlm PA7EIMQ7`1L1 ALL dGNNGS AND IRITTEII YAIERUL CONTAtED fEREtI ARE COPYAIGNTm MD ARE 71E SGIE PROPERTY OF TIE ARgIIECT/bIGIF.ER/SIRtYEYDR A/ID WY NOT EE DUPUGAIED. USED. OR OISC103ED W1110UT 111E IRITIEN O7NSENNT OF THE AACNIECT/ ENOIEER/SIIR~EYOR REVI SION ®O RNy1K RFIFASE m~ ttt,L. Qp EDIlE11PDA1F f~t2/Ot/M ®P EAN aEac ~,g}(Q~, ®R FDIlE UPDATE ~T.~/13/!LS Qa TY PLAN OEC1( 1LL96dI14S. DRJMN BY: a1w1EO m: MTE oRaRt SIIDICO ~ f BLT Gw ae/17/04 47-1J1 NAME WESTGATE CCIC BUN1t 816226 ADDRESS 1777 SARATOGA AVENUE SARATOGA, CA. 95070 SANTA CLARA COUNTY EEf 1fRE DETAILED SITE PLAN w1r.n Rpiad otnol 11ao awes as nrAwlro~ eA. 1tlM A S 0 E 5 -.0.100(R01YRY~AG>s OOl~~1m M7FNfQ7611Y ILL ORAMNS AND W1TR]I WTEIMIL CONTAIED HERFN ARE COPYRI6FIlED AIO ARE 1!E SOIE PROPERTY aF 11E ARCHITECT/k1MJEER/SUR1EYgt AND WY NOT BE DUPUCAIED. USED, OR 0190.0SED MTNOIIT M M1TR]I CONSEIIT OF 4E ARCHITECT/ ENC1EElt/SURIEYOR REMSION QaTY PLMI a;Ea ~L~ 0 oarN er: ~T a1Ep® x: ~ oaE onwle oe/n/a 918100 A71 k 47-131 SITE BOUNDARIES r . 4C (ta 11' M 1r qot) NMIE WESTGATE CCIC BUNT 816226 wor~ss 1777 SARATOGA AVENUE SARATOGA, CA. 95070 SANTA CLARA COUNTY rrr~ SITE BOUNDARIES v (E) TOP OF TOWER EXTENSION 65.0' AGL 61.0' AGL E TOP OF TOWEP. EXTENSION 65.0' AGL OF TOWER 61.0' AGL H - __ S 0 E G s !IIlQOOfIADORAGINN Ml11wN61m MC~lIF19! ALL ORAwN09 AND wImEN MATERIAL OONTAeIED HEREN ARE COPYRICISIED AID ARE THE 901E PROPERTY dF 11E ARCHTECT/hN11EER/'SIIR9EYOR AND YAY NOT eE DuPLICATE0. usm, OR Dlsao9En wTNOUr 1FE weTD]I CONSENT dF THE ARfleTECT/ ENCeE,FR/511R1EY0R (E) 61.0' MONOPOLE NgTH 4' EXTENSION (E) BILLBOARD SIGN (Ei EQUIPMENT SHELTER (E) SHRUBS AND TREES (E) 61.0' MONOPCIE WITH 4' EXTENSION (E) 81LL80AR0 SIGN (N) 60kW BACKUP GENERATOR ON NEW CONCRETE PAD (E) EQUIPMENT SHELTER (N) $WNDBLOX NgSE BARRIER WALL (N) CONCRETE PAD SHRUBS ANO TREES REV ISION Qa Tr PuN asEac ~L~tT/m 0 0 oluwl er. CIIEd® K: DATE 016YRt sNmloo roe k e~T ~ Oe/17/M a-ias NAl1E WESTGATE CCIC BUNf~ 816226 AooRESs 1777 SARATOGA AVENUE SARATOGA, CA. 95070 (E) CHAIN UNK FENCE EXISTING ELEVATION ~• - 10' (FOR »• x 1~• PLOT) 1• - 5' (FOR 22•X34' PLOT) NOTE: SOME ITEMS NOT sHOwN FOR CLARITY PROPOSED ELEVATION r - Io' (FOR n• x n• PLOT) I• - s' (FOR 22•x34• PLOn SANTA CLARA COUNTY ELEVATION VIEWS 0 µ REBAR o 1s' o.c. ~8 REBAR 0 16' O.C. 8' ~ < \ ~// \, M91 ~~~~ , a .! ~~~ 24' µ REBAR 12' O.C. BOTH WAYS 1/2' HILn BOLT KITH NUT AND LOCK WASHER, 10 EACH e • ~ M • .,~ ~1 ' d a a ~ c• TWO (2) 8 MIL POLY SHEETS TO ACT AS MgSTURE BARRIER µ nES o 1z' o.c. MN. 4 1/2' EMTIEDMENr FOR BOLTS c 3' TYP. COMPACTED NON-ORGANIC FlLL, AS REQUIRED, OR UNDSTURBED SOIL /4 REBAR (TYP.) 2 0 TOP do BOTTOM d 3• cLR. TYP. 12' FOUNDATION PAD CROSS SECTION DETAIL ~ 1 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES J MATERIAL SPECIFlCATIONS 1. ALL WORK SWiLL CONFORM TO THE UNIFORM BURRING CODE (U.B.C.), 1997 EDITION, LAGiL BuR,DR1G REGULATIONS AND ALL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CODES MID TAWS, AS APPLICABLE 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL aMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN WI1H THOSE ON THE JOB. SHOU.D CONDITIONS EXIST WHICH ARE CONTRARY TO THOSE SHOWN, THEN CONTRACTOR SNALL NOTIFY THE VEPoZON REPRESENTATNE BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. 3. ALL GRADING AND EARTFIWORK REOINRED SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SRE SURVEY AND PLOT PLMI (8Y OTHERS) FRONDED WrrHN THESE DRAWINGS. ALL GRADNG AND FARTIIWORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE NTiH LOCAL LAWS AND ORDNANCES MIO U.B.C., CHAP. 33. 4, CONCRETE FORMWORK. PLACEMENT, CURING AND FlNISHRIG SWILL EiE AS aRECTED EfY THE OWNER ANO THE APPROVED PLANS. CONCRETE WORK SHUL TIE N ACCORDANCE WITH A.C.I. 'CODES. SPECIFTCATKINS AND RECOMMENDED PRACTICES'. g, CONCRETE SHALL HAVE A MNIMUM CgdPRESSNE STRENGTH OF 2500 PSI 028 DAYS, UTIIJZING TYPE II CEMENT, U.N.O. CONCRETE MIX DESIGN SHALL BE FURNLSHED BY MI NDEPENOENT LABORATORY AND SHALL NaCATE; NUMBER OF SACKS PER YARD. MA>aMUM AMOUNT OF WATER PER YARD. OESIgT SLUMP, AGGREGATE TYPE ANO ADMIXTURES, IF USED. FOUNDATION CONCRETE SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM SPECIU INSPEC110N AS ALLOWED BY U.B.C. SEC. 1701.5, ITELI N0. 2. g, NO SaLS REPORT IS PROVIDED FOR THE PROJECT. DESIGN OF FOUNDATKIN IS B~ISED l~0ll CLASS 4 SOL MATERIAL PER TABLE 18-1-A OF THE U.B.C. DESIGN SOIL BEARING PRESSURE IS 1000 PSF FOR DEAD LOAD PLUS trvE LOAD. THE BUILJ)ING SLAB MID FWNDATION SHALL REST ON SgLS WTIH MN EXPANSION INDEX LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 20 PFR U.B.C. SEC. 1803.2 AND TABLE 18-1-8. 7, FOOTNGS SHALL BEAR ON FIRM. UNDISTURBED NATURAL SOIL OR CERTIFlED COMPACTED BACKFlLL TO 95% OPnMUM DRY DENSITY. g, FOOTNGS SHALL EXTEND 24' MINIMUM NTO NATURU GRADE OR FlNISH GRADE, WHICHEVER iS LOWER. WHERE UNUSUAL SOIL OR SIZE CONaT10NS EXIST OR BECOME EVIDENT DURNG CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOnFY TILE VERIZON RATNE BEFORE PROCEEDNG IWTH THE WORK. GENERAL FOUNDATION NOTES 9. REINFORCEMENT FOR CONCRETE SHALL 8E DffORL1ED BARS OF GRADE 4O OR 60 STEEL CONFORMING TO LATESi A.S.T.M. SPEC. A-615 (GRADE 40 OR 60 FOR ~4 BARS AND SMALLER; GRADE 60 FOR /5 BARS AND LARGER). BAR SPLICERS IN CONCRETE SHALL HAVE A LAP OF 25 BAR DUd1ElERS, MN91UM. BARS SWILL EXTEND CONnNL10US, FULL LENGTH of MEMBER CONPA111NG THEM OR BE SPLICED WITH SPECIFTED LAP. ELECTRICALLY WELDED W11E MESH SHALL CONFORM TO UTEST AS.T.M. SPEC. A-185. 