Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-22-2007 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME P 7/ ;g/2C 0 PO Al ADDRESS -5" Ed C./Cf2 SUBJECT AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE W /2.210 7 TELEPHONE NO. yD 8 3 TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: 7 3 0 f r (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. NAME CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION C -J v C I/ 1 (34/A/74- ADDRESS /2 5 7c) AA-46 CCA SUBJECT C I-M /144C e' z/ 4 P 6 -/A AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 DATE fit Z l TELEPHONE NO. 7J— TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: £2- a o (Please read instructions on reverse. side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. piSorms and procedures\speaker slips NAME ADDRESS SUBJECT l S I (G4 '4 AGENDA ITEM NO ATE z2 1 TELEPHONE NO TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: V p: \forms and procedures eaker slips CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION 1 cr (Please read instructions on reverse side) —33 Or ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member pf the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. p:\fonns and procedures\speaker slips NAME ADDRESS SUBJECT REQUEST TO PdMAMP✓ itM 16/v,d,,,0 AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE CITY OF SARATOGA DRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION TELEPHONE NO TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. p:\fomms and procedures\speaker slips CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME b (We St en me l oit D LLC oZg off k lQi) cJr C( l l j ADDRESS 96(4 a-- SUBJECT 'x-- 0 AGENDA ITEM NO. TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: p: \forms and procedures\speaker slips DATE D u TELEPHONE NO. Phn (Please read instructions on reverse side) 31(2, 8.4.)s• ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member �f the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. NAME 471. ADDRESS SUBJECT AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION E A G r o N T SR)" f Li 6.5 NSUL7 -NTS I `/a r k'e 4 C T /NC, A v 5Q -a 95, frfc TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: (Please read instructions on reverse side) 7(.113 67 TELEPHONE NO. A 0 -60 ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning. Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. p: \forms and procedures\speaker slips TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: p: \forms and procedures\speaker slips CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME /J/97Wy ADDRESS (7 7 SUBJECT Ole Nl'�CC� C )iync e r i) V/ AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE TELEPHONE NO. (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: 4 Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the p audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION P L 1 /1Q ADDRESS 3(20 lk 1// rlI/e NAME SUBJECT Lk' 'Yr kj c 6,/3 +�1 C AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE 67 TELEPHONE NO. TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: 0 30 FV V (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. p: \forms and procedures speaker slips p: \fomu and procedures\speaker slips CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME Do y ,L J i EX ADDRESS 2rJ��sl Q/(� 2 SUBJECT 64/4 ofeb AWAA/c)E. AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE 46—`Z- d7 TELEPHONE NO. 404-8C7-3393 TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: JQ 20 Pik (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION E-, 0 I c t/O- 33 r 5/1) ,atelmariec-- AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 DATE Au z� 0 7 TELEPHONE NO. 7 706/ TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: 7 7 NAME ADDRESS SUBJECT (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. p: \fomu and procedures \speaker slips NAME SUBJECT CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADDRESS 620 l/ e v (l e J 00 t C el± AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE F10 d1D 7 TELEPHONE NO. b 7 y S 6 TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: 6. (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to. comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. p: \forms and procedures\speaker slips CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST Te ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME A ADDRESS I.11 I* SUBJECT l AGENDA ITEM NO. !)�fl I I ATE W TELEPHONE N TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: 1 l At/ (Please read instructions on reverse side) iq 4,19 -m,r ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 Approximately 3:30 p.m. 5:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Site Visit Committee ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. APPLICATION APT07 -0001 2. APPLICATION 07 -397 3. APPLICATION 07 -342 P: \PC SITE VISITS \Site Visits\2007\SVA 082107.doc SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 12571 Paseo Cerro WU 12576 Scully Avenue MAKHIJANI 18578 Prospect Road McDonald's USA, LLC 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 that the applicant and/or owner to be present to answer any questions that may arise. Site visits are generally short (10 to 20 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the Public Hearing. During the Site Visit, the Planning Commission may only discuss items related to the project. The agenda does not allow any formal votes or motions on the proposed project or other matters. The Site Visit is a fact finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item and ask questions from or hear statements from members of the public attending the Visit. No comments made during the Site Visit by the Planning Commission are binding or required to be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on the proposed project. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 5:00 p.m. PLACE: Administrative Conference Room located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 16, 2007. APPLICATION #07 -233 (APN 503 -24- 071/073) Sam Cloud Barn L.P. (owner) 20640 3 Street; The applicant requests Design Review, and Variance approval to construct a new commercial building attached to the historic Sam Cloud Hay and Feed Warehouse currently undergoing renovation. The proposed structure is three stories with a full basement. Total square footage of the addition is 7,506 square feet and the maximum height is 35 feet. The maximum building coverage is 77% of the site. The gross lot size is 4,187 square feet, and the site is zoned CH -1. The Variance application is necessary to allow development on a lot with a 48% slope. The Study Session is a fact finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item and ask questions from or hear statements from members of the public attending the meeting. During the Study Session, the Planning Commission may only discuss items related to the project. The agenda does not allow any formal votes or motions on the proposed project or other matters. No comments made during the Site Visit by the Planning Commission are binding or required to be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on the proposed proj ect. Adjournment To Regular Planning Commission Meeting Wednesday, August 22, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers /Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA J'Jarinin i)Z 17I71ZSSZOPI Study UeSS1OZI ;1k',norun euat D es i gn Rey i w 07-233, 20640 3 Street TO: Planning Commission MEETING DATE: August 22, 2007 SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION REQUIREMENTS HISTORY ATTACHMENTS: PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM Item 1 FROM: John Livingstone, AICP, Community Development Director Heather Bradley, Contract Planner 20640 3 Street Design Review and Variance Application #07 -233 (APN 503 -24- 071/072); applicant Sam Cloud Barn L.P. 1 The Study Session is a fact finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item and ask questions from or hear statements from members of the public attending the meeting. During the Study Session, the Planning Commission may only discuss items related to the project. The agenda does not allow any formal votes or motions on the proposed project or other matters. No comments made during the Study Session by the Planning Commission are binding or required to be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on the proposed project. This is a continued item from the May 22 and July 11 Study Session public hearings. The Commission has previously discussed design concerns and variance issues with the applicant and their architect. The Commission had asked to see a design with less bulk and the applicant made changes that included additional windows and balconies. Most recently the Commission directed the applicant to add an entry feature to the lower level accessed from the 4 Street parking lot and reduce the overall mass of the structure. The applicant has prepared additional exhibits that will be available for review at the Study Session hearing. At the time of this memo no revised plans had been submitted for distribution. 1. Study Session from July 11, 2007 2. Affidavit of Mailing Notices and labels 3. Letter from the applicant's attorney of August 5, 2007 ATTACHEMENT 1 Planning Commission SLudv Session Alemorciiuiu n 1 L)Design Review Review 07 -'.i 3, 20640 3"' S11'c:r t TO: Planning Commission FROM: John Livingstone, AICP, Community Development Director Heather Bradley, Contract Planner MEETING DATE: July 11, 2007 SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION REQUIREMENTS HISTORY RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM 20640 3 Street Design Review and Variance Application #07 -233 (APN 503 -24- 071/072); applicant Sam Cloud Barn L.P. The Study Session is a fact finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item and ask questions from or hear statements from members of the public attending the meeting. During the Study Session, the Planning Commission may only discuss items related to the project. The agenda does not allow any formal votes or motions on the proposed project or other matters. No comments made during the Study Session by the Planning Commission are binding or required to be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on the proposed project. This is a continued item from the May 22 study session. At that time the Commission determined that they would like to see a design with less bulk and informed the applicant that they needed to visit the property again in order to form a clearer opinion on the proj ect. There were several interested persons at that meeting including Bill Cooper of Bella Saratoga, Kwan Lee and Jack Hickling representing the Inn at Saratoga, and Katherine Kruemer a resident on Brookwood Lane. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the architectural plans for the commercial building with changes proposed by the architect including the addition of windows and balconies, and provide comments to the property owner and architect. 'Planning Commission Study ,Session Ale'm.orai 4 .1 n Design Review 0 233, 20640 3 Street PROPOSED PROJECT This application was submitted on January 25, 2007. The applicant requests Design Review, and Variance approval to construct a new commercial building attached to the historic Sam Cloud Hay and Feed Warehouse currently undergoing renovation. The Sam Cloud building is located on an approximately 1,800 square foot parcel. The proposed addition is located on a separate 2,786 sq. ft. adjacent parcel. When the two parcels are merged the total site will be 4,586 sq. ft. The site is located in the CH -1 zoning district. As a condition of any project approval the applicant will have to file a lot merger application with the Public Works department. The addition proposed to the original barn is in keeping with the original architectural style and is also three stories with a full basement. The proposed square footage has been reduced by 381 square feet from the previous plan that was reviewed by the Planning Commission. The proposal is currently for a 7,125 square foot addition and the maximum height would be 35 feet. The total square footage of the existing barn is 7,120 square feet. Therefore, the total combined square footage on site would be 14,245 square feet. If the basements in both structures were deducted then the total would be 10,681 square feet. The maximum proposed building coverage would be 77% of the combined site. The average site slope on the vacant lot is 48% and it is estimated that the average site slope would remain close to 48% if the lots were merged. Pursuant to City Code Section 15- 19.020 (d), the average slope beneath a structure shall not exceed 30% slope and no structure shall be built upon a slope that exceeds forty percent natural slope at any location under the structure between two five -foot contour lines.. Therefore, in addition to Design Review approval, the applicant is requesting approval of a Variance as specified in City Code Section 15- 19.020(d). The style of the proposed addition to the Sam Cloud Barn is in keeping with the architectural style of the barn. The addition will utilize materials and decorative elements that match the original structure. However, pursuant to Secretary of the Interior standards for additions to historic structures, a three -story glass feature, including an entry door, will separate the addition. Staff has recommended the addition of divided lites to the glass entry and the glass elevator to resemble those that would be found on windows in warehouse /industrial buildings of the time period. Horizontal shiplap siding will be used as well as wood window trim and a metal roof to match the original structure. The applicants intend to re -stripe the existing parking spaces abutting the building and provide a small amount of landscaping in the areas of the site not occupied by buildings. The architect has indicated in a letter that the grading quantities will include approximately 339 cubic yards of cut. The City Arborist has not reviewed this application. There is one tree located in the far south corner of the site that will not be removed. Planning Cotnniis. ion. Study Session Memorandum Design Reviet•r 07 -233, 20640 3' Street Parking and Circulation The subject site is located in Parking District Number 1 of the Village. The City has adopted a zoning text amendment relaxing all parking requirements in the Village. Specifically no off street parking shall be required for applications that are deemed complete between March 1, 2006 and February 28, 2009. While this application has not been deemed complete, it is expected to be deemed complete sometime within the next few months. Geotechnical Review This application has received a geotechnical clearance. Environmental Review Staff has recently sent out a Request For Proposal to several environmental consultants to prepare an Initial Study and associated environmental documents. This review will be completed prior to deeming this application complete. Neighbor Notification Staff has not requested neighbor review forms, but will ask the applicant to submit them prior to deeming the application complete. Public Noticing Notice for this Study Session has been published in the Saratoga News, sent to property owners within 500 feet and properly posted at the recommendation of the Planning Commission chair. Additionally the notice was sent to approximately 140 business owners on Big Basin Way. STUDY SESSION DISCUSSION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission provide the applicant with comments concerning the following: The Design Review Findings as they relate to this proposed design. Appropriateness of the proposed project in the Village and the proposed use of the building. Desired improvements made to the parking area between the proposed building and the rear of the Bella Mia restaurant. Variance Findings as they relate to the grading and construction of the proposed project on a slope that exceeds 30 Planning Commission Staub Session Memorandum 4 Design Review 07 -233, 20640 3' Street The applicable variance findings are: (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. (b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. (c) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Affidavit of Mailing Notices and lables 2. Reduced Plans ATTACHEMENT 2 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, Denise Kaspar 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 28th day of July 2007, that I deposited 203 notices in the United States Post Office, 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 described as: Address: 20640 3rd Street APN: 503 24 071, 073 that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. Denise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services July 28, 2007 500' Ownership Listing Prepared for: 503 -24- 071,073 SAM CLOUD BARN 20640 3 STREET SARATOGA CA 95070 503 -23 -025 EVELYN JOHNSTON PO BOX 53 SARATOGA CA 95071 -0053 503 -23 -053 DAVID S JOHNSTON DR CURRENT OWNER ?0616 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5831 503 -24 -016, 018, 026, 035, 036, 047, 074, 076 503- !5-031 503 -6 -044 517 -09- 078,083 2ITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 503 -24 -027 vIITCH TRACY CUTLER 14480 OAK PL ;ARATOGA CA 95070 -5929 503 -24 -046 NN AT SARATOGA INC DR CURRENT OWNER 10645 4TH ST ;ARATOGA CA 95070 -5867 503 -24 -054 CONY A JULIET JARRAMI ;0 OAK GROVE AVE _,OS GATOS CA 95030 -7021 503 -24 -063 :NY PROPERTIES INC 12504 SARATOGA AVE ;ARATOGA CA 95070 -4145 ;03 -24 -067, 080, 081 AMES I ARLENE ROSENFELD 4219 OKANOGAN DR ;ARATOGA CA 95070 -5549 503 -23 -049 NANCY E KESSLER OR CURRENT OWNER 20626 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5831 503 -24 -008 RLJ LLC. 19510 GLEN UNA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6018 503 -24 -020 RUTH LONG PO BOX 2095 SARATOGA CA 95070 -0095 503 -24 -029 GLEN A BRADFORD YOUNG 1027 LUCOT WAY CAMPBELL CA 95008 -6408 503 -24 -049, 050 GEORGE PAYNE 15940 ROCHIN TR LOS GATOS CA 95032 503 -24 -060, 61 BLOXHAM FAMILY LP 4010 MOORPARK AVE 111 SAN JOSE CA 95117-1804 503 -24 -064 SOO G LEE 1138 NORVAL WAY SAN JOSE CA 95125 -3434 503 -24 -070, 072 JOSEPH HELEN BROZDA 235 LINDEN ST SANTA CRUZ CA 95062 -1019 503 -23 -052 PATRICK BROCKETT OR CURRENT OWNER 20620 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5831 503 -24 -009 ROBERT SHIRLEY CANCELLIERI 14860 CODY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6018 503 -24 -023 CHARLES J ELSBETH STAUSS PO BOX 1848 LOS GATOS CA 95031 -1848 503 -24 -030 MAHNAZ KHAZEN OR CURRENT OWNER 14519 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6052 503 -24 -051 YVES G ANNETTE CASABONNE PO BOX 247 EL VERANO CA 95433 -0247 503 -24 -062 BERNARD A WALLACE PO BOX 1060 DISCOVERY BAY CA 94514 -7060 503 -24 -066 JOSEPH C MICHELLE MASEK OR CURRENT OWNER 14467 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6093 503 -24 -071 SAM CLOUD BARN 85 SARATOGA AVE 100 SANTA CLARA CA 95051 -7300 503 -24 -073 JOSEPH HELEN BROZDA SAN CARLOS ST 10101 SE CA 95110 -2633 503 -25- 008,028 DONALD C HUNT 14583 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6804 503 -25 -025 M J C PETERSEN 45 MONTGOMERY ST LOS GATOS CA 95030 -5314 503 -25 -034 DETLEF ALBRECHT DR CURRENT OWNER 20650 4TH ST 1 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5893 503 -25 -037 KLAUS W YVONNE PACHE DR CURRENT OWNER 20650 4TH ST 4 STOGA CA 95070 -5893 503 -26 -043 VIICHAEL OHEARN 115 NEW ST SANTA CRUZ CA 95060 -4324 503 -63 -003 ANN MCGRATH DR CURRENT OWNER 20810 4TH ST 3 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5844 503 -63 -006, 112 KATHRYN B WARREN 501 CLIFFSIDE CT tICHMOND CA 94801 -3766 503 -63 -009 ELSIE M COCHRANE 13615 VAQUERO CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -4804 5 012 AM DIANA ROGERS DR CURRENT OWNER ?0812 4TH ST 8 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5846 503 -25 -003 SAN JOSE WATER WORKS ACCOUNTING 374 W SANTA CLARA ST SAN JOSE CA 95113 -1502 503 -25 -021 SCVWD 5750 ALMADEN EXP SAN JOSE CA 95118 503 -25 -026 SHARON STOKES 676 CAMELLIA WAY LOS ALTOS CA 94024 -3116 503 -25 -035 RONALD VERDOORN OR CURRENT OWNER 20650 4TH ST 2 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5893 503 -25 -038 ALLEN W SAUNDRA HILL OR CURRENT OWNER 20650 4TH ST 5 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5893 503 -63 -001 GATEHOUSE CONDOMINUM HOMEOWNERS 550 DIVISION ST 1 CAMPBELL CA 95008 -6906 503 -63 -004 SANDRA KAMIAK OR CURRENT OWNER 20810 4TH ST 4 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5844 503 -63 -007 RICHARD L PATRICI SCHWENDINGER 12724 PLYMOUTH DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3958 503 -63 -010 STANLEY A MIRIAM DEMARTINIS 21315 SARATOGA HILLS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5376 503 -63 -013 ROBERT M JAKOB PO BOX 6214 SAN JOSE CA 95150 -6214 503 -25 -007 BIG BASIN LLC OR CURRENT OWNER 14573 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6801 503 -25 -022 THOMAS E PARKER PO BOX 756 CARDIFF BY THE SEA CA 92007 -0756 503 -25 -032 PLUMED HORSE PROPERTY LLC OR CURRENT OWNER 14555 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6013 503 -25 -036 K Y LIMITED 14555 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6013 503 -26 -018 ANN D BARBER 14471 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5827 503 -63 -002 ANTHONY YUNG 13731 BEAUMONT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -4917 503 -63 -005 DAVID W MANTELLI OR CURRENT OWNER 20812 4TH ST 1 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5845 503 -63 -008 MARCELLINE E HOUDE OR CURRENT OWNER 20812 4TH ST 4 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5845 503 -63 -011 JAMES J ANTOINETTE SHUMA OR CURRENT OWNER 20812 4TH ST 7 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5846 503 -63 -014 BRIAN R ANITALYNN TIGHE 6374 CANDLEWOOD CT CUPERTINO CA 95014 -4610 503 -63 -015 JENG ZEUU CHYI 15214 BELLECOURT SARATOGA CA 95070 -6407 503 -63 -018 OLGA N LVOV OR CURRENT OWNER 20812 4TH ST 14 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5847 503 -63 -021 ZARECKY FAMILY 2004 TRUST DR CURRENT OWNER 20812 4TH ST 19 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5847 503 -63 -024 LORRAINE A WHEELER DR CURRENT OWNER 20812 4TH ST 20 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5848 503 -63 -027 ?ATRICK HYUN KUGLER 18481 MONTPERE WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5200 503 -63 -030 fANET M GRANITO DR CURRENT OWNER 20760 4TH ST 12 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5851 503 -63 -033 VIKTOR SCHRANZ DR CURRENT OWNER 20760 4TH ST 7 SARATOGA CA 95070-5851 503 -63 -036 rANARDHANAN S AJIT 57 FIGTREE 44 RVINE CA 92603 -0646 503 -63 -039 H LILLIAN SILBERSTEIN DR CURRENT OWNER 20760 4TH ST 1 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5850 ;03 -63 -042 STEPHEN ANNE BOBORICKEN 1870 FRANCEMONT AVE .,OS ALTOS HILLS CA 94022 -4443 503 -63 -016 BRIAN B TIGHE 337 JUNIPERO PLZ SANTA BARBARA CA 93105 -3603 503 -63 -019 COURTNEY CRASE 20061 CHATEAU DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -4309 503 -63 -022 GUANGHUI QIAN OR CURRENT OWNER 20812 4TH ST 18 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5847 503 -63 -025 THOMAS M PAULA BRENNOCK OR CURRENT OWNER 20812 4TH ST 23 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5848 503 -63 -028 TIM LISA ARNETT OR CURRENT OWNER 20812 4TH ST 24 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5848 503 -63 -031 LAURA BRASH OR CURRENT OWNER 20760 4TH ST 9 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5851 503 -63 -034 RONALD: A ANDERSON OR CURRENT OWNER 20760 4TH ST 8 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5851 503 -63 -037 VERONICA CRUZ OR CURRENT OWNER 20760 4TH ST 3 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5850 503 -63 -040 HOSSEIN AZITA SOBHANI OR CURRENT OWNER 20760 4TH ST 2 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5850 503 -63 -043 CYNTHIA A ROESSLER OR CURRENT OWNER 20740 4TH ST 9 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5853 503 -63 -017 MEHRDAD AGHAEBRAHIM OR CURRENT OWNER 20812 4TH ST 15 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5847 503 -63 -020 DORSA LIVING TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER 20812 4TH ST 16 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5847 503 -63 -023 MIKE J LINDA BODEN OR CURRENT OWNER 208124THST21 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5848 503 -63 -026 RICHARD W SZE OR CURRENT OWNER 20812 4TH ST 22 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5848 503 -63 -029 THOMAS E SASCHA LALE OR CURRENT OWNER 20760 4TH ST 11 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5851 503 -63 -032 TUNG Y EVELYN LEE 2182 36TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94116 -1645 503 -63 -035 ROGER B ROSALEE EGGLESTON 12487 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO SARATOGA CA 95070 -3010 503 -63 -038 KENNETH J CZWORNIAK_ OR CURRENT OWNER 20760 4TH ST 4 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5850 503 -63 -041 TOM T CHEN OR CURRENT OWNER 20740 4TH ST 1 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5853 503 -63 -044 LESLIE A BINDER OR CURRENT OWNER 20740 4TH ST 10 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5853 503 -63 -045 NDREY A KHARISOV J URRENT OWNER TH ST 7 3 TOGA CA 95070 -5853 503 -63 -048 ROSE S KOOT DR CURRENT OWNER 20740 4TH ST 6 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -5852 503 -63 -051 ERIC J KARLA EARNST DR CURRENT OWNER 20740 4TH ST 1 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -5852 503 -63 -054 fOHN P CHRISTINA BLACK JR CURRENT OWNER 20720 4TH ST 16 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -5895 503 -63 -057 fIN W MIN PARK JR CURRENT OWNER 20720 4TH ST 11 •TOGA CA 95070 -5855 503 -63 -060 EISUEH H HUNG TAI 1315 LUMBERTOWN LN 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -5712 503 -63- 063,098 VIEHRAN AVIDEH SAMARDAR 5555 LITTLE FALLS DR 3AN JOSE CA 95120 -4050 503 -63 -066 RICHARD E BARBARA STRAW 24179 SUMMIT WOODS DR LOS GATOS CA 95033 -9229 503 -63 -069 LINDA A BARCOMB DR CURRENT OWNER 20700 4TH ST 11 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5803 5 072 J ALIE J WEISKAL DR CURRENT OWNER 20700 4TH ST 10 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -5803 503 -63 -046 DAVID M FRADIN OR CURRENT OWNER 20740 4TH ST 8 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5853 503 -63 -049 SHELBY A LAWSON OR CURRENT OWNER 20740 4TH ST 3 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5852 503 -63 -052 AREVIG ANTABLIAN OR CURRENT OWNER 20740 4TH ST 2 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5852 503 -63 -055 BAKTYGUL ZHUMABAYEVA OR CURRENT OWNER 20720 4TH ST 15 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5855 503 -63 -058 SALVADOR BORJA OR CURRENT OWNER 20720 4TH ST 12 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5855 503 -63 -061 SHELLIE WILLIAMS 11951 BROOKRIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3463 503 -63 -064 KELLY A WALSH OR CURRENT OWNER 20720 4TH ST 6 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5854 503 -63 -067 HUNG BANG 3421 SAVANNAH LN 2112 WEST SACRAMENTO CA 95691 -5969 503 -63 -070 LESLIE DAVIS OR CURRENT OWNER 20700 4TH ST 12 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5803 503 -63 -073 WAYNE C SU -TI CHANG PO BOX 3791 LOS ALTOS CA 94024 -0791 503 -63 -047 JAY M STEARNS OR CURRENT OWNER 20740 4TH ST 5 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5852 503 -63 -050 VICTOR REGINA VELTON 4662 BLUE RIDGE DR SAN JOSE CA 95129 -4301 503 -63 -053 HIROSHI TAKAKO FUJIGAMI OR CURRENT OWNER 20720 4TH ST 17 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5895 503 -63 -056 KATHLEEN SODERSTROM 12908 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -3714 503 -63 -059 JANICE R GAUTHIER OR CURRENT OWNER 20720 4TH ST 9 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5855 503 -63 -062 GEORGE E NANCY KIRK 20270 LA PALOMA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5960 503 -63 -065 DEBRA D JACKSON OR CURRENT OWNER 20720 4TH ST 3 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5854 503 -63 -068 KATHERINE A FORTE OR CURRENT OWNER 20720 4TH ST 2 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5854 503 -63 -071 NOVELLE KELLY OR CURRENT OWNER 20700 4TH ST 9 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5803 503 -63- 074,094,096 MICHAEL E GAYLE ARCHER PO BOX 7367 INCLINE VILLAGE NV 89452 -7367 503 -63 -075 DENNIS C GRACE LEUNG DR CURRENT OWNER 10700 4TH ST 5 'SARATOGA CA 95070 -5843 503 -63 -078 [(DAN C GOLDMAN 624 LYLE DR 3AN JOSE CA 95129 -4810 503 -63 -081 rOHN K SUE TANAKA DR CURRENT OWNER 10800 4TH ST 11 'SARATOGA CA 95070 -5861 503 -63 -084 kNITA A LEDBETTER DR CURRENT OWNER 10800 4TH ST 10 'SARATOGA CA 95070 -5861. 503 -63 -087 (YLE ERIKA SMITH )R CURRENT OWNER 10800 4TH ST 5 SARATOGA CA 95070-5861 503 -63 -090 v11NHU DR CURRENT OWNER 10800 4TH ST 4 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5897 503 -63 -093 :ARL DIERKES 'O BOX 495 'SARATOGA CA 95071 -0495 503 -63 -099 ;AI TING )R CURRENT OWNER 10790 4TH ST 1 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5896 503 -63 -102 v1ICHELE S CASTILLO 636 VILLARITA DR L'AMPBELL CA 95008 -1520 503 -63 -105 2HRISTINE M ZAK DR CURRENT OWNER !0780 4TH ST 7 ARATOGA CA 95070 -5849 503 -63 -076 MARK C LIANIDES OR CURRENT OWNER 20700 4TH ST 6 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5843 503 -63 -079 GARY G CHIAVETTA 2326 FATJO PL SANTA CLARA CA 95050 -4016 503 -63 -082 MABEL ICAO OR CURRENT OWNER 20800 4TH ST 12 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5861 503 -63 -085 DAN D DOUGLASS OR CURRENT OWNER 20800 4TH ST 7 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5861 503 -63 -088 JOSEPH A MILDRED PLICKA 9267 DOVE CT GILROY CA 95020 -7771 503 -63 -091 FRED L DORINE ALVORD 13782 CALLE TACUBA SARATOGA CA 95070 -4921 503 -63 -095 DENNIS A LINDA DUMONT OR CURRENT OWNER 20790 4TH ST 5 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5859 503 -63 -100 DONALD S KATHLEEN MANZAGOL 12078 SADDLE RD MONTEREY CA 93940 -6655 503 -63 -103 JOY C YOUNES OR CURRENT OWNER 20780 4TH ST 9 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5801 503 -63 -106 PETER H RHEE 1150 SCOTT BLVD D2 SANTA CLARA CA 95050 -4547 503 -63 -077 SYLVAN E LEPIANE 15890 SHANNON RD LOS GATOS CA 95032 -5729 503 -63 -080 BRETT C HOLMES OR CURRENT OWNER 20700 4TH ST 2 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5843 503 -63 -083 LINDA RONALD LAWSON 14090 ELVIRA ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -5815, 503 -63 -086 ROBERT A YVONNE DUNCANSON OR CURRENT OWNER 20800 4TH ST 8 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5861 503 -63 -089 JOSEPH SUSAN LONG PO BOX 2095 SARATOGA CA 95070 -0095 503 -63 -092 MATHEW T FLENNIKEN OR CURRENT OWNER 20800 4TH ST 2 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5897 503 -63 -097 JENNIFER L PAOLI 16280 LOS SERENOS ROBLES MONTE SERENO CA 95030 -3026 503 -63 -101 ELIE YOUNES OR CURRENT OWNER 20780 4TH ST 11 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5801 503 -63 -104 ALAN KORGAV OR CURRENT OWNER 20780 4TH ST 10 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5801 503 -63 -107 KATHLEEN GALE 3720 CAPITOLA RD SANTA CRUZ CA 95062 -2048 503 -63 -108 FAMES R GAIL CARATOZZOLO �0 CHALET LN OGA CA 95070 -4926 503 -63 -111 3ERT VIVIAN BURGER 13575 OLD TREE WAY 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -5415 503 -76 -003 CATHERINE Y KWEI 1125 HUMBOLDT RD 3RISBANE CA 94005 -1728 503 -76 -006 )VIDIO WENDY CALVO NR CURRENT OWNER 4595 BIG BASIN WAY 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -6069 503 -76 -009 UNE F CHEN '0 BOX 2963 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -0963 17 -09 -013 3KOFAMERNT &SA '0 BOX 2818 LPHARETTA GA 30023 -2818 17 -09 -026 :ICKY RUBINA RATRA 597 TURRIFF WAY ;AN JOSE CA 95132 -2351 .17 -09 -032 ;ICHARD J LAUREL HESS )R CURRENT OWNER 4563 OAK ST ARATOGA CA 95070 -6027 17 -09 -053 ACQUELYN GLASS 4110 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN ARATOGA CA 95070 -5418 056 SHARON CHANG )R CURRENT OWNER 4603 OAK ST ARATOGA CA 95070 -6015 503 -63 -109 RICHARD F PATRICIA BADER 21120 MICHAELS DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5319 503 -76 -001 FENG -YING LIN 603 FOREST AVE PALO ALTO CA 94301 -2623 503 -76 -004 CATHERINE B HIRSCHMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 14591 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6069 503 -76 -007 MARK W HIRTH OR CURRENT OWNER 14597 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6069 517 -09 -011 RICHARD SERMONE 14620 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -2446 517 -09- 014,015 FRANK BURRELL 4010 MOORPARK AVE 111 SAN JOSE CA 95117 -1804 517 -09 -027 THANH LUONG OR CURRENT OWNER 14515 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6025 517 -09 -051 MIHAI T MIHAE POPESCU STANESTI OR CURRENT OWNER 14613 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6015 517 -09 -054 MAGDALENE LAVINE OR CURRENT OWNER 14607 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6015 517 -09 -058 GREG L TYLER 459 TROY LN SONOMA CA 95476 503 -63 -110 NATALIA JIMENEZ OR CURRENT OWNER 20780 4TH ST 4 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5849 503 -76 -002 EUGENE CHOW 1125 HUMBOLDT RD BRISBANE CA 94005 -1728 503 -76 -005 MICHAEL RUBENSTEIN OR CURRENT OWNER 14593 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6069 503 -76 -008 VADIM D STEPANCHENKO OR CURRENT OWNER 14599 BIG BASIN WAY H SARATOGA CA 95070 -6069 517 -09 -012 MARTE FORMICO 14480 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6095 517 -09 -025 JAVID J SALEHIEH OR CURRENT OWNER 14501 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6025 517 -09 -031 GIOVANNA R SCHENINI OR CURRENT OWNER 20576 3RD ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6053 517 -09 -052 LEXIE A SMITH OR CURRENT OWNER 14611 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6015 517 -09 -055 JOSEPH A FITZPATRICK OR CURRENT OWNER 14605 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6015 517 -09 -059 PP &EKIRK PO BOX 2080 GILROY CA 95021 -2080 517 -09 -060 PATRICK KIRK 1546 MONTALBAN DR SAN JOSE CA 95120 -4829 517 -09 -069 POLLACK PROPERTIES II LLC 14500 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6076 517 -09 -073 RAY D REDMON DR CURRENT OWNER 14589 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6075 517 -09 -076 FAMES P LALLY 58 -1050 MAUNA LANI POINT D D304 KAMUELA HI 96743 -9781 517 -09 -081 TIONG C CANDICE ONG DR CURRENT OWNER 1 0582 3RD ST 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -6053 517 -09 -086 2HARLES M DIANE SKINNER DR CURRENT OWNER 10661 5TH ST 3 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -6803 517 -10 -047 3ARATOGA UNION S D 10460 Forrest Hills Drive 3ARATOGA CA 95070 517-34-003 ;AMUEL SCOTT )22 BICKNELL RD _,OS GATOS CA 95030 -2112 ;17-34-006 3ARY D ALFORD DR CURRENT OWNER 4543 OAK ST ARATOGA CA 95070 -6074 :ITY OF SARATOGA. liTTN: Heather Bradley 3777 FRUITVALE AVENUE ARATOGA CA 95070 517 -09 -061 PETER LA BARBERA PO BOX 26190 SAN JOSE CA 95159 -6190 517 -09 -071 EUGENE ZAMBETTI PO BOX 34 SARATOGA CA 95071 -0034 517 -09 -074 WALTER MILLER OR CURRENT OWNER 14591 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6075 517 -09 -077 PATRICK MCGILL OR CURRENT OWNER 14597 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6075 517 -09 -084 WILLIAM LORRAINE WRIGHT OR CURRENT OWNER 20661 5TH ST 1 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6803 517 -09 -087 DAVID SHEN OR CURRENT OWNER 20661 5TH ST 4 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6803 517 -34 -001 TRUDY.GRABLE 1238 CORDELIA AVE SAN JOSE CA 95129 -4212 517 -34 -004 BRIDGET M ROMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 14545 OAK ST D SARATOGA CA 95070 -6074 517 -34 -007 CHUCK "B KASPAR OR CURRENT OWNER 14527 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6074 Advanced Listing Services P.O. Box 2593 Dana Point CA 92624 517 -09 -068 CALI INVESTMENTS 14510 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6090 517 -09 -072 JAMES B SCHREMPP OR CURRENT OWNER 14587 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6075 517 -09 -075 GARY D ALFORD OR CURRENT OWNER 14593 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6075 517 -09 -080 RICHARD ANGELA JOHNSON OR CURRENT OWNER 20578 3RD ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6053 517 -09 -085 DERALD R KENOYER OR CURRENT OWNER 20661 5TH ST 2 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6803 517 -09 -088 MICHAEL J ALINA MORETTI 530 IRVEN CT PALO ALTO CA 94306 -3950 5.17 -34 -002 PRASENJIT BARDHAN 1648 MARIPOSA AVE PALO ALTO CA 94306 -1026 517-34-005 JAMES A ELLS OR CURRENT OWNER 14537 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6074 517 -34 -008 DAVID J SPLAWN OR CURRENT OWNER 14525 OAK ST H SARATOGA CA 95070 -6074 86 -31 -034 ;HAN KA YUK YEO ANGEL CHENG 3U t RRENT OWNER ANTUCKET CT ;A 'r TOGA CA 95070 -3929 86 -31 -055 ,EELA RANJIT OBEROI )R CURRENT OWNER 2564 PLYMOUTH DR ARATOGA CA 95070 -3957 86 -32 -013 :AVINDER NAMRATA SAJWAN )R CURRENT OWNER 9545 DORCHESTER DR ARATOGA CA 95070 -3901 86 -34 -025. :ETTE KAISER )R CURRENT OWNER 2389 LARCHMONT AVE ARATOGA CA 95070 -3316 86 -34 -028 IRD TRUST ►R CURRENT OWNER 9667 NORTHAMPTON DR TOGA CA 95070 -3364 l8 039 ELAND F MARILYN LEE iR CURRENT OWNER 2475 NEWPORT CT ARATOGA CA 95070 -3328 86 -34 -042 kMES A SANDRA STEINBRUNER R CURRENT OWNER 9728 NORTHAMPTON DR ARATOGA CA 95070 -3336 36 -34 -045 [ATTHEW S DEBORAH DIMARIA R CURRENT OWNER 2481 DOVER CT ARATOGA CA 95070 -3309 36 -34 -048 \NE K ANTHONY HOFFMAN 0 BOX 2273 ARATOGA CA 95070 -0273 3.051 K K NIRAJ SINGH R CURRENT OWNER 1453 LARCHMONT AVE ARATOGA CA 95070 -3903 386 -31 -035 WILFORD B SHIRLEY HILTON OR CURRENT OWNER 12637 PLYMOUTH DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3934 386 -32 -001 SANDEEP M PARUL PANDYA OR CURRENT OWNER 19568 NORTHAMPTON DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3331 386 -32 -014 LAWRENCE H ELIZABETH HUDEPOHL OR CURRENT OWNER 19567 DORCHESTER DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3901 386 -34 -026 GARY L SUZANNE ONEALL OR CURRENT OWNER 19623 NORTHAMPTON DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3364 386 -34 -029 STEPHEN B LAURIE PAKULA OR CURRENT OWNER 19689 NORTHAMPTON DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3364 386 -34 -040 HYON CHEONG OR CURRENT OWNER 12482 NEWPORT CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3328 386 -34 -043 EDWIN Y TOY MAR OR CURRENT OWNER 19696 NORTHAMPTON DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3336 386 -34 -046 CHEN LIN OR CURRENT OWNER 12476 DOVER CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3309 386 -34 -049 HARRIETT RICHARDS OR CURRENT OWNER 19632 NORTHAMPTON DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3334 386 -34 -052 MARK HO OR CURRENT OWNER 12485 LARCHMONT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3903 386 -31 -054 PLYMOUTH TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER 12590 PLYMOUTH DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3957 386 -32 -002 SATISH K DHARMARAJ OR CURRENT OWNER 19546 NORTHAMPTON DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3331 386 -34 -024 PETER Y SIU HO OR CURRENT OWNER 12367 LARCHMONT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3316 386 -34 -027 KATHERINE FINK OR CURRENT OWNER 19645 NORTHAMPTON DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3364 386 -34 -030 CHU -LING HSIAO OR CURRENT OWNER 19701 NORTHAMPTON DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3333 386 -34 -041 JAMES R LINDA WILLIAMSON OR CURRENT OWNER 12456 NEWPORT CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3328 386 -34 -044 NATHAN JANET SILBERMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 12455 DOVER CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3309 386 -34 -047 JOHN E HANH EASTERBROOK OR CURRENT OWNER 12454 DOVER CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3309 386 -34 -050 SAMUEL. JUDITH HOLTZMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 12421 LARCHMONT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3903 386 -34 -053 NARESH NITA MAKHIJANI OR CURRENT OWNER 12576 SCULLY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3908 .86 -34 -054 UCHARD E JUDITH COLLINS )R CURRENT OWNER 2564 SCULLY AVE ;ARATOGA CA 95070 -3908 86 -34 -057 ,OUIS GALBIATI )R CURRENT OWNER 2538 SCULLY AVE ARATOGA CA 95070 -3908 86 -50 -001 OSEPH M JACQUELINE KRAUS )R CURRENT OWNER 2665 LARCHMONT AVE ARATOGA CA 95070 -3905 86 -50 -006 OR MICHELE HANSSEN lR CURRENT OWNER 9734 EDINA LN ARATOGA CA 95070 -3955 86 -50 -009 IALLAS G SHARON DENERY IR CURRENT OWNER 2611 LARCHMONT AVE ARATOGA CA 95070 -3956 86 -50 -012 U- SITYANG S KUO R CURRENT OWNER )753 EDINA LN ARATOGA CA 95070 -3918 36 -50 -015 'RVILLE M KAREN BURLEY R CURRENT OWNER )789 SOLANA DR ARATOGA CA 95070 -3945 36 -50 -036 UZANNE CAHN R CURRENT OWNER ?638 LARCHMONT AVE ARATOGA CA 95070 -3906 dvanced Listing Services O. Box 2593 ana Point CA 92624 386 -34 -055 HARRY NANCY WELLER OR CURRENT OWNER 12552 SCULLY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3908 386 -34 -058 PETER K MIDORI YOKOYAMA OR CURRENT OWNER 12526 SCULLY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3908 386 -50 -004 JANE D STEWART OR CURRENT OWNER 19729 SOLANA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3943 386 -50 -007 BENSON NANCY CHEUNG OR CURRENT OWNER 19722 EDINA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3955 386 -50 -010 EDINA LANE LLC PO BOX 2067 SARATOGA CA 95070 -0067 386 -50 -013 DOUGLAS R LENNIE TRAINA OR CURRENT OWNER 19765 EDINA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3918 386 -50 -034 KEITH G HEIDI MORRISON OR CURRENT OWNER 12672 LARCHMONT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3906 386 -50 -037 JITANG GU OR CURRENT OWNER 12616 LARCHMONT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3906 386 -34 -056 PAUL D SHIRLEY CLARK OR CURRENT OWNER 12540 SCULLY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3908 386 -34 -059 RONALD SHARON JOSEPH OR CURRENT OWNER 12514 SCULLY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3908 386 -50 -005 MELINDA L GOLDEN OR CURRENT OWNER 19735 SOLANA DR. SARATOGA CA 95070 -3943 386 -50 -008 JAMES Y HELENA YEH OR CURRENT OWNER 19718 EDINA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3955 386 -50 -011 MASAMI FUMI ISHIKAWA OR CURRENT OWNER 19741 EDINA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3918 386 -50 -014 HOMER KORN OR CURRENT OWNER 19777 SOLANA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3945 386 -50 -035 VIRGIL J MOORE OR CURRENT OWNER 12650 LARCHMONT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3906 CITY OF SARATOGA ATTN: HEATHER BRADLEY 13777 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ATTACHEMENT 3 Via Facsimile and FedEx August 5, 2007 Mr. John Livingstone Community Development Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: 20640 3 Street, Saratoga Application #07 233 Sam Cloud Barn. Project, Phase 2 CONNER ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 268 Bush Street, #3109, San Francisco, CA 94104 1317 No. San Fernando Blvd., #523, Burbank, CA 91504 Tel. (415) 357 -1401 Fax (415) 357 -1402 Dear Mr. Livingstone: We represent the developers of the Sam Cloud Barn Project in downtown Saratoga. I wanted to write to you to provide a brief overview of my client's recent efforts and update you on issues related to Application #07-233. 't.'1 fl Phase 1 for the project ren vat u 0 e x ing structure, has gone smoothly and construction should be substantiall}j.-omplete within .4I ays. Interest and support from the local small 1� business community has 1304645e mpg. Phase 2 for the project has been in the active design and review process for 10 months to date. UNItII VgLt3�MENT In regard to the application and proposed project referenced above, my clients believe they have taken all of the appropriate steps necessary to build a quality project that is of benefit to the community. The Planning Commission process and feedback during public Study Sessions over the last few months has been quite helpful in refining the project. I. PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVALS PHASE 1 Following approval by the Heritage Preservation Committee, Resolution #05 -113 was approved by the Planning Department on 8/31/2005. Subsequently, a revision to add a full basement was submitted, and a second approval was granted by the Heritage Preservation Committee and approved by the Planning Department on 10/16/2006 as Resolution #07 -141. Mr. John Livingstone August 5, 2007 Page 2 of 4 Construction on Phase 1 was begun in December, 2006. II. GEOTECHNICAL APPROVALS In addition, Resolution 07 -141 approval (referenced above) included Geotechnical clearance by Lata Vasuduan from the City and included both lots for phase 1 and phase 2. Further, on June 11, 2007, a Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review (S0326B) study was provided to the City by its geotechnical consultant and formal geotechnical approval for the phase 2 project was received. As you know, the site project is an infill location in downtown Saratoga, a traditional urbanized area. All of the necessary public utilities and infrastructure are available to the site and there will be no environmental impact resulting from the proposed project. III. PLANNING AND PUBLIC STUDY SESSIONS FOR PHASE 2 On May 22, 2007 and July 11, 2007, my clients met with members of the Planning Commission and discussed possible uses and design concepts for the proposed project. Members of the Planning Commission (and public) expressed a desire for less bulk and mass on the southwest elevation and more prominent entrance from lower parking lot. My clients' architect has undertaken a number of design studies and informal charrettes to explore design alternatives. A third study session is scheduled for August 22, 2007. IV. REDUCTION IN SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR PHASE 2 Based upon aesthetic and design preferences expressed by members of the Planning Commission and Planning staff, my clients have substantially reduced and reconfigured the total square footage of the proposed phase 2 building as presented at the July 11, 2007 study session. The current Sam Cloud project new construction, as proposed, totals approximately 6296 s.f. The final design results in a fairly massive foundation required to construct this building yet modest square footage. Design changes under analysis include larger windows, the addition of 6 exterior balconies, ganging up stair and elevator towers, the addition of double doors at the lower parking lot entrance, a physical separation of the phase 1 and phase 2 buildings, and reduction of the southwest elevation. etc. Mr. John Livingstone August 5, 2007 Page 3 of 4 V. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM CEQA FOR PHASE 2 Now that the design, planning and geotechnical analysis for the Sam Cloud project is near completion, the 6296 s.f. building as currently proposed clearly appears to be exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act "CEQA California Public Resources Code Section 21083 and Title 14, California Code of Regulations lists specific exemptions to CEQA environmental. review. 15303(c) New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures: A store, motel, office, restaurant or similar structure not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, and not exceeding 2500 square feet in floor area. In urbanized areas, the exemption also applies to up to four such commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites zoned for such use if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive. The CEQA analysis and interpretation of this exemption for new, small structures has been confirmed by the Courts up to and including the Court of Appeal in the Patricia Ann Fairbank v. City of Mill Valley case, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 233. In this Bay Area case involving a project of very similar size and use, the Court held that: ..under Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, 15303, subd. (c), which provides a categorical exemption from the requirements of CEQA for small commercial structures in an urbanized area, the 5,855- square -foot retail /office building met the exemption standard...The most plausible reading of the standard is that a commercial project to be built in an urbanized area may be found to be exempt if it involves the construction of one, two, three, or four commercial buildings on a parcel zoned for such use, so long as the total floor area of the building or buildings does not exceed 10,000 square feet. In addition, three similar projects .within a few hundred yards of the Sam Cloud project site have also been recently approved by the City and categorized as "categorically exempt" from CEQA review. VI. SUMMARY At this time, it appears that all of the design, planning, environmental and geotechnical review for the Sam Cloud Barn Project is in the process of being finalized. We look forward to the August 22, 2007 Study Session with the Planning Commission members and refining any final design details of the project. Mr. John Livingstone August 5, 2007 Page 4 of 4 My clients are long term residents of the City of Saratoga and have been and will be committed to taking all of the appropriate steps necessary to build and maintain a quality project of benefit to the community. Very Truly Yours, CONNER ASSOCIATES, LLP Jeffrey S. Conner, Esq. JSC /it Attachments CC: Jonathan Wittwer, Esq. Heather Bradley, City of Saratoga DATE: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Manny Cappello, Rishi Kumar, Robert Kundtz, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Yan Zhao and Chair Joyce Hlava PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 8, 2007 ORAL COMMUNICATION: 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: REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: Pursuant to Govemment Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 16, 2007 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: CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 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 07 -342 (APN 386 -10 -043) McDonald's USA, LLC, 18578 Prospect Road: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval and modification to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit for a McDonald's restaurant with a 24 hour operation to occupy an existing 4,090 square foot vacant commercial building previously occupied by Krispy Kreme doughnuts. Design Review approval is necessary to allow minor exterior modifications to the building. The lot size is 2.14 acres and the site is zoned CN (Commercial Neighborhood). (Heather Bradley) 2. APPLICATION 07 -397 (APN 386 -34 -053) MAKHIJANI, 12576 Scully Avenue -The applicant requests Design Review approval to add a second floor to the existing single story residence. The addition includes approximately 148 square feet to the existing first floor and a new, approximately, 1,146 square foot second story to the existing 2,755 square foot single -story residence. The total proposed floor area will be P:\PC Agendas\2007\Agn 082207.doc approximately 4,049 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed building will not exceed the 26 -foot height limit. The maximum impervious coverage will not exceed the allowable 55% of the net site area. The lot size is approximately 14,184 square feet, and the site is located in the R -1- 12,500 zoning district. Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060. (Heather Bradley) 3. APPLICATION #APT07 -0001 (APN 386 -11 -035) WU, 12571 Paseo Cerro; The applicant is appealing the denial of a tree removal permit application (HTRP07 -200) and conditions of Administrative Design Review approval #07 -255) that require he retain a coast redwood tree in the front yard of the property. Pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 90.010 applicants can appeal the denial of a tree removal permit and conditions of Administrative Design Review approval to the Planning Commission. (Kate Bear) 4. APPLICATION ZOA -07 -0003 (City Wide) Proposed Blight Ordinance: The Planning Commission will consider a draft ordinance to set standards for the minimum level of maintenance of private property in Saratoga. The ordinance would establish standards for (1) general property maintenance (e.g., overgrown vegetation, unsecured structures, or conditions of deterioration or disrepair that creates a substantial adverse impact on neighboring properties), (2) single family residential use landscaping, (3) multifamily residential use landscaping, and (3) parkstrips between sidewalks and City streets. The ordinance would also specify enforcement and appeals procedures. (Jana Rinaldi) 5. APPLICATION ZOA07 -0002 (City Wide) Proposed News rack Ordinance: The Planning Commission will consider a draft ordinance to regulate the placement of news racks on public property in the City of Saratoga. The ordinance would establish permit requirements and procedures, news rack design standards, placement specifications, maintenance requirements, and enforcement and appeals procedures. (Jana Rinaldi) DIRECTORS ITEM: None COMMISSION ITEMS: None COMMUNICATIONS None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, September 12, 2007 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, Abby Ayende, 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 August 16, 2007 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 e-mail, please send your e-mail address to plannina(ri„saratoga.ca.us NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us P: \PC Agendas\2007\Agn 082207.doc PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of July 11, 2007. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Zhao, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of July 11, 2007, were adopted with a correction to page 9. (6 -0 -1; Commissioner Kumar was absent) DATE: Wednesday, August 8, 2007 PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Hlava called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: Commissioner Kumar Staff: Director John Livingstone, Senior Planner Chris Riordan, Assistant Planner Suzanne. Thomas and Acting City Attorney Bill Parkin ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no oral communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 2, 2007. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no consent items. MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Hlava 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). Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 8, 2007 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 1 Application #07 -319 (510 -06 -069) Adams, 19358 Saratoqa -Los Gatos Road: The applicant requests Use Permit and Design Review Approval to construct a new two -story single family residence, including a basement, and to allow a height exception of approximately three feet. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage will be approximately 5,013 square feet. The lot size is approximately 1.9 acres and the site is zoned 4 -1- 40,000. (Suzanne Thomas) Assistant Planner Suzanne Thomas presented the staff report as follows: Explained that the applicant is seeking Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approvals to allow for the construction of a new two -story single family residence on a vacant flag lot. Described the site is a heavily wooded two -acre property that is not visible to most neighbors. Stated that the requested 29 foot maximum height is three feet higher than the standard maximum height allowed under Code. Informed that the Planning Commission can approve up to a 30 -foot maximum height if that added height is necessary in order to adhere to a specific architectural style. Reported that the Planning Commission at a Study Session reviewed this proposal last month. Said that the proposed materials include brown stained shingles, white trim and limestone veneer around the base. Stated that Certified Arborist Dave Doctor will ensure that the trees on the site would be preserved. Advised that the driveway route has been determined to be the optimum possible per the City Arborist. Three trees will need to be removed and replaced. Said that no negative comments have been received and neighbors have been notified. Stated that the necessary findings can be made to support this application. Recommended approval and advised that the applicant and his arborist are both here. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the neighbors are aware that the 29 -foot height alternative is the one being recommended for approval. Planner Suzanne Thomas replied yes. Chair Hlava asked to verify that the neighbors signed approval of both the.26 and 29 -foot .maximum heights. Planner Suzanne Thomas replied yes, both proposed heights were presented to the neighbors. That fact can be verified with the applicant. Commissioner Rodgers asked about what "green" features have been incorporated into this home. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 8, 2007 Page 3 ip Planner Suzanne Thomas suggested that this issue be discussed with the applicant. 410 Chair Hlava opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Adams, Owner and Applicant: Reported that he is a nine year resident of Saratoga. Said that he hopes the Commission finds that his plan fits. Thanked Suzanne Thomas and Kate Bear for their assistance. The City has a hard- working Planning staff. Introduced his project architect, Anthony Ho, and project arborist, Dave Doctor. Described his proposed home as a Shingle Style architecture. Informed that Virginia McAllister, the well- regarded expert on architectural styles, supports his design. Said that the roof pitch is important for this architectural style of which the emphasis is on the gables. The roof pitch has a large impact on the aesthetics of the home. Reminded that this is a secluded site. Reported that he engaged early in the process with his neighbors even before he purchased the property. Assured that this is not a monster home and is actually 1,000 square feet smaller than would be allowed. Advised that he wants a natural setting. Pointed out that the lot is narrow. Said that there are 90 mature trees on the site. Stated that there were challenging Fire Department requirements to meet with this property. Assured that high quality materials would be used including a 600 -foot long drive that equals 12,000 square feet of pavers. Additionally, they are using cedar shingle siding with stone trim all around. The doors and windows are solid wood. Fine carpentry will be incorporated as well as high -end roofing. Commissioner Rodgers said that this is a lovely lot and great setting. She asked if it was visible from Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. Mr. Adams said it is not even one -inch visible from the street. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Adams to discuss any "green" features for his home. Mr. Adams: Said that the house is facing south and includes a porch across the first and second floors to shade that elevation. Added that they are incorporating six -inch thick walls for extra insulation. Stated that they are also including radiant floor heating that is 95 percent effective. Reported that there are no solar panels proposed right now. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that the center core of the house is easily isolated and as such it can be closed off when not in use to contain heat and /or cooling. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 8, 2007 Page .4 Mr. Adams said that underground piping is being incorporated to tap in natural cool in the dirt. Commissioner Rodgers: Reminded that of the two fireplaces proposed, one can be wood burning and the other must be gas. Advised that the gas fireplace can be as grand as they want. They are not restricted to small boxes. Thanked Mr. Adams for the efforts to preserve trees, saying those efforts are appreciated. Said that she had mentioned during the Study Session that this proposed house reminds her of a house she once saw on Cape Cod.. Mr. Adams said that he is a fan of Shingle -Style homes. He added that his mother has one in Canada. Commissioner Nagpal congratulated Mr. Adams on the fantastic job done on the presentation package for this home and the fact that the neighbors were shown the 29 -foot high version. She asked Mr. Adams if he had considered incorporating any solar at all. Mr. Adams said that this would be an added feature in the future. He said that his wife is one of the original "greens" in the world. He added that he believes the cost of solar will come down in the next five years. Commissioner Nagpal said he is to be commended. Commissioner Rodgers asked that it be put into the record that this Commission previously conducted a lengthy Study Session on this project. Chair Hlava closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Nagpal: Said that she takes issuance of a Use Permit for added height very seriously. Only one such application has been approved to date in Saratoga since the Code to allow it was adopted. Stated that this applicant has established the significance of Shingle -Style homes and the fact that the roof pitch is important. Added that she did not like the 26 -foot high version as well. Advised that she is in favor of approving the 29 -foot height. Expressed appreciation for the work done by this applicant. Commissioner Zhao said that she is very impressed with the research done. She added that she is convinced and can support this request. Commissioner Kundtz said that he is sensitive to others who have designed to the standard of 26 feet. He added that he is inclined to support this application only because the house is so secluded. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 8, 2007 Page 5 Commissioner Rodgers: Said that the fact that an architect designed this house helps when determining if an architectural style is pure. Said that this home's pleasing proportions look appropriate for this site. Added that the site is isolated so as not to be visible. It consists of two acres and the site's topography is in its favor. Stated that the footprint is not too large at 2,900 square feet. It is actually pretty small. Said that the applicant appears to have taken into account the City's "green" policy. Opined that the landscaping plan is wonderful and well thought out. Suggested that the standard language on fireplaces be incorporated into the conditions. Stated that she can support this application. Commissioner Cappello: Said that he agrees with the things said thus far. Stated that this is a lovely design. Agreed that the applicant has clearly shown that the height is required for this architectural style, which makes this an easy decision. Reminded that an extensive Study Session was held where lots of questions were addressed. Advised that he can make all of the Design Review findings and support the project. Chair Hlava: Said that she also can make Design Review findings. Stated that there are no impacts on neighbors. Explained that the reason for height limitations is to limit size of houses. Stated that she is able to make the findings in this secluded location to allow the 29 -foot height. Commissioner Rodgers: Agreed with Chair Hlava. Reminded that the applicant must prove architectural purity and this applicant has done so. Cautioned that height limits can sometimes limit the range of architectural styles possible. Commissioner Nagpal said that this Ordinance went into effect to give the City this type of dialog. She stressed the need for architectural purity to substantiate added height. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission granted Use Permit and Design Review Approvals (Application #07 -319) to construct a new two -story single family residence, including basement, with a height exception of approximately three feet on property located at 19358 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, with the added standard fireplace language and use of stone on the chimney, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: Kumar Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 8, 2007 Page 6 ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #07 -337 (389 -06- 014,015) Shultz, 12945 Saratoga Road: The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the installation of an emergency power back -up generator in association with an existing medical facility. The emergency generator would be located on the right side of the building, screened from public view, and would be located approximately 24 feet from the right side property line. Zoning P -A. (Chris Riordan) Senior Planner Chris Riordan presented the staff report as follows: Explained that the applicant is seeking approval for a diesel powered generator to provide emergency backup for a medical office. Said that the generator would be located 24 -feet from the side setback. A six -foot tall fence with trellis to allow vines to be grown on it will surround it. Reported that the maximum noise level allowed is 65 decibels. As measured, this generator operates at 64.5 decibels, 61 decibels with the proposed fence. Said that the medical facility runs between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. No evening hour use of this generator is requested. Recommended approval. Suggested additions to the conditions that there be no openings in the fence and compliance with the Noise Ordinance. Commissioner Nagpal asked if follow up noise testing occurs after the fence is installed. Planner Chris Riordan said that this is not typically done. He added that the applicant could explain how the°testing was done. Director John Livingstone added that this Commission could add a condition requiring verification of noise levels by testing on site following installation of the generator and fencing t� make sure the noise levels are met. Chair Hlava opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No 2. Mr. Carl Shultz, Applicant: Said that this generator is to provide back up power to a surgical facility so that in the event of a power outage any surgery in progress could be completed safety with alternate power. Added that this back up power is necessary to achieve AAAHC certification of this facility. Said he is available for questions. Commissioner Rodgers asked how often periodic testing of this equipment would occur. Mr. Carl Shultz said that it could be between every other week up to every other month. The testing would occur for approximately 10 minutes to verify it to be operational. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 8, 2007 Page 7 Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that there is a large parking lot on the adjacent property so that the use of this generator should not disturb people in the next building. Mr. Carl Shultz said that this is correct. He added that the sound of the generator would be no different from that of a car. Commissioner Zhao asked how long the generator could run. Mr. Carl Shultz said that the generator must be able to run for at least 90 minutes in order to finish a surgical procedure and get a patient safely off the operating table. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there are any evening operating hours. Planner Chris Riordan said that operational hours for this facility are between 8 a.m. and 6. p.m. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Carl Shultz if he plans to go back and re- measure the noise levels of this generator after the fence is installed to make sure it is no louder than 64.5 decibels. Mr. Carl Shultz said he had no such plan but if that requirement is conditioned that would be fine. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the actual generator is what was tested on site. Mr. Carl Shultz replied yes. Chair Hlava pointed out that lattice is not a closed feature on the fence. Planner Chris Riordan clarified that the decorative lattice would be attached to the solid surface of the fence with no openings in order to support screening vines. Chair Hlava closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of an emergency power generator in association with an existing medical facility on property located at 12945 Saratoga Road, with the added condition: To have the recommendations included in the noise survey included in the conditions of approval; That a follow up noise study be conducted after construction of the wood fence with said results to be provided to staff for file documentation prior to issuance of final building permit approval; by the following roll call vote: ,Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 8, 2007 Page.8 AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: Kumar ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING- ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #07 -396 (517 -22 -075) Arimilli, 15400 Peach Hill Road: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a new two -story single family residence, including a basement and an attached secondary dwelling unit, and a request for a height exception to allow the project to exceed the maximum 26 -foot height limit by 3.5 feet for a total height of 29.5. feet. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage will be approximately 6,713 square feet. The net lot size is approximately 1.6 acres and the site is zoned R -1- 40,000. (Chris Riordan) Chair Hlava announced that a Study Session was previously held on this application. Senior Planner Chris Riordan presented the staff report as follows: Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review and Use Permit approvals to allow the construction of a 6,700 square foot, two -story single- family residence with basement. Added that a 783 square foot secondary dwelling unit would be included in the basement. Reported that recordation of a Deed Restriction on the secondary dwelling unit as a BMR (Below Market Rate) unit allows an additional 10 percent increase in allowed square footage. Said that the maximum height proposed is 29.5 feet. Described the project site as a vacant lot. Explained that a Use Permit is required to allow a residence to have a height that is in excess of 26 feet. The Use Permit allows the extra height only in order to meet architectural style purity. Reminded that this Commission held a Study Session on this project in July. Said that the applicant has provided additional written description and plans on his proposed architectural style, French Country Manor. Listed the proposed project materials as including tan stucco, wood doors and shutters, copper roof and drain pipes over the bay window and slate roof tiles in an earth color. Said that staff recommends that the Commission find this project to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA and approve the Use Permit and Design Review applications. Commissioner Zhao asked about the Deed Restriction and whether this owner would have to rent out their second unit. What happens if they do not rent it out Chair Hlava explained that the owner does not have to rent the unit out. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the proposed 1,236 cubic yards of grading is not more than permitted. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 8, 2007 Page 9 41) Planner Chris Riordan said that grading is limited only in the Hillside zoning district. Chair Hlava opened the public hearing for Agenda item No. 3. Mr. Marty Oakley, Project Designer /Builder: Thanked staff for their efforts, particularly Chris Riordan. Thanked the Commission for conducting a Study Session a couple of weeks ago. Said that the Study Session was important and necessary as it gave the Planning Commission the chance to understand his project and him to understand the Commission's concerns. Said that he has tried to deal with the issues raised and to prove the purity of the proposed architectural style. Explained that he has since located two additional resources. That material has been provided in their plan. Stated his availability for any questions. Commissioner Rodgers thanked Mr. Marty Oakley for the additional research material provided. She pointed out that it appears that he has pulled from two architectural styles, French Country and French Eclectic. Mr. Marty Oakley said that there are many of the same elements in both styles but his is a pure French Country style. He said that all elements, materials and degree of design are outlined in the three different resources. He added that a 7 and 12 roof pitch is not that steep. Commissioner Nagpal: Said that it is important for Mr. Marty Oakley to pick an architectural style and find what makes that style architecturally pure, including roof height. Added that she wants to hear more about other arguments and /or elements that define the purity of the style, including roof height. Mr. Marty Oakley said that the rendering shows dormer windows, slate roofing, stucco and stone, recessed windows and the brick headers above the windows. He said all these elements are spelled out in the resource materials and all are clearly shown on the elevation. Commissioner Cappello said that it appears that there are elements to the French Eclectic style. Other elements are not included in this design. He said that it appears that Mr. Marty Oakley has only highlighted some of them. Mr. Marty Oakley pointed out that a designer does not have to use every element possible to an architectural style in a particular home. Commissioner Cappello cautioned that Code stipulates an allowance of additional height if that height adheres to an architectural style. If the style is eclectic, how can that house adhere to that standard? Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 8, 2007 Page 10 Mr. Marty Oakley said that it represents a combination of different styles. Eclectic styles include a number of different elements. Commissioner Cappello said if that is so why is an additional three feet in height for the roof indeed required here. Mr. Marty Oakley said that the steeper pitch roof he proposes is required to meet that style. Commissioner Cappello said that the Code section to allow additional height is not just to result in an attractive home but also to meet strict architectural style requirements. Mr. Marty Oakley said that he believes he has proven the purity by picking elements of the chosen architectural style. Chair Hlava: Explained to Mr. Marty Oakley that members of this Commission are saying that eclectic is not a pure style. Pointed out that she sees French Eclectic listed as a specific identified style with sub- types. Commissioner Nagpal said that is where she started. She asked Mr. Marty Oakley to help the Commission make the connection. Commissioner Kundtz asked Mr. Marty Oakley to point to one specific style from the resource. Mr. Marty Oakley pointed to #4 on the bottom of the page, the one without the round turret. He added that none are 100 percent of what he is trying to create. He added that there is one on the next page that offers more continuity with his design. He pointed out that he went to numerous bookstores and libraries to research. Commissioner Rodgers said that the guide refers to eclectic as drawing from one style. Mr. Marty Oakley: Said that this is not correct. He said that the home is designed from the floor up. The exterior is designed before you do anything. Added that this property dictated what he could do as far as floor plan. This design is the most conducive for this. property. Said that he has to have the steep pitch roof to make this work. If not, he would have to do a Tuscan style home. Suggested that the reason for the Code exception on height is to allow steeper pitched roofs. Commissioner Rodgers: Said that a large part of this house's footprint is at the 30 -foot height. Stated that in the French style, each region has its own style. Opined that this house doesn't draw from any specific one to prove it is .pure rather than just large. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 8, 2007 Page 11 Pointed out that the Commission would be setting precedent with this decision. Mr. Marty Oakley said that he tried to create a varied roofline using good design so that it is not top heavy but rather proportionate. He cautioned that they are looking at a one dimensional drawing that does not clearly depict the varying plate heights and rooflines. Chair Hlava asked if the listed element of outward flaring eaves is incorporated? Mr. Marty Oakley replied yes. If you look at the color rendering, the flared roof does exist at the plate line where it flares to 4 and 12. Chair Hlava asked if recessed windows are utilized? Mr. Marty Oakley pointed out six recessed windows on the front elevation alone, including a bath, the elliptical top window and dining room. The library and master bedroom windows are recessed. He said that recessed windows give a real thick wall look and shadow. Chair Hlava asked about the use of a prominent chimney in the front elevation and /or more than one as called for in his architectural style. Mr. Marty Oakley said that Saratoga allows only one wood burning fireplace. Although there are five other fireplaces in the house, they are gas and do not include chimneys but rather have flues. He added that he could incorporate false chimneys if the Commission so desires. Commissioner Rodgers said that the chimney seems to be stucco. Mr. Marty Oakley replied yes. Commissioner Rodgers asked about use of stone or brick. Mr. Marty Oakley said that the facade walls include real stone and he has taken a brick that compliments that stone and added it to the window. Commissioner Rodgers said that several styles are represented. She said that the other problem she has is that a large area is at the 29 -foot height and includes 10 -foot ceilings. Mr. Marty Oakley said that the house has 15, 12 an 10 foot ceiling heights. Commissioner Rodgers said that this leaves room to develop the attic into living space in the future. Mr. Marty Oakley reminded that he is not proposing a two -story or an attic space. Dr. Jack Connelly, Resident on Hume Drive: Said that he lives to the east of the project. Said that he would like to see this house designed at a maximum of 26 feet. Informed that he was never asked to review the project plans. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 8, 2007 Page 12 Suggested that this project is playing loose with architectural purity. Stated that he had no idea that this was going to be a commercial project. Opined that this project appears to push limits. Asked the Commission to limit this home to 26 feet in height or it would look like a hotel. Reported that he got notice of this evening's hearing but had no chance to look and /or sign off on the proposed plans. Commissioner Nagpal asked Dr. Jack Connelly if he could see the story poles. Dr. Jack Connelly said that there is no string attaching the poles together. Chair Hlava: Explained to Dr. Jack Connelly that basements don't count against FAR. Added that if a second unit is Deed Restricted as a BMR unit the applicant gets the advantage to build a larger unit. Informed him that allowing a density bonus is required by the State to encourage these second units. Pointed out that the unit in this house is not likely to ever be rented out. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the house is 5,692 square feet and the basement 1,021 square feet: Planner Chris Riordan explained that a portion of the basement is exempt while another portion of the basement that is a daylight basement is counted against square footage. Thus out of a 3,418 square foot basement, 1,021 square feet is counted in the FAR. Ms. Amy Newmark, Resident on Austin, expressed concern about having BMR housing in her neighborhood. Chair Hlava: Reiterated that allowing second units is the State's effort to have low- income housing stock available in a community. Pointed out that in this community, someone earning between $60,000 and $80,000 counts as lower income. Added that if the unit is deed restricted as a BMR unit, the owner gets bonus square footage. Said that this does not mean that second unit is ever rented out. Suggested that in this case the likelihood of the second unit being rented out is not great. Access is through the garage. The unit is pretty small and consists of a nook, kitchen, bath, closed and contains the sauna for the house. Director John Livingstone said that second units used to require a Use Permit. State law changed the rules of approving second units. These second units are now allowed by right. The City is only looking at the design and not the right for inclusion of the second unit itself. Commissioner Rodgers added that a parent, gardener, nanny, etc could use the second unit. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 8, 2007 Page 13 Mr. Marty Oakley asked if Dr. Jack Connelly is located within 500 feet. Chair Hlava replied yes. He was included on the noticing list. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Marty Oakley how they contacted neighbors. Mr. Marty Oakley said that they met with four adjoining neighbors. Mr. Arimilli, Project Owner, said that he had met with every adjacent property owner and was surprised by the opposition expressed this evening by Dr. Jack Connelly. Mr. Marty Oakley said that they installed the story poles as instructed by staff. Chair Hlava closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Cappello: Reiterated that exceptions for height are only to be granted to meet architectural purity. Said that in this design there seems to be a lot of elements that can be included or excluded. Said that there is no strong evidence that this additional height is required to meet the design standards. Advised that he struggles with this height exception and is currently on the fence about supporting it. Commissioner Rodgers: Announced that she cannot meet the Design Review and Use Permit findings. Said that 26 -foot height is what is allowed as a maximum height under the standard ordinance. An increase in height up to a maximum of 30 feet is allowed by exception only to achieve architectural design purity. Stated that she struggles with the French Eclectic style as it is not always a cohesive whole or pure. Added that purity is what this Commission is looking for. Said that she has trouble with Design Review findings on bulk. The house is right on Peach Hill Road and is not compatible in bulk and height. Said that there is a lot of roof expanse. Compared this project to the one earlier this evening. That house was set back 80 feet. This house is set back 40 feet. Said that this house imposes on the neighbors with a very large footprint and creates a bulk and incompatibility problem with the neighborhood. Advised that she cannot vote in favor at this time as the Use Permit findings cannot be made. Said that she is troubled that no landscaping plan was submitted and with the incomplete story poles. She added that inclusion of adequate story poles is her pet peeve or cause and she likes to see full story poles to be able to see a new home from the neighbors' yards or from the valley. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 8, 2007 Page 14 Added that she has a hard time conceptualizing without that visual aide to help. Reiterated her concern that there is room upstairs for another room to be added to the attic and there is natural light already available with the proposed windows. Commissioner Zhao advised that her husband has worked with Mr. Marty Oakley in the past and she questioned whether she should deliberate on this application. Director John Livingstone advised that this might be considered a grey area and up to Commissioner Zhao's discretion. Acting City Attorney Bill Parkin said that Commissioner Zhao might be more comfortable recusing and leaving the chambers during deliberations. Commissioner Zhao advised that she would so recuse herself as a result of her husband's past professional affiliation with the applicant and departed the dais and chambers for the remainder of the hearing. Commissioner Kundtz: Offered the proposition to Mr. Marty Oakley to continue this item. Said that Mr. Marty Oakley has worked long and hard and created a great design Cautioned that he struggles with the notion of eclectic and purity and getting the two to meet. Suggested giving the applicant the opportunity to speak with other neighbors and put in more complete story poles in order for this Commission to give a better- informed decision. Commissioner Nagpal: Said that the Commission is here to make projects work. Some are more challenging than others. Reported that she is currently on the fence on this request. Agreed that fundamentally this is a nice design and she has seen other similar architecture that kept to the maximum of 26 feet in height. Reiterated that the discussion has to be the purity of architectural design. Said that this Commission has the formidable task of establishing purity. Said that she finds there to be a disconnect between the proposal and houses depicted /outlined on the architectural resources. Advised that she cannot make the purity findings at this time. Said that she is willing to put time and effort to get it to a happy medium. Suggested that topography did not help here. The two previous height exception approvals had topography that lessened impacts. Chair Hlava: Said that she is coming from a different perspective. Said that this design is a French Country Design and would look better with a higher pitched roof. Added that it is so big and visible from Peach Hill Road. Stated that she had a hard time with perception and compatibility of bulk. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 8, 2007 Page 15 Described this as a huge large house on the flat top part of the lot. This is a very big house to put there. Informed that she has a harder time with Design Review findings more so than the height issue. Said she is not sure if the applicant prefers more discussion at a future meeting or an up- or -down vote tonight. Mr. Marty Oakley said that it is unfair to compare his house with the one considered earlier this evening. He questioned whether the point is not to design beautiful structure? Commissioner Kundtz said that it is not the issue that the house is visible but it's the issue of allowing additional height. Mr. Marty Oakley said that the earlier house doesn't require additional height. He added that this is a 1.6 -acre lot with a 200 -foot wide frontage. Chair Hlava asked Mr. Marty Oakley if he wants to continue to another Study Session or receive a vote tonight. Mr. Marty Oakley: Said that a Study Session won't do any good based on the Commission's comments. Added that the only way to satisfy is to have a smaller house, while the owner has the right to have a house of this size on this property. Reminded that the story poles are already there. Asked if the Commission could approve this project if he were to flatten the roof to the maximum 26 -foot height. Commissioner Nagpal said that the 26 -foot height is not what is before this Commission. She added that there is also a bulk issue. She asked if Mr. Marty Oakley supports a Study Session. Commissioner Cappello said that as there has been no request by the applicant for a continuance he suggests a vote be taken. Commissioner Kundtz suggested giving them an opportunity to continue to a date certain to allow additional story poles be installed and for the applicant to speak to other neighbors. Mr. Marty Oakley said that he has no problem doing better story poles but asked what other neighbors need to be approached. Commissioner Kundtz said that adjacent neighbors involve 360 degrees and includes rear neighbors. 40 Chair Hlava said that tonight the Commission could only discuss the 29 -foot height. If continued, the applicant could return with a modified design to a maximum of 26 feet in height. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 8, 2007 Page 16 Mr. Marty Oakley suggested a condition of approval to allow up to a maximum of 26 -feet in height. He pointed out that the distributed drawings including the 26 -foot high option. Commissioner Cappello said that the report was based on the 29.5 -foot design. Mr. Marty Oakley said that the only change would be in flattening out the roof or lowering the pitch. Director John Livingstone asked if the 26 -foot proposal was included in the packet. Mr. Marty Oakley replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal said that it is just one sheet included. Mr. Marty Oakley said that the difference would be a 4 and 12 pitch for a maximum height of 26 feet versus the 7 and 12 pitch that reaches a maximum height of 29.5 feet: Acting City Attorney Bill Parkin said it is his recommendation to continue this matter if the 26- foot height is to be considered. The applicant can come back with more information. Chair Hlava asked when the item could come back. Director John. Livingstone recommended continuance to a date uncertain to allow the designer to modify his drawings and work with his neighbors and staff. Chair Hlava said that the clock is ticking which costs the applicant money. Mr. Marty Oakley said that he has no direction from the Commission. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff if they could work with the applicant. Director John Livingstone said that it appears that a major design change is requested for this project, as there are bulk and Design Review issues with the height and architectural purity of the project. He said that it appears major changes would be required to get the entire Planning Commission to support this project. Chair Hlava said that continuing to a date uncertain takes longer. Director John Livingstone suggested asking the applicant his preference, as it would place the burden on him to get revised plans ready quickly. Chair Hlava asked Mr. Marty Oakley if he wants a date certain or uncertain. Mr. Marty Oakley said he prefers a date certain but added he is still unclear on what he is required to do. Chair Hlava: Chair Hlava replied right. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 8, 2007 Page 17 Said that the height should not exceed 26 feet. Suggested that Mr. Marty Oakley look at the bulk issues raised. Added that there is concern over the general size of this house. Stated that staff can give him additional direction. Pointed out to the Commission that if the item were continued to a date certain no additional noticing would be necessary. Director John Livingstone said that the September 12 agenda would be fine. He added that Acting City Attorney Bill Parkin is suggesting that re- noticing occur anyway. Chair Hlava said that it appears that the item should be continued to a date uncertain although staff will try to get this project back on the agenda for the September 12 meeting. Mr. Marty Oakley asked if he limits the height to 26 feet maximum could he come back with a different architectural style that is not required to achieve architectural purity. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission CONTINUED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN consideration of a Design Review Approval (Application #07 -396) to allow a new two -story residence with basement and secondary dwelling unit and with a Height Exception to allow a maximum height of 29.5 feet on property located at 15400 Peach Hill Road, to allow the applicant to prepare revised plans with a maximum height of 26 feet, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kundtz, Nagpal and Rodgers NOES: None ABSENT: Kumar ABSTAIN: Zhao Chair Hlava announced that the Zambetti appeal was rejected. She pointed out that Council had made the comment, "When did Council last overturn a unanimous decision of the Planning Commission There were no Communications Items. Commissioner Zhao returned to the chamber and dais. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 8, 2007 Page 18 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Hlava adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:20 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of August 22, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 18578 Prospect Road Item 1 Application No. Location: 07/342; 18578 Prospect Road Type of Application: Design Review, Signage, and modification to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit Applicant/Owner: Camille Russo Living Trust(owner) Diane Zimmerman c/o McDonalds (Applicant) Staff Planner: Heather Bradley, Contract Planner 4 Meeting Date: APN: August 22, 2007 386 -10 -043 Department Head: Z. John F. Livingston AICP 31y 0.63 AC 26 G4 I8 23 8 0.94 A -ssoi sws R nui' 1 w PCL.0 .n 27 PCL3 PCL A 18 0.56 AC hop.e1, 301.13 A P CL. A At l iSubject: 18578 Prospect Road APN: 386 -10 -043 500' Radius File No. 18578 Prospect Road, McDonalds EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 04/25/07 Application complete: 07/25/07 Notice published: 08/08/07 Mailing completed: 08/03/07 Posting completed: 08/16/07 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting Design Review and signage approval along with a modification to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit for a McDonald's restaurant with a 24 -hour operation. The restaurant would occupy an existing 4,090 square foot vacant commercial building previously occupied by Krispy Kreme doughnuts, which also had a 24 -hour operation. Design Review approval is necessary to allow minor exterior modifications to the building and replacement of illuminated signs. The lot size is 2.14 acres and the site is zoned CN (Commercial Neighborhood). PERMANENT CONDITIONS No permanent conditions of approval are required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review, signage and modification to the previously approved Conditional Use Permit applications by adopting the attached Resolution. File No. 18578 Prospect Road, McDonalds PROJECT DATA ZONING: Commercial Neighborhood (CN) District with Drive- through overlay. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial/Neighborhood (CN) MEASURE G: Not applicable. PARCEL SIZE: approximately 2.14 acres SQUARE FOOTAGE OF COMMERCIAL SPACE: 16,500 square feet total, (4,090 square feet proj ect area) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: approximately 2 GRADING REQUIRED: none ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposal is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 Existing Facilities of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. PROPOSED EXTERIOR MATERIALS AND COLORS: No .changes are proposed to the exterior of the building except for signage which will be replaced like for like. File No. 18578 Prospect Road, McDonalds PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting Design Review approval and modification to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit to occupy an existing 4,090 square foot vacant commercial building previously occupied by Krispy Kreme doughnuts. Design Review approval is necessary to allow minor exterior modifications to the building. History The Planning Commission approved a Krispy Kreme doughnut store on this site on June 9 2004. The business closed not long after its grand opening and the building has been vacant since. This application was submitted on April 25, 2007. A public hearing was scheduled for July 11, 2007, but was continued to a date uncertain to allow the applicant time to respond to a request for additional information from the City Traffic Consultant. Correspondence and Neighbor Review The applicant has submitted Neighbor Notification forms from nine of the businesses in the shopping center and has submitted certified mail receipts from three other neighbors who were contacted but did not respond, including the Campbell Union High School district. Parking and Circulation The applicant has prepared a transportation analysis, which indicates that the shopping center has an adequate amount parking to provide for all tenants and the proposed McDonald's- restaurant. The addition of the second drive -up window (see discussion in the Design Review section of this report) will also improve the circulation and more efficiently serve the traffic demands on -site. The amount of on-site parking does fall slightly short of the standard requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance, however the Planning Commission can grant a parking exception with the approval of the conditional use permit to allow a lesser amount of off street parking. Because the City does not have parking standards for "fast -food restaurants" this proposal must be analyzed using the "restaurant" standard. The traffic consultant has determined that these standards may be conservatively high (thereby supporting the parking exception) for the following reasons: The City's parking requirement for restaurants is based on the gross building size and not on the size of the dining area. Fast food and sit -down style restaurants have different parking generation rates in terms of gross building size because the proportion of the building available for dining is different. For the proposed McDonald's only about 25% of the building space is dedicated to dining. .Peak parking demands for fast -food are generally less than sit -down restaurants due to the availability of the drive through window at the fast -food restaurant and the fact that customer turn over is much faster. The City's parking requirements do not include any adjustments for the mixed- use nature of the shopping center on the site. Some trips to McDonald's will be File No. 18578 Prospect Road, McDonalds made by patrons of the other retail businesses, and vice versa, thereby reducing the overall parking demand for the site. City Staff and the City Traffic Engineer are in agreement with the determination of the transportation analysis that the site provides adequate parking. Staff has determined that the use permit findings can be made and supports the parking exception for this proposal. Traffic and Safety The transportation analysis concludes that the project will not cause any impacts to the level of service at the adjacent intersections. Further, the project is estimated to add only 47 new AM peak -hour trips and 40 new PM peak -hour trips, both under the 100 peak hour trip threshold which would require a further Traffic Impact Analysis and associated environmental review. The analysis did find that stacking in the left turn pocket is already a problem on Prospect Road and Lawrence Expressway, and the addition of a McDonald's at this site would add one or two cars to that back -up during AM and PM peak -hour times. These left -turn pockets are in the City of San Jose. Staff has added a condition of approval requiring the applicant to offer to pay their fair share of median improvements if it is determined to be necessary by the City of San Jose. The transportation analysis that was previously done for Krispy Kreme only analyzed the AM peak hour trips due to the nature of the business and it was determined that Krispy Kreme would add 62 AM peak hour trips. The transportation analysis identified one safety concern involving the right turn from Lawrence Expressway onto Prospect Road. There is a parking lane on the south side of Prospect Road between Lawrence Expressway and the driveway to this site which is a safety concern as cars try to quickly merge with traffic and enter the site. It was recommended by the consultant that this curb be painted red to prohibit parking along this stretch which is approximately 120 feet. The City Traffic Engineer is in agreement with this recommendation. Staff has included this as a condition in the Resolution subject to approval by the City Public Works Director. The transportation analysis also identified a concern with pedestrian circulation and recommend that landscaping and signage in the area between the drive- through entrance and the pedestrian crossing be kept to a height of 3.5 feet or less. This has been added as a condition of approval in the attached Resolution. Outside Agency Review Staff has contacted the City of San Jose and the County Department of Roads and Airports for review of this project. The City of San Jose had no comments (please refer to the attachment 3). The County had comments that were repeated from those that had been made for the original Krispy Kreme development. The County is asking that the property owner /applicant install a sidewalk along Lawrence Expressway for which the property owner has already signed a Deferred Improvement Agreement and will be working with the County to comply with their requirements. Staff has incorporated these comments as conditions of project approval in the attached Resolution. File No. 18578 Prospect Road, McDonalds DESIGN REVIEW The applicant does not propose to make any significant changes to the exterior of the existing structure. However, the existing drive -up window will be moved and a second window will be added so that there will be a drive -up windows on either side of where the existing window is now located. One window is proposed under an existing decorative barrel -tiled roof structure and the architect has enhanced the second drive up window by adding a matching roof structure. The existing menu board will be removed and replaced with two menu boards, which will not disturb the existing landscaping. The existing signage will be removed and replaced with new McDonald's signage in the same location, and a new flagpole is proposed at the corner of Prospect and Lawrence Expressway. The interior of the building will undergo a complete tenant improvement, as the layout of McDonald's is different from that of former occupant. The entry doors and seating/customer service area will be in the same location although the proposed seating area will be larger at 1,698 square feet, where the prior tenant had only 990 square feet dedicated to this same use. McDonalds will have seating for approximately 60 to 65 customers. Signage The proposal includes replacement signage and an additional menu board.. An "M" logo plastic internally illuminated sign measuring approximately 5 -feet 10- inches high by 6- feet 10- inches wide and 6- inches in depth would be located above the north facing front entrance door. This sign will not extend beyond the top of the building wall and will be approximately 40 square feet where approximately 75 square feet would be allowable. The colors would be yellow on a red background. Drive- through directional signage will be replaced and will not exceed 4 feet in height. The existing menu board will be replaced and one more will be added. Menu boards measure approximately 5 feet high by 8 feet wide, and can be permitted with the approval of the conditional use permit within this drive-through overlay zone. Landscaping Existing landscaping is proposed to remain without change. DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS FOR MULTI- FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES The proposed project supports the findings for Design Review approval subject to City Code 15- 46.040: (a) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious, Such features include height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances. The proposed project is an existing structure and only minor architectural changes are proposed to the exterior of the building and are compatible with the original File No. 18578 Prospect Road, McDonalds design. Colors, materials and landscaping will remain unchanged. Therefore, staff is able to make this finding in the affirmative. (b) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance. The proposed signage is compatible in design and location and will be harmonious in appearance. Therefore, staff is able to make this finding in the affirmative. (c) Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preserved; it shall make use of water conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems to the maximum extent feasible; and to the maximum extent feasible it shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. The landscaping is in place and will remain unchanged. Therefore, staff is able to make this finding in the affirmative. (d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be non- reflective. The existing colors and materials do blend with the natural landscape and are non reflective and will remain unchanged. Therefore, staff is able to make this finding in the affirmative. (e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile or other materials such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. The existing roof is flat with decorative tile overhangs. No mechanical equipment is proposed on the roof. Therefore, staff is able to make this finding in the affirmative. (f) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. The existing structure is compatible with overall development in the area. Therefore, staff is able to make this finding in the affirmative. SIGN CRITERIA The proposed project is consistent with Article 15 -30 of the City Code (a) The sign does comply with the regulations of Article 15 -30 and of the commercial district. The project meets the criteria in that the proposed signage complies with the allowable sign height, number of signs and area requirements. (b) The size, shape, color, illumination, placement and material of the sign are compatible with the visual characteristics of the neighborhood and other lawful signs in the area. The project meets the criteria in that the shape, size, illumination, and material are consistent with the signage in the shopping center. The main business sign will be smaller than the allowable size and the other directional signage and menu boards are consistent with other signs in the commercial area. File No. 18578 Prospect Road, McDonalds (c) The location and design of the sign does not obscure from view or unduly detract from existing adjacent signs. The project meets the criteria in that the proposed signage will not detract from nearby signs as it will be less than 6 feet in height and set back from the street, and the sign materials will be compatible with those used in the shopping center and in the general commercial area. (d) The location and design of a sign in close proximity to any residential district would not adversely affect the quality or character of such residential. area The project meets the criteria in that the site is surrounded by commercial properties. GENERAL PLAN FINDINGS The approval of the proposed project would be consistent with the following General Plan Goals and Policies as discussed below: Land Use Policy LU 7.1: The City shall consider the economic impacts of all land use decisions on the City. The project proposes to locate a new restaurant in a vacant 4,090 square foot commercial building. The project will help attract customers to this shopping center and offer an economic benefit by generating more sales tax revenue for the City. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS The proposed project is consistent with the findings for Conditional Use Permit approval subject to City Code 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. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that a restaurant use may be a conditionally permitted use in the designated zoning district (CN). The City Code encourages "appropriately located areas for retail stores and .service establishments offering goods and services required by residents of the City", "opportunities for retail stores, offices and service establishments to concentrate for the convenience of the public and in mutually beneficial relationship with each other promote a stable, attractive commercial development which will afford a pleasant shopping environment and will complement the essential residential character of the City" and "Encouragement of a town center mix of specialty shops, restaurants, convenience shops, services and residences." The proposed development will offer a dining opportunity in the City that does not currently exist and will help support the shopping center in which it is located. Further there is adequate parking already provided on site for all businesses and for the future McDonald' s. 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. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that appropriate File No. 18578 Prospect Road, McDonalds conditions have been placed on the use permit to ensure compliance with all applicable health and safety codes. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, as it has been conditioned to meet all applicable Building Codes. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the use permit to ensure compliance with code requirements. Any intensification of this use will require an amended Conditional Use permit. Further, the amount of parking provided on site is adequate to meet the needs of the shopping center and no additional parking will be necessary or required. The proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof Findings can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed development will attract customers from Saratoga and neighboring communities and will be a benefit rather than detriment to surrounding properties. CONCLUSION Staff finds that all of the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review findings and Sign Criteria can be made in the affirmative, the findings can be made to support a variation to the parking standard, and the proposal is consistent with the General Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that this Application is not subject to CEQA review and approve the request for a modification to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit, Design Review and Signage by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution of Approval Conditional Use Permit/Design Review 2. Correspondence from Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Division dated June 20, 2007 3. Correspondence (via email) from City of San Jose Transportation Division dated June 29, 2007 4. Transportation Impact Analysis of July 12, 2007, by Hexagon Transportation Consultants Inc. 5. Memorandum from Fehr Peers of July 25, 2007 6. Neighbor Notification forms 7. City of Saratoga Notice, Noticing Affidavit, and Noticing Labels 8. Applicant's Plans, Exhibit "A" ATTACHEMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 07 -342 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Diane Zimmerman c/o McDonalds; 18578 Prospect Road (Property Owner: Camille Russo Living Trust) WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Conditional Use Permit, and Design Review approval to construct a mixed use development located at 18578 Prospect Road, which is located in the CN (Commercial- Neighborhood) district; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which includes occupancy of an existing 4,090 sq. ft. commercial building located in an urbanized area is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 Existing Facilities of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA.; 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 Saratoga 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. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that a restaurant use may be a conditionally permitted use in the designated zoning district (CN). The City Code encourages "appropriately located areas for retail stores and service establishments offering goods and services required by residents of the City "opportunities for retail stores, offices and service establishments to concentrate for the convenience of the public and in mutually beneficial relationship with each other promote a stable, attractive commercial development which will afford a pleasant shopping environment and will complement the essential residential character of the City" and "Encouragement of a town center mix of specialty shops, restaurants, convenience shops, services and residences." The proposed development will offer a dining opportunity in the City that does not currently exist and will help support the shopping center in which it is located. Further there is adequate parking already provided on site for all businesses and for the future McDonald' s. 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. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the use permit to ensure compliance with all applicable health and safety codes. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, as it has been conditioned to meet all applicable Building Codes. File No. 18578 Prospect Road, McDonalds That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the use permit to ensure compliance with code requirements. Any intensification of this use will require an amended Conditional Use permit. The proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof Findings can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed ,development will attract customers from Saratoga and neighboring communities and will be a benefit rather than detriment to surrounding properties. Further, the amount and type of parking provided on site is adequate to meet the needs of the existing tenants and McDonald's and will not adversely affect the immediate neighborhood. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to meet the following criteria for Commercial Structure Design Review specified in Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 46.040: (g) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious, Such features include height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances. The proposed project is an existing structure and only minor architectural changes are proposed to the exterior of the building and are compatible with the original design. Colors, materials and landscaping will remain unchanged. Therefore, staff is able to make this finding in the affirmative. (h) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance. The proposed signage is compatible in design and location and will be harmonious in appearance. Therefore, staff is able to make this finding in the affirmative. (i) Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preserved; it shall make use of water conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems to the maximum extent feasible; and to the maximum extent feasible it shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. The landscaping is in place and will remain unchanged. Therefore, staff is able to make this finding in the affirmative. (j) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be non- reflective. The existing colors and materials do blend with the natural landscape and are non reflective and will remain unchanged. Therefore, staff is able to make this finding in the affirmative. (k) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile or other materials such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No File No. 18578 Prospect Road, McDonalds mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. The existing roof is flat with decorative tile overhangs. No mechanical equipment is proposed on the roof. Therefore, staff is able to make this finding in the affirmative. (1) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. The existing structure is compatible with overall development in the area. Therefore, staff is able to make this finding in the affirmative. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the findings for granting said sign permit approval and the following findings specified in City Code Section 15- 30.070: (e) The sign does comply with the regulations of Article 15 -30 and of the commercial district. The project meets the criteria in that the proposed signage complies with the allowable sign height, number of signs and area requirements. 0) The size, shape, color, illumination, placement and material of the sign are compatible with the visual characteristics of the neighborhood and other lawful signs in the area. The project meets the criteria in that the shape, size, illumination, and material are consistent with the signage in the shopping center. The main business sign will be smaller than the allowable size and the other directional signage and menu boards are consistent with other signs in the commercial area. (g) The location and design of the sign does not obscure from view or unduly detract from existing adjacent signs. The project meets the criteria in that the proposed signage will not detract from nearby signs as it will be less than 6 feet in height and set back from the street, and the sign materials will be compatible with those used in the shopping center and in the general commercial area. (h) The location and design of a sign in close proximity to any residential district would not adversely affect the quality or character of such residential area The project meets the criteria in that the site is surrounded by commercial properties. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the Land Use Policy of the General Plan: Land Use Policy LU 7.1: The City shall consider the economic 'impacts of all land use decisions on the City. The project proposes to locate a new restaurant in a vacant 4,090 square foot commercial building. The project will help attract customers to this shopping center and offer an economic benefit by generating more sales tax revenue for the City. 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 07- File No. 18578 Prospect Road, McDonalds 342 for Conditional Use Permit, and Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use Permit and may, at any time, modify, delete, impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. 2. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on "Exhibit A" (incorporated by reference, -date stamped July 2, 2007) and in compliance with the conditions state in this Resolution. Any proposed changes- including but not limited to facade design and materials to the approved plans shall be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 3. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 4. Any intensification of this use shall require an amended Conditional Use Permit. 5. The proposed use shall at all times operate in compliance with all regulations of the City and/or other agencies having jurisdictional authority over the use pertaining to, but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety, and water quality issues. 6. Prior to issuance of Zoning .Clearance for the proposed tenant improvements, the owner /applicant shall submit to and obtain approval from the Community Development Department for a business license. The City reserves continuing jurisdiction over this sign permit and may revoke the permit upon any failure by the permittee to comply with any condition set forth in this Resolution. The proposed flag pole located at the western corner of the site at Prospect Road and Lawrence Expressway shall only fly the American Flag as shown on Exhibit "A unless an additional signage permit is obtained from the Community Development Department. PUBLIC WORKS 9. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Traffic Impact Analysis dated July 12. 10. The applicant shall keep all landscaping and signage in the area between the drive -..through entrance and the pedestrian crossing to a height of 3.5 feet or less. 11. The applicant shall have the curb on the south side of Prospect Road between Lawrence Expressway and the subject site's driveway painted red to prohibit parking. This shall be done prior to final building permits subject to the Public Works Director's approval. File No. 18578 Prospect Road, McDonalds 12. The applicant shall monitor any potential queuing issues once the restaurant is open to ensure that cars do not queue onto Prospect Road. If this is seen to occur the applicant shall modify the on -site circulation pattern to allow for greater queue storage capacity on site. This may include the installation of signage and/or modifying the internal circulation pattern in the parking area. 13. The applicant shall work with the Santa Clara County Department of Roads and Airports to design and install the sidewalk along Lawrence Expressway in compliance with the Santa Clara County Department of Roads and Airports conditions. The design shall maximize tree preservation so that the proposed sidewalk meanders through the mature trees along this right -of -way to the extent feasible. 14. The applicant or property owner shall work with the City of San Jose to assess the need for a fair -share contribution to the cost of future median improvements as deemed necessary by the City of San Jose. If deemed necessary, the applicant or property owner shall enter into a deferral agreement to make their fair -share contribution at the time it is requested. FIRE DEPARTMENT 15. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire Department. CITY ATTORNEY 16. Owner and Applicant shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its employees, agents, independent contractors and volunteers (collectively "City") from any and all costs and expenses, including but not limited to attorney's fees incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project or contesting any action or inaction in the City's processing and/or approval of the subject application. PERMANENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL There are no permanent conditions of approval for this project. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 36 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. File No. 18578 Prospect Road, McDonalds PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 22nd day of August 2007 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Joyce Hlava, Chair, Planning Commission. ATTEST: John F. Livingstone, AICP, Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Applicant Date Property Owner Date ATTACHEMENT 2 County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department 101 Skvport Drive San Jose, California 9511 -1302 (408) 573-2400 June 20, 2007 Ms. Heather Bradley Contract Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 EMU n JUN 2 51007 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Subject: Lawrence Expressway at Prospect Road, Application No. 07 -342 Design Review Conditional Use Permit for a Mc Donald Restaurant Dear Ms. Bradley, We have reviewed the plans submitted for design review along with the letter dated May 29, 2007 for the subject project. We have the following comments: Roads and Airports Department (RAD) had previously reviewed this application for Krispy Kreme Doughnuts and conditioned it as per letter dated May 21, 2004 (see attached). Presently the application is submitted for a McDonald's Restaurant which will occupy the vacant building built for and occupied by Krispy Kreme Doughnuts. The applicant should comply with the conditions stated in letter dated May 21, 2004: 7 -007 -No. 1 installation of the sidewalk along Lawrence Expressway site's frontage -No. 2 no new trees to be located within the future sidewalk areas -No. 4 County encroachment permit is required for any work within County's right of way Please have the applicant remove the proposed landscaping along. Lawrence Expressway site's frontage as shown on sheet 3 of the plans. The frontage is earmarked for a future concrete sidewalk per the attached recorded Deferred Improvement Agreement (DIA), document No. 18236078 for the proposed sidewalk. In accordance with the terms of DIA the County Road Commissioner would require the current owner of the land to construct the new concrete sidewalk along the subject property frontage. A written notification to the current owner of the land for the sidewalk construction will be send in the near future. It is recommended that the land owner work with McDonald's to have this sidewalk constructed as part of McDonald's project and to have the proposed sidewalk reflected on the plans. Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh. Ken Yeager; Liz ►miss County Executive: Peter Kutras, Jr. County of Santa Clara *toads. and Airports Department 101 Sk\'port Drive San lose. Calilonlia 951 10 -1302 (408) 57:3-2400 If you have any questions, please contact me at 408 -573 -2464 or Felix Lopez at 408 -573 -2462. Siae rely, R41 Nitescu Project Engineer Attachments: Letter dated May 21, 2004 DIA Document No. 18236078 Cc: MLG, PP, MA, AP, RP, WRL, FL, File Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Cage. Blanca Alvarado. Pete McHugh. Ken Yeager. Liz Kniss County Executive: Peter KutraS. Jr. 1x07 County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department Lanct Development and Permits t o t Skvport Drive San Jose. California 95110-1302 (408) 573 -2460 FAX (408) 441-0275 May 21, 2004. John F. Livingstone, A1CP Associate Planner City of Saratoga 13777'Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: City of Saratoga Application AS 03 -246 Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Southeast corner of Prospect Road and Lawrence Expressway APN: 386 -10 -043 Dear Mr. Livingstone, We have reviewed the plans submitted for a Design Review attached to your letter dated April 27, 2004 for the subject project. We have the following comments: fil 1) The applicant has to install the sidewalk along Lawrence Expressway site's frontage per current County Roads and Airports Department's Standard Detail B/6 (visit http: /www.sccgov.org go to Roads and Airports Department Standard Detail Manual). This requirement is in accordance with the Comprehensive County Expressway- Implementation Plan, Section 9 Pedestrian Element, dated August 19. 2003. For more details /information on the Implementation Plan visit http: /www.expressways.info or http: /www.sccgov.org. 2) No new trees are to be located within the future sidewalk areas. The alignment of the 10 ft. sidewalk may meander around the existing pine trees to provide a continuous sidewalk on these locations. As shown on the Preliminary Fence Plan, the new fence shall be placed outside the County's road right -of -way. The County shall not be responsible /liable for the proper maintenance of the proposed new fence. 4) All works within County's right -of -way requires an encroachment permit. Please submit the improvement plans for our review and approval. We would like to have a copy of the City's final condition of approval for our record. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (408)573 -2450. Sinc armelo Peralta Project Engineer Cc: DEC; MA /RS, WRL, File Board of Supervisors: Donald "F. Gage. Blanca Alvarado. Pete McHugh, James T. Beall Jr.. Liz Kniss County Executive: Peter Kutras: Jr. ,.007 &tnf� oF Rqor13 o 55 qor13 �cpt 301 q6(p RECO IN BY WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: DOCUMENT: 18236078 BRENDA DAVIS SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDER Recorded at the request of County Agency N a via -P ci t P DOCUMENT TITLE Pages: 10 Fees.... No Fees Taxes.. Copies. AMT PAID ROE a 008 2/16/2005 3 :56 PM SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE SEPARATE PAGE, PURSUANT TO GOVT. CODE 27361.6 When Recorded return to: COUNTY 07 BAST S Ronde and •WNER OR HIS SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST 101 81ypo s FUTURE LAND DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS 8aa dose 0.4 88110 (DEFERRED IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT) ZPOS Project City of Saratoga Application No. 03 -246, SE Comer Lawrence Expressway and Prospect Road. This is an agreement between the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, hereinafter referred to as "County°, and Camille Russo Filizetti Trust dated December 28. 1976 hereinafter referred to as "Owner". WHEREAS, Owner desires to develop the property described in Exhibit A and wishes to defer construction of permanent improvements and County agrees to such deferment provided Owner agrees to construct improvements as herein provided. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED: AGREEMENT BINDING ON SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST This agreement is an instrument affecting the title or possession of the real property described in Exhibit A. All the terms, covenants and conditions herein imposed shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors in interest of Owner. Upon the sale or division of the property described in Exhibit A the terms of this agreement shall succeed to the obligations imposed on Owner by this agreement. Upon annexation to any City, Owner agrees to fulfill all the terms of this agreement upon demand by such City as though Owner had contracted with such City originally. Any annexing City shall have all the rights of a third party beneficiary. 11. STREET AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS A County and Owner Agree that the improvements set forth in this section may be deferred because: cC It is not practical to install sidewalk at this time. Owner agrees to construct the following improvements on the property described in Exhibit A as well as required off -site improvements in the manner set forth in this agreement. Improvements required by County and generally described on Exhibit B. (Cross out improvements that are not required). 1. 6u- and Gutter 2. Sidewalks 3. Driveways 4. 5. 6. 7. Elesttroliers 8: 9. 10. 11. 12. Page 1 of 3 To he recorded without fee as per Gov. Code 6103 411 C. When the County Road Commissioner determines that the installation of the sidewalk along the eastem side of Lawrence Expressway from Prospect Road to Saratoga Avenue can no longer be deferred, he shall notify Owner in writing to commence their installation and construction. The notice shall be mailed to the current owner or owners of the land as shown on the latest adopted County assessment roll. The notice shall describe the work to be done by owner(s), the time within which the work shall commence and the time within which the work shall be completed. AU or any portion of said improvements as described and/or shown on Exhibit B may be required at a specified time. If the construction of the improvements is to be done by the County, owner is obligated to pay owners' pro rata share of the cost. In this case, the notice shall include the amount to be paid and the time when payment must be made. III. PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK Owner agrees to perform the work and make the payments required by County as set forth herein or as modified by the Board of Supervisors. Owner shall cause plans and specification for the improvements to be prepared by competent persons legally qualified to do the work and to submit said improvement plans and specifications for approval prior to commencement of the work described in the notice and to pay County inspection fees. The work shall be done in accordance with County standards in effect at the time improvement plans are submitted for approval. Owner agrees to complete the work within 180 days from notice and to notify the County at least 48 hours prior to start work. In the event Owner fails to construct any improvements required under this agreement, County may, at its option, do the work and collect all the costs from the owner. Permission to enter onto the property of Owner is granted to County or its contractor as may be necessary to construct such improvements. IV. JOINT COOPERATIVE PLAN Owner agrees to cooperate upon notice by County with other property owners, the County and other public agencies to provide the improvements set forth herein under a joint cooperative plan including the formation of a local improvements district, if this method is feasible to secure the installation and construction of the improvements. Owner shall participate on a pro rata basis in the cost of the total improvement based on Owner's responsibilities as designated in Exhibit B. V. REVIEW OF REQUIREMENTS If Owner disagrees with the requirements set forth in any notice to commence installation of improvements he shall, within 30 days of the date the notice was mailed, request a review of the requirements by the Board of Supervisors of County. The decision of this Board shall be binding upon both County and Owner. VI. MAINTENANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS County agrees to accept for maintenance those improvements specified in Section I I which are constructed and completed in accordance with County standards and requirements and are installed within rights of way or easements dedicated and accepted by resolution of the Board of Supervisors. VII. BONDS Prior to approval of improvement plans by the County, Owner may be required to execute and deliver to the County a faithful performance bond and a labor and materials bond in an amount and form acceptable to County to be released by the Board of Supervisors in whole or in part upon completion of the work required and payment of all persons fumishing labor and materials in the performance of the work. Page 2 of 3 VIII.. INSURANCE Owner shall maintain, or shall require any contractor engaged to perform the work to maintain, at all times during the performance of the work called herein, a separate policy of insurance in a form and amount acceptable to County. IX. INDEMNITY The Owner shall assume the defense and indemnify and save harmless the County, its officers, agents, and employees from every expense liability or payment by reason of injury "including death" to persons or damage to property suffered through any act or omission, including passive negligence or act of negligence, or both, of the Owner, his employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them, or arising in any way from the work called for by this agreement, on any part of the premises, including those matters arising out of the determent of permanent drainage facilities of the adequacy, safety, use or nonuse of temporary drainage facilities, the performance or nonperformance of the work. The provision shall not be deemed to require the developer to indemnify the County against the liability for damage arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the County or its agents, servants or independent contractors who are directly responsible to the County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. County has executed this agreement as of APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: h(? -1 -O4 Deputy County Counsel Page 3 of 3 COUNTY OF SANTA C RA oad Commissioner IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner has executed this agreement as of Ray A. Russo, Sr. Co-Trustee ClifftSrd Burrous Co- Trustee Carol Burrous Co- Trustee (Sign Names Exactly as they appear on Appointment of Co- Trustees per Doc.# 14126524) CALIFORNIA ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of Califomiia_ County of 5 49 AA.LeA- On DEC 2 8 2001 before me, o�. �i Name and im oso a d a N p ...law a. aw O Nolen/ NOW) personally appeared L4ta. /l/�i.4 -1 �1 KENT R. MITCHELL Commission 1315431 z Notary Public California t zv.cr.e.j.s ;.c.- Santa Clare County M y Comm. r r %.•,,,g Ju128, 2005 3 YINOM Rana Notary Sad Above $s. Kent R. Mitchell "Notary Pubticu Document Date: yrne00 al sb+wp) ti Ow Mara rbhry Apodaca o760 D. S a e PO ea. 3402 Ousarode. CA 91313-2402 wow ra.ara+aary ORIGINAL personally known to me 0 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons whose nam§jfs)• isle subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/sl /tl*executed the same in his /b (Lpair. authorize capacity(l and that by his/iN LW signature(f on the instrument the person( o the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons retying on the document end could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attach DPP��cum# t ��1 .r Title or Type of Document MPari, a L./A' ✓cc A-47) c-/-6) DEC 8 2Qfl4 Number of Pages: /0 Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capaclty(les) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: individual Corporate Officer Title(s): Partner Limited General Attorney in Fact Trustee Guardian or Conservator Other: Signer Is Representing: Pan No 561)7 RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER Top of thumb here Reader u Taa-F.. 1a0:476e627 ALL- PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT i• O•f •i•i•�•i ••••••••i• •'State of California I County of �7A 1 1 I On 11 aine) before me, T hoc J r (DATE) (N ARY) personally appeared j�- t�� C1i FCor.?.51G`3Nel(.,rro.!) c.� it .5 t.. 26ersonally known to me OR- OPTIONAL INFORMATION The information below is not required by law. However, it could prevent fraudulent attachment of this aclmowi- edgment to an unauthorized document. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER (PRINCIPAL) DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT INDIVIDUAL CORPORATE OFFICER TTTLE(S) PARTNER(S) ATTORNEY -1N -FACT TRUSTEE(S) GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR OTHER: SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OP PERSON(5) OR EN TrY((ES) SS. proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his /her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT NUMBER OF PAGES DATE OF DOCUMENT OTHER •i•f• i••••••••i`•i• ••!•�MIN.• APA 1/94 VALLEY-SIERRA, 800362 -3369 Recording Requested By When Recorded Return To: MILLER, MORTON, CAILLAT NEVIS 50 West San Fernando St., Suite 1300 San Jose, CA 95113 Attention: Eric Mogensen DOCUMENT: APN: 386- 10-043 Address: 18562.18578 Prospect Road. Saratoga, California NO1141265240 14126524 BRENDA DAVIS SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDER Recorded at the request of Grantee AFFIDAVIT OF RESIGNATION OF TRUSTEES AND APPOLYTMENT OF SUCCESSORS The undersigned, each oflegal age, being duly sworn, depose and say: 1. LEO J. CACITTI and MARGY CACITTI were the trustees of the CAMILLE RUSSO FILIZEZTI TRUST dated December 28, 1976 (the `Trust'). 2. By written resignation dated August 20, 1997, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A MARGY CACITTI resigned as a Trustee of the Trust 3. By written Appointment of Co-Trustees dated August 22, 1997, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B LEO J. CACITTI appointed RAY A. RUSSO, SR., CLIFFORD BURROUS and CAROL. BURROUS as co- trustees of the Trust pursuant to Article X•of the Trust. 4. By written resignation dated September 19, 1997, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C", LEO J. CACITTI resigned as a Trustee of the Trust. 5. The undersigned are the people named in the aforementioned Appointment of Co- Trustees, and are currently the sole acting Co- Trustees of the Trust. 5. The Trust holds property located in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, being more particularly described as follows: PARCEL A, as shown on that certain Parcel Map filed for record on July 14, 1978 in Book 422 of Maps, at page 53. Titles :l Pages: 12 Fees 40.08 Taxes... Copies.. AMT PAID 48.88 RDE N 883 4/86/1998 11:34 AM We declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Affidavit was executed on the e tticiay of /7AiPC4 19 CLIFF a -JuAb atlititiuuD CAROL BURROUS Oot 18 04 03: 16p Land Development 4084410275 p.1 EXHIBIT A MAP All that certain parcel of land described as parcel A as shown on that certain Parcel Map recorded in Book 422 of Maps, page 53 Office of the Recorder, County of Santa Clara, State California, which description is by this reference incorporated herein. 