10. ALL REINFORCEMENT, ANCHOR BOLTS MID OTHER MICHORAGES TO CONCRETE SHAH BE ACCURATELY PLACED MID POSRA~fLY SECURED AND SUPPORTED BY CONCRETE BLOCKS, GUVANIZED METAL CHAtltS, SPACERS OR METAL HANGERS AND SHALL BE IN POSI110N BEFORE CONCRETE PIACNG OR GROUPING S BEGUN. 11. CONCRETE COVER FOR REINFORCING BARS SHUL BE J• FOR CONCRETE POURED aRECTLY AGNNST THE GROUND MID 2• FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO 1HE GROUND OR wEiTHER, BUf PLACED N FORMS. 12. NO STRUCTURAL MEMBERS SHUT BE CUT FOR DUC1S, CONDOR, PIPING, ETC., UNLESS SPEgFICALLY DETAILED. 13. THIS DRAWING IS FOR SiRUCTURAL (FOUNDATION) WORK ONLY. ALL WORK NOT SPEgFICM.I.Y SHOWN OR REFERENCED SHALL gE BY OTHERS. ALL ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL. AND PPING WORK SHALL BE PER APPROVED PLANS IN ACCORDANCE WRH UL APPROPRIATE STATE AND LOCO CODES 14. CONTRACTOR SHAH REFER TO THE STATE OF CAUFORNIA APPROVED PLANS ATTACHED, AS PROVIDED BY FlBERBOND CORPORATION FOR ALL FOUNDATKIN ANCHORAGE DEPNLS AND Mq>t1lAR EQUIPMENT SHELTER DETNLS NOT SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. 15. CONCRETE EXPANSION ANCHORS SHALL BE Hlln 'KWIK-BOLT [I•, OR EQ1RV., NSTALLED N ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST I.C.&0. EVALUATION REPORT N0. 4627. THE 3/4' DuMETER EXPANSION BOLTS SHOWN SHALL BE POSITIONED TO PRONDE 4' MNNUM CLEARANCE FROM THE EDGE OF THE CONCRETE TO 1HE CENTERl1NE OF THE BOLT. SHEAR MID TENSKNN VALUES FOR THE MK210RS USED N THE OESKUI ARE BASED ON 2000 PSI, MN., CONCRETE. 13'-9' -~+~ 1 a e G v e ~ a'..... 7-9' .. a e. 1' (P) µ KEBABS o 12' O.C. HOPoZONTAL ~ 12• o.C. vERncu Wa.~ ~ olne. eeao orlENS at. NrASAeTDII, a ease S 0 S tIIq(~Of1A~AGf!/ t~lwllstm ux:pq~rn s. e ~ ILL ORAINIGS ND METTt'N WTiWu e .~ CON1Ae1ED HEREN ARE COPYW1111FD AND AqE 4 11E SOLE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHIECT/ENCIEER/SURYEYOR AND WY NOT BE OIIPl1CA1FD, USED. OR OISC106ED MAHOUT THE weTTa caNSEnT OF iNE ARCHITECT/ ENGeFDt/SlIR1A:YTlIt EXTERIOR EDGE OF FOUNDAnON 1' 0 45' TYP. NOTE: 1. REFER TO SITE PLAN FOR LOCATIgV OF FOUNDAngV 0 THIS SITE. FOUNDATION PLANS 4' SCHEDLNE 40 CARBON STEEL PIPE FlLLED WITH CONCRETE OR GROUT ANO PAINTED YELLOW GRADE, PAVEMENT OR FlNISHED GRADE CONCRETE f00TING ~ ~P ~- 3 GUARD POST/BOLLARD DETAIL 3'-6' 3'-6' ®a wlaNU RELEASE m's altmllZl4! SCALE: 2 QR mIrE uPDATE SaTI]2L41~i NONE ® ~ aEac BLLJ13L9iL0f. ®A EOIIE UPDATE ~J~ S/aS 0 ORATM BY: CIEClOiD aY: are oP~wTe srfmco roe k ElT ~ ~/n/~ a-1~1 NAME WESTGATE I~ ~~ I 1777 SARATOGA AVENUE SARATOGA, CA. 95070 SANTA CLARA COUNTY EEf TRLE FOUNDATION DETAILS ~~` 4 NONE S'1 13'-9" ' d •e „y. • 8' HIGH SOUNOBLOX NgSE ....' ..4 . ..:.. d • •e ' ' ~ ' , .. , ' , , , ' • ~ ' '.• '~ d. • ~ e " . •' .,. • . • ` ! : . • • : , BARRIER TYPE RSC/Rf • . de ~ .. •. ~ . ~ ~ • • • d.. ! •, i ~ ~ ~ d • d: .. ~~ e o e o e 'd ..d. ` ... , ,. ,., ~ ' . • . d . ~. . a - ~ ''' d • 10.56' MOUNTING ~ : ' ~ • d • . i e.~; .: ~• . •~ ~' HIL11 BOLT . a: '. • . . a ' ,a W/NUT g LOCK : ~ . . ~,: ~ 4 . GENERAigt WASHER. 10 EA. ~, . " • ~• '~•. MOUNTING .• .•. .. ~ PLATFgtM ,, ~ . ~ ;• . i1. ~ • •~d • • d• ~'~ e e e . • 1 . ~ , . • ! ~' .. •, d.. . ..' a• .. `•'' 8.0" 23.0' 21.32" (TYP) ~~) NEW CONCRETE PAD 23.0' r-s" n S 0 E s rnanio~wmmnu~ notMOlm>ac rA~epl:e~wt ALL ORA1RNfS AND MtlTR]1 WTtIUIL COIITANED MEAEN ARE CCPIfif#11ED AND ARE 111E SOtE PROPERLY QF 11E ARCNITECT/ENf~EER/5tR1ElOR AND WY NOT E[ OUPLKaTED, USED. OR DISCLOSED NITIIOUT DE MATR?I CdISE11T ff 11E ARCMTECT/ ENCREEIt/SlIR1E1'DR REN SION ®O RNiIAI. REIFA.SE CD'S ~I.9oll11J14. ~R EDLRE UPDATE ~1~ ®P LAN acac ~L9TL49L4S. ®R EDLrE IIPDATf ~~j(~ 0 - 0 _ OWMN BY: g4CYED BC oaE Da+N~ ~~ ~ f 1LT ~ oe/17/D4 47-131 NAME WESTGATE CCIC BUNB 818226 ADDRESS 1777 SARATOGA AVENUE SARATOGA, CA. 95070 SANTA CLARA COUNTY EET TmE STRUCTURAL DETAILS GENERATOR MOUNTING PLATFORM SH 1 6'x8'x16' SOUNOBLOX WALL 8' MIN. MIN. ~,1 a .' < a ~/~~ ,, • ~ , 24' - a, 1/2' Hllil Bq.T WITH NUT AND LOCK WASHER, 10 EACH •° s ,• • TVMD (2) B MIL POLY SHEETS TO ACT AS MgSTURE BARRIER /4 TIES 012' O.C. COMPACTED NON-ORGANIC FlLL, AS REQUIRED, OR UNDISTURBED SOIL /4 REBAR (TYPJ 2 o TOP ~ eoTTOM /4 REBAR 016' O.C. r6 REBAR 0 16' O.C. /4 REBAR 12' O.C. BOTH WAYS MIN. 4 1/2' EMBEDMENT FOR BOLTS 0 3' CLR. TYP. 12' 'SOUNDBLOX' WALL FOR USE REgJAtING A NgSE BARRIER DESIGN CRITERIA A. RCS REINFORCED MASONRY UNITS. B. REINFORCING STEEL=GRADE 60. C. MAXIMUM Sql BEARING PRESSURE=1000 PS 0. HAND DESIGN 70 MPH, EXPOSURE 'B' AND SEISMIC ZONE 4. Nn1FC• FOOi1NG TO BE CLASS 'B' CONCRETE Fc=2500 PSI. FlNISHED GRADE aFFERENCE ON EACH SIDE OF WALL NOT TO EXCEED SIX INCHES GROUT ALL CELLS CONTANING REBAR INCLUDING BOND BEAMS DOUBLE VERTICAL REBAR AT CORNERS. ~~~ 14: (e2S1 ~SI~-0100 aiA1~(W1 tS1-0121 i °~ i n S ~ e s lA10(ROf W961~AG~ 190tRMa)167m M7C ((fil~itY NL DRAEielfJS MO McT1EN WIERUL CpITAeED IEAEtl IRE COP1TeCN1ED MO ARE TIE SOLE PROPERTY ff THE fRCFeIECT/ENGeEIIt/SIR~EIgt MID WY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED. OR DISCLOSED MiHOUT TIE NItlT1EN CONSENT OF 11E MtC11TECT/ ENGIIIEEII/SURYEYON REVI SION ®D tA1R1Al RELI_ASE CDY ~m(~, QR EDl1E LIPDAIE ~1Z~ ®P INI CNECIC lLLBTmP1C3. ®R E011E UPDATE ~ DRMM e!: GIECIID) eh M1E ORMe! sNmlco roe k ~T ~r pe/1T~ •T-1~1 NAME WESTGATE CCIC BUN# 816226 ADDRESS 1177 SARATOGA AVENUE SARATOGA, CA. 95070 SANTA CLARA COUNTY STRUCTURAL DETAILS CONCRETE PAD AND NOISE BARRIER WALL ~,~ 1 S-3 THE MpNTORING DEVICE CAPABLE OF NMFDIATELY DETECTING HAZARDOUS MATERIAL LEAKAGE FROM THE PRYARY CONTANiEHT NTO THE SECppARY CONTAMMENT SHALL BE CONNECTED TO pS11NCT VISUAL AN) AUDIBLE ALARMS. 1FIE NOISE BARRIER SNAl1 BE CONSTRUCIEO OF 'SOINpBLOX' TYPE RSC/RF PAINTED Alp BE SOUIp ABSORBNG FACNG THE EOIAPMENT. THE BARKER 'SOIINDBLOX' TO BE 8'x8'z16'. THE NOISE BARKER IS TO BE A MNMNNI OF 1Y TALLER THAN THE EOUIPIIENT lEIGFIT. THE SOIRID ABSORPTION IS TO BE SPECIFIED INTH A MMIl1M NRC OF G7Q THE BOkW BACKUP DESEL GENAATgt AND fUEL TAN( HAS AN OPERATNIG 1E]CHT Of 4,DS0 POL1pS. 15-9' 8' wAU ®®~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ®~~ ~~~ ~~~ e'-o• ~~~ O m 93' BY W~Ire Rpbd Olfla IQO OrR11S Ot TOL htSl 7S GiAT: NQSI }SI-OGI (N) NOISE BARKER-SOUNDBI.OX TYPE RSC/RF TO BE MISTAl1ED ON TOP ff NEw FOINpAT10N ON THE NORTH AND EAST SKIES t-9• PIPE PENT TO IMN. 17 A.GL (N) NOISE BARKER ~ WALL TOR m Cfl~RATOR O 3Y GENERA BASE TANK 9291' GRADE ~'~ ..~.~ ~~..~ ~.. ~ ~'' ~, .. ., ~ J ~. ;.r, .. ;~ _ + e:~ '.•a'. ~~..~. '~'. ' . ~`a. ; J: ~ l ..J.. ~;• i :~ ~ •' i ~ .• 'i'. A\` ~ .~. .~ ~ •' ~ . ` :.. ~ ~ LEAK DETECTOR .. ~. e • .' .. : ~ CDNCREIE PAC A.•~ ~ ~ :~i SIDE VIEW REAR VIEW NOT TO SCALE CONCRETE PAD NOT TO SCALE 60 kW GENERATOR AND FUEL TANK DETAILS a S 0 I s tIIpIiO1Mi~AG1® ~Palasue e~al~alxsrm ALL ORAMNCS AND MRT1D1 YAIEitlA CONTAIED ItRDI ARE COPYItlfi11ED AND ARE iIIE SOIE PROPERTY t/ 11E ARCHIIECT/bIG~EEtt/ALR1ETOk AND YAY NOT BE OIiUCATED, USED, OR OISC<06ED M11i0UT 1FIE 1MtlTTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHTECT/ ENGN~R/SIMIYEYOR 55' REVISION QREIXIE UiDATE ~]j(~ ®FLAN CHECK ~Q}(QO(g, ®REOLlE IPDATE BLL9CLI~lS. DINN Br. BLT CNECIQD BY: ~ oaE owwTt ae/n/a s~moo ~ k n-u1 za• WESTGATE CIC 8UN# 816226 8' ADDRESS GRADE ;: ~% ' 1717 SARATOGA AVENUE 12' SARATOGA, CA. 95070 SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRLE 60 kW GENERATOR & FUEL TANK DETAILS ~~ -~ SCALE: 1 NONE D'1 1 /2 CU. THWN (GREEN) TO ROD 5/8"X8' COPPER EXISTING PG3E ovERHEAo TRANSFORMERS (E) METER/MAIN 200 AMP 1 PHASE 120/2~0 VOLT rEW 'ATS' 1UTOMAl1C TRANSFER TWITCH - NOMA JR t00 ANP 3 POLE 'SEPERATE THE NEUTRAL XINN.) ~E NOTE 2 ALL ORAYNlGS AIO MMITEN WIEAUL CpiTAIME'D IF]tEdl AAE COP1gIfitlED A!D ARE TIE 501E PROPERTY a THE ~aanECT~T+c~m/suRVETat wTO wAr Nor eE twPUCA»eo, usEO. aR oaaasEa wTNarT THE Y/tl11EN CONSENT dF 11E ARGIIECT/ ENOINEEIt/SIIRMEYOR ®oRra~u ~~ ms )~9pL1ZLQ! ~AEOll1E IPOAIE ~]~ oR~tt er: EwT atEn® rr: ~ a>E o ae/n/a srnwo .ne k a-tat NAME WESTGATE 1. A SIGN SHAH BE PLACED AT THE SERVICE-ENTRANCE EQUIPMENT SIGN TO INDICATE THE TYPE AND LOCATION OF ON-SIZE OPTIONAL POWER SOURCES. A SIGN SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED FOR INDINOUAL UNIT EQUIPMENT FOR STANDBY glUMINAIION. 2. COMPLY WITH NEC. 250.20 (D) AND 250.30 FOR A SEPERAT0.Y DERIVED SYSTEM. 1777 SARATOGA AVENUE SARATOGA, CA. 95070 SANTA CLARA COUNTY EEi TI1LE ELECTRICAL DETAILS >, S 0 F ~ G S -Aq(YOfMI~AGf!! eolNalLSt37 fAlt~(ig16f7Y SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM ~~ 1 ~E-1 120 VOLT gRCUIT IN 120 VOLT gRCUIi IN EXISTING BUILDING PAN0. LOCAL PANEL FOR LOCAL PAN0. FOR 200 ANP 8US BLOq( HEATER 3/4'C, BATTERY CHARGER 120/20 VOLT 2 X12, 1/12 GROUND 3/4'C, 2 X12, 1 X12 3 PHASE GROUND • 13210 Ten yak Way • • ~ I~; _ . • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-12,500 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Medium Density- 3.48 Max Dwelling Units per Acre MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 17,424 square feet SLOPE: Level GRADING REQUIRED: Not Applicable ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project including the construction of second-story additions to an existing single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. MATERIALS AND COLORS: The materials and colors of the second-story addition are to match the existing residence. The existing residence has white wood siding and a grey/black composition shingle roof. C PROJECT DATA: Lot Coverage: Residence Paving TOTAL Floor Area: Residence First Floor Second Floor Total Setbacks: Residence: Front Right Side (West) First Story Interior Second Story Interior Left Side (East) First Story Exterior Second Story Exterior Reaz First Story Second Story Height: Proposal Code Requirements (no change) 46% Maximum Allowable 55% 3,362 sq. ft. 4,653 sq. ft. 8,015 sq. ft. 9,583 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable 3,362 sq. ft. 895 sq. ft. 4,257 sq. ft 25 ft. 18 ft. 9 inches 31 ft. 8 inches 25 ft. 30 ft. 12 ft. 100+ ft. 22.3 ft. Highest point 354.78 ft. Lowest point 352.19 ft. Average point 353.48 ft. Topmost point 375.83 ft. 4,284 sq. ft. Minimum Requirement 25 ft. 10 ft. 15 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. 