11t31MIIIIV'J MI MI PLAN VIEW No Scale) APN A 38G -1° -"3 500 Scale Map 7 INSTALL STANDARD COUNTY IMPROVEMENTS AS NOTED IN SECTION N0. II I t •VA t- lA(13I.E (iKik G79 LA)12e►)C2 oxpp esawtmy COUNTY ROAD NAME TYPICAL 1/2 STREET SECTION (NO SCALE) EXHIBIT 'B' (plG 1442 DEFERRED IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT t p L f� FILE EE NO. G` f a3 -w ATTACHEMENT 3 Transportation Impact Anaylsis 18578 Prospect Road Saratoga Heather Bradley From: Mack, Karen [Karen.Mack ©sanjoseca.gov] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 11:28 AM To: Heather Bradley Cc: Sohrabi, Ebrahim Subject: RE: Transportation Impact Analysis 18578 Prospect Road Saratoga Hi Heather! I finished my review of the above document and have no comments. Thanks for letting us review the report Karen Mack Department of Public Works Transportation and Development Services Division (408)535 6816 From: Heather Bradley [mailto:hbradley @saratoga.ca.us] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 10:51 AM To: karen.mack @sanjoseca.gov Subject: Transportation Impact Anaylsis 18578 Prospect Road Saratoga Page 1 of 1 Hi Karen, I just wanted to make sure that you received my previous email with a copy of the Transportation Impact Anaylsis at 18578 Prospect Road in Saratoga. I will attach it again just in case. Please let me know if you think you will have any comments or concerns. Thank you, Heather Bradley Contract Planner City of Saratoga «McDonalds Saratoga TIA 6- 7- 071.pdf» 7/2/2007 ATTACHEMENT 4 McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California Transportation Impact Analysis Prepared for: McDonald's USA, LLC. Prepared by: HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, I NC: July 12, 2007 07je09 JAE, ML F:\MCDONA- 1\Reports\McDonalds Saratoga TIA (7- 12- 07).doc Table of Contents Executive Summary iii 1. Introduction 1 2. Existing Conditions 7 3. Background Conditions 14 4. Project Conditions 17 5. Conclusions 31 Appendices Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: List of Tables Table ES 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary v Table ES 2 Intersection Vehicle Queuing Analysis vi Table 1 Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay 5 Table 2 Existing Intersection Levels of Service 13 Table 3 Background Intersection Levels of Service 16 Table 4 Project Trip Generation Estimates 20 Table 5 Project Intersection Levels of Service 23 Table 7 Intersection Vehicle Queuing Analysis 26 List of Figures Traffic Counts Volume Summary Tables Level of Service Calculations Approved Trips Inventory Intersection Queue Calculation Sheets Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersections 2 Figure 2 Site Plan 3 Figure 3 Existing Transit Service 9 Figure 4 Existing Lane Configurations 10 Figure 5 Existing Traffic Volumes 12 Figure 6 Background Traffic Volumes 15 Figure 7 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment of Net -New Project Trips 21 Figure 8 Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes 24 '■4 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California ii Executive Summary This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis conducted for the proposed McDonald's fast food restaurant located on the southeast corner of Lawrence Expressway and Prospect Road in Saratoga, California. The proposed project is a 4,090 square foot (s.f.) fast -food restaurant with a drive- through window, which would replace a vacant Krispy Kreme doughnut store. The existing, vacant Krispy Kreme building has a drive through lane, which would be reused by the proposed McDonald's. Additionally, the project proposal includes adding a second drive- through window and a second menu board and ordering speaker to the drive through lane. Both of which would improve the efficiency of the proposed drive through operation. The McDonald's would be relocated to the vacant Krispy Kreme site from its current location on Lawrence Expressway, just north of Prospect Road. The project building shares the site and the parking lot with an existing 16,500 s.£ commercial/retail building. Access to the site is provided via an existing right -turn only driveway on Prospect Road. The site also has a driveway on Lawrence Expressway, which is gated and reserved for emergency use only. Parking for the project will be provided on -site, via a shared parking lot. The project as proposed would not modify or reconfigure the parking lot. The existing parking supply on the site would not change with the proposed project. The project site is located within the City of Saratoga; however, the surrounding study intersections are within the jurisdiction of the City of. San Jose. Therefore, the potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the City of San Jose. The study included an analysis of AM and PM peak -hour traffic conditions at two signalized intersections. Study Intersections 1. Lawrence Expressway and Prospect Road 2 Westgate West Shopping Center Driveway and Prospect Road Study Scenarios Traffic conditions at the study intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak -hours of traffic.. The weekday AM peak -hour of traffic generally falls within the 7:00 to 9:00 AM period and the ■-■4 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. e./ McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California 111 weekday PM peak -hour is typically in the 4:00 to 6:00 PM period. It is during these times that the most congested traffic conditions occur on an average day. Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Conditions. Existing conditions were represented by existing peak -hour traffic volumes on the existing roadway network. Existing traffic volumes were obtained from recent traffic counts. Scenario 2: Background Conditions. Background conditions were represented by future background traffic volumes on the existing roadway network. Background traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing peak -hour volumes the projected volumes from approved but not yet completed developments. Background conditions include the trip entitlements associated with the vacant Krispy Kreme doughnut store. Scenario 3: Project Conditions. Project conditions were represented by future traffic volumes, with the project, on the existing roadway network. Future traffic volumes with the project (hereafter called project traffic volumes) were estimated by adding to background traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Project conditions were evaluated relative to background conditions in order to determine potential project impacts. According to Santa Clara County's Congestion Management Program (CMP) standards, a future conditions analysis is not required because the project would not generate 100 or more new peak -hour trips. Project Trip Generation The magnitude of traffic generated by the proposed project was estimated by applying to the size of the development the trip generation rates for a fast -food restaurant with a drive- through window, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. Based on these rates, the proposed project would generate 217 gross trips during the AM peak hour and 142 gross trips during the PM peak -hour. The proposed project includes reoccupying a vacant 4,090 s.f. Krispy Kreme restaurant building with a McDonald's restaurant. The trips associated with this previously approved use (trip entitlements) were estimated based on trip generation data collected at two Krispy Kreme restaurants in the Bay Area. The trip entitlements associated with the vacant building on the site equate to 122 AM peak -hour trips and 58 PM peak -hour trips. Gross trips associated with the proposed project are reduced by the magnitude of existing trip entitlements associated with the site to yield net -new trips added to the roadway network by the proposed project. Trip generation totals for quick- service retail developments are typically adjusted to account for pass -by and diverted linked trips. Pass -by trips are trips that would already be on the roadways where direct access to the site is provided (and therefore would already be counted in the background traffic volumes) but would turn into the site while passing by. Diverted linked trips are trips that would already be on the roadways near the site that would divert from their normal route onto the roadways that directly access the site in order to stop at the project. Justification for applying the pass -by and diverted linked trip reductions is founded on the observation that such retail traffic is not actually generated by the store, but is already part of the ambient traffic levels. The traffic analysis assumes that 25% of the total project trips would be pass -by trips and 25% Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. h.-4 McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California iv would be diverted linked trips (a combined 50% reduction). These assumptions provide for a contrastive analysis since data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers suggest that the proportion of total project trips that are pass -by and diverted linked trips at fast -food restaurants with drive- through windows could be as high as 49% and 28 respectively (a combined 77% reduction). After making adjustments to account for pass -by and diverted linked trips and trip entitlements, the project would generate 47 net -new AM peak -hour trips (26 inbound and 21 outbound) and 40 net -new PM peak -hour trips (23 inbound and 17 outbound). Project Intersection Level of Service Impacts The results of the intersection level of service analysis show that one of the signalized study intersections would operate at an unacceptable level of service under project conditions: Lawrence Expressway and Prospect Road However, the addition of project trips at this intersection would not result in a significant level of service impact. The remaining study intersection also would not be significantly impacted by the project. Table ES 1 summarizes the results of the intersection level of service analysis for each study scenario. Table ES 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary Existing Background Project Conditions Average Average Average Crit. Delay Peak Count Delay Delay Delay Change Crit. V/C Intersection Hour Date (sec) LOS (sec) LOS (sec) LOS (sec) Change Lawrence Expwy and Prospect Rd AM 10/4/06 67.7 E 68.2 E 68.8 E +2.1 +0.003 PM 9/21/06 47.3 D 47.5 D 47.9 D +0.1 +0.000 Westgate West Driveway and Prospect Rd AM 5/15/07 17.1 B 18.3 B- 20.6 C+ +3.3 +0.027 PM 5/15/07 29.8 C 30.1 C 30.6 C +0.1 +0.007 Denotes CMP intersections. Other Transportation Issues Other issues related to transportation were evaluated to determine if any deficiencies would exist under project conditions that are not specifically linked to environmental impact reporting. These are not considered environmental issues, and may not be evaluated as part of the assessment of environmental impacts, but have been included in the traffic study to meet the requirements of the local jurisdiction and Caltrans. The other transportation issues considered in this chapter are intersection turn- pocket storage requirements, vehicle queuing at the drive through lane, site access and circulation issues, on -site parking, and bicycle, pedestrian, and transit issues. Intersection. Turn- Pocket Storage Analysis Results The intersection turn- pocket storage analysis is based on vehicle queuing for high- demand turning movements at intersections. The operational analysis results are summarized in Table ES 2. The results r` Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. tug McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California indicate that the projected maximum peak -hour vehicle queue in the westbound left-turn lane at the Lawrence Expressway /Prospect Road intersection would exceed the available storage space during the PM peak -hour under project conditions. The projected maximum peak -hour vehicle queue in the eastbound left -turn lane at the Westgate West Driveway /Prospect Road intersection would exceed the available storage space during the PM peak -hour under project conditions. It should be noted that the projected maximum vehicle queues for these two locations would exceed the available storage space under background conditions as well. Thus, the queuing problems identified here are not caused solely by the project. A review of the queuing results found that the addition of project trips at the Lawrence /Prospect intersection would cause the westbound left -turn queue to grow by one vehicle during both the AM and PM peak hours. At the Westgate West/Prospect intersection, the addition of project traffic would cause the eastbound left-turn queue to grow by two vehicles during the AM peak hour and would cause no change during the PM peak hour. Recommended Improvement Both left-turn pockets at these intersections can be extended a short distance by removing the median island between the two pockets and extending the pockets so they are back -to -back. This would require the removal of several mature trees in the median island. There is approximately 150 feet available between the pockets to extend one or both pockets. A total of 220 feet would be needed to lengthen both pockets so they have sufficient storage space. Therefore, this improvement will not solve this operational deficiency, but would make the left-turn movements operate better, and would offset the project's contribution to the deficiency. Because the project contributes to the operational deficiencies at both locations but is not solely responsible for them, the project should make a fair -share contribution toward any improvements that are pursued by the City of San Jose. Table ES 2 Intersection Vehicle Queuing Analysis Intersection Lawrence Expwy WBL 1 Prospect Rd Project Conditions Existing Existing Storage Peak Vehicle Req. Storage. Mvmt. Lanes Per Lane (ft.) Hour Queue /a/ Per Lane (ft.) /b/ Comments 190 AM 7 175 Existing Storage Adequate. PM 15 375 Additional storage necessary 185'). Westgate West Dwy EBL 1 215 AM 8 200 Existing Storage Prospect Rd Adequate. PM 10 250 Additional storage necessary -35'). /a/ Vehicle queue of vehicles) calculated using the Poisson probability distribution and 95- percent confidence level. /b/ Required storage is calculated based on peak -hour vehicle queue calculation as follows: Vehicle queue x 25'. Site Access and On -Site Circulation A review of the project site plan was performed to determine if adequate site access and on -site circulation are provided and to identify any access or circulation issues that should be improved. The site plan review indicates that the design of the site is adequate to accommodate vehicular and pedestrian Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. kl./ McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California vi access and on -site circulation. However, the recommendation presented below is offered to further improve pedestrian safety on the site. Recommended Improvement It is recommended that landscaping and signage in the area between the drive through entrance and the pedestrian crossing be kept to a. height of 3.5 feet or less. This will increase pedestrian safety by promoting better visibility of pedestrians in the area. Vehicle Queuing at the Drive- Through Window Drive through queuing surveys conducted at the existing McDonald's restaurant on Lawrence Expressway, north of Prospect Road (which would be relocated to the proposed site) indicated that the maximum observed vehicle queue in the drive through lane was five vehicles. The existing drive through queue observations were conducted during the weekday AM, weekday PM, and Saturday mid -day peak hours. The existing observed McDonald's is close in size to the proposed building and is in the same area, thus, it is reasonable to assume that the maximum vehicle queue in the drive through lane at the proposed project also would five vehicles. Additionally, the proposed restaurant would have two menu boards and ordering kiosks in the drive- through lane, whereas the existing McDonald's has only one ordering kiosk. This would increase efficiency of the drive through lane and lead to shorter queues. Based on the proposed site design, the drive through lane is approximately 120 feet long from the entry point to the ordering speaker. This length is sufficient to accommodate six queued vehicles without interfering with traffic circulation in the parking lot. Thus, the design of the drive through lane is sufficient to accommodate the expected maximum vehicle queue at the drive through window. On -Site Parking The parking lot on the site, which would be shared by the existing commercial/retail building, provides 103 automobile parking spaces (including five handicap spaces). Municipal Code Requirements The proposed project would share the site with a retail/commercial building on the site, forming a group of buildings that makes up a single retail center. The City's parking requirement for "Intensive Retail" developments should be applied to the existing 16,500 s.f. retail building on the site. The City of Saratoga parking requirements do not have a "fast -food restaurant" land use. The proposed McDonald's would fall into the "restaurant" land use, which covers all types of restaurants from fast -food to high- turnover sit down to fine dining. The City of Saratoga Municipal Code specifies that the parking requirement for "Intensive Retail" developments is one space per 200 s.f. of floor area and the parking requirement for restaurants is one space per 75 s.f. of floor area. Based on the application of these rates, the parking supply for the site should include 138 auto parking spaces (83 for the commercial building and 55 for the McDonald's). The proposed parking supply for the site does not satisfy the calculated City of Saratoga parking requirements. In order to meet the calculated City parking requirements, 35 additional parking spaces are needed on the site. However, the calculated parking requirements for the site, based on City code, may be conservatively high for the following reasons: The City's parking requirement for restaurants is based on the gross building size and not on the size of the dining area. Fast food restaurants and sit -down style restaurants have different parking generation rates in terms of gross building size because the proportion of the building available for dining is different. In the case of the proposed McDonald's, only about 25 percent of the building space is dedicated to the dining area. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 1. McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California vii The City's Municipal Code does not have a land -use category for fast -food restaurants. Such fast food restaurants often have peak parking demands that are less than sit -down style restaurants due to the availability of the drive through window at the fast -food restaurant and the fact that customer turnover is much faster. The City's parking requirements do not include any adjustments for the mixed -use nature of the shopping center on the site. Some trips to McDonald's will be made by patrons of the retail building on the site, and vice versa, thereby reducing the overall parking demand for the site. For comparative purposes, the parking rates from other sources were checked to provide some insight into the parking characteristics of the proposed McDonald's restaurant. The City of San Jose has parking rates for restaurants based on the number of seats provided in the restaurant and on the size of the dining area. Additionally, the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Parking Generation, 3rd Edition was consulted to get parking demand rates for fast -food restaurants. Parking Generation includes parking rates for fast -food restaurants based on the number of seats. A review of these rates finds that the rates based on seating would yield the greatest number of parking spaces. Including the outdoor seating in the calculation, the parking rates indicate that the proposed McDonald's would have a peak parking demand of 33 parking spaces. Adding this parking demand to the parking requirement for the 16,500 square foot commercial building yields 116 required parking spaces. Therefore, the existing parking lot is 13 parking spaces short. However, this difference is small and could be made up by the existing residual parking capacity in the parking lot and the reduction in parking demand due to the internalization of trips among the compatible uses in the shopping center. Parking Demand Analysis A parking occupancy count was conducted to determine the existing parking demand in the shopping center where the proposed McDonalds would be located. The parking occupancy survey was conducted on a Saturday from 12:00 noon to 2:00 PM the traditional Saturday mid -day peak parking period for a shopping center. The results of the survey indicate that the peak parking demand is 51 vehicles (or about 50% parking occupancy). One of the tenant spaces in the retail building currently is vacant. This space is shown to be 1,050 s.f. in size on the project site plan. Taking into account the current vacancy in the retail building, the parking demand rate associated with the retail building is 3.30 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of occupied retail space. Applying this rate to the vacant retail space yields an additional demand of 4 parking spaces (rounded up from 3.5) that must be accounted for in the demand analysis. Therefore, the total parking demand associated with the retail building would be 55 parking spaces. As discussed above, the actual parking demand associated with the McDonald's (based on ITE rates) would be 33 parking spaces. Therefore, the total parking demand for the uses on the site would be 88 spaces. This is well below the 103 spaces that are currently supplied on the site. Additionally, this analysis is conservative and does not take into consideration any reductions for internalization of trips between the compatible uses on the site. Based on the results of the parking demand analysis, the development of the McDonald's restaurant on the proposed project site would not result in a parking shortage on the site. ADA Requirements According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, parking lots with 101 to 150 total automobile parking stalls shall provide at least five handicap parking stalls. The five handicap stalls included on the project site satisfy ADA requirements. '-•qi Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 4 McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California vlll Parking Stall Design A review of the parking lot design indicates that the dimensions of the proposed parking stalls on the site satisfy City of Saratoga Parking Code requirements. Recommendations Although the parking lot does not meet the calculated parking requirements based on the application of City of Saratoga parking rates, additional parking spaces are not recommended on the site. The existing residual parking capacity in the existing parking lot would be enough to satisfy the additional parking demand associated with the proposed McDonald's. Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation Bicycle facilities would not be affected by the project. The project would not result in any physical change to these facilities, and the additional demand for bicycle facilities generated by the project would be met by existing bicycle facilities in the project area. Existing pedestrian facilities in the study area are adequate to accommodate project generated pedestrian traffic. Additionally, on -site pedestrian facilities are connected to the existing sidewalk on Prospect Road providing an access point to the site for pedestrians. Nearby Prospect High School generates a significant amount of pedestrian traffic on Prospect Road during school start and end times. The existing on -site pedestrian facilities and connections to the sidewalk on Prospect Road are adequate to accommodate the potential pedestrian activity at the site associated with the school. Transit Service The project would not have an adverse affect on transit service in the project area. No transit routes would be affected by the development of the proposed project. Other Traffic Operations Issues Field observations found parked cars on the south side of Prospect Road, between the site driveway and Lawrence Expressway. This area is the beginning of the eastbound bike lane on Prospect Road and is the merge area where northbound right -turns from Lawrence Expressway merge onto eastbound Prospect Road. As such, cars parked in this area cause northbound right -turns from Lawrence Expressway to come to an abrupt stop as they are turning onto Prospect Road, because there is not enough room to merge easily. Additionally, access to the site driveway from northbound Lawrence Expressway currently requires cars to briefly merge with eastbound Prospect Road traffic, swerve around the parked cars, then quickly slow and make the right -turn into the site driveway. Recommended Improvement Because of the potential for safety and operational problems caused by parking in this area, it is recommended that the curb on the south side of Prospect Road, between the site driveway and Lawrence Expressway, be painted red to prohibit parking in this area. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 11 ..d McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California ix' 1. Introduction This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis conducted for the proposed McDonald's fast food restaurant located on the southeast corner of Lawrence Expressway and Prospect Road in Saratoga, California. The proposed project is a 4,090 square foot (s.f.) fast -food restaurant with a drive through window, which would replace a vacant Krispy Kreme doughnut store. The existing, vacant Krispy Kreme building has a drive through lane, which would be reused by the proposed McDonald's. Additionally, the project proposal includes adding a second drive through window and a second menu board and ordering speaker to the drive through lane. Both of which would improve the efficiency of the proposed drive- through operation. The McDonald's would be relocated to the vacant Krispy Kreme site from its current location on Lawrence Expressway, just north of Prospect Road. The project building shares the site and the parking lot with an existing 16,500 s.f. commercial/retail building. Access to the site is provided via an existing right -turn only driveway on Prospect Road. The site also has a driveway on Lawrence Expressway, which is gated and reserved for emergency use only. Parking for the project will be provided on -site, via a shared parking lot. The project as proposed would not modify or reconfigure the parking lot. The existing parking supply on the site would not change with the proposed project. The project site and the surrounding study area are shown on Figure 1. The project site plan is shown on Figure 2. Scope of Study Although the project site is located within the City of Saratoga, the surrounding study intersections are within the jurisdiction of the City of San Jose. Therefore, the traffic analysis will satisfy the requirements of both agencies. To do so, the traffic analysis was conducted according the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Congestion Management Program (CMP) level of service guidelines, which are adopted by both agencies. Moreover, both cities have identical level of service standards, so judging impacts based on City of San Jose standards would also satisfy City of Saratoga requirements. This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying the traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. The traffic analysis is based on peak -hour levels of service for signalized intersections. The study intersections are identified below. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. U McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California 1 LEGEND VIA Study Intersection Project Site Hexagon u Transportation Consultants, Inc. Not to Scale Figure 1 SITE LOCATION AND STUDY INTERSECTIONS McDonald's Saratoga ML C: \Projects \McDonalds Saratoga (07JE09) \Graphics \Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersections.dwg 11/1 111 13 Mett-q-001 tr41.' 11 0 RehlOrt !Ale 0 01.2. MORR*cc VA W.-MS*174 MO vatme.ce 4111.7•C tr sask M170.1,410:.210 C VX1,a.Alo 0 NVII POST COD %5,# torrAva row ro ormlavc... 2.; et)....4 PC 1.040+4 CD !V C.0141teR low pm.s.o: tr11.11. Cre..,25 TO WIYAIR SC.,OFF_'.7 OF SITE "ORK.: ALL EX1STN& FARKIN& STALLS, LAN1:7SGAPIN6 THRU LANE TO REMAIN REMOVE EXTSTIN6 1.7RIVE THRLI MENU SOAR. FROVIriE 2 NEPti MENU SOARL,S SI6NA6E. SHO^N. SEE SHEET a FOR 516NAGE. ALL OTHER leNORK SHALL SE r.3ONE I.NITHIN THE SUILPINC7. Source: CRMS Architects and Planners, Inc. 7 PI Hexagon b Transportation Consultants, Inc. ML C:\Projects\McDonalds Saratoga (07JE09)\Graphics \Fig 2 Site Plan.dwg Figure 2 SITE PLAN McDonald's Saratoga Study Intersections 1. Lawrence Expressway and Prospect Road 2. Westgate West Shopping Center Driveway and Prospect Road Study Scenarios Traffic conditions at the study intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak -hours of traffic. The weekday AM peak -hour of traffic generally falls within the 7:00 to 9:00 AM period and the weekday PM peak -hour is typically in the 4:00 to 6:00 PM period. It is during these times that the most congested traffic conditions occur on an average day. Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Conditions. Existing conditions were represented by existing peak -hour traffic volumes on the existing roadway network. Existing traffic volumes were obtained from recent traffic counts. Scenario 2: Background Conditions. Background conditions were represented by future background traffic volumes on the existing roadway network. Background traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing peak -hour volumes the projected volumes from approved but not yet completed developments. Background conditions include the trip entitlements associated with the vacant Krispy Kreme doughnut store. Scenario -3: Project Conditions. Project conditions were represented by future traffic volumes, with the project, on the existing roadway network. Future traffic volumes with the project (hereafter called project traffic volumes) were estimated by adding to background traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Project conditions were evaluated relative to background conditions in order to determine potential project impacts. According to Santa Clara County's Congestion Management Program (CMP) standards, a future- conditions analysis is not required because the project would not generate 100 or more new peak -hour trips. Methodology This section presents the methods used to determine the traffic conditions for each scenario described above. It includes descriptions of the data requirements, the analysis methodologies, and the applicable level of service standards. Data Requirements The data required for the analysis were obtained from new traffic counts, field observations, previous traffic studies, the City of San Jose, the City of Saratoga, and the CMP annual Monitoring Report. The following data were collected from these sources: existing traffic volumes lane configurations signal timing and phasing data left -turn pocket lengths Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Krispy Kreme Doughnut Store Saratoga, Califomia drive through window. queue lengths Analysis Methodologies and Level of Service Standards Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free -flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. The various analysis methods are described below. City of San Jose Signalized Intersections Both of the signalized study intersections are located in the City of San Jose and are therefore subject to the City of San Jose Level of Service standards. The City of San Jose level of service methodology is TRAFFIX, which is based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (2000 HCM) method for signalized intersections. TRAFFIX evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. Since TRAFFIX is also the CMP- designated intersection level of service methodology, the City of San Jose methodology employs the CMP default values for the analysis parameters. Both the City of Saratoga and the City of San Jose level of service standard for signalized intersections is LOS D or better. The correlation between average delay and level of service is shown in Table 1. Table 1 Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay Average Control Delay Level of Per Vehicle Service Description (Sec.) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression Up to 10.0 and /or short cycle lengths. B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and /or 10.1 to 20.0 short cycle lengths. C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression 20.1 to 35.0 and /or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. D Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to oversaturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000). Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. U McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California 35.1 to 55.0 55.1 to 80.0 Greater than 80.0 Report Organization The remainder of this report is divided into four chapters. Chapter 2 describes existing conditions in terms of the existing roadway network, transit service, and existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Chapter 3 presents the intersection operations under background conditions. Chapter 4 describes the method used to estimate project traffic and its impact on the transportation system and describes the recommended mitigation measures. Chapter 5 presents the conclusions of the traffic impact analysis. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. McDonald 's Restaurant Saratoga, California 2. Existing Conditions This chapter describes the existing conditions for all the major transportation facilities in the vicinity of the site, including the roadway network, transit service, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Existing Roadway Network Access to the site is provided by Prospect Road, Lawrence Expressway, and Saratoga Avenue. These roadways are described below. Prospect Road is an east -west divided roadway that provides direct access to the site via a right -turn only driveway. Prospect. Road begins west of Sunnyvale- Saratoga Road and extends eastward to Saratoga Avenue where it changes designation to Campbell Avenue. In front of the project site, Prospect Road has two travel lanes in the eastbound direction and three in the westbound direction. In the vicinity of the site, Prospect Road has raised median islands with turn pockets at the intersections. Prospect Road forms the northern boundary of the project site. Lawrence Expressway is a six -lane, north -south divided expressway that connects I -280. and SR 85. Lawrence Expressway begins in Mountain View at SR 237 and extends southward beyond Saratoga Avenue where it changes designation to Quito Road before continuing southward to SR 85. Lawrence Expressway forms the western boundary of the project site, where emergency- access only is provided via a gated driveway. Saratoga Avenue is a six -lane, divided roadway that connects the communities of Saratoga and Santa Clara. Saratoga Avenue begins in the south at Saratoga -Los Gatos Road as a transition from Big Basin Way, and extends to the northeast into the City of Santa Clara. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities There are several City- and County- designated bikeways within the vicinity of the project site. Bike lanes are provided on Lawrence Expressway, on Prospect Road, on Campbell Avenue, on Hamilton Avenue, on Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. h. 4 McDonald's Restaurant —Saratoga, California Saratoga Avenue (south of Lawrence Expressway), and on Quito Road (south of Elmwood Drive). Pedestrian facilities in the project area consist primarily of sidewalks along the streets in most residential and commercial areas. Sidewalks are found along virtually all previously- described local roadways in the study area and along the local residential streets and collectors near the site. However, there are no sidewalks on Lawrence Expressway, where pedestrian activity is prohibited. Existing Transit Service Existing transit service to the study area is provided by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Transit services within close proximity to the project site are described below and shown on Figure 3. Bus Service There are seven local and express bus routes that operate near the project site, as described below. The 26 line provides service between the Lockheed Martin Transit Center in Sunnyvale and Eastridge Shopping Center in San Jose via Prospect Road and Campbell Avenue with 20- to 30- minute headways during commute hours. The 53 line provides service between the Sunnyvale Town Center and Westgate Mall via Prospect Road with 30- to 50- minute headways during commute hours. The 57 line provides service between West Valley College and the Old Iron Sides Light Rail Station in Santa Clara via Quito Road and Saratoga Avenue with 30- minute headways during commute hours. The 58 line provides service between West Valley College and Alviso via Saratoga Avenue with 30- minute headways during commute hours. The 82 line provides service between the Westgate Mall and the 17 Street/Hedding Street intersection in San Jose via Saratoga Avenue with 20- to 30- minute headways during commute hours. The Express Line 101 operates on approximately 30- minute headways during limited commute hours between the Camden/SR 85 Park and -Ride Lot and Palo Alto, via Lawrence Expressway and Hamilton Avenue. The Limited -Stop Line 328 makes one commute direction run each weekday (northbound during the morning commute and southbound during the evening commute) between the Lockheed Martin Transit Center and the Camden Avenue /Almaden Expressway intersection, via Lawrence Expressway and Hamilton Avenue. The closest bus stop to the project site is on Prospect Avenue approximately midway between the Westgate West Shopping Center Driveway and Saratoga Avenue. The 26, 101, and 328 bus lines serve this stop. In addition to this stop, each of the seven bus lines mentioned above has a scheduled stop near the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Prospect Road, which is within walking distance of the project site. Existing Intersection Lane Configurations The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were obtained from observations in the field. The existing intersection lane configurations are shown on Figure 4. jr•-■4 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. bug McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California LEGEND Prospect Rd r Project Site Bus Route Study Intersection n Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. ML C: \Projects \McDonalds Saratoga (07JE09)1Graphics \Figure 3 Existing Transit Service.dwg Not to Scale Figure 3 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE McDonald's Saratoga LEGEND Study Intersection n Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. ML C: \Projects \McDonalds Saratoga (07JE09)1Graphics \Fig 4 Existing Lane Geometries.dwg Not to Scale Figure 4' EXISTING LANE GEOMETRIES McDonald's Saratoga Existing Traffic Volumes Existing peak -hour traffic volumes were obtained from the City of San Jose and supplemented with manual turning- movement counts at intersections where counts were either unavailable or outdated. The existing peak -hour intersection volumes are shown on Figure 5. The traffic count data are included in Appendix A. The turning movement volumes at the study intersections for each of the scenarios are tabulated in Appendix B. It should be noted that Westgate Church is currently under construction. The main driveway for Westgate Church normally is the south leg of the Westgate West Driveway /Prospect Road intersection. However, this driveway is currently being used only for construction traffic. As such, the traffic counts conducted in May 2007 do not reflect normal traffic patterns for the church driveway. To make up for this, the May 2007 turning movements to and from the church driveway were replaced with turning movement volumes to and from the driveway from an April 2005 count when the church was operating normally. Existing Intersection Levels of Service The results of the level of service analysis under existing conditions are summarized in Table 2. The results indicate that one study intersection currently operates at an unacceptable LOS E: Lawrence Expressway and Prospect Road The remaining study intersection currently operates at acceptable levels of service. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix C. Observed Existing Traffic Conditions Traffic conditions in the field were observed in order to identify existing operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated levels of service. The purpose of this effort was (1) to identify any existing traffic problems that may not be directly related to intersection level of service, and (2) to identify any locations where the level of service calculation does not accurately reflect level of service in the field. During the AM peak -hour, westbound traffic progression on Prospect Road was degraded for a period of about 10 to 15 minutes at around 8:15 AM. This appeared to coincide with the start of school at nearby Prospect High School and the associated peak in school traffic. Once this school peak passed, westbound traffic progression quickly returned to normal. The degradation in traffic progression was not long enough or severe enough to significantly affect the overall levels of service in the area during the AM peak -hour. Thus, the calculated levels of service appear to accurately reflect conditions in the field. The calculated levels of service during the PM peak -hour appear to accurately reflect conditions in the field. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. ■.■1 McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California 11 Prospect Rd LEGEND co co co N N In M CO LO NN t0 4) t- 4 29(298) 566 (660) 9 Hexagon u Transportation Consultants, Inc. L 38 5(143) 4- 90 4(561) 4 4(199) Study Intersection XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak —Hour Volume n 0 0 N c co N C 0) 0 "c L 64(752) 952 (823) i" 29(103) 0 c 0 0 a Not to Scale Figure 5 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES McDonald's Saratoga ML C: \Projects\McDonalds Saratoga (07JE09) Graphics \Fig 5 Existing Traffic Volumes.dwg Table 2 Existing Intersection Levels of Service Average Peak Count Delay Intersection Hour Date (sec) LOS Lawrence Expwy and Prospect Rd AM 10/4/06 67.7 E PM 9/21/06 47.3 D Westgate West Driveway and Prospect Rd AM 5/15/07 17.1 B PM 5/15/07 29.8 C Denotes CMP intersections Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California 3. Background Conditions This chapter describes background traffic conditions. Background conditions are defined as conditions just prior to completion of the proposed development. Traffic volumes for background conditions comprise volumes from existing traffic counts plus traffic generated by other approved developments in the vicinity of the site. This chapter describes the procedure used to determine background traffic volumes and the resulting traffic conditions. Background Roadway Network It is assumed in this analysis that the transportation network under background conditions would be the same as the existing transportation network. Background Traffic Volumes Background peak -hour traffic volumes were calculated by adding to existing volumes the estimated traffic from approved but not yet constructed developments. The added traffic from approved but not yet constructed developments in San Jose were obtained from the Approved Trips Inventory (ATI) compiled by the City of San Jose. The City of San Jose ATI sheets are included in Appendix D. With respect to approved developments in the City of Saratoga, City staff indicated that there are none that would affect the study intersections. Background traffic volumes also include the trip entitlements associated with the existing vacant Krispy Kreme building that would be reoccupied by the proposed McDonald's. The trip generation estimates for the vacant Krispy Kreme are discussed in greater detail in the following chapter. Background traffic volumes are shown on Figure 6. ro Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California 14 Prospect Rd LEGEND N [O v v c0 V) N N C 431 (298) 574 6 62) —r 94 (235) 1- t 398 (750) 4-- 909(565) ,C- 65(208) Study Intersection XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak —Hour Volume n Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. n 0 0 N ML C: \Projects \McDonalds Saratoga (07JE09) \Graphics \Fig 6 Background Traffic Volumes.dwg L Si U. 0) CO O L 6 4(152) +-965 29(103) 0 0 70 kir ca Not to Scale Figure 6 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES McDonald's Saratoga Background Intersection Levels of Service The results of the intersection level of service analysis under background conditions are summarized in Table 3. The results show that one study intersection would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS E under background conditions: Lawrence Expressway and Prospect Road The remaining study intersection would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service under background conditions. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix C. Table 3 Background Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Lawrence Expwy and Prospect Rd Westgate West Driveway and Prospect Rd Denotes CMP intersections. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. ■-41 McDonald 's Restaurant Saratoga, California Peak Hour AM PM AM PM Existing Average Delay (sec) LOS 67.7 47.3 17.1 29.8 E D B C Background Average Delay (sec) LOS 68.2 47.5 18.3 30.1 E D B- C 16 4. Project Conditions This chapter describes project traffic conditions, significant project impacts, and measures that are recommended to mitigate project impacts. Included are descriptions of the significance criteria that define an impact, estimates of project generated traffic, identification of the impacts, and descriptions of the mitigation measures. Project conditions are represented by background traffic conditions with the addition of traffic generated by the project. Significant Impact Criteria Significance criteria are used to establish what constitutes an impact. For this analysis the criterion for determining impacts on intersections is based on the City of San Jose (CSJ) Level of Service standard. The City of Saratoga uses the same standard. Project impacts on other transportation facilities, such as bicycle facilities and transit, were determined on the basis of engineering judgment. City of San Jose Definition of Significant Intersection Impacts The project is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection in the City of San Jose if for either peak -hour: 1. The level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable LOS D or better under background conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or F under project conditions, or 2. The level of service at the intersection is an unacceptable LOS E or F under background conditions and the addition of project trips causes both the critical movement delay at the intersection to increase by four or more seconds and the demand -to- capacity ratio (V /C) to increase by .01 or more. I-mt Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. tug McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California 17 An exception to this rule applies when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of average stopped delay for critical movements (i.e. the change in average stopped delay for critical movements is negative). In this case, the threshold of significance is an increase in the critical V/C value by .01 or more. A significant impact by City of San Jose standards is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that would restore intersection level of service to background conditions or better. Note that the cities of San Jose and Saratoga have the same level of service standard and both use the same thresholds of significance for determining impacts. Thus, an impact based on San Jose standards also would be an impact based on Saratoga standards. Future Transportation Network Under Project Conditions It is assumed in this analysis that the transportation network under project conditions would remain unchanged from existing conditions. Trip Generation Project Trip Estimates The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear are estimated using a three -step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated for the AM and PM peak- hours. As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate is made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets and intersections. These procedures are described further in the following sections. The magnitude of traffic generated by the proposed project was estimated by applying to the size of the development the trip generation rates for fast -food restaurant with a drive through window (land -use 934), published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. Based on these rates, the proposed new McDonald's would generate 217 gross trips during the AM peak hour and 142 gross trips during the PM peak -hour. Pass -By and Diverted Linked Trips Trip generation totals for quick service retail developments are typically adjusted to account for pass -by and diverted linked trips. Pass trips are trips that would already be on the roadways where direct access to the site is provided (and therefore would already be counted in the background traffic volumes) but would turn into the site while passing by. Diverted linked trips are trips that would already be on the roadways near the site that would divert from their normal route onto the roadways that directly access the, site in order to stop at the project. Justification for applying the pass -by and diverted linked trip reductions is founded on the observation that such retail traffic is not actually generated by the store, but is already part of the ambient traffic levels. It is assumed that a portion of the total project traffic will be made up of traffic already on Prospect Road (pass -by traffic). Similarly, a portion of the total traffic drawn to the site will be diverted linked trips on Lawrence Expressway that will stop at the site while passing by. Since the standard trip generation rates reflect all trips associated with a development, including pass-by and diverted linked trips, the trip pr..% Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California 18 generation totals for the proposed project need to be adjusted accordingly. The adjusted trip generation totals represent the new trips that would be generated by the project, which would be added to all of the study intersections. The traffic analysis assumes that 25% of the total project trips would be pass -by trips and 25% would be diverted linked trips (a combined 50% reduction). These assumptions provide for a contrastive analysis since data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers suggest that the proportion of total project trips that are pass -by and diverted linked trips at fast -food restaurants with drive through windows could be as high as 49% and 28 respectively (a combined 77% reduction). Existing Traffic Entitlements The project site currently is occupied by a vacant Krispy Kreme doughnut store. Traffic associated with the existing vacant building on the site was subtracted from the gross trip generation totals to yield net project trips. The traffic entitlements associated with the vacant Krispy Kreme doughnut store were calculated based on trip generation surveys conducted at two Bay Area Krispy Kreme stores. These surveys were conducted by Omni -Means as part of an initial traffic assessment of the now vacant Krispy Kreme store. The two sites surveyed are in Mountain View and Union City. The trip generation analysis of the vacant Krispy Kreme store indicates that the vacant facility could generate 62 net AM peak -hour trips and 30 net PM peak -hour trips if reoccupied. These trips are treated as "trip credits" and are subtracted from the net McDonald's project trips to yield net -new projects trips. The net project trips that result are considered the additional new trips that the site would generate if the proposed development is built. Net new project trips form the basis for determining project impacts. Since the existing building on the site could be reoccupied by a new fast -food use, the trips associated with the existing use are treated like trips from an approved project and the trip credits are added in the background scenario of the traffic study. Net Project Trips After making adjustments to account for pass -by and diverted linked trips and trip entitlements, the project would generate 47 net-new AM peak -hour trips (26 inbound and 21 outbound) and 40 net -new PM peak -hour trips (23 inbound and 17 outbound). The project trip generation estimates are presented in Table 4. 'qg Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. r. 4 McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California 19 Table 4 Project Trip Generation Estimates Land Use Existing Vacant Krispy Kreme Gross Trips 2 Pass -By Trips (25 3 Diverted -Link Trips (25 3 Net Trips 4 Pass -By Trips (25 Diverted -Link Trips (25 Net Trips 4 Addition of Site Trips Due to P roposed Project Additional Gross Trips 6 Net New Trips Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. l./ McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Size Rate 1 In Out Total Rate 1 In Out Total 4.09 ksf 29.85 61 61 122 14.11 29 29 58 15 15 30 7 7 14 15 15 30 7 7 14 31 31 62 15 15 30 Proposed McDonald's Restaurant Gross Trips 5 4.09 ksf 53.11 111 106 217 34.64 74 68 142 27 27 54 27 27 54 +50 +45 +95 +26 +21 +47 18 18 36 18 18 36 57 52 109 38 32 70 +45 +39 +84 +23 +17 +40 Notes: 1 Rates expressed in trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area. 2 Rates based on trip generation surveys conducted by Omni -Means in December 2003 at the Krispy Kreme Restaurants in Mountain View and Union City. 3 Pass -by and diverted -link trip percentages recommended by Saratoga City staff. 4 Net trips are equal to gross trips minus pass -by and diverted -link trips. 5 Trip generation rates for fast -food restaurant with drive through window (ITE Land Use #934) used for the proposed new McDonald's. 6 Additional gross trips are equal to the difference between gross trips associated with the proposed McDonald's and gross trips associated with the existing vacant Krispy Kreme restaurant. 7 Net new trips are equal to the difference between the net McDonald's trips and net trips associated with the existing vacant Krispy Kreme restaurant. Trip Distribution Peak-hour project traffic was distributed on the transportation network based on existing traffic patterns in the study area and the locations of complementary land uses. The trip distribution pattern for project traffic is shown graphically on Figure 7. 20 Prospect Rd 30% LEGEND 0 N I o 1 1 2(9) n Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. t_ 14(2) 4- 11(8) 4 Study Intersection XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak—Hour Volume ML C: \Projects \McDonalds Saratoga (07JE09) \Graphics \Fig 7 Project Trip Assign and Dist.dwg 3(6) o O a Not to Scale *Note: Negative values indicate movements where pass —by and diverted —link trips move from their normal path of travel to an adjacent turn movement in order to access the site. Figure 7 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT McDonald's Saratoga Trip Assignment The net peak -hour trips (gross minus pass -by and diverted linked trips) generated by the proposed development were assigned to the roadway system in accordance with the trip distribution pattern discussed above. Next the assignment of Krispy Kreme trip credits was subtracted from the transportation network. This procedure yields the assignment of net -new trips on the local transportation network associated with the proposed project. This procedure is necessary because the vacant Krispy Kreme store and proposed McDonald's have different trip distribution patterns because they have different service areas. Finally, pass -by and diverted linked trips associated with the McDonald's restaurant were assigned to the intersections adjacent to the site. Figure 7 shows the project trip assignment at the study intersections. A tabular summary of project traffic at each study intersection is contained in Appendix B. Project Traffic Volumes Net -new project trips, as represented in the above project trip assignment, were added to future background traffic volumes to obtain background plus project traffic volumes. Background traffic volumes plus project trips are typically referred to simply as project traffic volumes; this is contrasted with the term project trips, which is used to signify the additional traffic that is produced specifically by the project: The project traffic volumes are shown graphically on Figure 8. Traffic volumes for all components of traffic are tabulated in Appendix B. Project Intersection Level of Service Analysis The results of the intersection level of service analysis under project conditions are summarized in Table 5. The results indicate that one of the signalized study intersections would operate at an unacceptable level of service under project conditions: Lawrence Expressway and Prospect Road However, the addition of project trips at this intersection would not result in critical delay and volume-to- capacity ratio changes that exceed the thresholds of significance. Therefore, the project would not cause a significant level of service impact at this intersection. The remaining study intersection also would not be significantly impacted by the project. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix C. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. b■ McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California 22 Table 5 Project Intersection Levels of Service Background Project Conditions Crit. Average Average Delay Crit. Peak Delay Delay Change V/C Intersection Hour (sec) LOS (sec) LOS (sec) Change Lawrence Expwy and Prospect Rd AM 68.2 E 68.8 E +2.1 +0.003 PM 47.5 D 47.9 D +0.1 +0.000 Westgate West Driveway and Prospect Rd AM 18.3 B- 20.6 C+ +3.3 +0.027 PM 30.1 C 30.6 C +0.1 +0.007 Denotes CMP intersections. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. •.41 McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California Prospect Rd .LEGEND n I0 CO N vv M d- in 00 tf) N r 4J C 431 (298)_? 586 (671) --3 94 (235) Hexagon u Transportation Consultants, Inc. L 412(152) 92 0(573) r Study Intersection XX(XX) AM (PM) Peak —Hour Volume i y a U r0 rn al o N N -64(15 CO 968(834) 1"29(10 3 Not to Scale Figure 8 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES McDonald's Saratoga ML C: \Projects \McDonalds Saratoga (07JE09) \Graphics \Fig 8 Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes.dwg Other Transportation Issues Other issues related to transportation were evaluated to determine if any deficiencies would exist under project conditions that are not specifically linked to environmental impact reporting. These are not considered environmental issues, and may not be evaluated as part of the assessment of environmental impacts, but have been included in the traffic study to meet the requirements of the local jurisdiction and Caltrans. The other transportation issues considered in this chapter are intersection turn- pocket storage requirements, vehicle queuing at the drive through lane, site access and circulation issues, on -site parking, and bicycle, pedestrian, and transit issues. Intersection Queuing Analysis The operations analysis is based on vehicle queuing for high- demand turning movements at intersections. Vehicle queues were estimated using a Poisson probability distribution, which estimates the probability of "n" vehicles for a vehicle movement using the following formula: Where: P (x =n) e -(k) n! P (x =n) probability of "n" vehicles in queue per lane n number of vehicles in the queue per lane X, Average number of vehicles in the queue per lane (vehicles per hour per lane /signal cycles per hour) The basis of the analysis is as follows: (1) the. Poisson probability distribution is used to estimate the 95 percentile maximum number of queued vehicles per signal cycle for a particular movement; (2) the estimated maximum number of vehicles in the queue is translated into a queue length using an average vehicle length of 25 feet; and (3) the estimated maximum queue length is compared to the existing or planned available storage capacity for the movement. Poisson probability queue calculation sheets are provided in Appendix E. The intersection turn pocket storage analysis is based on vehicle queuing for high- demand turning movements at intersections. The operational analysis results are summarized in Table 6. The results indicate that the projected maximum peak -hour vehicle queue in the westbound left -turn lane at the Lawrence Expressway /Prospect Road intersection would exceed the available storage space during the PM peak -hour under project conditions. The projected maximum peak -hour vehicle queue in the eastbound left-turn lane at the Westgate West Driveway /Prospect Road intersection would exceed the available storage space during the PM peak -hour under project conditions. It should be noted that the projected maximum vehicle queues for these two locations would exceed the available storage space under background conditions as well. Thus, the queuing problems identified here are not caused solely by the project. A review of the queuing results found that the addition of project trips at the Lawrence /Prospect intersection would cause the westbound left-turn queue to grow by one vehicle during both the AM and PM peak hours. At the Westgate West/Prospect intersection, the addition of project traffic would cause the eastbound left -turn queue to grow by two vehicles during the AM peak hour and would cause no change during the PM peak hour. The intersection queue calculation sheets are included in Appendix E. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California 25 Recommended Improvement Both left-turn pockets at these intersections can be extended a short distance by removing the median island between the two pockets and extending the pockets so they are back -to -back. This would require the removal of several mature trees in the median island. There is approximately 150 feet available between the pockets to extend one or both pockets. A total of 220 feet would be needed to lengthen both pockets so they have sufficient storage space. Therefore, this improvement will not solve this operational deficiency, but would make the left-turn movements operate better, and would offset the project's contribution to the deficiency. Because the project contributes to the operational deficiencies at both locations but is not solely responsible for them, the project should make a fair -share contribution toward any improvements that are pursued by the City of San Jose. Table 6 Intersection Vehicle Queuing Analysis Project Conditions Existing Existing Storage Peak Vehicle Req. Storage Intersection Mvmt. Lanes Per Lane (ft.) Hour Queue /a/ Per Lane (ft.) /b/ Comments Lawrence Expwy WBL 1 190 AM 7 175 Existing Storage Prospect Rd Adequate. PM 15 375 Additional storage necessary 185'). Westgate West Dwy EBL 1 Prospect Rd 215 AM 8 200 Existing Storage Adequate. PM 10 250 Additional storage necessary -35'). /a/ Vehicle queue #'of.vehicles) calculated using the Poisson probability distribution and 95- percent confidence level. /b/ .Required storage is calculated based on peak -hour vehicle queue calculation as follows: Vehicle queue x 25'. Site Access and On -Site Circulation A review of the project site plan was performed to determine if adequate site access and on -site circulation are provided and to identify any access" or circulation issues that should be improved. The vacant building is located in the northwest corner of a parcel that contains an existing 16,500 s.f. commercial/retail building (located on the east side of the site). Access to the site is currently provided by a right -turn only driveway that would remain with the project. A second access point, located on Lawrence Expressway, is a 25 -foot gated driveway that would serve as an emergency access point. The proposed McDonald's restaurant would share the parking lot and associated circulation aisles with the existing commercial/retail building. The proposed McDonald's restaurant includes a drive through window, with the entrance located near the north end of the site and the exit approximately at the mid- point on the western boundary of the site. The drive- through lane would have two menu boards and two ordering kiosks to expedite service. The proposed project would not make any changes or modifications to the existing parking lot or site driveway. -4411 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. lit McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California 26 Vehicular Access and On -Site Circulation The existing site layout is sufficient to allow for adequate site access and on -site circulation for automobiles and trucks. Vehicle Queuing at the Drive Through Window Drive- through queuing surveys conducted at the existing McDonald's restaurant on Lawrence Expressway, north of Prospect Road (which would be relocated to the proposed site) indicated that the maximum observed vehicle queue in the drive through lane was five vehicles. The existing drive through queue observations were conducted during the weekday AM, weekday PM, and Saturday mid -day peak hours. The existing observed McDonald's is close in size to the proposed building and is in the same area, thus, it is reasonable to assume that the maximum vehicle queue in the drive through lane at the proposed project also would be five vehicles. Additionally, the proposed restaurant would have two menu boards and ordering kiosks in the drive through lane, whereas the existing McDonald's has only one ordering kiosk. This would increase efficiency of the drive- through lane and lead to shorter queues. Based on the proposed site design, the drive through lane is approximately 120 feet long from the entry point to the ordering speaker. This length is sufficient to accommodate six queued vehicles without interfering with traffic circulation in the parking lot. Thus, the design of the drive through lane is sufficient to accommodate the expected maximum vehicle queue at the drive through window. Pedestrian Access and On -Site Pedestrian Circulation A striped handicap /pedestrian walkway is provided from the front of the proposed building through the parking lot to the sidewalk in front of the existing commercial/retail building on the site. This walkway provides access to four handicap parking stalls on the site. Additionally, an on -site sidewalk connects the restaurant building to the existing sidewalk on Prospect Road. This walkway crosses the drive through lane, at a location marked with pavement striping, near the entrance of the drive through. The on -site pedestrian facilities are adequate to accommodate on -site pedestrian circulation and the connection to the sidewalk on Prospect Road provides good pedestrian access to the project site. Field observations indicate that there is a significant amount of pedestrian activity on Prospect Road in front of the site, especially when nearby Prospect High School begins and lets out. This could increase the frequency of vehicle pedestrian interactions at the pedestrian crossing on the drive through lane as vehicles enter the drive through. Recommended Improvement All of the pedestrian facilities on the site are designed appropriately; however, the following recommendation is offered to further improve pedestrian safety on the site. It is recommended that landscaping and signage in the area between the drive through entrance and the pedestrian crossing be kept to a height of 3.5 feet or less. This will increase pedestrian safety by promoting better visibility of pedestrians in the area. On -Site Parking The parking lot on the site, which would be shared by the existing commercial/retail building, provides 103 automobile parking spaces (including five handicap spaces). Municipal Code Requirements The proposed project would share the site with a retail/commercial building on the site, forming a group of buildings that makes up a single retail center. The City's parking requirement for "Intensive Retail" developments should be applied to the existing 16,500 s.f. retail building on the site. The City of Saratoga parking requirements do not have a "fast -food restaurant" land use. The proposed McDonald's would fall into the "restaurant" land use, which covers all types of restaurants from fast -food to high- turnover sit- Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. b../ McDonald's Restaurant —Saratoga, California 27 down to fine dining. To check the parking requirement for the site, the City's parking requirement for restaurants was applied to the proposed McDonald's. The City of Saratoga Municipal Code specifies that the parking requirement for "Intensive Retail" developments is one space. per 200 s.f. of floor area and the parking requirement for restaurants is one space per 75 s.f. of floor area. Based on the application of these rates, the parking supply for the site should include 138 auto parking spaces (83 for the commercial building and 55 for the McDonald's). The proposed parking supply for the site does not satisfy the calculated City of Saratoga parking requirements. In order to meet the calculated City parking requirements, 35 additional parking spaces are needed on the site. However, the calculated parking requirements for the site, based on City code, may be conservatively high for the following reasons: The City's parking requirement for restaurants is based on the gross building size and not on the size of the dining area. Fast food restaurants and sit -down style restaurants have different parking generation rates in terms of gross building size because the proportion of the building available for dining is different. The size of the dining area limits how many customers can be accommodated on the site and dictates how much parking is need for the restaurant. In the case of the proposed McDonald's, only about 25 percent of the building space is dedicated to the dining area. Applying the City's parking rate for restaurants to the total building size for the McDonald's yields an overestimate of the parking demand. The City's Municipal Code does not have a land -use category for fast -food restaurants. Such fast- food restaurants often have peak parking demands that are less than sit -down style restaurants due to the availability of the drive- through window at the fast -food restaurant and the fact that customer turnover is much faster. The City's parking requirements do not include any adjustments for the mixed -use nature of the shopping center on the site. Some trips to McDonald's will be made by patrons of the retail building on the site, and vice versa, thereby reducing the overall parking demand for the site. For comparative purposes, the parking rates from other sources were checked to provide some insight into the parking characteristics of the proposed McDonald's restaurant. The City of San Jose has parking rates for restaurants based on the number of seats provided in the restaurant and on the size of the dining area. The City of San Jose rates require 1 space per 2.5 seats or 1 space per 40 square feet in the dining area, whichever is greater. Additionally, the Institute. of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Parking Generation, 3rd Edition was consulted to get parking demand rates for fast -food restaurants. Parking Generation contains parking demand rates for various land uses based on parking survey data collected throughout the country and includes parking rates for fast -food restaurants based on the number of seats. The ITE parking demand rate for fast -food restaurants with a drive through is 0.4 spaces per seat or 1 space per 2.5 seats (the same as the City of San Jose rate). A review of these rates finds that the rates based on seating would yield the greatest number of parking spaces. Including the outdoor seating in the calculation, the parking rates indicate that the proposed McDonald's would have a peak parking demand of 33 parking spaces. Adding this parking demand to the parking requirement for the 16,500 square foot commercial building yields 116 required parking spaces. Therefore, the existing parking lot is 13 parking spaces short. However, this difference is small and could be made up by the existing residual parking capacity in the parking lot and the reduction in parking demand due to the internalization of trips among the compatible uses in the shopping center. Parking Demand Analysis A parking occupancy count was conducted to determine the existing parking demand in the shopping center where the proposed McDonalds would be located. The parking occupancy survey was conducted Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. I►.i McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California 28 on a Saturday from 12:00 noon to 2:00 PM the traditional Saturday mid -day peak parking period for a shopping center. The results of the survey indicate that the peak parking demand is 51 vehicles (or about 50% parking occupancy). One of the tenant spaces in the retail building currently is vacant; This space is shown to be 1,050 s.f. in size on the project site plan. Taking into account the current vacancy in the retail building, the parking demand rate associated with the retail building is 3.30 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of occupied retail space. Applying this rate to the vacant retail space yields an additional demand of 4 parking spaces (rounded up from 3.5) that must be accounted for in the demand analysis. Therefore, the total parking demand associated with the retail building would be 55 parking spaces. As discussed above, the actual parking demand associated with the McDonald's (based on ITE rates) would be 33 parking spaces. Therefore, the total parking demand for the uses on the site would be 88 spaces. This is well below the 103 spaces that are currently supplied on the site. Additionally, this analysis is conservative and does not take into consideration any reductions for internalization of trips between the compatible uses on the site. Based on the results of the parking demand analysis, the development of the McDonald's restaurant on the proposed project site would not result in a parking shortage on the site. ADA Requirements According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, parking lots with 101 to 150 total automobile parking stalls shall provide at least five handicap parking stalls. The five handicap stalls included on the project site satisfy ADA requirements. Parking Stall Design A review of the parking lot design indicates that the dimensions of the proposed parking stalls on the site satisfy City of Saratoga Parking Code requirements. Recommendations Although the parking lot does not meet the calculated parking requirements based on the application of City of Saratoga parking rates, additional parking spaces are not recommended on the site. The existing residual parking capacity in the existing parking lot would be enough to satisfy the additional parking demand associated with the proposed McDonald's. Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation Bicycle facilities would not be affected by the project. The project would not result in any physical change to these facilities, and the additional demand for bicycle facilities generated by the project would be met by existing bicycle facilities in the project area. Existing pedestrian facilities in the study area are adequate to accommodate project generated pedestrian traffic. Additionally, on -site pedestrian facilities are connected to the existing sidewalk on Prospect Road providing an access point to the site for pedestrians Nearby Prospect High School generates a significant amount of pedestrian traffic on Prospect Road during school start and end times. The proposed existing on -site pedestrian facilities and connections to the sidewalk on Prospect Road are adequate to accommodate the potential pedestrian activity at the site associated with the school. Transit Service The project would not have an adverse affect on transit service in the project area. No transit routes would be affected by the development of the proposed project. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. bit McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California 29 Other Traffic Operations Issues Field observations found parked cars on the south side of Prospect Road, between the site driveway and Lawrence Expressway. This area is the beginning of the eastbound bike lane on Prospect Road and is the merge area where northbound right -turns from Lawrence Expressway merge onto eastbound Prospect Road. As such, cars parked in this area cause northbound right -turns from Lawrence Expressway to come to an abrupt stop as they are turning onto Prospect Road, because there is not enough room to merge easily. Additionally, access to the site driveway from northbound Lawrence Expressway currently requires cars to briefly merge with eastbound Prospect Road traffic, swerve around the parked cars, then quickly slow and make the right -turn into the site driveway. Recommended Improvement Because of the potential for safety and operational problems caused by parking in this area, it is recommended that the curb on the south side of Prospect Road, between the site driveway and Lawrence Expressway, be painted red to prohibit parking in this area. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. U McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California 30 The impacts of the project were identified on the basis of the City of San Jose (CSJ) Level of Service standards. 5: Conclusions The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the City of San Jose and the City of Saratoga. The study included the analysis of AM and PM peak -hour traffic conditions at two signalized intersections. Project impacts on other transportation facilities, such as bicycle facilities and transit, were determined on the basis of engineering judgment. Intersection Levels of Service The results of the study indicate that the project would not cause any significant intersection level of service impacts. Intersection Vehicle Queues The results of the intersection operations analysis indicate that the projected maximum peak -hour vehicle queue in the westbound left-turn lane at the Lawrence Expressway /Prospect Road intersection and in the eastbound left-turn lane at the Westgate West Driveway /Prospect Road intersection would exceed the available storage space during the PM peak -hour under project conditions. However, the analysis found that the project would not be solely responsible for the queuing deficiencies at these two locations. Both left -turn pockets at these intersections can be extended a short distance by removing the median island between the two pockets and extending the pockets so they are back -to -back. This would require the removal of several mature trees in the median island. This improvement would not completely solve this operational deficiency, but would make the left-turn movements operate better, and would offset the project's contribution to the deficiency. Because the project contributes to the operational deficiencies at Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. h.4 McDonald'sRestaurant Saratoga, California 31 both locations but is not solely responsible for them, the project should make a fair -share contribution toward any improvements that are pursued by the City of San Jose. On -Site Pedestrian Facilities All of the pedestrian facilities on the site are designed appropriately; however, the following recommendations are offered to further improve pedestrian safety on the site. It is recommended that landscaping and signage in the area between the drive through entrance and the pedestrian crossing be kept to a height of 3.5 feet or less. This will increase pedestrian safety by promoting better visibility of pedestrians in the area. Additionally, appropriate signage and pavement markings could be installed at the drive- through entrance to draw attention to the pedestrian crossing as vehicles enter the drive through. On -Site Parking Although the parking lot does not meet the calculated parking requirements based on the application of City of Saratoga parking rates, additional parking spaces are not recommended on the site. The existing residual parking capacity in the existing parking lot would be enough to satisfy the additional parking demand associated with the proposed McDonald's. Other Traffic Operations Issues Field observations found parked cars on the south side of Prospect Road, between the site driveway and Lawrence Expressway. Because of the potential for safety and operational problems caused by parking in this area, it is recommended that the curb on the south side of Prospect Road, between Lawrence Expressway and the site driveway, be painted red to prohibit parking in this area. jp•-■14 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California 32 McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga, California Technical Appendices July 12, 2007 ATTACHEMENT 5 From: Jason Nesdahl, P.E. Franziska Holtzman �r FEHR PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS MEMORANDUM Date: July 25, 2007 To: Heather Bradley, Contract Planner, City of Saratoga Subject: McDonald's Restaurant Saratoga Peer Review Follow -up 160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 675 San Jose CA 95113 (408) 278 -1700 Fax (408) 278 -1717 www.fehrandpeers.com 1025 -446 This memorandum is a follow -up to the peer review memorandum Fehr Peers submitted to the City of Saratoga on July 2, 2007 in regards to the McDonald's Restaurant Traffic Impact Analysis (Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., June 7, 2007). Based on the comments included in the original peer review memorandum, Hexagon Transportation Consultants has revised the TIA. As outlined below, we concur with the findings in the updated analysis for the McDonald's Restaurant Traffic Impact Analysis dated July 12, 2007. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM JULY 2, 2007 MEMORANDUM Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) dated June 7, 2007 for the proposed McDonald's Restaurant project. The project site is located on the southeast corner of Lawrence Expressway and Prospect Road in the City of Saratoga, California at the City of San Jose border. The McDonald's Restaurant project proposes to replace a vacant Krispy Kreme doughnut store with a 4,090- square foot (s.f.) fast -food restaurant with a drive through window. The report was reviewed for adequacy and appropriateness of project trip generation, distribution, and assignment, as well as other analysis assumptions, level of service calculations, and results. The peer review memorandum dated July 2, 2007 highlighted the following three areas for further analysis: 1. Since the Lawrence Expressway /Prospect Road intersection is a Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection, it should be analyzed for potential impacts with the appropriate green times as defined by the CMP for both peak periods in all three scenarios (Existing, Background, Project). 2. To determine if the proposed 120 -foot drive through lane can accommodate the project demand, weekend queue observations should be conducted at the existing McDonald's, which will be relocated to the proposed project site. 3. We recommended that the parking demand at the existing site be surveyed to verify current demand for the adjacent retail uses to determine whether the site has adequate capacity to accommodate the project's anticipated parking demand. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CALCULATIONS The study intersection at Prospect Road /Lawrence Expressway is a CMP intersection and therefore should be analyzed with the geometry and phasing inputs defined by the CMP. The Ms. Heather Bradley July 25, 2007 Page 2 of 2 fp FEHR PEERS TRAN$?ORIAIION CONSUItAN1$ updated TIA uses the appropriate CMP geometry and phasing inputs for this intersection under all three scenarios analyzed, for the report (Existing, Background, Project). The intersection of Prospect Road/West Gate Shopping Center Driveway was analyzed in accordance with the applicable guidelines for the City of San Jose. The TIA assesses project impacts under Existing, Background, and Background Plus Project conditions. Based on the TIA's analysis, the project is not expected to result in any significant impacts at the two study intersections. SITE ACCESS AND ON -SITE CIRCULATION Site access was analyzed in terms of the potential for vehicle queues to extend from the fast -food restaurant's drive- through windows to Prospect Road. Since, an existing McDonald's restaurant will be relocated to the proposed project site, queues were observed at the existing restaurant to determine maximum queue length. Queues at the existing restaurant were observed during the weekday morning, lunch time, and evening peak periods, as well as during the weekend when queues could potentially be greater. A maximum of five queued vehicles were observed at the existing site, which could be accommodated by the proposed 120 -foot drive through lane. We recommend that the project applicant and the City monitor any potential queuing issues once the restaurant opens. If queues are observed to routinely queue onto Prospect Road, we recommend that the project applicant modify the on -site circulation pattern to allow for greater queue storage capacity. Modifications to provide greater storage capacity may include the installation of signage and /or modifying the internal circulation pattern in the parking area. On -site' circulation is not presented in the study. City staff should review the final site plan for adequacy. PARKING The McDonald's restaurant will share parking with adjacent retail developments. Accordingly, parking was analyzed for both the retail development and the new restaurant. On -site parking was analyzed in accordance with the City of Saratoga's zoning code requirements. We agree with the conclusion that the proposed parking supply will not meet the City's parking requirement. The July 2, 2007 TIA incorporated a brief shared parking analysis and stated that the project will not adversely affect the site's parking supply since: 1) the on -site parking supply provides a residual capacity, and 2) some amount of internalization between the restaurant and retail land uses will occur. For the TIA update, the parking demand at the existing site was surveyed during the Saturday mid -day peak (12:00 PM to 2:00 PM) to verify the existing demand for the retail uses and to determine whether the site has adequate capacity to accommodate the project's estimated parking demand. The existing parking demand is approximately 55 spaces, or approximately 50% of the total parking supply on the project site. Therefore, based on the existing retail parking demand and the project's projected parking demand the current supply of 103 parking spaces is sufficient to accommodate the proposed uses on the site. CONCLUSIONS Based on the updated analysis and the items discussed in the original peer review memorandum, Fehr Peers concurs with the findings and recommendations made in the McDonald's Restaurant TIA. ATTACHEMENT 6 SANFORD A. BERLINER' ANDREW L FABER RALPH 1. SWANSON I' GGY L. SPRINGGAY JOSEPH E. DWORAK SAMUEL L. FARB ALAN J. PINNER FRANK R UBHAUS LINDA A. CALLON JAMES P. CASHMAN STEVEN J. CASAD NANCY J. JOHNSON JEROLD A. REITON •A Professional Corporation RETIRED SAMUEL J. COHEN ROBERT W. HUMPHREYS Branch Office Merced. CA Heather Bradley Contract Planner Community Development Department 13777 Fruitdale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Application ##07- 342/McDonalds Drive -thru Restaurant 18578 Prospect Road, Saratoga, CA Dear Heather: Attached is the list of Neighbor Notification forms that we have provided to and have received from adjacent tenants and neighbors, as a requirement of the Design Review application for this project. As you can see, while most of the tenants have provided signed letters in support of the project, there are still four tenants from whom we have not received a form. We have followed up with them by sending them a copy of the site plan and revised elevation sheets with the Neighbor Notification form via certified mail. We have also sent a copy of the site plan and revised elevation sheet with the form via certified mail to the Campbell Union High School District. Attached are the signed forms received to date and letters sent via certified mail. If we receive any additional signed forms, we will forward them to you accordingly. Very truly yours, BERLINER COHEN DEBORA UN MCCORMICK E -Mail: Dungo @berliner.com Cc: Diane Zimmerman IDUNGO \729247.1 061907 -00261077 ROBERT L. CHORTEK JONATHAN D. WOLF KATHLEEN K. SIPLE KEVIN F. KELLEY MARK MAKIEWICZ ROBERTA S. HAYASHI JEFFREY S. KAUFMAN JOLIE HOUSTON BRIAN L. SHETLER JOHN F. DOMINGUE HARRY A. LOPEZ CHARLES W. VOLPE MICHAEL VIOLANTI BERLINER COHEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS TEN ALMADEN BOULEVARD ELEVENTH FLOOR SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 -2233 TELEPHONE: (408) 286 -5800 FACSIMILE: (408) 998 -5388 www.berliner.com IN ASSOCIATION WITH MCGRANE GREENFIELD LLP SAN JOSE SAN FRANCISCO June 19, 2007 EILEEN P. KENNEDY THOMAS D. MORELL SETH J. COHEN CHRISTINE H. LONG BRADLEY G. HEBERT DAVID D. WADE. THOMAS E. EBERSOLE MEIIVE JUN 21 Y007 CITY OF SARATOGA THOMAS P. MURPH,COMMUt a59F gIMENT H. ANN LIROFF LAURA PALAZZOLO VICTOR A. PAPPALARDO AARON M. VALENTI CHRISTIAN E. PICONE SHANNON N. COGAN KARA L. ERDODI ANDREW 1. GIORGIANNI FORREST W. HANSEN HEATHER H. MUNOZ SANDRA G. SEPULVEDA SHEEVA GHASSEMI OF COUNSEL HUGH L. ISOLA STEVEN L. HALLGRIMSON ERIC WONG LINDA 1. LEZOTTE NANCY L. BRANDT DAN W. COOPERIDER TO: FROM: RE:. DATE: Tenant/neighbor Caboodle Cartridge Dr. Hoglan Saratoga Smile Dental Speedy Pizza (Aola Baballah) Top 40 Video (Byung Ahu) La Bella Nails Westgate Church Supercuts Rojoz Wraps Smoothies Avloni Academy of Music Togo's Eatery Campbell Union HS District 1DUNG01729479.1 061907 -00261077 MEMORANDUM Heather Bradley, City of Saratoga Deborah Ungo McCormick Application #07 -342/ McDonalds Drive -thru Restaurant Neighbor Notification Forms June 19, 2007 The following is a list of Neighbor Notification Forms that McDonalds USA, LLC has provided to adjacent tenants /neighbors, per staff's direction. Attached are the forms listed below that have been received to date: Location 18564 Prospect Road 18568 Prospect Road 18570 -A Prospect Road 18578 Prospect Road 18576 Prospect Road 18570 B Prospect Road 18510 Prospect Road/ 1735 Saratoga Ave., S. J. 18566 Prospect Road 18562 -A Prospect Road 18572 Prospect Road 18578 Prospect Road 18900 Prospect Road Copies of site plan, revised elevation and Neighbor Notification form have been mailed via certified mail, but no reply has been received to date. Copies of the letters are attached. -1- Date Received 4/27/07 4/27/07 4/27/07 4/27/07 4/27/07 4/28/07 5/2/07 Dat City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form O 3 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1 561 e ct Applicant Name: PO S Application Number: Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. 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. D.My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone Number: k j J 7 ©y 0 51 Date: Signature: y� PROJECT ADDRESS: Applicant Name: Application Number: Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. 'ffiMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do. NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ❑My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: L 4 ifrA,J Neighbor Address: 1%514 POW I- (iffoofi, t4. SV7 Neighbor Phone Number: 41 q I f) 7 City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Fro5pe.(+ E' t ycAct to Printed: tsC 5 of 5 Date: `f Z 7 /o. PROJECT ADDRESS: Applicant Name: Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone Number: City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification. Form Application Number: 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 residents residing on your property.. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. euvl 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. DMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): SARATOGA WILE DENTAL DR. FLORET PHUONG NGO 16570 -A PROSPECT ROAD SARATOGA. CA 950T0 73 765'9 5 of 5 City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: iiC PROJECT ADDRESS: 1 C2 p-r-O `1-7 Applicant Name: 1 G Y 1 �C� r Application Number: Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. '4My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ❑My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: j 7 O P, Neighbor Phone Number Signature: l ,q he a4 1 004,i 0 fS! 07 02. Printed: y r L aI (�rtj1� �C u 5of5 Date: L PROJECT ADDRESS: Applicant Name: Application Number: Neighbor Name: N c' Neighbor Address: N qcolo City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Day -,cd ri S C C r Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. ;IIMy 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. OMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which .after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): cabal I0 Neighbor Phone Number: Printed: Signature: ci C14W(i(t 5 of 5 Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: 1'7 frn` Applicant Name: tA C 'a1t n S (Orr Application Number: Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. ed the project plans; I undstand the scope )44y signature below certifies the following: I have review need to be address by the a pplicant prior to work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which City's public hearing on the proposed project. ❑My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone Number: Signature: City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form 4 0 4-00 '7 Printed: 11 5 of 5 City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: a. PROJECT ADDRESS: I %%l e Pito see cr OA-4) Applicant .Name: rAc 7)0t1/4.1 A-4-6 I S U s44, LL C, Application Number: Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. y 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. DMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: t) 2,5f g (..k c/ Neighbor Address: S y at- r2 Abe, 5 �o e c g J P C X 370 &t Signature: Printed: A Neighbor Phone Number: X 1 f 7 of ,'r 2- 3 7 Cy Cj SQ raftc Ck qy0 7 CJ C T u tp—✓' 5 of 5 Neighbor Address: Lit Neighbor Phone Number: ;Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form PROJECT ADDRESS: 16518 TYo goad Applicant Name: I� C DO AG% Application Number: 01 542 Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. pIv1y 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. OMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name:,- �i j u:� L �C1 r� IL, -Z-c 7e) dr 5 of 5 //D Date: 2 c PROJECT ADDRESS: 1 85/8 Pe05reci goal Applicant Name: PI C DO I'Vj a LL L Application Number: (71 5 4 2 Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal perio /s. y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ❑My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: Signature: City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form A-Paty V./floc Neighbor Phone Number: q g 3 O Printed: A VL OA// 5 of 5 City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: 8618 R.05reci Roa2 Applicant Name: Pic 1/O r\t t a S U( A, Li, L. Application Number: 01' 542 Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. y 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. DMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Cri c'iz/ /e✓ 177 Neighbor Address: 32.5 v col /'f' Neighbor Phone Number: 4 3- 7/ M'o 00 3 o 5 of 5 SANFORD A. BERLINER' ANDREW L. FABER RALPH 1. SWANSON PEGGY L. SPRINGGAY JOSEPH E. DWORAK SAMUEL L. FARB ALAN J. PINNER FRANK R. UBHAUS LINDA A. CALLON JAMES P. CASHMAN STEVEN J. CASAD NANCY 1. JOHNSON JEROLD A. REITON 'A Professional Corporation RETIRED SAMUEL J. COHEN ROBERT W. HUMPHREYS Branch Office Merced, CA ROBERT L. CHORTEK JONATHAN D. WOLF KATHLEEN K. SIPLE KEVIN F. KELLEY MARK MAKIEWICZ ROBERTA S. HAYASHI JEFFREY S. KAUFMAN JOLIE HOUSTON BRIAN L. SHETLER JOHN F. DOMJNGUE HARRY A. LOPEZ CHARLES W. VOLPE MICHAEL VIOLANTI Ed Wong, Manager Rojoz Wraps Smoothies 18562 -A Prospect Road Saratoga, CA 95070 1DUNG01728770.1 061207 -00261077 BERLINER COHEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS TEN ALMADEN BOULEVARD ELEVENTH FLOOR SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 -2233 TELEPHONE: (408) 286 -5800 FACSIMILE: (408) 998 -5388 www.berliner.com IN ASSOCIATION WITH MCGRANE GREENFIELD LLP SAN JOSE SAN FRANCISCO June 12, 2007 THOMAS P. MURPHY H. ANN LIROFF VICTOR A. PAPPALARDO CHRISTIAN E. PICONE EILEEN P. KENNEDY THOMAS D. MORELL SETH 1. COHEN CHRISTINE H. LONG BRADLEY G.HEBERT DAVID D. WADE THOMAS E. EBERSOLE MILES J. DOLINGER LAURA PALAZZOLO AARON M. VALENTI SHANNON N. COGAN KARA L. ERDODI ANDREW 1. GIORGIANNI FORREST W. HANSEN HEATHER H. MUNOZ SANDRA G. SEPULVEDA SHEEVA GHASSEMI OF COUNSEL HUGH L. ISOLA STEVEN L. HALLGRIMSON ERIC WONG LINDA J. LEZOTTE NANCY L. BRANDT DAN W. COOPERIDER Re: Application #07- 342/McDonalds Drive -thru Restaurant 18578 Prospect Road, Saratoga, CA Dear Mr. Wong: On behalf of our client, McDonald's USA, LLC, we are notifying you of plans to relocate the existing McDonald's Drive -thru Restaurant on Lawrence Expressway, north of Prospect Road, to the former Krispy Kreme building located in the Westgate Corners Shopping Center. We have submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Design Review Approval to the City of Saratoga Community Development Department,_ and are notifying adjacent neighbors of the proposed project. We attempted to contact you earlier during a visit to the site but you were not available. Therefore, we are mailing the information to you. Enclosed are a site plan and a City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form. The form includes two boxes so that you may check the one that applies to your response in reviewing the attached plans. The following minor changes are proposed to the existing drive -thru building with this application: Add a second drive -thru window so the first existing drive -thru window will be used as the cashier booth and the second w indow as the food dispenser booth. This also moves the drive -thru lane faster; June 12, 2007 Add a second menu board so that two orders may be taken at the same time, and move the drive -thru lane traffic faster; Change the Krispy Kreme sign to a McDonald's sign on the front of the building. The new sign will be the same in square footage as the existing sign; No other changes are proposed to the existing exterior of the building or. to the parking lot of the shopping center. All other changes will be in the interior of the building. The interior will have more seats inside than Krispy Kreme because it had a larger kitchen/bakery for baking donuts for off -site consumption. Although we will have additional seats, the drive -thru business will be a larger percentage of the business than the inside dining business. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (408) 938 -2459 or by email. We appreciate you taking the time to review the enclosed information and ask that you kindly sign acknowledging receipt of these plans with your comments, if any. We are enclosing a self addressed /stamped envelope for your convenience for mailing of the completed Neighbor Notification form so that we may submit to the City as soon as possible. Cc: Diane Zimmerman IDUNG01728770.1 061207-00261077 rI m ru c1 'US Post Service Certified Mail..` eceipt Domestic Mail only No insurance Coverage Provided Sent To: d t r 4. I t, i.; r� PS Form 3800, February 2004 US Postal Service Very truly yours, BERLINER COHEN .1.70 f D BORAH U?�iGO -N CCORMICK E -Mail: Dungo @ber -liner.com Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage Fees Certified Mail Receipt 2 SANFORD A. BERLINER' ANDREW L. FABER RALPH 1. SWANSON PEGGY L. SPRINGGAY JOSEPH E. DWORAK SAMUEL L. FARB ALAN 1. PINNER FRANK R UBHAUS LINDA A. CALLON JAMES P. CASHMAN STEVEN 3. CASAD NANCY J. JOHNSON JEROLD A. REITON •A Professional Corporation RETIRED SAMUEL J. COHEN. ROBERT W.HUMPHREYS Branch Office Merced, CA Manager Togo's Eatery 18574 Prospect Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear. Sir/Madam: IDUNGO1728776.2 061207 00261077 ROBERT L. CHORTEK JONATHAN D. WOLF KATHLEEN K. SIPLE KEVIN F KELLEY MARK MAKJEWICZ ROBERTA S. HAYASHI JEFFREY S. KAUFMAN JOLIE HOUSTON BRIAN L. SHETLER. JOHN F. DOMJNGUE HARRY A. LOPEZ CHARLES W VOLPE MICHAEL VIOLANTI BERLINER COHEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS TEN ALMADEN BOULEVARD ELEVENTH FLOOR SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 -2233 TELEPHONE: (408) 286 -5800 FACSIMILE: (408) 998 -5388 www.berliner.com IN ASSOCIATION WITH MCGRANE GREENFIELD LLP SAN JOSE SAN FRANCISCO June 12, 2007 Re: .Application #07- 342/McDonalds Drive -thru Restaurant 18578 Prospect Road, Saratoga, CA THOMAS P. MURPHY H. ANN LIROFF VICTOR A. PAPPALARDO CHRISTIAN E. PICONE EILEEN P. KENNEDY THOMAS D. MORELL SETH J. COHEN CHRISTINE H. LONG BRADLEY G. HEBERT DAVID D. WADE THOMAS E. EBERSOLE MILES J. DOLINGER LAURA PALAZZOLO AARON M. VALENTI SHANNON N. COGAN KARA L. ERDODI ANDREW J. GIORGIANNI FORREST W. HANSEN HEATHER H. MUNOZ SANDRA G. SEPULVEDA SHEEVA GHASSEMI OF COUNSEL HUGH L. ISOLA STEVEN L. HALLGRIMSON ERIC WONG LINDA J. LEZOTTE NANCY L. BRANDT DAN W. COOPERIDER On behalf of our client, McDonald's USA, LLC, we are notifying you of plans to relocate the existing McDonald's Drive -thru Restaurant on Lawrence Expressway, north of Prospect Road, to the former Krispy Kreme building located in the Westgate Corners Shopping Center. We have submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Design Review Approval to the City of Saratoga Community Development Department, and are notifying adjacent neighbors of the proposed project. We attempted to contact you earlier during a visit to the site but you were not available. Therefore, we are mailing the information to you. Enclosed are a site plan and a City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form. The form includes two boxes so that you may check the one that applies to your response in reviewing the attached plans: The following minor changes are proposed to the existing drive -thru building with this application: Add a second drive -thru window so the first existing drive -thru window will be used as the cashier booth and the second window as the food dispenser booth. This also moves the drive -thru lane faster; June 12, 2007 Add a second menu board so that two orders may be taken at the same time, and move the drive -thru lane traffic faster; Change the Krispy Kreme sign to a McDonald's sign on the front of the building. The new sign will be the same in square footage as the existing sign; No other changes are proposed to the existing exterior of the building or to the parking lot of the shopping center. All other changes will be in the interior of the building. The interior will have more seats inside than Krispy Kreme because it had a larger kitchen/bakery for baking donuts for off -site consumption. Although we will have additional seats, the drive -thru business will be a larger percentage of the business than the inside dining business. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (408) 938 -2459 or by email. We appreciate you taking the time to review the enclosed information and ask that you kindly sign acknowledging receipt of these plans with your comments, if any. We are enclosing a self addressed/stamped envelope for your convenience for mailing of the completed Neighbor Notification form so that we may submit to the City as soon as possible. Cc: Diane Zimmerman 1DUNG01728776.2 061207 -00261077 O m .D ru ru 0 0 o m -n a rR r` Sent To: /7'\ Very truly yours, BERLINER COHEN L I; EBORAH G I� CCORRMICK E -Mail: Dungo @be liner.com US Postal Service Certified Mail Receipt Domestic Mail.Only vo" Insurance Coverage Provided Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage Fees PS Form 3800, February 2004 US Postal Service r tmark to irga Jere \,1s Y Certified Mail Receipt 2 ATTACHEMENT 7 addresses shown above. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, Denise Kaspar 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 28th day of July 2007, that I deposited 39 notices in the United States Post Office, 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 described as: Address: 18578 PROSPECT RD APN: 386 -10 -043 that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the Denise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services July 28, 2007 IP Ownership Listing repared for: 386 -10 -043 MCDONALD'S USA, LLC 18578 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 378 -26 -014 PAMELA L COCHRANE PO BOX 111087 CAMPBELL CA 95011 -1087 381 -36 -012, 14, 18, 20, 21, 23, 26, 27 CP6WW LLC 280 2ND ST 230 LOS ALTOS CA 94022 -3643 386 -10 -004 LEONARD VELLA 231 HOURET DR MILPITAS CA 95035 -6801 386 -10 -033, 44, 45, 46 49 KATO BROTHERS 1777 SARATOGA AVE SAN JOSE CA 95129 -5205 386-10-040 WESTGATE COMMUNITY BIBLE CH OR CURRENT OWNER 1735 SARATOGA AVE SAN JOSE CA 95129 -5203 386 -10 -055 DAMICO TIRE SERVICE INC PO BOX 969 SAN JOSE CA 95108 -0969 386 -23 -046 TIK -FAI TERESA CHO OR CURRENT OWNER 12336 LOLLY DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3515 23 -049 ERT C MARY MATISON OR CURRENT OWNER 18668 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3531 378 -26 -015 LAWRENCE B NOON PO BOX 4007 FELTON CA 95018 -0030 381 -36 -016 CUPERTINO PARTNERS VI 4675 STEVENS CREEK BLVD SANTA CLARA CA 95051 -6759 386 -10 -006 EDWARD VIRGINIA PATRICK PO BOX 6030 PHOENIX AZ 85005 -6030 386 -10 -036 YASUTO DOROTHY KATO OR CURRENT OWNER 1777 SARATOGA AVE SAN JOSE CA 95129 -5205 386 -10 -041 W B MARY MALONE 1735 SARATOGA AVE SAN JOSE CA 95129 -5203 386 -10 -056 WESTGATE COMMUNITY BIBLE CH 1735 SARATOGA AVE SAN JOSE CA 95129 -5203 386 -23 -047 ANIL GITA DESAI OR CURRENT OWNER 12324 LOLLY DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3515 386 -23 -050 STEVEN M PHILLIPS OR CURRENT OWNER 18656 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3531 378 -26 -016 COMERAGH LLC 851 FREMONT AVE 99 LOS ALTOS CA 94024 -5602 381 -37 -026 WEST VALLEY SHOPPING C 2277 ALUM ROCK AVE SAN JOSE CA 95116 -2018 386 -10 -007 JOHN B REVA SEGALL 456 CORNELL AVE SAN MATEO CA 94402 -2204 386 -10 -038 CAMPBELL UNION S D 3040 PAYNE AVENUE SAN JOSE CA 95128 386 -10 -043 RAY RUSSO 4010 MOORPARK AVE 111 SAN JOSE CA 95117 -1804 386 -23 -039, 058 RAY RUSSO PO BOX 41057 SAN JOSE CA 95160 -1057 386 -23 -048 ROGER L &JEAN CROSS OR CURRENT OWNER 18670 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3531 386 -23 -051 HAE HO OR CURRENT OWNER 18651 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3531 386 -23 -052 MOHSSEN RASTEGAR -PANAH 15127 SPERRY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6274 386 -23 -055 DARYL V BECKER OR CURRENT OWNER 18699 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3531 386 -61 -020 CHARLES PHYLLIS WIENER OR CURRENT OWNER 18728 CABERNET DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3561 386 -61 -023 LE TOAN P OR CURRENT OWNER 18743 CABERNET DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3562 386 -61 -026 JIANN -HWA LIOU OR CURRENT OWNER 18767 CABERNET DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3562 386 -23 -053 GARRY L MISTY HOLLOWAY OR CURRENT OWNER 18675 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3531 386 -23 -056 DUANE E LOOS OR CURRENT OWNER 18711 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3531 386 -61 -021 MARTHA A GERALD UELMEN OR CURRENT OWNER 18727 CABERNET DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3562 386 -61 -024 FAI WILLIAM SHUI -WAH DOLLY I -S OR CURRENT OWNER 18751 CABERNET DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3562 CITY OF SARATOGA ATTN: Heather Bradley 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CA 95070 386 -23 -054 ALBAN ANGELA YEE 19746 VIA GRANDE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -4467 386 -61 -019 GENE LONGINETTI OR CURRENT OWNER 18734 CABERNET DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3561 386 -61 -022 DAVID E SHARLENE DENNIS OR CURRENT OWNER 18735 CABERNET DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3562 386 -61 -025 RODRIGO T JULITA ANDRES OR CURRENT OWNER 18759 CABERNET DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3562 Advanced Listing Services P.O. Box 2593 Dana Point CA 92624 ATTACHEMENT 8 89CP- P00 'V0 'YOOlVHVS 'avoid lO3dSOad 91981 0091.-13 (916) X) 003-1S (916) :aueyd 61996 0WOWa+26= I Nq WOW; 269 try Trouuo/d puce spoJ1pJe 1 9 1 4 0 J IWISSIJ13) JD uz w Nod Q 02 2 1 z N N iW FJ zi w KN Ym Fw tin- Q zV O P O Ko V m c°,,, Q 7 OO SO O U 14g1 �J 00 R O I .2 J' O W N LL 100 x�F> F 2N R ,.;',f; j WW ti 2 I Q o O0 J J Z N NR� c_(�l0 n z W Z W pO V Z 7 1f�Q D O K m 'L dQl q;) W �Qn I=- V j N J 1V 10 `9 p J W o N 0 a U Q N 0 w O L JLL g OryWN E N LL Q <0) w O LL�QLLW��j N Q IQ I Q JO O� O- w w d N O J 4 I N� QO =2 JFWJI=-fO drialat •pezuoylno Sou sl 10afOid Jaylouo uo swat col sluawnoop 1ooJluoa au) }0 u00onpoaday -siaew6ue puo sleelly0Jo pesue011 dpedojd )o se0Wes idyl sennbe, d loafoJ Jsylouo uo oldwoxa Jo eouelalal to) slu)Mwp esey) )0 eon -ew0 Jalol o to JO ells lue.ell.p o uo esn net elgolms lou 940 puo enssl sli yl3M uollounfuo0 ul. as oploads slyl uo esn Jol paiodad aM sluawnoop l0aluoo eyl vollozuoylno uelluM lnoyl3M peonpoadei .10 peldo0 eq Ion pot's puo L1090.104103 s.plouo00yl to ApedoJd ,4olaudold puo loquepguoo eta elo suoll0oi} pads puo s6ulrmJp esayl 311 Vsn s .:61. )1. 1010 1'.131 vl Js O.Z'I 7.1:::30 311111' S.n3a?dnS ,46•6LZ M .ZO,L3.ZBN 0.011 ci ioNximENVE LOZ ,O!•OZ1 hl .ZO,LL.ZB N ,9Z`964 M „ZO,LLZ8 N SONIdV2O JO SISVR W: t— o Z w 08 O 6 Q Nts 8613�11 OVOd 1 o3dSOdd c r 1 0) Q J 10 0 0 O d1 N Z Q J 0 0_ Q N 0 itt 0 0 fY L Q Q m dl z O U1 J W 0 O 01 x w 10 z X Ill d1 z O 111 J W O K 1- x w 10 z 1- X W N Jl Z O Q ILI W W fY O K H x 0 N 0 d dl z 0 Q W W fr 0 fY I- X LLI 0 W N 0 6. r Q Pt 0 10 N m 6 Z J a r z O om N “<<11141444141<<1 el W Z 01 o w S 3 a Fr 0 ry (V z ott z u W T 99 £t7- t700e 0091-&9P (9161 xel 009.1.90 (9(6) reuoyd 61996 as •ONaanna* part U0904 1Z60 7u/ sJeuue /d pue spin /y»e J e J y o J I W s s J e D 1- •pazuo4;no ;0u 0! ;oafad Ja4;ouo uo asnai Joy s;uawnOOp ;oo„uoo e4; ;o uogonpoidau •sjeawbue puo s ;oe ;iioio pasueoq (uedold ;0 seoia.es 04; se.rba ;oafad .104 4ou0 uo aidwoxe JO eouaa ;a X01 s6t4M0.1p 00043 ;o asg .awn Ja ;off o ;o Jo 0 4is ;ueJe;;ip o uo esn Jo) ejgo;ms ;ou a0 puo a ;Op anssi 011 44 M U0gounfu0o ui a3!S ogioeds sp4; uo asn Jo; paiodaid wets s ;uewnoop ;oo.quoo 04j .uogozua4 ;no u6;;!M ;no4;!M peonpoida rd pa1doo aq ;ou soils puo uogaod.to0 s.pIou000;y ;o Apadad do ;audoid puo lo;;uap 04; 910 suogoogioads puo s6U(Mwp asa41 311 dsn S,aieuoa3w '0 'vOOlvEivS 'avoid lO3dSOad 9L991 a1 H N 43 6 8 89£17- V00801 'b0 'YOOIVUVS 'avOH 103d8Oad 8L981. 0091i5b (916) 003156 (946) 1au09d 61956 n •oivawa088 P )q wog01 1269 ,uw sieuuejd pue spei11/7Je n W D W w J e J y o J f w f s s f J e D JD •pezuo1)4no Sou s) pafad ,a44ou0 uo asna, .101 s4uawn0op poo.l ;uoo 841 10 uoipnpadaa •s,9eul6ua puo s4004i4o,o pasuaop 6�,adwd ;o saoln,as 891 sa.pnba, loarad ,a94ouo uo 01dwoxa .10 aoua,a ;a, ,o; s6uioo,p asa1) ;o asfl •awi) .10401 0 40 .10 saps 4ua,a ;)p o uo asn ,04 eIgo4ms 40U 6.10 puo 64op anss) s4) 44)81 uo)punfuoo w a4)s o);ueds s)94 uo asn ,o; pa,oda,d 8.1a81 s4uawnoop po,)uoo au" •uo))ozpog4no 0044pm Inoa4)6 paonpo,da, ,o pe)doo aq 4ou 1104s puo uo)4o,od,03 s.pIouo(oW 4o 64,840,4 6,o4audo,d puo 1Oi4uapguoo 84) a,0 suo1Doy!oads puo s6uiMO,p asa4j 011 dsn s.pleu I I I/ w t Z I- W 0 a M O w z w J, E w m F 3 0 3-5 o ]J N12 WWS_.yW :MGM lI OwO 1=4. 3j 1)R, N r, fi 4 z IJ m r 0 ilk; J at J W 'Y O ■V 10 Z J O O a \i 1? O N 6 O O 6 W i W z z z z z NN a C a Q N Q 9 41 u n 6 Z N 1 0 X X O 0 9 Q a 0 O F r 1 S w, w Q z M.1 d r. K :1_... s 9 f O z F O O F O� p T F N O w 9 r V w W w J Q a n �I F �y' LL Q F u: a F J i Q O i 1W N., I1 Q 1rn,� Wiu a W 0. u Q Z In N X 4 7 7 R. 7_ Q d J L 4 L O U. O O V- -5 -p 3 3 Yfi_—� 9i m —Q <-`8 u K Q I 1 0 0 u Jma JJ Ox nnn mF> n a u� 1 Q m v J 0 z O pp J 4 Q- F Ji F d 1 F F W Q 0 Q LLI W u, v J m o In rc n 9n u p 1 p a ma"' T1 o o a n P p f F w f Q a s z J w 1 J, 1 1 4 O 7 U Q Il, D' '9 O T 2 rYFQ ,91j Q 2 Q 1 O 0 U,u I O m U 4. LL d ft. v. 1 .9 e. i W K a Z 7 F W1 F 5 N U I 0l 3 '41 0 0Q i° 2 1 U 9 IY R Y z 0- Y W JI N 0 K Q Q F V 9 z 'I_ J 1 9 Q 1 1. N 0 J N fl S al 0 U m K 3: O fe K 0 n. d 0 Q 16 0 LL V O N D u. O O Q N 41 z J pp QI H J Upp) K 1 1 T oo L c Y O a. F U U R a d Od K K a a 6 -G a Q `1 Z L j Z 7 Z Z Z Z `y Z z Z :6' Z Z 2 O09 O Jaj J l 6 6 U 0 O J O O n w mmmm QQaa aQQa w 1) o n un4nl Nln a n n a m 0 0 m x 1n 13 0 4 11 LL 10 0 N_ 1u L Q Q Q Z m V LL u� QQQ ry 1 x J U m a O ty w W M Q Qrrww E.L1 .z P. u! N U u. 0 m� I J Y_ C. J1 l Z fi 9 0 n' W 9 a 0 01 Q LL 9 to 01 LL Z 4 7< n a 4- 7 0 2 m LL j V J 44 '3101 a J T N R7 �z' Q wTQ5. 9 a J 0 0n 11 n) I n, 999 0_9 z u 0Iu, 99 J I�w w n FW j t a d U u, N Q. Q. 1 N J 00 0 L5:3_ fi z� O O 9 -9 z0" O rm 9J f1 a' LL iW Vt 9 a ka W z tIl LL rc Q 9 "4 B OO n 00 uv 4s Q LLLL'� o L7. LLON RQ 7. 042 z an KKR Uw 9 W 0 F Z LL DIY 1%4J NO 0 0 Inc wk, l ,?5,9 11 'ii' l„µ ZW FJ u m1� Qm `I- W 1 1:, 3 7 0 0 LL 0 0.Z 10 s�Y 4wK 1ONy p m 99 d. 0 O m 0 W 1 �O 9 mr QnW S X 0. aJ s1 F OD K�1IF O J ui 0.J 1-4 Q N 4 u �i w ryl 4 W p 01 1 -5 OO a \i 0 z40 z 007 0a m_ Imo w F w�v Q Q �wr r O F J LL) 0 V O Q O a z WO J 04 4 1349 111%4, GI V 0 1 i dS 89E17-1700801 'V0 'VOOIVUIVS 'aVOa 1O3dSOad 8L991 O09Li.9b L 009L-L96 (91.6) .uogd gang nn 730q WOO 1269 7U/ tsrauueld 7U9 Spoj/Lpi8 J O J I J O J I W I S S I J E I D J W J 0 LI..I U S z �.L 0 X W CD z_ U) X W 0 0 U W 0 J O U 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 e 11 I LL I I I .1 1 1 0 O �1 AIM 6 L ag 0 pezuotyno you sl yoafoid Jegyouo uo esna, Joy syuawroop po.quoo a99 yo uolyonpo,daa •61OOu16ue puo Rosman, pesuaop A1aadad yo S°0INOS eyy sennbOJ pefoid Jeyyouo uo eldwoxe Jo eaue,ayai Joy s6ulMo,p esayy yo asp 'MR 5010! o yo Jo ay!S yuaayylp o uo esn Soy elgoylns you CUD puo atop anssl s4I ygM uolpunfuoo uI ayls olyioads slgy uo esn Joy paJodaid el0* syuewnaop p0Jyuoa eta •uogozuoyyno ua1!M ynolp!M peanposdai so peldoo eq you boys puo uolyo,od,o0 s plouoaoy( yo Apedad ,Ooyaudoyd puo 1nlyuaplyuoa ayy ajo suogO2Jloads puo sbula,osp °seta 311 Vsn S,pleuoa3w® z 0 IJ J W 0 z z X w al a 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Z 0 `'a1®®®« NIVMO M01J83A0 BVlS 3AOBY 301 9 CO CC Z z00 x W W W 0 a R O Urn z 0 W J w 0 Z_ X W uj n (V O Z0 V0 w 0 a. F w 2N LL 0 Y m �U 3 0 mw O u u ^A PLANNING DOCUMENTS MATERIAL SCALE: 1/4 i'-o' T TEMPERED GLASS CONSULTANT 1 xxxx A 1 1 89E17-1700801 'V0 'VOOIVUIVS 'aVOa 1O3dSOad 8L991 O09Li.9b L 009L-L96 (91.6) .uogd gang nn 730q WOO 1269 7U/ tsrauueld 7U9 Spoj/Lpi8 J O J I J O J I W I S S I J E I D J W J 0 LI..I U S z �.L 0 X W CD z_ U) X W 0 0 U W 0 J O U 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 e 11 I LL I I I .1 1 1 0 O �1 AIM 6 L ag 0 pezuotyno you sl yoafoid Jegyouo uo esna, Joy syuawroop po.quoo a99 yo uolyonpo,daa •61OOu16ue puo Rosman, pesuaop A1aadad yo S°0INOS eyy sennbOJ pefoid Jeyyouo uo eldwoxe Jo eaue,ayai Joy s6ulMo,p esayy yo asp 'MR 5010! o yo Jo ay!S yuaayylp o uo esn Soy elgoylns you CUD puo atop anssl s4I ygM uolpunfuoo uI ayls olyioads slgy uo esn Joy paJodaid el0* syuewnaop p0Jyuoa eta •uogozuoyyno ua1!M ynolp!M peanposdai so peldoo eq you boys puo uolyo,od,o0 s plouoaoy( yo Apedad ,Ooyaudoyd puo 1nlyuaplyuoa ayy ajo suogO2Jloads puo sbula,osp °seta 311 Vsn S,pleuoa3w® z 0 IJ J W 0 z z X w al a 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Z 0 `'a1®®®« NIVMO M01J83A0 BVlS 3AOBY 301 9 CO CC Z z00 x W W W 0 a R O Urn z 0 W J w 0 Z_ X W uj n (V O Z0 V0 w 0 a. F w 2N LL 0 Y m �U 3 0 mw O u u ^A PLANNING DOCUMENTS MATERIAL SCALE: 1/4 i'-o' T TEMPERED GLASS CONSULTANT 89£17- 17001191 'M0 'YOOlVIIVS 'avoid 1O3dSOUd 81981. 0091196 (916) me) 003-196 (916) 0u04d 61606 as •oluaunuoes PAR 0 ogo( 1260 emu/ sieuue /d pug spea/y»e J9Jy0J 1W1SS1.12D LU J 0 W U (n U) z Lu X W 0 z_ X W 0 0 V 3 U l •pezuo4400 4ou sl loa(old 1044ouo 00 aan.J lo; sjuawnoop 4304u03 044 )o uollonpadadl •slaew6ue puo slwall4o=o pesueoll dliadoJd )o se0wes 044 sennba> loafwd .agjouo uo aldwoxa Jo aauoiojaJ 101 s6u!MO,p 68644 )o asn •ew3 10401 0 40 Jo el18 lue1elgp o uo esn .1oi °mgo41ns 4ou 010 No Glop enssl 8 41 441M uollounfuoo u1 a41s of ;loads 8144 uo esn Jo) paiodaid wee sluewnoop l3aluoo 841 valozuo44no ue44!J• route peonpoide, 10 pa1doo eq 4ou 11040 puo 91o14ojodjo3 s.louo00y1 )0 4padold )Golaudad puo loljuapl;uo0 644 0.10 suol4o01l1oads puo s6uloo,p bsagi 011 Vsn s1pieuoaoui ,II II II II II 6 a rrs H 0 I 00 Li C� u z X J a W �1= -J 0 Im N MMN I IN111.1611 MOM IONIC[ •61MMMMI WOK N.1!.(ll.l GIaM1aM0 COMM N LiM ((U(1 WOO N1101NI4IN• [[[[[I MMMMM: [[[[[I ((1 c[[[cl ICON MIMI iono moo. mom wo. [[([(1 MMMMM M MM MM 11 MMMMM. [[[[[1 100101.1114 [[[[[I voilmoso MOM LL° N an 0 NMI 3 z O Q W J W (0 W C.� z V X uJ H r 0 ry O41 Z u w 0 ce a 0 w CC a 1- 0 J U 10 W 2 d w 01 LL m0 2 0 mw W P U 0091 (9161 xeL 003 (916) 0tu04d 6L9S6 'oW 909 a 2 e 1 PNq =AN LZ65 sieuue /d putt 5p9 .117 a i g o J I w s s i J e 3 a� 0= 0 0 W 3 E5 ommorlow (NNNN ON O tgarti mommom (NNNN (N mg wow* (NNNN (NNNN WOOKIE NNNNNNI [0404( [061140 ovotool Mosomi [040(0 NNNNNNI IMECOlt vIMNNNI VOW 'pezuoy)no Lou sl Lsa(02d aa uo esnaa ao; s)uewnoop Looa)uoo ay) ;o uo!onpoadaa •saeewbua pun" 9)39}11)020 pesueap 61aad02d ;o 9900299 e1)) meths., Pe(02d aa uo eldwoxe ao 001.10a018a ao; s5u1MO2p say) 10 OM '9021} JOIN 0 )o JO e)ls Luwe;;lp a uo esn ao; elgoylns Sou CUD puo *op erns el! 4)IM uo!L3un(aoa u1 9)ls 0l ;loads 0144 uo esn ao; puaodaad 9a0M s)uewnoop Looa)uoo ayl •uo1)ozuoy)no ue))JM )noq)1M peanpoadea JO paldoo ea Lou Iloys puo uol;oaodaoa s plouo03W ;0 6Nad02d 0o)audoad puo lopuapl;uo0 ay} 910 sua)o31 ;Bads puo s6ul*oap 9094j an `dsn S,pleUOa3ij II II N II r) Cr' r zl 6 a1 10 :NNE mNNNNN (U11I MOOS worm momoso 401014 NNNNNN Immo ME IIME Will MI .flN Ati Atte C[((((4 l il 1 RI<I[I4 €(((((1 MIKNMOM MUCH c[ MONNOM NIHON NNNNNN (((([O 4.15110. 8014 30000 82800 90140300 ZCC co w QQ w O I- Q F O 1 J W 3a LA a Q ry (V z z t. 0 0 a co w z� w d.9 LL D 'm 3 0 mW w X 89E17- V00801 'H� 'VJOldaVS 'avo i 1O3dSOad 8L581 89E17400801 NO 'VOOIVHVS 'aVOa 1O3dSOad 8L981 0091iS6 (916) iX•1 0051i56 (9161 •suoyd 61956 0 •oluee v.can PAM WOgo1 I.Z69 '31// 'sieuue /d pup SP93 /1/3 J 9 J y 0 J I w! s s I J e 3 ce 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 2. 0 1- z 0 •pezpoylno lou sl loefoJd Jaglouo uo aerial Joy sluawnoop looquoo eta 10 uoilonp6Jdad s.eew6ue puo sloellyoJo pasueos ,(l.1edad yo seowes 041 sajmbeJ loafojd .101.14ouo uo eldw000 .10 0000.1010J .10y s6ulMOJp 00091 10 esfl 'BLUR .10101 D to .10 e11s lu0Jeygp o uo esn Joy algollns tau 9J0 puo slop enssl 841 LMM. uol40unf000 0l ells *Moods 8191 uo esn Jot paoda.1d Lamm sluewnoop 100.14000 e 9 uollozuoylno ue4}laM 1ncyg0 peonpoidea .10 poldoo aq 4ou Hoye puo uogoiod.100 s.plouoaopl 10 Apado.1d ,Ooleudo.1d puo 10!1uepgoob 041 0.1D SU01100111O9ds puo sbulmoJp 98049 011 den slpleuoa3Uj 1 11 1 N II II II II R 1L_— U< <1r,1111 UI1111111 0 w 0 U /11 AN 1(I I INNNN I 4U(( «(4U 01111 »71!11 1(((I( 1((((1 171 GCMCEICI Notommos 141(1( 11•114141 WIC lo 11• 14UM .N11171'71■ ((1 i11 1 i NN1 NNNNNi AMMO smosou [141((1 1111M•111. 1 1 1 11 IM 1 (((((1 7111.111111■ I(1141 11(1((( (((1(i [((1(44 (1(111 1111 `1`1le (1((11 1((4(14 1111111111• (14 M E 0 cc N o I 0 a<a ®4 lL a r h (v Cf. '0 Z 0 w 0 a z 0 Q a N W _I c� W o uJ w a Q W 0 W 1n 11 0 C 0 c 0_ N 0 Z r LL Y m ce 3 O m 2- 3 2 X 89£17- '00801 'v0 'VOOlv'YS l ava' 103dSO'd 8L981 0091196 (916) X) 004-LSO (9161 auoqd 61.296 o °2 9 PNq mogo) LZ69 ,u! sieuue /d pun Spea/y»e J 1LUISSIJeD •0 VS 0 0 0 01 U E 9 M d 1 r •p9zuoylno }ou si l0a(ad Jay}ouo uo asnaJ Jo) slu9wnoop }ooJ}uoo eta 10 uoi}onpoJday •sJeaui6ua puo s}ae}iyoJ0 pasuaoq Apadojd }o mimes 94} seynb9i loa(oid Jaq}ouo uo aiduioxa Jo 93U919391 101 s1wMDip asey} )o asn •auyl Jam 0 10 i0 OHS }uaJa; lip o uo asn Joy alqo }ms }ou 910 puo NM DOSS! 031 y}!M uoyounfuoo w ells o!poads spo uo asn col paJodaJd 919M slyawrnop 1O114u03 Olt!, uofOzuoy4n0 ua1lJM lnoyjM peonpoida J0 paid00 aq you goys puo uopoJodJoo s.pIouop3W l0 6N9doJd Aol9udad puo lo1luapguoo agl 210 SU011034100ds puo s6UIM0Jp 90941 311 dsn s n 1 r W J 0 CL LI- 0 J co Z 0 2 O ®®®®I Q a N 0� Z 0 0 a co Z N Z N 3 0 3- O� N 10'- 0 3/32" "6 /L Z 9'- 01/4" 89£1 1700 .6 -,f .z/1 4-7 .9-,01 .z/1z-.7 .6 .4 .z/1 01.-s 0094 -0► (946) 30 e1 003 (946) *uoyd bls% n 'aluama" P.M °I°9 °1 1Z69 w/ YVOWIE/d puo SP9J/L Je J9JLIOJ !wlsslJeD JD 1- _01 -,L7 •pazuoylno you s1 loafoJd Jayyoun uo asnaJ Joy s4uawnoop yoa4uoo app yo uogonpaday .8.1aaw6ua puo sloaplyao pesueoll 6uedad yo seowes eyp seilnba poafoid Jagyouo uo aidwosa Jo couple's, Joy s6ui*o,p asayl 40 asp ewll 1elol o yo Jo tags •yuaaoyylp o uo eau Joy elgows you 0.10 puo plop anssl spl ypa uo!ounfuoo u1 alls olygad0 slip uo asn Joy paiodaid 010* s4ue'wnoop loo.quoo 041 •uogozuoylno uellu* yn0yllr peonpoidai �o paldoo aq you 11uys puo u0l40JodJoo s,plouoaoly yo Xpadoid ,Oopaudoad puo 10lyuapguoo 041 0.10 suog00gl00d0 puo s6ulroJp 02941 011 vsn s,pleuoa3u 'V0 V0O1VUVS 'avoid 103dSOad 8L981. 0. Z Q r wa1 ®4 'J®® a� W �j ��,.nnny �O« F la I hk19 N I V -a zr Q Z ��O �o a N�)- s zp p-{ wV D QLLi 3x984 ry Oa Wwr d HIgH qy- z O �m yy F :811 wNi°N� °5? JW �FE�W wWIHi wZ Nf� >Q X0�zu2U1- w< wWY.00' rpl' p� W JN04 GWW yQy aI wWF w ZZr ifl4h s N> N W Q 0 0 0 R R' tt99 �W ��LL� �o� zom HiN1 O o Z$O 1 $z V Q N N w W w F J h FQ I ;I O Ill !Ti 11 11 11 0 0 (�s� A rim m N X I( W° 2 h M t r W 4 LL L 7N J U1ir N_ F. F tN 1 Q w WQ z Q r J J U O 7 Jw J< wU I LL r Jq J NQ 0 s!` i V O 5o QX QO 1 Q Cnyw r o ON oo8 L)O O VN O f g pw <aw �r Qw ;1 n OF w w w O o S OQ IIIl F '4 d i w< gi U pIF J le o /v 7 w w w i c6 `ru ww o [6 eW 1 twat N LL? W= it wr a O N w O '4 Ai r 0 0) Q o Fe Item 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. Location: 07/397; 12576 Scully Ave Type of Application: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Meeting Date: APN: Design Review Makhijani Heather Bradley, Contract Planner 45 August 22, 2007 386 -34 -053 Department Head: /2.— John F. Livingstone,'AICP SCULLY .w !7444 v 2101dWYH1210N EOINA ■3• 3i o_ i HOLYOKE CT. I^ 3 -1 m It; 5113 Subject: 12576 Scully Avenue APN: 386-34-053 500' Radius by b I �I e. t L am` g 2 ORCHE STE I2 H 12576 Scully Avenue Application No. 07 -397; 12576 Scully Avenue CASE HISTORY Application filed: 06/07/07 Application complete: 07/31/07 Notice published: 08/08/07 Mailing completed: 08/03/07 Posting completed: 08/16/07 PROJECT DESCRIPTION STAFF RECOMMENDATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant requests Design Review approval to add a second floor to the existing single story residence. The addition includes approximately 148 square feet to the existing first floor and a new, approximately, 1,146 square foot second -story addition to the existing 2,755 square foot single -story residence. The total proposed floor area would be approximately 4,049 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed building will not exceed the 26 -foot height limit. The maximum impervious coverage will not exceed 55% of the net site area. The lot size is approximately 14,184 square feet, and the site is located in the R -1- 12,500 zoning district. Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve this Design Review application by adopting the attached Resolution with conditions. Staff is not recommending any permanent conditions of approval for this project. Application No. 07 -397; 12576 Scully Avenue PROJECT DATA ZONING: R- 1- 12,500 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M -12.5 (Medium Density Residential) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: Approximately 14,184 gross and net square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Approximately 5.6% GRADING REQUIRED: None ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed single family residence is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (c) New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single family dwellings. PROPOSED EXTERIOR MATERIALS AND COLORS The proposed colors include beige stucco walls with white trim. Materials include stone veneer wainscoting, and a slate -type roof in a dark gray palette. A color and material board will be available at the public hearing. Application No. 07 -397; 12576 Scully Avenue PROJECT DATA PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to add a second story to their existing one- story home. The existing residence and pool will remain. Project Design Characteristics The proposed addition and remodel is in a contemporary Mediterranean style with a stucco exterior, slate -style roof, stone veneer wainscoting on the front facade and a balcony off the right side of the home facing Larchmont Avenue and the rear yard of the property. Correspondence and Neighbor Review Staff has received six Neighbor Notification forms from neighboring property owners. Only the property owner directly to the rear (12485 Larchmont Avenue) expressed concerns about the proposed balcony that will face their side yard and bedroom at the front of the house. They have asked for screen trees to be planted for privacy and would also like to see a modified design for the balcony to prevent the applicants from having a view into their home and side yard. The applicants have offered to plant large screen trees to shield the view but do not want to wall in Proposal Code Requirements Site Coverage Residence Driveway/Walks Pool/Patio TOTAL 2,960 sq. ft. 656 sq. ft. 1,732 sq. ft. 5,348 sq. ft. 37.7% Maximum Allowable: 55% 7801.4 sq. ft. max. Floor Area First Floor Second Floor Garage TOTAL 2,295 sq. ft. 1,146 sq. ft. 460 sq. ft. 4,049 sq. ft. 4,050 sq. ft. Setbacks Front yard Rear Yard Right (exterior) Side Left Side First Second 30.4 ft 53 ft. 34.6 ft. 48.6 ft. 27.5 ft. 38.9 ft. 10.3 ft. 15.6 ft. First Second 25 ft. 25 ft. 10 ft.— 10 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. 10 ft. 15 ft. Height in feet Lowest elevation Highest elevation Average Elevation Topmost elevation Maximum height 101.3 ft. 101.9 ft. 101.6 ft. 125.6 ft. 24.0 ft. Maximum height 127.6 ft. elevation (26 ft.) Application No. 07 -397; 12576 Scully Avenue PROJECT DATA PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to add a second story to their existing one- story home. The existing residence and pool will remain. Project Design Characteristics The proposed addition and remodel is in a contemporary Mediterranean style with a stucco exterior, slate -style roof, stone veneer wainscoting on the front facade and a balcony off the right side of the home facing Larchmont Avenue and the rear yard of the property. Correspondence and Neighbor Review Staff has received six Neighbor Notification forms from neighboring property owners. Only the property owner directly to the rear (12485 Larchmont Avenue) expressed concerns about the proposed balcony that will face their side yard and bedroom at the front of the house. They have asked for screen trees to be planted for privacy and would also like to see a modified design for the balcony to prevent the applicants from having a view into their home and side yard. The applicants have offered to plant large screen trees to shield the view but do not want to wall in Application No. 07 -397; 12576 Scully Avenue the balcony on the rear elevation as they want to use this side of the balcony to see into their own back yard and pool area. By keeping the proposed addition directly above the existing house and maintaing an approximately 50 -foot setback, the applicants are limiting the privacy impacts to the rear neighbor. A single story addition to this home could come as close as 10 feet to the rear property line because this is a reverse corner lot. The balcony as designed is approximately 7.5 feet wide along the rear elevation and 13.5 feet wide along exterior side elevation (facing Larchmont Avenue). The impacts to the rear neighbors should be minimized by the placement of the balcony at the far corner of the residence, and the addition of two proposed screen trees along the shared property line. Fencing All existing fences will remain. The fence adjacent to Larchmont does not meet current standards for fences within side yards of reversed corner lots, however this fence was legally constructed prior to 1987 and is considered a legal non conforming fence. Geotechnical/Grading None Arborist Review /Trees No trees are proposed for removal to accommodate this addition. Staff determined that no ordinance protected trees would be impacted by the proposed construction as the addition is mostly limited to the existing footprint and all existing trees on site are located within hardscape and fenced areas. Therefore, staff did not require a report by the City Arborist. Tree protective fencing in accordance with the City Arborist's standards will be required to ensure that all the trees on the property are protected throughout construction. Staff has added a condition to the Resolution requiring a tree fencing plan be submitted prior to issuance of permits and subject to the approval of the City Arborist. Landscaping The existing landscaping will be preserved and two additional trees will be planted along the rear property line to help screen the view from the new second floor. Staff has added a condition to the Resolution requiring the applicant to submit details on the proposed trees subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director and the City Arborist. Green Building Techniques The applicant has submitted a list of materials, systems, and design strategies that will be utilized in the construction of the addition. They include but are not limited to the following: landscape preservation and additional trees, water efficient toilets and faucets, blown -in insulation, passive solar heating and lighting, energy efficient windows, attic fan, and the reuse of the existing residence. The applicant also will consider solar panels and a tankless water heater if financially viable. Please see the. Green Building Materials and techniques list as (attachment #4) submitted by the applicant for further reference. Application No. 07 -397; 12576 Scully Avenue GENERAL PLAN FINDINGS The approval of the proposed project would be consistent with the following General Plan Goals and Policies as discussed below: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The project will utilize Earthtone colors and materials that will blend with the overall appearance of the site. Mature landscaping will be retained as part of the project and will help to screen the addition from neighboring properties and the street. The proposal has elements such a stone veneer wainscoting that provides interest to the facade and promotes the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. Land Use Element Policy 5.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. As conditioned the application meets the Findings required for Design Review Approval. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in City Code Section 15- 45.080: a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project meets this finding in that most of the existing landscape screening will be retained as part of this project. The proposed addition keeps the home in the existing location, situated with substantial setbacks and consideration is given to the neighbor's views and privacy through window placement, and additional tree plantings. This finding can be made in the affirmative. b) Preserve Natural Landscape. No grading or topographical changes are proposed for this project and all of the mature landscaping on the site will remain. All preserved trees will be protected with fencing during the construction process. This finding can be made in the affirmative. c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The project is consistent with this finding in that all trees on site will be adequately protected during the construction process with tree fencing and no trees will be removed. d) Minimize the perception of excessive bulk. This project conforms to the maximum height requirement and the architectural massing and style of the home will reduce the overall appearance of bulk. Additionally decorative elements, materials and a varied roofline will create interest and add detail to the facades. This finding can be made in the affirmative. e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed home is compatible in terms of size and height to other homes in the neighborhood. The proposed home will be constructed of quality materials and will be in keeping with other two -story homes in the surrounding neighborhood. Application No. 07 -397; 12576 Scully Avenue f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed home would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. The applicant is required to maintain stormwater on site where feasible and this finding can be made in the affirmative. g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above. The project has taken energy efficiency into account, preserves the neighbor's privacy by placing the addition approximately 50 feet away from the rear property line and adding screen trees. This finding can be made in the affirmative. CONCLUSION Staff finds that all of the Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative and the proposal is consistent with the General Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Design Review application by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution of Approval Design Review 2. Neighbor Notification forms 3. Correspondence 4. Green Building Strategies 5. City of Saratoga Notice, Noticing Affidavit, and Noticing Labels 6. Applicant's Plans, Exhibit "A" Application No. 07 -397; 12576 Scully Avenue RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 07 -397 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Makhijani; 12576 Scully Avenue Approval of a second -story addition to an existing one -story residence with attached garage WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,049 square foot residence. The new residence will not_be_more..that 26_ft. in height and will be situated on a 14,184 square foot lot located at 12576 Scully Avenue, which is located in the R -1- 12,500 district; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which proposes construction of a second story addition to an existing single- family residence is Categorically exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303(c) New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. This exemption allows for construction of a single family home in an urban area; 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 the Saratoga General Plan have been determined: a) Conservation Element Policy 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The project will utilize Earthtone colors and materials that will blend with the overall appearance of the site. Mature landscaping will be retained as part of the project and will help to screen the addition from neighboring properties and the street. The proposal has elements such a stone veneer wainscoting that provides interest to the facade and promotes the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. b) Land Use Element Policy 5.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. As conditioned the application meets the Findings required for Design Review Approval. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings specified in Saratoga 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: Application No. 07 -397; 12576 Scully Avenue a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project meets this finding in that most of the existing landscape screening will be retained as part of this project. The proposed addition keeps the home in the existing location, situated with substantial setbacks and consideration is given to the neighbor's views and privacy through window placement, and additional tree plantings. This finding can be made in the affirmative. b) Preserve Natural Landscape. No grading or topographical changes are proposed for this project and all of the mature landscaping on the site will remain. All preserved trees will be protected with fencing during the construction process. This finding can be made in the affirmative. c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The project is consistent with this finding in that all trees on site will be adequately protected during the construction process with tree fencing and no trees will be removed. d) Minimize the perception of excessive bulk. This project conforms to the maximum height requirement and the architectural massing and style of the home will reduce the overall appearance of bulk. Additionally decorative elements, materials and a varied roofline will create interest and add detail to the facades. This finding can be made in the affirmative. e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed home is compatible in terms of size and height to other homes in the neighborhood. The proposed home will be constructed of quality materials and will be in keeping with other two -story homes in the surrounding neighborhood. f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed home would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. The applicant is required to maintain stormwater on site where feasible and this finding can be made in the affirmative. g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above. The project has taken energy efficiency into account, preserves the neighbor's privacy by placing the addition approximately 50 feet away from the rear property line and adding screen trees. This finding can be made in the affirmative. Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 07 -397 for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PERMANENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL There are no permanent conditions of approval for this project. Application No. 07 -397; 12576 Scully Avenue COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The proposed home shall be located and constructed as shown on "Exhibit A" (incorporated by reference, date stamped August 6, 2007) and in compliance with the conditions stated in this Resolution. 2. Any proposed changes- including but not limited to facade design and materials to the approved plans shall be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. 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. 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 project shall use materials and colors as illustrated on the Finish Materials Board dated stamped- August 6, 2007. 4. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 5. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 6. A stormwater retention plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval indicating how all storm water will be retained on -site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction Best Management Practices. 7. Water and/or runoff from the project site shall not be directed toward the adjacent properties. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the Community Development Department, shall be reconciled with a minimum of $500 surplus balance at all times. In the event that the balance is less than $500, all staff work on the project shall cease until the balance is restored to a minimum of $500. 9. A Tree protective fencing plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of any building division permits. 10. Tree protective fencing shall be installed prior to any grading or the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. It shall be comprised of six -foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight -foot tall, two -inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. Tree protective fencing shall be inspected and approved by the City Arborist prior to obtaining building division permits. PUBLIC WORKS Application No. 07 -397; 12576 Scully Avenue None. FIRE DEPARTMENT 11. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire Department. CITY ATTORNEY 12. Owner and Applicant shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its employees, agents, independent contractors and volunteers (collectively "City") from any and all costs and expenses, including but not limited to attorney's fees incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project or contesting any action or inaction in the City's processing and/or approval of the subject application. Section 2. Construction must be commenced 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 (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 22nd day of August 2007 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Joyce Hlava, Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John F. Livingstone, AICP, Secretary, Planning Commission Application No. 07 -397; 12576 Scully Avenue 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 Date ATTACHEMENT 2 PROJECT ADDRESS: Signature: Neighbor Address: l iAi Applicant Name: City of Santiago Revised 1.0/24/06 r City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form 126 76( Application Number: Dear Neighbor, 1 am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to .review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will he sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. I ask that youfamiliarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the project. These plans are PRELIMINARY ONLY and may be changed as the project moves forward. You may contact the City of Saratoga s Planning Division at any time 10 review any changes that may occur. The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact .the City of Saratoga at 408 -868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name: A' /1,9 ,ti!l,(; -/"(14<> agate: Neighbor Phone t Lk. A t" h/e 5 C r c va c c "�tcxf;`. fps_ yc r SA ''t� ,rw Date: -.2./.5/ Planning Department My concerns are the If 1 have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): tAt. I, In C.YY7 +'i+.- Y _C -5 I•l�9�L'U`4 tj€ City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ADDRESS: 76 S Dear Neighbor, C 'E Fri) ,iuN u 7 2007 I am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. I ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the project. These plans are PRELIMINARY ONLY and may be changed as the project moves forward. You may contact the City of Saratoga's Planning Division at any time to review any changes that may occur. The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga at 408 868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name: /ti//] ('X )-1O a /V/ /✓I i✓l l EDate: G 2 Signature: Neighbor Address: ,z WI lcardmv A >n 1 1-4 2 4 Neighbor Phone f".°4 If I have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): J z foo 1 `v P"Ai 4.2 Cl 74-k- /�/�ospoi :,,J a.(c0 r le:pG -vi f G� r Z s k Y h r.7 N s k/ YO/ r a et h .1 1 —3 /C Ci f 9 7y t S'.'LY�+' 1- 6 L{)- /�L�.`✓Gl c.i O :s7; 4,70 'r-e a ced p r c A'L p.'ie7C4 Cu :3 s7 -1.4 U:v Applicant Name: Date: Application Number: City of Saratoga Revised 10/24/06 Planning Department City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form PROJECT ADDRESS: X257 .—Cr it /4 Dear Neighbor, I am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. tt� I ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the proje These plan, are PRELIMINARY ONLY and may be changed as the project moves forward!t iu2m 007 contact the City of Saratoga's Planning Division at any time to review any chcATOGA may occur. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga at 408 868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name: Del- Y- 514,01 7& C' Date: 4 /Z.s3e®? Signature: Neighbor Address: If 1 have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Applicant Name: aiC.Ik Application Number:0 1 S9 Neighbor Phone 90 rf ;6 Date: 6 I'K41 City of Saratoga Planning Department Revised 10/24/06 City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form PROJECT ADDRESS: I 7‘ ktly Av Dear Neighbor, CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. I ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the project. These plans are PRELIMINARY ONLY and may be changed as the project moves forward. You may contact the City of Saratoga's Planning Division at any time to review any changes that may occur. The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. if you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga at 408 868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Na Signature: Neighbor Address: lou- (\'lpN f v S RA rTb G A CA If 1 have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Applicant Name: 11 ra d'i a rc,sL K 11, l .t Date: 6 r)-4 Application Number: 0 1 Neighbor Phone Date: t (7 Q City of Saratoga Planning Department Revised 10/24/06 JUN 'J '[GUI City of Saratoga �1 Neighbor Notification Form D E 11 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1 25 7 b S e_ c.r LLy II IN 9 R Z(1U l D CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dear Neighbor, I am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. I ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the project. These plans are PRELIMINARY ONLY and may be changed as the project moves forward. You may contact the City of Saratoga 's Planning Division at any time to review any changes that may occur. The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga at 408- 868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name: Li ill 5 h S 1 N 4-N Date: c.1211/07 Signature: Neighbor. Address: 21-0"3 LA-2G- 1r1o'"1 ,fvim. S R} -70 Cl4 `i S7)70 Neighbor Phone 4 o S' 3 60 7/ If I have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Applicant Name: City_of Saratoga Revised 10/24/06 Application Number: V 39 Date: f Planning Department PROJECT ADDRESS: 1 S St-t.An,y Dear Neighbor, I am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. I ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the project. These plans are PRELIMINARY ONLY and may be changed as the project moves forward. You may contact the City of Saratoga's Planning Division at any time to review any changes that may occur. The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga at 408 868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. Signature: Neighbor Address: Y ch Neighbor N e: last C ak.04-hyt, q-c?' City of Saratoga Revised 10/24/06 City of Saratoga U Neighbor Notification Form Ot /Neighbor Phone Applicant Name: Date: Application Number: Date: 3 tA f a 7 -0 6 7 Planning Department JUN 0 72007 CITY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT If I have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form ,9 u ‘16 AVE. Dear Neighbor, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. PROJECT ADDRESS: I ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the project. These plans are PRELIMINARY ONLY and may be changed as the project moves forward. You may contact the City of Saratoga 's Planning Division at any time to review any changes that may occur. The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City. of Saratoga at 408 868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name: 1 d l v& C-o 11 1 Vl Date: a 19"1 7 Signature: 1'' _t.:; 9hL2 Neighbor Address: /5f Neighbor Phone t0 -S2 Applicant Name: Date: Application Number: City of Saratoga Planning Department Revised 10/24/06 V E JUN 0 7 2007 CITY OF SARATOGA If I have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following-(please attach additional sheets if necessary): ATTACHEMENT 3 08/01/2007 10:30 4089731214 OUTFORCE PAGE 01 To: Planning Department of City of Saratoga From: Mark Ho and Ning Ning Lee 12485 Larchmont Ave. Saratoga Ca. 95070 Re: Project 12576 Scully Ave. Saratoga second story addition Our neighbor (at 12576 Scully Ave) had agreed previously to have a higher fence put in between our properties for privacy reason. We are now told that the good neighbor fence can not be higher than six feet due to the city code. We now request alternatively that multiple trees and or tall bushes be planted next to the new fence at appropriate location to obstruct the undesired viewing from the neighbor's added second floor window directly to our house/bedroom. Both planting and new fence must be done prior to the proposed construction. We now give permission to remove the request for higher fence. To: Heather Bradley Contract Planner City of Saratoga Community Development Dept. Fr: Mark Ho and Ning -Ning Lee 12485 Larchmont Ave Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Re: Application #07 -297 —12576 Scully Ave APN: 386 -34 -053 Date: August 6, 2007 Our property sits at the rear of Makhijani's residence. We have concerns over their proposed second -floor balcony. Please see the attached picture taken from our bedroom window facing Makhijani's pool. As the two houses are not parallel to each other, the balcony is at an angle facing toward the side of my house, looking directly into my bedroom window. The proposed balcony is open three sides, that will make my house exposes to two sides (front and one end) of the balcony. Therefore, my suggestion is to close up one end so the privacy issue is minimized. Thank you. ATTACHEMENT 4 Green Building Materials and techniques for 12576 Scully. Avenue, Saratoga a. Blown insulation will be used. b. All rooms provided ample with natural ventilation and cross ventilation via secondary windows where possible, to save on AC costs and energy. c. Attic fan will be provided for additional natural cooling. d. Solar panel photovoltaic system will be considered if financially viable. e. Tankless water heaters will be evaluated for use and applicability. f. The existing lower floor is being retained mostly as is, in order to save energy and demolition materials going to landfill. ATTACHEMENT 5 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, Denise Kaspar 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 30th day of July 2007, that I deposited 79 notices in the United. States Post Office, 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 described as: Address: 12576 Scully Avenue APN: 386 34 053 that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. Denise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services July 28, 2007 500' Ownership Listing Prepared for: 386 -34 -053 NARESH NITA MAKHIJANI 12576 SCULLY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3908 386 -04 -019 WANG TRUST DR CURRENT OWNER 12523 SCULLY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3907 386 -04 -022 VICKENZIE KEN D DR CURRENT OWNER 12559 SCULLY AVE 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -3907 386 -04 -025 VIORTON J F PARKER DR CURRENT OWNER [2594 LARCHMONT AVE 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -3904 386 -04 -028 VANCY KRAUS DR CURRENT OWNER [2474 LARCHMONT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3960 386 -04 -031 UCHARD M STERN DR CURRENT OWNER [9589 DORCHESTER DR 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -3901 586 -04 -034 MARREN R FRANCES KISLING DR CURRENT OWNER :2591 PLYMOUTH DR ;ARATOGA CA 95070 -3932 ;86 -29 -075 OSEPH G MALONE )R CURRENT OWNER 9599 NORTHAMPTON DR ;ARATOGA CA 95070 -3332 86 -31 -031 RVIN J THERESE BENARD )R CURRENT OWNER 2602 PLYMOUTH DR ;ARATOGA CA 95070 -3933 386 -04 -020 JERRY FRANCES LEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12535 SCULLY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3907 386 -04 -023 NEIL D PHYLLIS NEWMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 12563 SCULLY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3907 386 -04 -026 NATARAJAN SUBRAHMANYAN OR CURRENT OWNER 12542 LARCHMONT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3904 386 -04 -029 CYRIL CARMEL SCOTT OR CURRENT OWNER 12442 LARCHMONT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3960 386 -04 -032 RAJAT GOEL OR CURRENT OWNER 12565 PLYMOUTH DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3932 386 -29 -058 HUNTINGTON W CAROL SMALL OR CURRENT OWNER 19567 NORTHAMPTON DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3332 386 -29 -076 JOHN M MARGOT ROBISON OR CURRENT OWNER 12386 LARCHMONT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3315 386 -31 -032 DAVID J MATUSICH OR CURRENT OWNER 12601 PLYMOUTH DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3932 386 -04 -021 PHILIP GOULD OR CURRENT OWNER 12547 SCULLY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3907 386 -04 -024 TOM CHANG OR CURRENT OWNER 12575 SCULLY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3907 386 -04 -027 DAVID R &SANDRA FRANCIS OR CURRENT OWNER 12510 LARCHMONT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3904 386 -04 -030 DOUGLAS J IMOGENE BLATZ OR CURRENT OWNER 19582 NORTHAMPTON DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3331 386 -04 -033 EDWIN E BARBARA METEVIA OR CURRENT OWNER 12577 PLYMOUTH DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3932 386-29-074 ALAN R GRETCHEN NONNENBERG OR CURRENT OWNER 19589 NORTHAMPTON DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3332 386 -29 -077 ALFRED NANCY SYVERTSEN OR CURRENT OWNER 12364 LARCHMONT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3315 386 -31 -033 HARVEY L ELIZABETH COBB OR CURRENT OWNER 12613 NANTUCKET CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3929 X86 -31 -034 CHAN KA YUK YEO ANGEL CHENG BU 0 RRENT OWNER NANTUCKET CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3929 386 -31 -055 LEELA RANJIT OBEROI OR CURRENT OWNER 12564 PLYMOUTH DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3957 386 -32 -013 RAVINDER NAMRATA SAJWAN DR CURRENT OWNER 19545 DORCHESTER DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3901 386 -34 -025 BETTE KAISER DR CURRENT OWNER 12389 LARCHMONT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3316 386 -34 -028 BIRD TRUST DR CURRENT OWNER 19667 NORTHAMPTON DR •TOGA CA 95070 -3364 386 -34 -039 LELAND F MARILYN LEE JR CURRENT OWNER 12475 NEWPORT CT 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -3328 386 -34 -042 LAMES A SANDRA STEINBRUNER JR CURRENT OWNER 19728 NORTHAMPTON DR 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -3336 386 -34 -045 vIATTHEW S DEBORAH DIMARIA JR CURRENT OWNER 12481 DOVER CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3309 386 -34 -048 rANE K ANTHONY HOFFMAN ?O BOX 2273 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -0273 051 J H K NIRAJ SINGH )R CURRENT OWNER 2453 LARCHMONT AVE ARATOGA CA 95070 -3903 386 -31 -035 WILFORD B SHIRLEY HILTON OR CURRENT OWNER 12637 PLYMOUTH DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3934 386 -32 -001 SANDEEP M PARUL PANDYA OR CURRENT OWNER 19568 NORTHAMPTON DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3331 386 -32 -014 LAWRENCE H ELIZABETH HUDEPOHL OR CURRENT OWNER 19567 DORCHESTER DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3901 386 -34 -026 GARY L SUZANNE ONEALL OR CURRENT OWNER 19623 NORTHAMPTON DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3364 386 -34 -029 STEPHEN B LAURIE PAKULA OR. CURRENT OWNER 19689 NORTHAMPTON DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3364 386 -34 -040 HYON CHEONG OR CURRENT OWNER 12482 NEWPORT CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3328 386 -34 -043 EDWIN Y TOY MAR OR CURRENT OWNER 19696 NORTHAMPTON DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3336 386 -34 -046 CHEN LIN OR CURRENT OWNER 12476 DOVER CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3309 386 -34 -049 HARRIETT RICHARDS OR CURRENT OWNER 19632 NORTHAMPTON DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3334 386 -34 -052 MARK HO OR CURRENT OWNER 12485 LARCHMONT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3903 386 -31 -054 PLYMOUTH TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER 12590 PLYMOUTH DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3957 386 -32 -002 SATISH K DHARMARAJ OR CURRENT OWNER 19546 NORTHAMPTON DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3331 386 -34 -024 PETER Y SIU HO OR CURRENT OWNER 12367 LARCHMONT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3316 386 -34 -027 KATHERINE FINK OR CURRENT OWNER 19645 NORTHAMPTON DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3364 386 -34 -030 CHU -LING HSIAO OR CURRENT OWNER 19701 NORTHAMPTON DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3333 386 -34 -041 JAMES R LINDA WILLIAMSON OR CURRENT OWNER 12456 NEWPORT CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3328 386 -34 -044 NATHAN JANET SILBERMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 12455 DOVER CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3309 386 -34 -047 JOHN E HANH EASTERBROOK OR CURRENT OWNER 12454 DOVER CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3309 386 -34 -050 SAMUEL JUDITH HOLTZMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 12421 LARCHMONT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3903 386 -34 -053 NARESH NITA MAKHIJANI OR CURRENT OWNER 12576 SCULLY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3908 ATTACHEMENT 6 T r 1 z o p0 q[ W Cn JW Q -2Z L>5 O.- 6 rn m Q N N� 111 vat at 1--. w Z9 E i O O o O o u_ C- O 1 o ..::c O W 1' w Z N J Q ww O w V O o �d s �E W 1135 B I.M pWAY•1dM NE CA 94040 en lst W s zw�a4 c iQ vo pz Qcp W I.' J Q I� 0 I j g F o y Q 6 6 Q J U O V/ 7 Z U (1 �1l O O� L —i nl Cl. 0 q q yy y 3 111 5 k 00,0 F UZ QW d S W v V r, F.. 0 F fn a ,,3 w m 4 I N i a W 0 l cc Q LA— co N W W 8 ZO z d N x 2 4 U Z 0 W Q 4 ~HWW w o 4 i_ a Q� W W LL a r t W O U i r c Y h Yl,{{ j 3 h IIiJIL Q d K TJ g-�/N J o U l W E tS9 gi i�G�i Z, ifi a U U S 0 1 es E Et K. a Sh n u a .ate d 2� W 8 g STS 7 8 ggi g To ht lit Alt% t kli OFIL- IW `l :il r Ih 4 v n n i b v o.-K i it_ 2 -11.. g 5h u g$ E n o ii Y N 7 i 1 ;1;1• I; -1 i��•;� =I 1 •i I pl In w ul! WK °A ..-go. •1;1% a iii ii ni imm r ail lei RM. am iii Lg IV 3g T Z W W J F p L 0 000 Q J CL N O g ga o$ o 05 8 25 0 1135 BIACKFlEID WAY,4014 NEW, a 9 II II II II II F- -t F L ]O 0 co T ll C ±J L T L r I L- H O O O O 00 T 1 4 N d O g am Es z W o s a 01 I 6 o 0 0 L 1 0 gl 0 F W E Pad 5 R5 w 03 d ¢i ci 0 gts a6 8< o S 0 3 8 5 8 W d4 ao- 5 1135 BIJC 1iM WAY: VIEW, G 9 4040 14: 1l1nYm 60019 15019 O 1100100Y MIN non g c V Of 0 o\ J 1 0 0 0 a O U Pz w CA. J w ace z Z o E= a w F 2 W p 0 2 o� m 8.' N g W O. Cc I w1 3P. o T ,22. m w CA 94555 ow Fremont r T r L L MAineo I I J I I L L a J a S N o N 1 Z ED r L r L 1 Zo Z mw N :6 Wit!: 0 of zg 1 g 1 ii inlqd,:4t l a N 1 ipl: gyp i l J L I WW W ,g g ffvg 2�o .s s� N .!g::!;:s4::::::::!::::::!:: 1 m cf d S" I i W zED 7 f' gg °e M 1 1 o z OU 1=-. Z W(7) Q� o a Ed g Q� z O Att w W O W a 't LO 2 Q ws I L el Fremont CA 94555 1 q. 5 B ioY 'iui' i pus z `J, o$ h 8 ibIp V 2:i R s g 6 F P K' El i 2 as .22 Eg PI t 0 6 E.- V' i 1 !!fl J h9 F al l �62gKm 3_ E8 2 d ai cf o W c3 4 I 5 tf 4 4 ss YNj I Ai i 1 Ili p ■1 It I■: (1 111 IN I :1 i s ■I 0,0 a l oe 1 A or on F I N Ial Ail r A s 11i11r /1 114 e e■ ea :p Wald I s 1U I■Q gm ■e !-1 I I I li i♦��'� 1 A01-11 ,.•0 e C IS 1,10 ■mr o ff A■1 I iii s� 3 z m m N. a i 5< s s 3 t3 J i 1 I! I I t 1113 I I i i i i i I 11 e 1:•:•: ii 1 I e i i r r i' L 1 el C1UC CODE lBB CO LIC BB Q�a Ii 1 :■�•1 1 1 .r' loom Nib 01.11.111 iijiJ1 NW low 1 E ppvi II 44; 0E11 VA 11i 1 I s1BB Iaooc ';88 ill r I. \n■n1 0 4 1111•••11 Ili It�iiI ICa li I I L Mr% 001 I 4111 111,41 Vorto L_II A /111•111 Mee INN rbilm moo se, 1 11 imm 11111 7 Imo NNE loriS tari ?MOM UN 41'� r-r A 1111 1 'if M ML A Ai Ss' �:tditi 40 L 7 I 7 8 i' ,z, 25 h a i oo Q w 0 �w Za a o p Y g Q c.0 N Z a w Z Z o �y L) 0 9 C/� N L o k' o d2 N_1 W FtenWnt 94555 3T58 c m eN�'"esz m o 6 1 OP i 1,.. 4 4K ti, e O ./Vt •31VOS (1SV3) NOLLVA313 30IS O ..r. 05 8 O (1s3M) NOUVA313 3QIS O L. i iv J ii I 1 ■■1:111 111•111041 Mee e®;m inikt illi• :.INS �C1 I I t I I I I VI I ii I I I 1 I .1.� ::::::u, .u.•. 0110 lieenliii .0 A■, j1 e o 1111 �I a r :0 11141 ii 0001 444 4. 0 1 I ■1 •1 ■�I lid id. I .1%%111.1 7 401.14 :1'' W I 11• i II I 0000 I 0� 1010 1140 lee, I P �I idi i ■:1 Ill* 1:;11 '•II nil t :�I 1 :1 Aft c -l1 1ra►r1 �A� 11 0 0 10 PEP Al I I i 1 A 141 1U: 1.11.• 10 olio. '■'1 IN I I I n I I l.�l I i 1 1 11 41, IIIII 'l Mei MA ::e 0101.1. ■0 00 j fli 1.1411 i I 1 1 i 1 1 1 :E:1 1111.11.111.1 i 1 1 :L I 1 0 1 1 11. 1 1 I 1 1 bbal DID BEREEEon000 oa00000c II D i ■r \I 01•01 01•01 ii 0001' 1111111 0 1-11- l III NOLLgOV MN 8 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: APT07 -0001; 12571 Paseo Cerro Type of Application: Appeal of denial of a Tree Removal Permit and request for a Modification of Administrative Design Review conditions for demolition and new SFR Applicant/Owner: Charlie Wu, Appellant and Property Owner Staff Arborist: Kate Bear Meeting Date: August 22, 2007 386 -11 -025 Department Head: John F. Livingstone, AICP C!-� APN: SARATOGA AVENUE PASEO Re, xt WOO Subject: 12571 Paseo Cerro APN: 386 -11 -035 500' Radius PASEO OLIVOS i la I. LOLLY COURT TaAT w I LA SW TOGA y.nj 1 u..L 1 12571 Paseo Cerro ASEO- Item 3 Application No. APT07 -0001; 12571 Paseo Cerro CASE HISTORY Tree Removal Permit Application filed: 1/24/07 Tree Removal Permit Application denied: 2/12/07 Demo and New SFR submitted: 2/15/07 Application approved: 6/8/07 Appeal Application Filed: 7/23/07 Notice published: 7/31/07 Mailing completed: 8/02/07 Posting completed: 8/16/07 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The owner of the property at 12571 Paseo Cerro has appealed the City's denial of a Tree Removal Permit application and requested a modification of approval conditions for an approved project. The applicant wishes to remove a large redwood growing in the front yard to accommodate the new house, which has the front door opposite the tree. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal to remove the redwood. STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT DISCUSSION The application for removal of the redwood was denied because the tree appears to be in fair health, it does not appear to be causing any damage and it does not appear to pose a risk to safety of the property owner. This is one of only two protected trees on the property; the second protected tree is an orange tree in the back yard. The applicant has designed a new home on the property with the front door opposite the redwood. Staff recommended that the applicant provide additional information and documentation by qualified professionals that would support the criteria of City Ordinance 15- 50.080 and necessitate the removal of the redwood tree. The applicant has submitted an arborist report recommending removal of the tree and also providing recommendations to relieve drought stress for the tree over the next year. FINDINGS Saratoga is primarily a residential community where economic property values are 2 Application No. APT07 -0001; 12571 Paseo Cerro inseparably connected with the attractiveness of the area resulting from the native and ornamental trees planted throughout the city. The goal of the City is to balance the rights and privileges of property owners for the use of their land with criteria for establishing and sustaining an urban forest, including the establishment of basic standards and criteria for the removal and replacement of trees. Denial of the appeal is consistent with the General Plan, including the following Policies: Conservation Element Policy 2.4 Through implementation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, the City shall control the removal or destruction of trees. The denial of the permit will retain the redwood tree. Land Use Element Policy 5.0 -The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed house has been through the design review process and approved. It does, not require the removal of the tree in order to be constructed. It might have been possible to design the house so that the front door was not directly opposite the tree. Denial of the appeal is consistent with the City Code, including the following sections: Pursuant to City Code Section 15- 50.080 in order for a Tree Removal Permit to be issued, the tree removal permit application shall be reviewed and determined based on the following criteria: (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures, and interference with utility services. The applicant has submitted an arborist report assessing the tree's health as poor and recommending its removal. The report indicates that the tree may suffer from drought stress and includes recommendations to mitigate the stress. The applicant's arborist concludes, however, that the tree's health will not improve even if the recommendations are implemented. Staff considers the tree to be in fair health and would like to see the recommendations of the report implemented. The request to remove the redwood does not meet this criterion in that the tree appears to be in fair health and not diseased. The applicant's arborist has provided recommendations to mitigate drought stress over the next year with a reevaluation at that time. The tree does not appear to be in danger of falling, is not too close to structures, and it does not interfere with utilities. 3 Application No. APT07 -0001; 12571 Paseo Cerro (2) The necessity to remove the trees for physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. The request to remove the redwood does not meet this criterion, in that it is not causing damage to the house and does not threaten damage to the future house at this time. The applicant dug a two foot deep trench along the front of the house about two feet from the house, to determine if roots were under the foundation. All the roots exposed were small and they were cut when the trench was excavated, thereby removing any threat to the new house. (3) The topography of the land and the effect the tree removal would have upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters. This criterion does not apply. The lot is flat and erosion is not an issue whether the tree is removed or retained as long as it is landscaped. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees on this and neighboring properties and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values and established standards of the area. The proposed tree removal does not meet this criterion, in that its removal will have an impact on the amount of shade, privacy and scenic beauty of the property. Although the approved project for the property shows the installation of one new tree, the impact of removing the redwood will not be mitigated by the new tree for many years. (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. The proposed tree removal does not meet this criterion, in that the property can support more trees than those already planted. (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. The proposed tree removal does not meet this criterion, in that there is possibly an alternative to removing the redwood available. The front door can perhaps be relocated so that it is not directly opposite the tree. (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. The proposed tree removal does not meet this criterion, in that approval of the request to remove the redwood is in conflict with the general purpose and 'intent of this Article, which is to preserve and protect healthy, mature trees in Application No. APT07 -0001; 12571 Paseo Cerro (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in section 15- 50.010. (9) The necessity to remove the trees for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. NOTIFICATION A notice of the public hearing is being provided to property owners within 500 feet of the applicant. Staff has not received any comments from neighbors. CONCLUSION Removal of the redwood is not adequately supported by the General Plan or the criteria of Section 15- 50.080 of the City Code, and it is recommended for retention. The applicant has not met the burden of proof on any of the criteria for the removal of trees. Criterion #3 does not apply. ATTACHMENTS the City. Redwoods are highly valued in Saratoga as one of the recognized native species for the area. Removal of the redwood does not meet this criterion. At this time, no documentation has been provided to the City concluding that the tree requires removal in order to maintain safety or improve public health or welfare. Removal of the tree does not meet this criterion. There are alternatives to removing the tree. The house can be redesigned so that the front door is not directly opposite the tree. 1. Resolution of Denial for the removal of the redwood tree 2. Staff report with Conditions of Approval for new single family residence 3. The appeal form submitted by the applicant 4. Tree removal permit application, including City denial. 5. Arborist report by applicant's arborist 6. Letter from previous resident of house 7. Letter from neighbor 8. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing Labels 5 Attachment 1 Application No. APT 07 -0001; 12571 Paseo Cerro Wu RESOLUTION 07 -060 Application No. APT07 -0001 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Charlie Wu; 12571 Paseo Cerro Resolution Denying the Appeal of a Tree Removal Permit Application And Denying a Modification of Conditions to Approved Plans WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an appeal of an Administrative Decision denying a request to remove one redwood tree at 12571 Paseo Cerro; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and WHEREAS, Saratoga is primarily a residential community where economic property values are inseparably connected with the attractiveness of the area resulting from the native and ornamental trees planted throughout the City; and WHEREAS, the goal of the City is to balance the rights and privileges of property owners for the use of their land with criteria for establishing and sustaining an urban forest, including the establishment of basic standards and criteria for the removal and replacement of trees; and WHEREAS, after considering all of the criteria for the application of a Tree Removal Permit set forth in Section 15- 50.080, the Planning Commission finds that overall the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application for the Tree Removal Permit for one redwood. After review of all the criteria regarding a permit for removal of the trees, the following findings have been made by the Planning Commission: Denial of the appeal is consistent with the General Plan, including the following Policies: Conservation Element Policy 2.4 Through implementation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, the City shall control the removal or destruction of trees. The denial of the permit will retain the redwood tree. Land Use Element Policy 5.0 -The City shall use the design review process to assure that Application No. APT 07 -0001; 12571 Paseo Cerro Wu the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed house has been through the design review process and approved. It does not require the removal of the tree in order to be constructed. It might have been possible to design the house so that the front door was not directly opposite the tree. (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures, and interference with utility services. The applicant has submitted an arborist report assessing the tree's health as poor and recommending its removal. The report indicates that the tree may suffer from drought stress and includes recommendations to mitigate the stress. The applicant's arborist concludes, however, that the tree's health will not improve even if the recommendations are implemented. Staff considers the tree to be in fair health and would like to see the recommendations of the report implemented. Staff considers that the applicant's request to remove the redwood does not meet this criterion. The tree appears to be in fair health and not diseased. The applicant's arborist has provided recommendations to mitigate drought stress over the next year with a reevaluation at that time. The tree does not appear to be in danger of falling, is not too close to structures, and it does not interfere with utilities. (2) The necessity to remove the tree for physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. The request to remove the redwood does not meet this criterion, in that it is not causing damage to the house and does not threaten damage to the future house at this time. The applicant dug a two foot deep trench along the front of the house about two feet from the house, to determine if roots were under the foundation. All the roots exposed were small and they were cut when the trench was excavated, thereby removing any threat to the 'new house. (3) The topography of the land and the effect the tree removal would have upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters. This criterion does not apply. The lot is flat and erosion is not an issue whether the tree is removed or retained as long as it is landscaped. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees on this and neighboring properties and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values and established standards of the area. Application No. APT 07 -0001; 12571 Paseo Cerro Wu The proposed tree removal does not meet this criterion, in that its removal will have an impact on the amount of shade, privacy and scenic beauty of the property. Although the approved project for the property shows the installation of one new tree, the impact of removing the redwood will not be mitigated by the new tree for many years. (5) The number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. The proposed tree removal does not meet this criterion, in that the property can support more trees than those already planted. (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. The proposed tree removal does not meet this criterion, in that there is possibly an alternative to removing the redwood available. The front door can perhaps be relocated so that it is not directly opposite the tree. (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. The proposed tree removal does not meet this criterion, in that approval of the request to remove the redwood is in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article, which is to preserve and protect healthy, mature trees in the City. Redwoods are highly valued in Saratoga as one of the recognized native species for the area. (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in section 15- 50.010. Removal of the redwood does not meet this criterion. At this time, no documentation has been provided to the City concluding that the tree requires removal in order to maintain safety or improve public health or welfare. (9) It is necessary to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. Removal of the tree does not meet this criterion. There are alternatives to removing the tree. The house can be redesigned so that the front door is not directly opposite the tree. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: Application No. APT 07 -0001; 12571 Paseo Cerro Wu The redwood tree shall be retained. CITY ATTORNEY Applicant agrees to hold the 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 the City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's request. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City or other governmental entities must be met. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, August 22, 2007 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Joyce Hlava Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John F. Livingstone, AICP Secretary, Planning Commission Attachment 2 incorporated October 22, 1956 FINDINGS: L To: Charlie Wu From: Christopher Alan AICP, Senior Planner Date: June 8, 2007 Subject: Application No. 07 -255; Design Review 12571 Paseo Cerro Drive, Saratoga, California i3777 AVENUE 5 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 a (4 08) i'OUNCIL, MEMBERS: Aileen Kao Kathleen K.nr Chuck Page Jiii Hunter ter Ann. WMaitonsmith Via US Mail Your application to construct a new single family dwelling at 12571 Paseo Cerro has been approved subject to a 15 -day appeal period (ending at: .5:00 on June 4, 2007) and the following findings have been made: ENVIRONMENTAL .DETERMINATION The proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 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 or up to three single- family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to Iitil and roadway i nfraMr uc t ure an d c of constructing one nz F:,.,.,; ,�;,y,,,,,,,, v...r �•a. vaa� sii� 1)fSIGN REVIEW FINDINGS The following findings have been made per City Code Section 15- 45.080. 1 Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and .placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. This finding may he made in the affirmative in that the proposed residence is single st and is well under the maximum height limitation allowable for residential structures; the topographv of this lot and surrounding properties are relatively flat so the project will not be higher Notice of Approval: Apiotion No. 07 -255 Project Address: 12571 aseo Cerro June 8, 2007 7 Page 2 than adjacent structures which could result in an interference with views and privacy; and the views and privacy will also be maintained by an existing six foot redwood fence that surrounds both the sides and rear of the site. Preserve Natural Landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the site is relatively flat and minimal changes to the grade are proposed; the surrounding properties also have a flat topography; and the existing 42" redwood tree in the front yard will be maintained and protected with tree fencing during construction; 3. Preserve native and heritage trees. All heritage trees will be preserved. All native trees designated for protection pursuant to Section 15- 50.050 will be preserved, or, given the constraints of the property, the number approved for removal will be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist will be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15- 50.080. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that there were two protected trees that were inventoried by the City Arborist for this project which include a 42" redwood tree in the front yard and a 10" orange tree in the rear yard; a condition of approval has been incorporated requiring the applicant to install appropriate protective tree fencing and to secure a tree bond prior to issuance of City Permits; and three existing fruit trees (not protected by ordinance) that are located in the rear yard and within the proposed building footprint will be removed and the removal of these trees has been approved by the City Arborist. 4. Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots and to the surrounding region will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the environment. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the overall appearance and design of facades are consistent; the home is well below the height limitation and the highest points of the home are along roof peaks; the front facade is well articulated with jogs in building lines and accented with natural stone 5. Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (iii) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the home is in character with the homes in the neighborhood in that it is single story; many of the homes in the neighborhood have been remodeled or newly constructed and the proposed 'Joule is in character with the overall design and appearance with these homes; and the new Notice of Approval: ApplOon No. 07 -255 Project Address: 12571 Paseo Cerro June 8, 2007 home will not cast shadows on the adjacent properties which could impair the adjacent property owners opportunity to utilize solar energy. 6. Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. This funding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposal w i l l conform to the. City's current grading and erosion control methods. 7. Design policies and techniques. The proposed main or accessory structure will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15 -45 -055. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above. Thus the above analysis concludes that the findings required for granting administrative design review approval can be met. The proposed application was properly noticed and circulated to property owners within 250 -feet of the subject site. The review period for their comments ended June 4, 2007. Staff has not received any comments. The project is subject to the following conditions: PERMANENT CONDITONS OF APPROVAL There are no permanent conditions of approval for this project. CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL CONDITIONS 1. Appeal and Effective Date. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC) Section 15 -90, this Approval shall become effective fifteen 15) days from the date of this Notice of Approval_ 2. Expiration. A Building Permit must be issued and construction conunenced within thirty -six (36) months from the date of adoption of this Notice of Approval or approval will expire. 3. Conformance to Plans. The project shall be constructed as shown on Exhibit A of the Administrative Design Review application. Any proposed changes, including but not limited to facade design and materials to the approved plans shall be submitted in writingg 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. Staff will not approve downgrading of the exterior from what is shown on the approved plans. Anv exterior changes to approved plans may require filing an additional application.and .fees as modification to approved plans. Page 3 Notice of Approval: App ion No. 07 255 Project Address: 12571 Paseo Cerro June 8, 2007 4. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Notice of Approval and the Arborist report dated March 16, 2007 shall be submitted to the Building Division. Recommendations of the arborist shall be reflected on these plans. These plans shall be subject to staff review and arborist review prior to issuance of Lone Clearance. 5. Arborist Report and Recommendations. Owner /applicant shall comply with all recommendations and conditions stated in the arborist report, dated March 15, 2007. A monetary bond, in the amount stated in the arborist report ($20,070), shall be posted and be on file with the Community Development Director prior to issuance of City permits. Proof of installation of tree fencing shall be provided by the applicant and shall be inspected by the arborist prior to issuance of City permits. 6. Fire Department Requirements. Owner /applicant shall comply with all Fire Department requirements. 7. LLS Stamp: A boundary survey, stamped by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying, shall be included in the complete construction plans. The stamp shall reflect a current license for the land surveyor /engineer, shall be labeled "Boundary Survey," and shall not contain any disclaimers. 8. Drainage (and Grading if applicable) Plans. A drainage (and grading if applicable) plan(s) stamped by a registered civil engineer combined with a storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on -site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction Best Management Practices, shall be submitted along with the complete construction drawings. An explanatory note shall be provided if all storm water cannot be maintained on site. 9. Curb /Gutter Damages. The owner /applicant is responsible for all damages to curb /gutter and the public street as result of project construction and construction vehicles. The Public Works Director will determine if any repair is required prior to final occupancy approval. 10. Fences, Walls and Hedges. All fences, walls and hedges shall conform to height requirements provided in SMC Section 15 -29. 1 I. HVAC Unit. Any proposed units shall comply with all applicable requirements of the City Code including Article 7 -30 concerning noise. The unit shall not be located within any required setback area. Page 4 Notice of Approval: A tion No. 07 -255 Project Address: 12571 aseo Cerro June 8, 2007 12. Minimum Balance. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the Community Development Department, shall be reconciled with a minimum $500.00 surplus balance prior to building permit issuance until final occupancy is granted. 13. Noise and Construction Hours. In order to comply with standards that minimize impacts to the neighborhood during site preparation and construction, the applicant shall comply with SMC Sections 7- 30.060 and 16- 75.050, with respect to noise, construction hours, maintenance of the construction site and other requirements stated in these sections. 14. All Applicable Requirements. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. 15. Hold Harmless Agreement. .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 action with respect to the applicant's project. END OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Please sign the below and mail the original back to the City. Please be sure to retain a copy of this document for your records and be sure it is incorporated into the building plan set. 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 Community Development Department. roperty Owner or Authorized Agent Date Page 5 Attachment 3 JUL -20 -2007 15:17 From:CITYOF SARATOGA 4088678555 To:93784323 P.1/1 Appellant Name: 410 Request for a Continuance: First Request No Charge 2 Request $250.00 Date Received: Hearing L)ate: Fee: Receipt CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ici'PN 3 APPEAL APPLICATION Address: 1 ZS'l I PcKSeo Ce)-1 -D Soal -otfo 9, (4 CA-0 Telephone is 1 L D C9) 6 8 Z Name of Applicant (If different than Appellant): Project file number and address: i+TR„ 1 a00 Decision. being appealed: Reno of `FZ it ged)o dr Grounds for appeal (Letter maybe attached): T)ee t o C1 ors to H o v\e_,,. Tlee 10Cafc g Pkoppfeci Applicant Signature: C� Date: 17/23/0 Municipal Code Section 2-05.030 (a) appeals: No Hearing $100.00 With Hearing $200.00 Municipal Code Section 15- 90.01.0 appeals (Zoning related): Appeals from Administrative Decisions to the Planning Commission O.0O SOb •O Municipal Code Section 15- 90.020 appeals (Zoning related); Appeals from the. Planning Conunission to the City Council $250.00 Attachment 4 SPECIES SIZE REASON FOR REMOVAL 12.-ed. 4 a o d 3 to U r 0 r1,e i Roots w S v i.4 3 d rt� �S 00Q ro h afar t- M Tree ilimoval /Pruning Permit Applic n PERMIT COS $75.00 City Arborist, Kate Bear (43! 868 -1276 r Date Received: I Z/2_00 I Permit No.: Permit 0 denied: 0 Deadline to appeal denial of application: c21, Property Owner: C I^ )1 (A) 'J Phone:(hm)�0 3 I g L wk) No 01 Mailing Address: '7 p O Ce O Address Where Tree is to be Removed: Nearest cross street: gc kn I Company to remove tree(s): To Re n 0 efe) I understand that the tree(s) may be removed only if found to be within the criteria as established by Article 15- 50.080 of the City code and that by signing this form, I am certifying that the tree(s) to be removed is /are solely on my property. Signature o roperty Owner Tree Removal permits are required for the removal of the following trees: Native Trees with a DBH (diameter at breast height) of 6" or greater (19 "in circumference measured 4 %2 feet above the ground). Other trees with a DBH of 10" or greater (31 "in circumference measured 4 %2 feet above the ground). iy street tree (tree within a public street or right of way) regardless of size. Any Heritage tree (tree uesignated by HPC and CC regardless of size. Please list all trees to be removed in the table below. Q 1 T} e c. p Prepare n a small site plan the area below, showing all trees to be removed from the property; include dimensions from property lines and existing structures. 