25 ft. 35 ft. Maximum Allowable 26 ft. • • • PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests design review approval to construct a 895 square foot second-story addition to an existing one-story single-family residence on a corner lot. The total floor area of the proposed second-story residence is 4,257 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 22.35 feet. The gross lot size is 17,424 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 12,500. The materials and colors of the second-story addition are to match the existing ranch style residence. The existing residence has white wood siding and agrey/black composition shingle roof. Privacy is protected by proper site planning. For example, the proposed second-story addition is located in the center of the property to minimize impacts to privacy and control view to adjacent properties. The second-story addition has been located to increase visual distance between adjacent residences. No balcony is proposed. The second-story portions of the structure are set back from the first-story at every elevation. Rooflines from the first- storybreak up the building line of the second story reducing mass and bulls. The proposal is sensitive to overall height with minimized attics spaces and interior ceiling heights resulting in a maximum height of 22.3 ft. The proposed second story is approximately 25% of the first floor area. Large wall expanses are avoided and the roofline is varied in height and form. • Trees No arborist review was required for this project. Neighbor Notiftcation Staff received neighbor notification templates for all adjacent neighbors which indicate no issues or concerns with the proposed project. Revisions Requested by Staff and Incorporated into Exhibit A • Windows were added to the rear elevation to punctuate a blank wall (the rear elevation is 100 ft+ to the property line). • The rooflines were revised to better integrate the second-story addition to the existing one-story residence. Design Review Findings Staff finds the proposed project supports the findings for design review as discussed below: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. Privacy is protected by proper site planning. The proposed second-story addition is located in the center of the property to minimize impacts to privacy and control view to adjacent properties. The second-story addition has been located to increase visual distance between adjacent residences. No balcony is proposed. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The scope of work includes asecond-story addition. . No grading or excavation will be performed to the existing lot. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. No trees will be removed as a result of the proposed project. Arborist review was not required given the scope of work and location, size, and species of trees on the site. As an extra precautionary measure temporary tree protection fencing will be installed during construction. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. Rooflines from the first-story break up the building line of the second story reducing mass and bulk. The proposal is sensitive to overall height with minimized attics spaces and interior ceiling heights resulting in a maximum height of 22.3 ft. The proposed second story is approximately 25°10 of the first floor area. T'he roofline is varied in height and form. Large wall expanses are avoided. (e) Compatible bulk and height The project vicinity is a mixture of one and two-story residences. The proposed 22.3 foot tall second-story will be compatible with the existing structures. The second-story portions of the structure are set back from the first-story at every elevation. (~ Current grading and erosion control methods. No grading is proposed. No impervious surface will be added. Desi n olicies and techni ues. The roposed project conforms to all of the • (g1 g P 4 P 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 staff report. Conclusion Staff finds that the Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve design review application 06-043 by adopting the attached Resolution of Approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolutions of Approval. 2. Neighbor Notification templates. 3. Affidavit of mailing notices, public hearing notice, and mailing labels for project notification. 4. Reduced Pans, Exhibit "A." • • • Attachment 1 • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. . Application No. 06-043 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13201 Ten Oak Way/ Winningham WHEREAS, The applicant requests design review approval to construct a 895 square foot second story addition to an existing one-story single-family residence on a comer lot. The total floor area of the proposed second-story residence is 4,257 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 22.35 feet. The gross lot size is 17,424 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 12,500. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, The proposed project including the construction of second-story additions to an existing single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences; • and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 and the City's Residential Design Handbook have been determined: NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Staff finds the proposed project supports the findings for design review as discussed below: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. Privacy is protected by proper site planning. T'he proposed second-story addition is located in the center of the property to minunize impacts to privacy and control view to adjacent properties. The second-story addition has been located to increase visual distance between adjacent residences. No balcony is proposed. (b) Preserve Natural Landscapes The scope of work includes asecond-story addition. No grading or excavation will be performed to the existing lot. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. No trees will be removed as a result of the proposed project. Arborist review was not required given the scope of work and location, size, and species of trees on the site. Tree protection fencing; however, will be installed throughout construction. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulb Rooflines from the first-story break up the building line of the second story reducing mass and bulk. The proposal is sensitive to overall height with minimized attics spaces and interior ceiling heights resulting in a maximum height of 22.3 ft. The proposed second story is approximately 25% of the first floor area. The roofline is varied in height and form. Large wall expanses are avoided. (e) Compatible bulk and height The project vicinity is a mixture of one and two-story residences. The proposed 22.3 foot tall second-story will be compatible with the existing structures. The second-story portions of the structure are set back from the first-story at every elevation. (fl Current grading and erosion control methods. No grading is proposed. No impervious surface will be added. (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 staff report. Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 06-043 for Design Review Approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMiTNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference and date stamped September 21, 2005. 2. All changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and may require review by the Planning Commission. 3. 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." 4. No downgrading in the exterior appearance 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. Any exterior changes to approved plans may require filing an additional application and fees for review by the planning commission as a modification to approved plans. 5. 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 $500. FIRE DEPARTMENT 6. The applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 7. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. Construction must 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 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, the 12th day of October by the following roll call vote: • • AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby aclrnowledges the approved terms • and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • ~J Attachment 2 r~ U ,` Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ 3 aot Ten oc~- Wo.-~y Applicant Name: Fore 5~ W~~ ~~~ ~~~~ Application Number: c`~ ~ _ ~ ~ 3 The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public. hearing. Staf, jr'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 opirrion expressed below; you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at~ a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~My signatwe 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; ~ understand the scope of work; and ~ 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): `~~ ~1 Neighbor Name: _r , ~ Neighbor Address: ~Gth.~~a-~` ~c~• Neighbor Phone #: y~~ 7 ~~^~ ~y Signature: Printed: ~~Q..,~ ~E~4- 1~E~-IC City of Saratoga Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: I ~a01 T~ O~ ~0w Applicant Name: F~ t- -~ S~' ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~~~y~ Application Number: ~ G ' 4 ~l 3 . 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 whem 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 nll 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 un erstand 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 signatwe below certif es 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 Namc: 2~C~ ~J e, ~ Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone #: Signature: • ~~ Printed: r-' 1 City of Saratoga Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: 1301 -~~ ~O ~ ~"~ ~'"`1 Applicant Name: ~~~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~`~'~ Application Number: ~ (o " ~ `t 3 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, f,~'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 opirrion expressed below; you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at~ a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~'My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signatwe below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~~ /~ ~ ~ " ~~ Neighbor Address: 1q~3 C ~~zs ~~ .1 /'~~" / ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~a~Neighbor Phone #: Signature: Printed: i 1, /-c~~,~-~ ~`~ "'- ~~~" /i D ~ ~ ~~ City of Saratoga Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: 13 a o+ T t, 6 ~ ~0~^t Applicant Name: ~o c're-~ ~~Y~ ~r~ ~~~5-~/~f`'~ Application Number: ~~ "' ~~ 3 - The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staf~ j`'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express. any concerns or issues they may. have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below; you may~reserve the right to amend your opinion at~ a later date and communicate it to the ' City of Saratoga. LJMy signatwe 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 aze the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Y 1 V C~~~ ~L1 I ~l ~L A Neighbor Address: L31 ~ 6 %~,~ D~K ~A~ ~ Ohq- ~ 9S d1 n Neighbor Phone #: ~yg' 0 f~ l ~ (-S2~ Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: 1 ~S~ 1 -~Q n ~-K- W ~`^1 Applicant Name: ~re5~ W'~W~r~~Mnti Application Number: ~l~ ~ 6`13 . The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta,~''and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express. any concerns or issues they may. have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opirrion 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; ~ understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concems are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Q v ~ ~ ~" Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone #: ~Q~ " 7`f~' ~ ~ ~' Signature: ~ f~~-Q- • ~'~ ` Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department • Attachment 3 • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, ~ ~ ~~~~~~4^~~~ ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, ov`e~r the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the o" ~ 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 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. C~ d - _ Signed • City, of Saratoga • Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 12`h day of October 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Project details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Thursday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Inquiries regarding the project should be directed to the planner noted below. APPLICATION #06-043 (393-14-010) - WINNINGHAM, 13201 Ten Oak Way: The applicant requests design review approval to construct a 895 square foot second- story addition to an existing one-story single-family residence on a corner lot. The total floor area of the proposed second-story residence is 4,257 • square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 22.35 feet. The gross lot size is 17,424 square feet and the site is zoned R-112,500. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Christy Oosterhous, AICP Associate Planner coosterhous@saratoga.ca.us 408 868-1286 39313005 L'A FROM, MARK J & SYLVIA A TRUSTEE 1 SCOTLAND DR TOGA CA 95070-5057 39313008 TSAI, BIN-MING & JUI-MIN TRUSTEE 19801 SCOTLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5031 39313011 WALTERS, JORDAN & JOANNE 19861 SCOTLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5031 39313014 LAKE, OLIVE M TRUSTEE 19902 CHARTERS AV SARATOGA CA 95070-4462 39313017 VAATVEIT, EUGENE J & BONNIE J 19848 CHARTERS AV TOGA CA 95070-4410 ~~020 HUANG, HUICHUAN TRUSTEE ETAL 19784 CHARTERS AV SARATOGA CA 95070-4408 39313023 COUCHMAN, CHARLES E III & CATHERINE C TRUS 19720 CHARTERS AV SARATOGA CA 95070-4408 39314003 CHEN, PETER & SOPHIA TRUSTEE 19849 VIA ESCUELA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4446 39314006 Z1NN, ROBERT W & LA VONNE TRUSTEE 13153 TEN OAK WY SARATOGA CA 95070-4405 X4009 {, RONALD P & BEATRICE C TRUSTEE 13189 TEN OAK CT SARATOGA CA 95070-4419 39313006 GUMMING, LOURENE H & ANDREW J 19761 SCOTLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5057 39313009 LEE, ANSON G & DONNA R TRUSTEE 19821 SCOTLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5031 39313012 LYTLE, ROBERT A JR & LORI J TRUSTEE 19881 SCOTLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5031 39313015 LI, CHUANG & JANE L 19884 CHARTERS AV SARATOGA CA 95070-4410 39313018 SHISH, SHAWN & PAMELA 19820 CHARTERS AV SARATOGA CA 95070-4410 39313021 GIPSTEIN, EDWARD & RUTH G TRUSTEE 19762 CHARTERS AV SARATOGA CA 95070-4408 39314001 HUANG, SHIANN-TARNG & HSIU-LI 13118 CUMBERLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4416 39314004 BAMBRICK, RICHARD & VIRGINIA B TRUSTEE 13117 TEN OAK WY SARATOGA CA 95070-4405 39314007 PEARSON, THOMAS W & RESA Q 13165 TEN OAK CT SARATOGA CA 95070-4419 39314010 WINNINGHAM, FORREST G & MARII,YN TRUSTEE 13201 TEN OAK CT SARATOGA CA 95070-4404 39313007 ROSEWATER, FRED E JR & SARA K TRUSTEE 19781 SCOTLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5057 39313010 WANG, TRAIR & CHUNG-LING ETAL 19841 SCOTLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5031 39313013 LEE, SHOU-GRAN & SHU-YING 13240 CUMBERLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4426 39313016 TIFFANY, RAYMOND L & EVELYN D TRUSTEE 19866 CHARTERS AV SARATOGA CA 95070-4410 39313019 GRASSI, PETER E & PAULA K TRUSTEE 19802 CHARTERS AV SARATOGA CA 95070-4410 39313022 BIESTER, KENNETH C & SUSAN L TRUSTEE 19744 CHARTERS AV SARATOGA CA 95070-4408 39314002 CUSICK, PAUL M & NORINE P TRUSTEE 19869 VIA ESCUELA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4446 39314005 MANTES, RALPH G & MARILYN A TRUSTEE 13131 TEN OAK WY SARATOGA CA 95070-4405 39314008 TAYLOR, SUZANNE M 13177 TEN OAK CT SARATOGA CA 95070-4419 39314011 PHI, ANH N & TRANG D 19839 CHARTERS AV SARATOGA CA 95070-4409 39314012 MONTGOMERY, RICHARD C & PAMELA P 19857 CHARTERS AV SARATOGA CA 95070-4409 39314015 CHIN, BARRY L & SUSAN Y TRUSTEE 13174 CUMBERLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4416 39314018 DICKSON, RONALD T & REGINA A 13131 CUMBERLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4415 39314021 ANDERSON, LAURA C & THOMAS J 19921 CHARTERS AV SARATOGA CA 95070-4411 39315010 BARON, JAMES H 19830 VIA ESCUELA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4447 39314013 ONGMAN, EVELYN M TRUSTEE ETAL 19885 CHARTERS AV SARATOGA CA 95070-4409 39314016 ASIMOS, GEORGE W & GLORIA D 13152 CUMBERLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4416 39314019 KAPLAN, NATHAN & NOREEN TRUSTEE 13153 CUMBERLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4415 39314022 VAN NEST, J PHILIP & JACQUELINE L TRUSTEE 19935 CHARTERS AV SARATOGA CA 95070-4411 39315011 SHIELDS, MICHAEL A & MARGARET TRUSTEE 19850 VIA ESCUELA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4447 39315013 39315038 YANG, GENKUN J & MEIHUI S WONG, BEN G & EVELYN C 19890 VIA ESCUELA DR TRUSTEE SARATOGA CA 95070-4447 19903 VIA ESCUELA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4448 39318060 39319012 KUO, JHI-CHUNG & SHU-CHUH CHAN, PETER H & DONNA Y H 19701 CHARTERS AV 19780 VIA ESCUELA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4407 SARATOGA CA 95070-4445 39319014 VAN HOESEN, RICHARD H & JII,L 19727 ST ANN CT SARATOGA CA 95070-4439 39319017 LI, HONGGUO & LING 19726 ST ANN CT SARATOGA CA 95070-4439 39319015 GRAGNOLA, JOHN B & LOIS J TRUSTEE 19701 ST ANN CT SARATOGA CA 95070-4439 39319018 GUY, GEORGE H III & ELIZABETH L 19725 VIA GRANDE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4455 39319043 ROOKE, CHRIS R & LARUA TRUSTEE 19724 VIA GRANDE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4467 39319044 YEE, ALBAN O & ANGELA T 19746 VIA GRANDE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4467 39314014 NIKFAR, ARMIN & MITRA ' TRUSTEE 13196 CUMBERLAND DR • SARATOGA CA 95070-4416 39314017 LIN, ALBERT C & CHENG H 13130 CUMBERLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4416 39314020 NGUYEN, DONG VAN & NAM PHUONG T 13175 CUMBERLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4415 39314037 LIN, PIE JIE & SU HSIANG 13211 CUMBERLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4417 39315012 CHU, SAI-MAN & MARIA L 19870 VIA ESCUELA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4447 39318037 JACOBS, SHELDON H & JEAN G TRUSTEE 19800 VIA ESCUELA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4445 39319013 DONN, SIYI T & ROSY S 13263 VIA GRANDE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4450 39319016 STUTZ, ROBERT W & GWENDOLYN H TRUSTEE 19702 ST ANN CT SARATOGA CA 95070-4439 39319019 FAWLEY, IVAN L & BERNADINE A TRUSTEE 19701 VIA GRANDE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4455 39319045 LAW, JACK M & JE?~JNINE 19762 VIA GRANDE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4467 39319046 BRANDER, IRVING W JR TRUSTEE ~2 VIA GRANDE DR TOGA CA 95070-4454CA 95070-4454 39319049 COHEN, JOHN D & LILLIAN L TRUSTEE 13260 VIA GRANDE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4454 39319052 MARKI,E, FRANCIS T & PEGGY J 13196 TEN OAK WY SARATOGA CA 95070-4422 39319055 BARNETT, GEORGIA J 13130 TEN OAK WY SARATOGA CA 95070-4422 39319058 FRANZESE, STEPHEN & LYDIA TRUSTEE 19771 VIA ESCUELA DR TOGA CA 95070-4443 006 WANG, JIAN & YUXIA 19890 SCOTLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5035 39328025 FISHER, MARY G 19800 SCOTLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5033 39319047 BEDEKAR, MILIND M & SUJATA M 13224 VIA GRANDE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4454 39319050 CRABBIER, GREGORY B & JANIE D 13230 TEN OAK WY SARATOGA CA 95070-4464 39319053 MASTMAN, ROBERT S & NANCY M 13174 TEN OAK WY SARATOGA CA 95070-4422 39319056 GRIFFITH, IONE A TRUSTEE 13110 TEN OAK WY SARATOGA CA 95070-4422 39319059 GLASSER, WENDY J & LANCE A 19753 VIA ESCUELA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4443 39328007 GREGA, GEORGE B & WENDY 19841 BUCKHAVEN LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5064 39319048 SRINIVASAN, SUNIL R & GEETA 13242 VIA GRANDE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4454 39319051 SU, SHUN-PIAO & JY DALE 13218 TEN OAK WY SARATOGA CA 95070-4464 39319054 LIOU, TIAN-I & KA-TTIE T 13152 TEN OAK WY SARATOGA CA 95070-4422 39319057 DARCHUK, JAMES M & SUSAN J 19793 VIA ESCUELA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4443 39319060 Y00, DAVID & KAY TRUSTEE 19739 VIA ESCUELA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4443 39328024 TSAO, CHUAN-HSI T & CHING- CHI C 19830 BUCKHAVEN LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5014 • • Attachment 4 • • uao~opuooso~oo~ ec~+i-ice um~ ii sere-ere ieoe~i oe®e~ •no 'nmobn~ne ee,~e x®® •®•~ ~bna~ ~~rr a~~~~JCI bbOa ~_ u~n~~ ~bo~ ~~ ~ w > .. ~s~ ~ ~ ~' e °~ ~ C7 ~+ ' ~ '~ ( ~=] j ~ W e S ~~ Z~ } ~ ® G' !~ . ~°~~ ® F~~m LL ~f "~~~ ~ ~~~~~, ~3~ LL N ~ 3 X33 $ ~ X `~ W ~qy ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ d ~ w ~ Ik ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O , !~ Q ~~ ~ ~g~g ~ ~~ ~ ~ ry ~ Q o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ (~ ~ ~~ ~Q ~ ~~ u~ ° ~`~ ~-I ~„ o , w~' - ' ~ ~ ~ i. ,, ~ttM, J Y _ ,.~'a xx ~~ N 1 Y ~ ~1 Y .~_'___ .4 ' ~ -r P o~"~ `'QL i 3 1 ! ~ y ~ i SI ~~ ~~ a ~ I .I ~ ,~iA~ ~~ - ~ ~ . a y \ s ~ ~ ~ ! ~' ~ `4 O y~ /~ 0 _ ' ' A\ 1` ~"R4 ~ ~t6 i ~®~®-c~8 18®i~l aa¢®~~ n~ `n®®bnaume ~nc~ bn® a~~ a®zea ~aa~a~~~~ c~na~au~au~a gab ~®obu®®n a~®a~ ~®~a~~ O ~p ON ~°-~.VmcNi .- ~ g ~ ~ ~ X 9 Z ~ZQO 0 v < ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ v ~'. ~ ~ ~ a" "o `yn `jr~ 1 > F~, 1-F- ~ Xx X F aQ~ tV Wwo ~ Ill WW ~ ~ ~~ y ~ . iT ~m ~ B F OO~J ~j W ~ j ~ Q ~( 1 (V~ryry r ~~r ~j N j~ G 0 O ~ ~ Q C1Z i E~ ~ ~ ~ J l~ ~ ~ yQQ~ ° Q L ( v ~ ~~ - ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ' ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ 1 ~ ~I~C] N~1 VM P.nud 4 ~MOOMV ~ 11~ MoaY° ~T~1 ~p °ll. I - ~~ li'1 Y 7 ((-~ LULLI '~~- 1f1~11 W ~~ o~,,?w ?"a~1 .~~ ~~~~(~ ~ ~~Iti4~d yy ~~ ~I 3F~~ QF- ~~~~~ z~C~W ~nxLr~~ --l C'WUUiZ gW~~O.W C ~--`711JW ~~-: ~~i~ W iY ~ JV WV ~~ - Qi Cv~ ~~~ ~F VI)U~= ^3,~<l, + i r W~~iY J Ln Q. O U O O CV F L o r~ Y (~ ~ rt n n ^~~ y J, . 'l..fl ! I. -i r ___ -_-- - ,, - -_--- - ------ - IIy~~, ~ ------- ---------- ------ ---------- -- _ ---__. T ~ C"~% Q Z \ 11SIX3 k, ____, \ .b/~ -. BI o Y ~ ~ \ O -----~-------------...---- --------------' O p M ~N y k ° a M ~~Ibfi,I m w .a-. 1 O i~~~ ~~~ >y I l ri m m ~ ~' I ~ ,,~M G °~ ~k ; ~ ~ a I ~, ., ., _ -- 1 N ~~ ..a ~~ ~ '"5 ---- l I I I ~rvad Baal \ _ ~~ t_ ~~ ~ ~ ((~~ m wl II m~ I I _ I n, j I J I Y ~ I w °• I Q ~ Z -~-~ Q _ O N~ I m 4 X ] I W 1 i ^` w ~ __ 1 I ° -I 1 ° o in ~ m I m c ~ ! / ~ 1 / m 1j I o ri ]]1 I~ ~ ~' 1 ~ P I ' W (V1 ~ l . .\ ~ ~- ~~\\ ~ ~ S~ nM .3 ~~ ``` T 1 NX ^ 6 ` X I al W'U ~_ _ ~;` /`~ ~, .i I\ ;~ I t '~I `~~t'\``M~\ ~sc'"6~.F~•N. '- -- I _ -~ ~ I 37hf3d 3aal ~____~,----""_ - 1 I N 1 m I I m ~~, ,~ i 1 ' i ------ _- '_ ~_ o ''' Iwo I~ lug W ~ I ~" --' ~~ I I m .3 a 13 m I~ . "3.7Naa 33tJ1 I ~ 10 ' ° y ~ - ~-~ -_ ~, I O m ~m " Iz i I _. j 1 __ ! O _ m Q ~i z U '~~ ~~ ~ i \'~~~,~ ,~,,~~; ~.,,; ~. o~ ~~ \-S ~r~ ~t L-J rra~~ vU 3 Q D z W ~- F d • • • • A~51 .00 SCALE I"=10' LEGBIE): PROPERTY LINE ~~ ~~'~ EASENENI LINE BEISTINC IIffROVEMENTS -- - -- PENC6 LINE -- SPOT' ELEVATION .355.61 II0.~ EI{ip1yJNA o14 ne6. ~ _ _ _I M2.80 ~~ 52.99 ........ - ,J52.69 I ~~ I 11 I I DIe'iflEE'~ ~ ~ 1 k 1 lsz.96 !. / LAUN j/ ' r I I'BR ICN 4. i\~ % ~ r i I~ .J52, EJ~ 916i~350.~ I I -_.__"_~_.".___._..-__"_"..___"_"""-."~-_." ."-___ 2 rr ., N 00'5B'43" U 157.27' r-"""-~ ~"00~ ~ 1 ~ r ~~ -L-- - -' - - R' i '----- -- ------------------ - T- I -~ '----- __ ssa.05------yJ5212--------------.a42s2------------ ~--_ _ max---=----------_-~".a4,'~ .]w.v !A[L/CURA7 __________________ ]52.13 TEN OAK WAY N0. EY ' DA?E a~V15 {UN 187 DATE DATE: AuGUS7,ZNf _ SCALE: NDR. ixrp' ~-(~ ~ JDB N0. zoosmi PERT. WESTFALL ENGINEERS I NC TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ___ o6slcNEO: Br: nhaar e6BtcNA , . SARATOGA 13201 TEN OAK WAY CA snEEr - DRAVN: S.K DATE L S 4953 14593 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGh CA 95070 (10A1967-0241 , , : . . . . Jj ~~ a '~~ N 06'2f' 19^ E ~~~` ~-.~~ 146.63' 1 _ _ 11 1~ .]GE.OY~• ``r]5].e 3.59_""" 1]51 .05 Y I 1... I I //1 / I I BA'iR ~l~a~.. I i ' \ i i BB•TR ~ JJJ Si- I , , ~ Q42'ei I r i I ~ ~1 m I .+ I . I I 1 POOL .~5]b4___-____--- ]s].Je I 9, ~ I i i 6`° ~ I ~ ~I ~a5].5d___-- I ---~J5J.J1 .]sty---___.~JSa, RJ :J5z.3z 1 I I I A~ I I 1 7 ~/~~ I I1. I I r f ~ ~na+ I i I I .-gym I ~ ~ I I ~~ i I I '~. I~ I J 5• REE I I O I~ M+, , I r' ~ uooo oecrc i I i .]52.96 :~~ ~ ~` '`, I ,' I I I JJ11 1 iV/I l I ~ Y I ~ ~ '~ I U I I I 1 I I E: ____ I I I .. ~'I ~ _ .I 54?~.L FC _________________L __ I___ ~ __I ]5..e1 I ~ I 1 _J I ~JI~ ------------ IJ.5J.91 I I -'~~'-'---"-'-----.I I I ,, ~ Nip I ~ ~ 1 I ~ ~ °1~~~ I I I j l I ~,• i~ 1]m.es I I I I .J5].z5 I ~I I I I j I I fE)HOUSE ~ ]5].N I I I I (E)GAR. I I I 1 / I I--I I I• I : I/ i I .175~.6~ I ~ I 1 ydy__~I__ I ~ j ~ ~~ LAUN J i yy. I -I Y i~Rry-'- ~ Jtu'1.e1 ____~s.01_~I____t_ IJN.02 ~.64.RL_-___ ,Ay5,2yfF II O I / ________T •.• . I~ I I I ~ I .~5+bdl ~ II ~ ~ m ~Q 1 I 1 ____I L ___. _________ _ ~ ..1511d~ ~ O 1 I .a 3.IJ '1() I I I N I I Y f U Y Q Z LLW~ f' ______ iEA.29 _ i___________ i RE"i RE ________JJ6J.96 1 ~. I _.: I bd _ _ _ _ _ _IJS].R] I .... I ~ / a {~.5 I I 0~ I I I', 1 LAUN I I~'BRICH U. ~1 81fl I N~ f I \'~~ 4]/ 1 CONC.OVT 1 I 62 R®6 IR[~il i I 1 I i 1 I I I I ,~6 _ ,9b1____]5l_51____~ ____~~,G~. uwowehw~ooo~~ooo eesa-~cc xn~ ii sacra-ass IQO„1 oeo9s ~a 'roobnt~ns 981Y9b X061 'O'ff ~~1b~0 n a~~~~n bbOa~ LodfO-Z89 1601 oao9s no 'n®obnl~ns snap ~@ao a~a aozea ~~a~aa~~~ ~n~®aoaao~a ~~~ ~olao®®n As®gs ~ao~ss ~n~~ ~®0~1~ o~mlbsoX~ ~~ W ~ s~ ~ ~: o ~o a ~~ C~~ • • • uao•u0~opuoo~~oo~ eLe9-bLS xl9~ // m`L8-8LS 180b1 ~8b8 F!®81 '~'~ ~~ ---[~~JD~~1C~7 b~0~~ L0~0-L~8 180b! OL088 ~~ 'd®®bml~f98 A~9G~,1 ~Im® P~31b 60~es6 ~~a~ao~~~ ~n~~aoa~oc~ ~~~. ~®Ob0®C~d ABA®b8 ®M®~31$ ~~ Ss E ~{ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ v ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~? S • • • • ~ • ~~ ~~- Y ~. ~o ~ ~ o ~ ~. ~ ~~ w ~__ n [ { Q Z J~ X { .. , d ~ (J J1 ~ 3~ ~ 1.: LL~pQ Q S cv E v ueoo~oopbbooogboa~ CL89-bLC l(ii~ // 8AL9-QLC 180111 ®L09~ '~~ 'Q-OOb~h~Q4~ ~®>-c zo® '®•~ U~1®O~~© 2S2~ONJ~ LO8®°Lf8 1801 OL®8~ N93 `~®OJ1F9lB~D8 a~raA r~m® u~a a®~isa ~aa~ao~~~ c~na~aoaao~a ~a~ a®oba®®n ~~®b~ ®u~®~~~ r ~~--r _ _- _- -- _ - - -- ~~ -=- _- - -. ~ _:- -_ _ OZ ~` U - ~O D O ~~ s _ _ r'~~ ~ / r.m ~ I/ ~~ ~~ _ - ^-----------, ~o --~ - -_~ ~0 l~J nn~ u n~n (~ L ~l O _~ F s W~ ~~ ~z ~~ ~Co Y' • -finn L-J d /~ ~~~~ I- 1 a a C~ / nu(~ L~J 8~1®Bbbd~~l~l ~~ = affi 6 ~ ~o ~~~-U 5S U _ '~ ~ ~_~, ~ ti ~ a~+s w v~d a «~voonv ims ter. ~ti ~ -u 2 ~~ ~~ z~ ~ ~ F y~~< <~ @J] IOJ • ~~ ~U 5~ 0 C~ 0 O un r~ I ~O nu ~. Il if ~/ • 9 9 t • • MATGN EASTN6 / fAAYi'A' ~VFIIG VELUM RAT P.AiE XYIYMt MA!CN Ifl HOF_E 51011Y5 35343. IEI FF. 355' ____________ _ i~~J~`J~~ 3533" E%ISiINb SIUCCq IX4TN66MIfE 1018NN ~~~~~ p~~~0~~ OF OFf LWF/EY Ex151uK GlA'fi'A' pIF6FlIW1 CRP PL~OFIN6 !0 N@NM BRff7Fl oY u~~(((~~~~A~~1 -=~,UI ~1 L E#STINS 6MOE ~ Ex5TM6 6M+AGE NO GWKE lJG _ O fBNN r! ~~~i IXbTFb FRST ~ 0.008 TO fBKN FLOCK ~I i ~~ ° ~ pw'~~~~~~~ A (j~ A ~/ ~ ~ ~ Q ~~~~ ~ U ~®g~x ®®0 8 ~®ao°. i Q~;~q& ~~ ~ ~~ o i ~ q~ V ~©a~ ®~~~a Q ® ~ ~ ~'~~®~ ~ b ® BD ®~ c• b g t7 ®B 9 ®~~~ ~3°~ _ ~ t 6 ~¢ d y~p 6 b Q 9 p~d d 7 ~ a auww scoTT CHECxEO DATE dVOl~i~ SC4E 1i1'. I'• J~ OS/IO SHEEP n l°~~~ ~ a ~ Nfi& M Yf