11' .00 Location of Trees kClCh /2_51 I po-seo Cerro feed woad T)-e eo CeJ -1-0 DES PAID:. RECEIPT NO: Tree Removal Permits will be held for a period of ten days after inspection approval pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code section I5 90.050(a) for any interested party to appeal the administrative decision to the Planning Commission. P: \Forms Procedures \Tree Removal page 1.doc CITY OF SARATOGA FOR INFORMATIO1' P NTACT CITY ARBORIST, KATE BEAR PLICANT: •Be Completed By A Field Inspector This tree removal permit is APPROVED in accordance with Article 15 -50 of the Ci l g"ar"' b r�F Meets Criteria Does Not Meet Criteria The tree is DEAD The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to the structures and interference with utility services. The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. The topography of the land and the effect of the removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters. The number, species, size and location of the existing trees in the area and the effect the Removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare in the area. The age and number of healthy trees on the property is able to support according to good forest practices. Effective Date of Permit p:\forms&procedures \tree removal permit 2 page.doc 408) 868 -1276 PERMIT O7 2v Signature of Inspector Date of Inspection ether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on a protected tree. Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose or intent of Article 15 -50. The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. Conditions of Approval 0 Replacement tree(s) shall be planted within 3 months from the approval date. The City will re inspect to ensure compliance with all conditions of approval. This tree removal permit is DENIED for the following reasons: ree. 1 S XA,,9 s {J LQ E v L O p_e__ 61 dl1.4 1. ?r►- >n 9 f t PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: Commi nity Development Representative Attachment 5 Charlie Wu 12571 Paseo Cerro Saratoga, CA 95070 Last week we met at your house to look at and discuss this tree. You are planning to remodel your house which includes expanding the front of the house outward toward the tree. In addition a new driveway and front pathway will impact the roots of this tree. You have been asked by the City of Saratoga to design your house and other improvement around this tree, in order to minimize construction damage to the tree and to preserve the tree as a part of your permanent landscaping. In my opinion the condition of this tree is poor: it is not likely to improve sufficiently even with remedial care. The tree should be removed and the house and other improvements should not be designed around it. I do not want a large tree in declining condition close to a house, particularly when the tree will experience root damage due to construction, even if construction is done as carefully as possible, relative to the tree. Consulting Arborist Horticulturist July 14, 2007 Re: 12571, condition of large coast redwood tree in front yard Dear Charlie: Deborah Ellis, MS Service since 1984 PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. Phone Fax: 408- 725 -1357. Email: decahepacbell.net. Web site: http: /www.decah.com/ (f 8! f t Page lof8 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist Horticulturist Setvite since 1984 Tree Dripline shown on plan The partial proposed Site Layout Plan above shows the existing house front to extend 3 feet farther to the south toward the tree, so that it will be 16.5 feet from the nearest edge of the tree trunk. The existing house wall is now 19.5 feet from the trunk. The new front porch will bet 12 feet from the trunk, as will the new driveway, which will be closer to the tree than the existing driveway. The actual dripline of the tree is larger than is shown on the plan (compare the black inner circle representing the dripline on the plan with the dripline that I have drawn in green). The dripline is not that significant for this tree because the canopy of the tree is high and there should not be any canopy damage if a single -story house is built nearby. What is more important however, is the distance of the improvements to the trunk of the tree, from a root damage standpoint. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. Phone Fax: 408 -725 -1357. Email: decah@pacbell.net. Web site: http /www.decah.com/ Page 2 of 8 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist Horticulturist Service since 1984 3xDBH for this tree is 10 feet, but this distance is generally considered a safe distance for an excavation on one side of the tree, and primarily to preserve whole -tree stability, not long -term tree health. Since this tree is not in good health and is going to experience excavations on multiple sides of the trunk, I would recommend that root disturbance distances be greater than 5xDBH, which is 17 feet. Since the nearest wall of the house will be 16.5 feet from the trunk, and there will be an over excavation beyond the actual wall, in order to build the foundation, the actual excavation will probably be 13 to 14 feet from the trunk of the tree. The patio and driveway will need another 6 to 12 inches of over excavation. Alternative house designs have been explored and found to be impractical or not possible, for example relocating the front door away from the tree. You would like to keep the front door in the center of the front of the house. I would recommend redesigning the house (including moving the front door, a pier on grade beam foundation for the house (with no excavation for grade beam, porous paver driveway built on top of existing grade with no excavation except for ramp down to curb, elevating the front walkway and porch above the ground, for example on decking, etc.) if the tree were in good condition. The tree however, is in very poor condition. Let's explore this further. The canopy density of this tree is about 30% of what I would normally expect for a coast redwood tree of this size and age (35 to 40 years old) growing as a planted tree in this area. The sparse canopy density is caused in small part by past overpruning of the tree, but I can also tell that there is stress induced fhinnina that has been going on for many years. Thinning is a symptom that can have many causes, but in coast redwood trees in this area it is often caused by drought stress. Drought stress can be caused by a lack of sufficient rain or irrigation, or by problems in the root system which do not allow the tree to absorb sufficient water from the soil. There are also some 1 3 to 5 X DBH is a reasonable "rule of thumb" absolute minimum distance any excavation should be from the trunk of a tree on one side of the tree (Smiley, Fraedrich, Hendrickson 2002. Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories). DBH is "diameter at breast height or 4.5 feet above the ground. I have found that for the urban trees I have worked with, it tends to correlate reasonably well with the Zone of Rapid Taper, which is the zone in which the large buttress (main support roots) rapidly decrease in diameter with increasing distance from the trunk. This zone is usually one to three meters from the trunk, but it varies depending upon tree species, age and soil and other environmental conditions. Using the 3X DBH guideline, an excavation should be no closer than 4.5 feet from the trunk of an 18 -inch DBH tree. This distance is a guideline only, and should be increased for trees with heavy canopies, decay, structural problems, multiple -side excavations, etc. The 3X DBH may be more of an aid in preserving tree stability and not necessarily long -term tree health, as the roots beyond the zone of rapid taper form an extensive network of long, rope -like roots one to two inches in diameter. These woody perennial roots are referred to as transport roots because they function primarily to transport water and minerals. Few large lateral roots are found beyond 10 feet of the trunk, in most situations. 5X DBH is the "preferred" minimum distance which should be strived for however, because even a few feet may make a big difference in tree survival! 2 Canopy density refers to the percentage of leaf cover in a tree canopy (after full leaf expansion and maturation), which varies with tree species and age. A lower than normal canopy density can indicate tree decline. 3 Thinning of the canopy (an abnormal and detrimental loss of foliage, fine branches and eventually larger branches) can have many possible causes such as: disease or insect infestation, root damage or disease or general stress caused by an environmental excess or deficiency. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. Phone Fax: 408 -725 -1357. Email: decah@pacbell.net. Web site: http: /www.decah.com/ Page 3 of 8 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist Horticulturist Service since 1984 common airborne fungal diseases (Diplodia and Botryosphaeria) of coast redwood, particularly when they are grown inland and as these trees age beyond 15 or 20 years. These branch diseases cause distinct cankers (areas of dead bark) and death of the branch beyond the canker. I found a few such dead branches in the tree, but the majority of the branch loss in this tree is probably due to some other long- term, chronic reason. I highly suspect that the tree is infected with Armillaria I made four excavations around the root collar (junction of trunk and roots), removing a few inches of soil and then removing a square of bark, to look for this fungus. In all cases I found only healthy tissue, but it is possible that the roots of the tree are infected farther out than I examined. A more extensive root collar excavations and examination could be scheduled and performed but this may nor may not reveal an obvious cause of the decline of this tree. I also noticed that the newest growth needles in scattered areas of the tree are browning starting from the tips and moving inward. This type of "needle scorch" can be a symptom of drought stress which can be caused by lack of water or high salt content in the soil, which causes a physiological drought stress through osmosis. Also, any living agent that damages roots (such as Armillaria) can also cause a physiological drought. stress. Because the needle dieback is scattered, it may be more likely caused by an infectious agent than an environmental excess or deficiency such as dry soil or high salt content. You mentioned to me that you and your wife have owned and lived in this house for 7 years, and that the tree has always looked like it does now (in stressed condition). There is a sprinkler irrigation system around the tree. This irrigation system has been operational and in use since you have lived in the house. You mentioned that the system has been turned off for about 3 weeks now, but I took several soil probe samples underneath the tree. In most cases I was able to insert the probe 4 to 8 inches deep, and the soil was dry to barely moist. This fits in with the irrigation being stopped about 3 weeks ago and the hot weather we have been having. When you originally applied to have the tree removed, you thought that the tree's roots might be damaging or growing underneath your present foundation. You were also worried because the tree tends to drop 2 to 3 -inch diameter branches during windy storms. Regarding the foundation 4 Armillaria mellea (oak root fungus) is a native soil -borne fungus present on the roots of many woody plant species and most native oaks in our area, usually living as a saprophyte on plant roots and not causing much damage. It lives just beneath the bark or corky outer covering of the root, and so any plant with roots of this physiology can be infected with this fungus, even so- called "resistant" plants. When a woody plant is weakened and environmental conditions favor growth of the fungus (particularly wet soil during our dry months on plants ill- adapted to this), the fungus can become aggressively parasitic, decimating woody tissue. Large amounts of fungal inoculum in the soil (such as old roots of infected plants, where the fungus survives) can lead to infection of healthy plants as well. White strands or plaque (mycelia) between the bark wood is diagnostic for this fungus. In advanced cases the whitish growth can be seen at the root collar and lower trunk. As more tissue is lost the plant may decline and /or die. Large trees with an extensive root system may not begin to show symptoms of decline until the fungus kills half the root system. 5 Root collar excavation: The root collar (junction between trunk and roots) is critical to whole -tree health and stability. A root collar excavation carefully uncovers this area (with hand digging tools, water or pressurized air) to check the soundness and stability of this area. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. Phone Fax: 408 725 -1357. Email: decah®pacbell.net. Web site: http /www.decah.com/ Page 4of8 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist Horticulturist Service since 1984 issue, the City Arborist asked you to dig a trench by hand or with an air spade at the edge of the foundation, 2- 3 feet deep, to see if there were any large tree roots in this area that might be damaging the foundation. I could see the remnants of this trench which you told me you dug with a small backhoe instead. You said that the largest roots you found were 2 to 3 inches in diameter. This trenching did cause some damage to the tree, but it was done at about 16 -17 feet from the trunk, so it should not have compromised whole -tree stability. It is obvious to me that the recent trenching is not the cause of the present poor appearance of the tree I can tell that the tree has been in this condition for quite some time. What caused this tree to decline? At this time it is not possible for me to say with certainty; I can only speculate. Even with further investigation we may never find an obvious cause or causes. You mentioned to me that there have been no changes around the tree in recent years (such as construction, trenching, etc.) My hunch is that the tree grew as large as it did (and this is a very large redwood for its age) because it had access to a good source of ground water. It is a fact that groundwater in this area is becoming depleted and it is possible that the source for this tree has been drying up and has become greatly reduced over the years. The may have grown as large as it did due to availability of resources (for example ground water) but when any necessary resource is reduced dramatically, the tree cannot react and make itself smaller in order to reduce its requirements. Instead, the tree begins to shed parts, for example foliage and branches. The tree becomes weaker, and weakened trees are often successfully attacked by secondary pathogens such as Armillaria. Some people say that coast redwood is resistant to Armillaria, but I have seen several examples in this area where weakened redwoods have been heavily infected by this fungus. Could the condition of the tree be improved? Possibly, but I doubt it. If the problem were merely caused by a lack of water, you should see improvement in years of average to above average rainfall (such as 2006) and you did not. I think the decline of this tree is probably irreversible, even if the environment around the tree is improved to promote optimal health. It may also take several years to see a definite improvement in the tree's condition. By then your remodel will be done and if the tree does not improve and you have to remove it, this will be more difficult and expensive over the new house and landscaping, and you will be left with a house design that is not as functional as you would like it to be all for a tree that is no longer there! What tactics would I recommend to improve the condition of the tree? 1) Remove decorative rocks underneath tree. 2) Remove landscape plants underneath tree. Do not allow plant growth under tree, to reduce competition with tree. 6 Air spade: a commercial grade, hand -held metal probe attached to a large air compressor by a hose. This equipment is specialized, industrial equipment that is intended for use by trained professionals. Pressurized air is discharged from the tip of the probe. The air is used to excavate soil away from items such as tree roots, or to dig trenches or remove soil with minimal damage to tree roots (compared to traditional soil removal methods). 1 PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. Phone Fax: 408- 725 -1357. Email: decah @pacbell.net. Web site: http: /www.decah.com/ Paoe 5 of 8 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist Horticulturist ,Service since 1984 3) Remove excess, loose soil over existing grade underneath tree and in front yard. Do this by hand with a shovel, not with heavy equipment. 4) Perform water iet irriaation within the entire front yard planting area in which the tree is located, from the edge of the trench you dug outward to the sidewalk, the driveway, and the gravel driveway on the west side of your front yard. Do this ASAP. Water jet probe holes should be spaced 2 feet on center. Irrigation of the tree in this manner will create some voids in the very compacted soil around this tree which will allow future water (from rainfall or irrigation) to penetrate the soil more easily. 5) Follow up the water jet irrigation by watering the entire planting area as mentioned above with an oscillating sprinkler attached to a hose, moving the sprinkler as needed, until the soil in the entire area is wetted 12 inches deep or more. 6) After the above two irrigations, spread a 6 inch depth of shredded redwood bark mulch (gorilla hair) underneath the tree. This will settle down to 3 or 4 inches. 7) Repeat water jet irrigation monthly until rains wet the soil to 12 inches deep, probably November /December of 2007. A 8) No fertilization. 9) Have me evaluate the tree in early April 2008, determine whether to continue or modify program; evaluation should be quarterly that year to see if the tree is improving, make decision at end of year to continue or modify program, or remove tree. 7 Water Jet: (water probe, water needle, root feeder, etc.) is a hand -held metal probe, usually 1 /2 to' of an inch in diameter, with side holes near the pointed tip end. The device is attached to a hose and stuck into the ground by pushing on side handles. Water flows out of the holes horizontally, and a hole is also made vertically into the ground by the probe. The end result is the creation of vertical and horizontal tunnels filled with water and soft soil slurry. Water jetting probably does not increase soil aeration (diffusion of air through the soil), but it does circumvent difficult water penetration of compacted, sealed soils or soil on slopes. The probe also creates voids in the soil that can more easily be penetrated by future irrigation and rain. Angle the probe 45° away from the trunk. Do this throughout the dripline area of the tree plus 10 feet beyond, wherever there is open ground. Take care not to injure shallow buttress or obvious surface roots, especially near the trunk. Insert the probe as deep as possible, and keep it in the soil until water comes back up and out of the hole or a previously drilled hole. A commonly recommended gallonage for watering trees on construction sites is 10 gallons of water per inch DBH (trunk diameter in inches at 4.5 feet above the ground). It is more important to keep the probe in the soil until water comes up out of the current probe hole, or nearby holes than to worry about the specific amount of water you are applying. Local companies can provide this service (ask me for referrals). PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. Phone (Si Fax: 408- 725 -1357. Email: decah @pacbeli.net. Web site: http: /www.decah.com/ Page 6 of 8 Recommendations 8 1) My best recommendation is to remove the tree. This will allow you to design and build a more functional house. You can then relandscape with new trees and other plants that are better adapted to the site, for example drought tolerant plants that should be able to exist on none or minimal irrigation after a 2 to 3 year establishment period. This means no more coast redwoods! 2) If the tree is removed then you should have the stump and large roots near the trunk grinded 12 to preferably 18 inches below the ground. Also remove any remaining large roots in the front yard that you may find when excavating for the foundation or relandscaping. Old roots in the soil can serve as inoculum sources for Armillaria and other soilborne plant pathogens that could spread to nearby plants. Tree Statistics Scientific name: Sequoia sempervirens Trunk DBH 40.3 inches Size (canopy height x width in feet, estimated): 60 x 30 Conditionlo Vigor: 40 Structure: 50 Suitability for Preservation: Poor Estimated Impact of Proposed Construction: Moderate /Severe Action: Remove Reason: Poor tree condition, Risk Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist Horticulturist Sen ice since 1984 8 Coast redwood is a fogbelt species, which means that its natural range is the coastal fogbelt ecosystem (of the Pacific Northwest). Fogbelt species obtain a great deal of water through fog drip, especially during the summer months. These trees also absorb a small amount of water through the foliage. The fog also has a cooling influence which reduces the water requirement of the tree. When planted outside their natural range, fogbelt species usually require ample irrigation in order to survive and maintain an attractive appearance. It is my opinion that fogbelt species should not be planted outside the fogbelt region for reasons of water conservation. 9 DBH is tree trunk diameter at breast height" measured at 4.5 feet above ground level. This is the forestry and arboricultural industry standard measurement height that is also used in many tree related calculations. 10 Condition Rating: Trees are rated for condition on a scale of zero to 100 with zero being a dead tree and 100 being the most perfect tree imaginable (which rarely exists). Using this scale, 100 excellent, 80 good, 60 fair, 40 poor, and 20 unacceptable. There are two components of tree condition Vigor and Structure. Each of these components is rated separately and then considered relative to the tree species and use of the site to obtain the Preservation Suitability Rating (i.e. "Is this tree worth keeping PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. Phone Fax: 408 -725 -1357. Email: decah@pacbell.net. Web site: http: /www.decah.com/ Page 7 of 8 Sincerely, De6orafi EIEis Deborah Ellis, MS. Consulting Arborist Horticulturist Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #305 I.S.A. Board- Certified Master Arborist WE -457B Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist Horticulturist Service since 1984 I certify that the information contained in this report is correct to the best of my knowledge, and that this report was prepared in good faith. Thank you for the opportunity to provide service. Please call me if you have questions or if I can be of further assistance. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. Phone Fax: 408- 725 -1357. Email: decah@pacbell.net. Web site: http: /www.decah.com/ Page 8 of 8 Attachment 6 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 July 31, 2007 To whom it may concern, I am writing to you about the request to cut down the redwood tree at 12571 Paseo Cerro Street. I grew up in that house and I still live very close by. Good friends of my family gave the tree to us when my grandfather passed away in 1967. We planted the tree in the front yard as a memorial to him. The tree was only 6 feet tall when we planted it 40 years ago. .I would hate to see this tree cut down because it has been there so long and it means so much to me. I hope you will take this into consideration when you make your decision. Sincerely, Cathy Menendez 5102 BETLO CT SAN JOSE, CA 95130 PHONE: (408)379 -2376 Attachment 7 PL4NN/Ner ComintsstaN CITY of 7 /377'7 Feu mrn AVE, 1207D 4 A eA ?5V 7 7;1656" P/'sa.' r:WIEES 5AR 6A) Ct 9so70 A gu5 9 go07 PC C W-Ru E W (LS 141-RUE Re DtVoa -TiZ ON P cER O OAPro 7 -6)600 DERR CZ m rn l s6tOf 1e s MID ArzeoRci K o� A- L, 4 u.sr Ara cu 6 Rcco rez 77tE N O E o F poetic hecxeiAI 6 av arge Re0(ef su€, '7�IPrr N1G1IT" Mar 'W FoLLo &/N 71I9a&tr 8A5icI LL i PJ L JE `PORE siloocz !3E 4 7Zh 7.36 puirtrTl#Y k'4/tl purai 7Zl? /R PRO A'S LONq A S rr i s R N A t 3 C P C S P A s t B c E 1)o nc or Kl'iok) w us, ifOwz FOR, %7-f£ -Low' nA fQ soNs ,r LT 17-11 i 1/5 PfigilevIAR Rezto oelb f H11 U was /a571 PAsEZ WRgo PER TH E Nc7ze� fo 1E RrnO b; /1 j IN Th E m =Le QF Tete FR.vncr y 50 I Nor- uP 771f 9 l r 15nik L/E At P#Ne TREE Went a ncrL Y A sr) DR l v o Vt 79-R LIFE f so tT 1si if LIKELY 7 1)-I6 IN Vic l /a2 1 K7H Y 3) Alok la 17 ime.E /4 Tf wnli egn lcif /s 61,6 1M &,erg 4s some `fRRees TR vA/k Emr 77i-p W ib r eizAs1114114 7 /NJ4/E ©R rnoRE sins Eval YEA-R, *a va) PrIVEcalEs ARE Nor ft f/fl 2At u!c thseme 07762 Tzs $R,UP, 'ME was Aft Rairnif t y Nolo TV DititietejitisoRtio04 011etez 54 —(zss ms s) 5o The KN &'II "7-rs ALUM /13 st2E AiVN� t f1 7 W M-10►V 77/ 13014Hr 77th phfrc. /F Fcr I N w crft f O mour To AO& 71 ELI si vi L f f vE Bowe_ 771 PRop rY. 6) NINE. EI (a S -71 AT I s11 7110asnAlb TimEs IN 771e P ,isr as rani l s Ro X 10-1 s ,U 1u Fn Ni mtrRFERI N cu r n4 PtE PL0181 0 oR ve1N4 1174€N cI sE 'TAKAO Cr owN. r 1 (A)00 -1)- T A.R6oRr4ole 2 t in ts4scalcRs ..2"43 APPROVE A'/Y /3PA C W!ON RR. TREE (-Z€ vtovii-c FORT HOSE REIKcr1/4ls. "IffennsE pr6geE T7MT 17H s 1 U t k R6D u.to sl 'TRee L t P. cN€ LIST (J1 U µr WI+€N b k Ik W AND /b '7 5 s rum A-6 SEE7N Ifou 1 t e P Ta-V L.S14E ova 71 AT r> R i 1 S now 1 o Fa-r- F Rom TItE RoN abg8 Fes' 77-JE Shine cvAY l- tr. Pus LooKa- Arf a ve-tmEs z c_oucz 5EC IN 17/E 4D oR so IibrriE5 DUNE gy 810.46VALL �Nsty ceRizo, Pico PRse nv lrs 15 TIE. ©NE 0E-rwvTRaES11/0:41 rc r s nt Y Attachment 8 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 22 day of August, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION /ADDRESS: APT07 -0001; 12571 Paseo Cerro APPLICANT /OWNER: Charlie Wu APN: 386 -11 -035 DESCRIPTION: The applicant is appealing the denial of a Tree Removal Permit application and conditions of an Administrative Design Review approval. Both required retaining a redwood tree in the front yard. When the owner submitted an application for the demolition and rebuild of his house, the Administrative Design Review approval found that the project preserved the natural landscape and native trees by retaining this redwood. The applicant is requesting changes to the project conditions that require retention of the redwood. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Tuesday, August 14, 2007. 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. Kate Bear Arborist (408) 868 -1276 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, Denise Kaspar 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 2 day of August 2007, that I deposited 90 notices in the United States Post Office, 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 described as: Address: 12571 Paseo Cerro APN: 386 -11 -035 that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. Denise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services ►ugust 2, 2007 00' Ownership Listing 'repared for: 86 -11 -035 HARLIE CHRISTINA WU 2571 PASEO CERRO ARATOGA CA 95070 -4138 86 -11 -001 .OLANDO Q SEGURA IR CURRENT OWNER 2588 SARATOGA AVE ARATOGA CA 95070 -4145 86 -11 -004 YLIA RIZVI R CURRENT OWNER 2552 SARATOGA AVE ARATOGA CA 95070 -4145 36 -11 -007 OBERT H LILLIAM FOSTER R CURRENT OWNER 2516 SARATOGA AVE ARATOGA CA 95070 -4145 36 -11 -010 RANK L HO R CURRENT OWNER 2480 SARATOGA AVE ARATOGA CA 95070 -4143 36 -11 -013 AVID TURPO R CURRENT OWNER ?444 SARATOGA AVE &RATOGA CA 95070 -4143 ;6 -11 -030 NITOINETTE KIRK R CURRENT OWNER :521 PASEO CERRO kRATOGA CA 95070 -4138 :6 -11 -033 )BERT TIBBETTS R CURRENT OWNER :551 PASEO CERRO UR.ATOGA CA 95070 -4138 6 -11 -036 �HN W DOROTHY BROOKMAN t CURRENT OWNER 581 PASEO CERRO RATOGA CA 95070 -4138 386 -11 -002 MICHELLE D GARCIA OR CURRENT OWNER 12576 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -4145 386 -11 -005 ZAHEER U AHMED OR CURRENT OWNER. 12540 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -4145 386 -11 -008 ANTHONY CHeAN OR CURRENT OWNER 12504 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -4145 386 -11 -011 RITA THORAKOS OR CURRENT OWNER 12468 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -4143 .386 -11 -028 THOMAS 0 PEGGY SUIT 3356 VILLA ROBLEDA DR MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94040 -4550 386-11-031 DENNIS B PATRICIA SHIELDS OR CURRENT OWNER 12531 PASEO CERRO SARATOGA CA 95070 -4138 386 -11 -034 JAN OSBORNE OR CURRENT OWNER 12561 PASEO CERRO SARATOGA CA 95070 -4138 386 -11 -037 THOMAS D JUDITH FAVORITO OR CURRENT OWNER 12591 PASEO CERRO SARATOGA CA 95070 -4138 386 -11 -003 BADRI V MOTALLEBI OR CURRENT OWNER 12564 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -4145 386 -11 -006 TH1NH Q TNAY PHAM OR CURRENT OWNER 12528 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -4145 386 -11 -009 CARL P MARIE NELSON 385 JAMES BOWIE CT ALAMO CA 94507 -1437 386 -11 -012 CHAKKRIT K KAN OR CURRENT OWNER 12456 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -4143 386 -11 -029 FRANCES F PAUL HIROSE 525 SAVSTROM WAY SAN JOSE CA.95111 -2726 386 -11 -032 WILLIAM H CORRIDAN OR CURRENT OWNER 12541 PASEO CERRO SARATOGA CA 95070 -4138 386 -11 -035 CHARLIE CHRISTINA WU OR CURRENT OWNER 12571 PASEO CERRO SARATOGA CA 95070 -4138 386 -11 -038 BRETT E MILAGROS CROSS OR CURRENT OWNER 12601 PASEO CERRO SARATOGA CA 95070 -6609 86 -11 -039 AULWING FAMILY ►R CURRENT OWNER PASEO CERRO OGA CA 95070 -6609 86 -12 -037 EVERLY J VAUGHN 70 TUMBLEWEED CT REMONT CA 94539 86 -12 -040 OGER G KLINE IR CURRENT OWNER 2624 PASEO FLORES ARATOGA CA 95070 -4117 36 -12 -043 ORMA BORG R CURRENT OWNER 2584 PASEO FLORES ARATOGA CA 95070 -4115 36 -12 -056 JAN ROJAS R CURRENT OWNER 1631 PASEO OLIVOS A TOGA CA 95070 -4150 3 6'T2-059 [IRIAM C KRULL R CURRENT OWNER 1649 PASEO OLIVOS ARATOGA CA 95070 -4150 36 -17 -018 [ARIA -ELENA NORONA R CURRENT OWNER 1510 JOLENE CT ARATOGA CA 95070 -3508 36 -17 -021 EAN A MULLA R CURRENT OWNER 3690 WESTVIEW DR ARATOGA CA 95070 -3543 36 -17 -032 [CHARD A JEANNE JOHANSON R CURRENT OWNER 1537 SARATOGA AVE kRATOGA CA 95070 -4144 047 O DIAZ R CURRENT OWNER :700 WOOD DELL CT \RATOGA CA 95070 -3573 386 -11 -040 HAIDER AMER SHAMIN MUNIRA OR CURRENT OWNER 12621 PASEO CERRO SARATOGA CA 95070 -6609 386 -12 -038 MANFRED E SCHABES OR CURRENT OWNER 12652 PASEO FLORES SARATOGA CA 95070 -4117 386 -12 -041 JAMES LORETTA HUANG 1690 HOLT AVE LOS ALTOS CA 94024 -6928 386 -12 -044 ROBERT C MARY BELLIZZI OR CURRENT OWNER 12572 PASEO FLORES SARATOGA CA 95070-4115 386 -12 -057 WILLIAM M MARGARET CHURCH OR CURRENT OWNER 12637 PASEO OLIVOS SARATOGA CA 95070 -4150 386 -14 -003 KAABIPOUR E S OR CURRENT OWNER 12600 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -4189 386 -17 -019 KERCHEN HELLER OR CURRENT OWNER 12500 JOLENE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3508 386 -17 -022 PATRICIA J DON ERICKSON OR CURRENT OWNER 18670 WESTVIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3543 386 -17 -038 YOUNG J LEE OR CURRENT OWNER 18701 WOOD DELL CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3546 386 -18 -007 RICHARD R TERRI NAKATSU OR CURRENT OWNER 12457 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -4142 386 -12 -036 THAM H NGUYEN OR CURRENT OWNER 18675 BUCKNALL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -4103 386 -12 -039 HAROLD A CAROL VOSHAGE OR CURRENT OWNER 12638 PASEO FLORES SARATOGA CA 95070 -4117 386 -12 -042 JOSEPH M VIOLET LAMICA OR CURRENT OWNER 12596 PASEO FLORES SARATOGA CA 95070-4115 386 -12 -045 RONALD LOMA STUART OR CURRENT OWNER 12560 PASEO FLORES SARATOGA CA 95070-4115 386 -12 -058 XUAN T PHAM OR CURRENT OWNER 12643 PASEO OLIVOS SARATOGA CA 95070 -4150 386 -14 -028 JOHN CAROLE FREITAS LLC 3030 MOORPARK AVE SAN JOSE CA 95128 -2518 386 -17 -020 JEAN FINLAY OR CURRENT OWNER 12490 JOLENE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3508 386 -17 -023 HWA KIM OR CURRENT OWNER 12511 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -4144 386-17 -039 HONG S HSIA OR CURRENT OWNER 18723 WOOD DELL CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3361 386 -18 -008 WESTWIND ENTERPRISES LTD 1515 THE ALAMEDA 200 SAN JOSE CA 95126 -2321 86 -18 -009 ■ONNA KING R CURRENT OWNER 2481 SARATOGA AVE ARATOGA CA 95070 -4142 86 -18 -012 'AVID L ILENE TUCKER R CURRENT OWNER 3693 WESTVIEW DR ARATOGA CA.95070 -3542 36 -18 -030 ERA M OLDOFREDI 360 ELWOOD DR OS GATOS CA 95032 -1008 36 -46 -002 ODD DENISE KAJIOKA R CURRENT OWNER 2610 PASEO CERRO ARATOGA CA 95070 -4139 36 -46 -005 [ARC A VALLANCEY 3 BOX 35691 OS GATOS CA 95030 -0691 36 -46 -008 NDREW S DIANE PECK R CURRENT OWNER 2550 PASEO CERRO ARATOGA CA 95070 -4139 36 -46 -011 URTIS L JOAN BIGGS )58 KELTNER AVE AN JOSE CA 95117 -2830 36 -46 -025 RUBEY ARIAS R CURRENT OWNER 1 539 PASEO FLORES ARATOGA CA 95070 -4114 36 -46 -028 RIGNETTI FAMILY TRUST R CURRENT OWNER 1 595 PASEO FLORES ARATOGA CA 95070 -4116 36 -46 -031 AUL DICKINSON R CURRENT OWNER '.631 PASEO FLORES kRATOGA CA 95070 -4116 386 -18 -010 NAYEROLSADAT ZAHIRI OR CURRENT OWNER 12493 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3627 386 -18 -013 LARRY H BRENDA MEHRINGER OR CURRENT OWNER 18709 WESTVIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3542 386 -18 -031 THOMAS I SAVAGE OR CURRENT OWNER 12468 LOLLY CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3514 386 -46 -003 J R FAY MILLER OR CURRENT OWNER 12600 PASEO CERRO SARATOGA CA 95070 -4139 386 -46 -006 ANNETTE W CHARLES SONNTAG OR CURRENT OWNER 12570 PASEO CERRO SARATOGA CA 95070 -4139 386 -46 -009 SEAN J KAREN MURPHY OR CURRENT OWNER 12540 PASEO CERRO SARATOGA CA 95070 -4139 386-46-012 PAUL K KAREN MACK OR CURRENT OWNER 12500 PASEO CERRO SARATOGA CA 95070 -4137 386 -46 -026 HERBERT M AMOS OR CURRENT OWNER 12571 PASEO FLORES SARATOGA CA 95070 -4116 386 -46 -029 AKIRA MIYUKI NAKAZATO OR CURRENT OWNER 12607 PASEO FLORES SARATOGA CA 95070 -4116 386 -46 -032 A J M PASTRIKAS OR CURRENT OWNER 12643 PASEO FLORES SARATOGA CA 95070-4116 386 -18 -011 GEORGE E RUTH SANDERS OR CURRENT OWNER 18677 WESTVIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3542 386 -18 -029 VINCENT J GARONE 1387 NATHAN HALE DR PHOENIXVILLE PA 19460 -2739 386 -46 -001 THOMAS R POCHARI 12847 JEPSEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3730 386 -46 -004 BA JENIFER HUA 12843 LANTANA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3641 386 -46 -007 ANNE LEE 19191 DAGMAR DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5106 386 -46 -010 WILLIAM D CAROLYN EDWARDS OR CURRENT OWNER 12530 PASEO CERRO SARATOGA CA 95070 -4139 386 -46 -024 YUJIE ZHU OR CURRENT OWNER 12533 PASEO FLORES SARATOGA CA 95070 -4114 386 -46 -027 CALLIOPE TRAH OR CURRENT OWNER 12583 PASEO FLORES SARATOGA CA 95070 -4116 386 -46 -030 DAVID L WENDY THURSTON OR CURRENT OWNER 12619 PASEO FLORES SARATOGA CA 95070 -4116 386 -46 -033 JOSEPH E HELEN STANLEY OR CURRENT OWNER 12655 PASEO FLORES SARATOGA CA 95070-4116 86 -46 -034 LIZABETH HAHN )R CURRENT OWNER S ASE0 FLORES OGA CA 95070 -4116 'ITY OF SARATOGA .TTN: Kate Bear 3777 FRUITVALE AVE ARATOGA CA 95070 386 -46 -035 KAREN G VALENTE OR CURRENT OWNER 18707 BUCKNALL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -4105 Advanced Listing Services P.O. Box 2593 Dana Point CA 92624 386 -62 -006 NORMAN A VIRGINIA SMITH OR CURRENT OWNER 12624 BIARRITZ LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4193 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item 4 Application No.: ZOA07 -0003 Type of Application: Prohibit Blighted Property Conditions Location: Citywide Applicant: City of Saratoga Staff Planner: Jana Rinaldi, Code Compliance Specialist Meeting Date: August 22, 2007 n n Department Head: John Livingstone Z� RECOMMENDED ACTION: Make a recommendation to the City Council concerning adoption of the attached ordinance prohibiting blighted property conditions. REPORT SUMMARY: At its April 18, 2007 meeting the City Council directed staff to seek the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding an ordinance that would require property owners to keep their property free of blighted conditions. The City Code currently prohibits nuisances that create clear risks to public health and safety or that violate specific provisions of the Code. The attached ordinance would expand the definition of nuisance to include property that the City finds to be "blighted" to allow the City to respond to complaints of property conditions that create aesthetic impacts to the neighborhood. On August 7, 2007 a study session was held to allow both the Planning Commission and general public the opportunity to provide some initial input on the proposed ordinance. The Study Session was published in the Saratoga News and they also ran a story about the proposed ordinance and the study session. Approximately 15 members of the public attended the meeting. Comments from both the public and Planning Commission have been incorporated into the draft ordinance. 1 DISCUSSION: Background City Code Enforcement staff receives numerous complaints from City residents regarding blighted conditions on various properties in the City. Residents complain of overgrown weeds, dead or dying trees, abandoned or poorly maintained homes, and similar issues. The City Code provides the City with tools to address conditions that present a fire hazard or other clear threat to health or safety. The City works with the Fire District for weed abatement matters that pertain to potential fire hazards. If a complaint is received for weeds the Fire District performs an inspection of the property and determines if there is a fire code violation. This procedure is the same for the County Vector Control except the issues deal with rodent, mosquito and vermin problems at residences. Often, however, when conditions of concern to residents are referred to fire protection or vector control officials the investigation concludes that while the conditions may present aesthetic concerns, they do not present a level of public health or safety risk sufficient to warrant action. Other jurisdictions facing this problem have elected to adopt ordinances designed to allow protection of neighborhood aesthetics as well as health and safety. These ordinances address a broad range of property conditions in an effort to establish minimal standards of property maintenance and repair to protect the overall appearance, livability, and social /economic stability of neighborhoods. The ordinances are often similar to standards imposed privately by homeowners' associations through covenants, codes, and restrictions (CC &Rs). Draft Ordinance The attached draft ordinance is based on an ordinance adopted by the City of San Jose in 2002. It has been reformatted to exclude issues already addressed in the City Code, to improve readability, and to remove requirements that could prove difficult to enforce. The ordinance would require properties to be maintained to avoid conditions such as: Buildings that are vacant and unsecured that could harbor animals or intruders or otherwise serve as an attractive nuisance; Buildings in a state of disrepair (e.g., building exteriors, walls, fences, retaining walls, driveways, or walkways that are broken or deteriorated to the extent that the disrepair is visible from a street); and Overgrown, diseased, 'dead or decayed trees, weeds or other vegetation that substantially detracts from the aesthetic and property values of neighboring properties. The ordinance strives to be as specific as possible in order to provide clear guidance to residents regarding the minimum requirements for building and property maintenance. This will also assist code enforcement staff in responding to complaints and ascertaining whether conditions on a given property constitute blight. 2 Some ordinances regulating blight also contain broader language more generally prohibiting any condition of deterioration or disrepair that creates a substantial adverse impact on neighboring properties. This would provide the City with authority to address a broad range of aesthetic considerations. Staff did not include this requirement in the proposed ordinance in order to keep the ordinance focused on the specific issues that have been of greatest concern to residents complaining to code enforcement. In addition, this broader wording could lead to a significant increase in requests for code enforcement actions which could strain already limited code enforcement resources. The proposed ordinance also includes standards imposing landscape maintenance requirements as well as a requirement that landowners maintain any parkstrips on their land (a parkstrip is the area of land between the sidewalk and the street). These go beyond a prohibition of blighted conditions to impose affirmative requirements that landscaping be installed and properly maintained. The ordinance does not specify the type of landscaping required (other than to require use of weed block beneath decorative landscaping such as bark or gravel). The ordinance specifies that landscaping may include native and other drought tolerant plants. Enforcement The ordinance would be enforced in the same manner as other City ordinances. In cases where the violation is not immediately corrected a notice of abatement is sent to the property. The notice requires corrective action by the landowner by a date certain. The period to bring the property into compliance is based on the time reasonably required to cure the violation and the effect of the violation on public health and safety (e.g., the more significant the threat the more quickly the violation must be abated). If the notice is not successfully appealed and corrective action is not completed, a notice of violation is recorded against the property. Where a code violation presents an imminent danger to public health or safety, the City Manager may order that abatement work be performed by the City with the costs of that work charged to the property owner either directly or as a lien on the property. In these circumstances the City would generally be required to first obtain court approval for entry on to private property. The City could also elect to prosecute violators of the ordinance under the criminal enforcement provisions of the City Code. This allows fines of up to $1000 per violation prosecuted as a misdemeanor or of $100 to $500 (depending on circumstances) for violations prosecuted as an infraction. FISCAL IMPACTS: The ordinance could lead to an increase in complaints to the City's Code Enforcement staff. This would not have a direct fiscal impact but could result in a longer response times. If the number of complaints increases considerably the City could elect to increase the number of Code Enforcement staff in order to maintain current response times. To the extent that enforcement efforts lead to legal proceedings (e.g., appeals of enforcement decisions, requests for court orders authorizing the City to 3 enter on private property to undertake direct abatement actions) there would be additional costs incurred by the City Attorney's office. These costs would depend on the number and nature of the legal proceedings and could range from approximately $1,000 for a straightforward appeal to $15,000 or more for a direct abatement action. In some cases the City may be able recover a portion of these costs from the property owner found to be in violation of the Code. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Inform the City Council of the Commission's recommendation. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice of this meeting was properly posted and published in the San Jose Mercury on August 11, 2007. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE ADDING ARTICLE 7 -50 TO THE SARATOGA CITY CODE RELATING TO BLIGHTED PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Adoption. Article 7 -50 is added to the Saratoga City Code to read: 7- 50.010 Purpose of Article The purpose of this Article is to promote the public health, safety and welfare by requiring a minimum level of maintenance of private property to protect the livability, appearance and social and economic stability of the City and, to protect the public from the health and safety hazards and the impairments of property values that result from the neglect and deterioration of property. 7- 50.020 Definitions For the purposes of this Article, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this Section, unless the context or the provision clearly requires otherwise: (a) Decorative Landscaping means decorative non -live materials used to cover dirt in a garden or yard, such as rocks, or bark and does not include pavement with asphalt, cement or other similar products. (b) Landscaping means live trees, shrubs, lawns, other live plant materials (including native and drought tolerant plants) or Decorative Landscaping. (c) Native Plants means plants that are indigenous to California. (d) Parkstrip means the area between the property line and edge of the roadway not including a sidewalk or pathway. (e) Polluted Water means water that contains any bacterial growth, including algae, remains of rubbish, fecal matter, untreated sewage, refuse, debris, papers, or any other foreign matter or material that, because of its nature or location, constitutes an unhealthy or unsafe condition. 1 7- 50.030 Public Nuisance Any property upon which there exists property blight as set forth in the provisions of this Article is hereby declared and determined to be a public nuisance. 7- 50.040 Prohibition of Property Blight. (a) No person, whether as owner, agent, manager, operator, lessee, tenant, sublessee, or occupant in possession of a property, shall maintain a blighted property or cause or permit property to be maintained as a blighted property. (b) No person, whether as owner, agent, manager, operator, lessee, sublessee, tenant or occupant of a property, shall take any action or allow any action to be taken at that property in violation of any provision of this Article or any order issued pursuant to the provisions of this Article. 7- 50.050 General Conditions The presence of any one or more of the following conditions on property constitutes property blight: (a) Any condition that is detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare or that constitutes a public nuisance as defined in California Civil Code Section 3480; (b) Any building or structure that is unsecured constitutes property blight. A building or structure is unsecured when either of the following conditions exists: (1) The building or structure is inhabited, occupied or used without the consent of the owner or the agent of the owner; or (2) Unauthorized persons can readily gain entry to the building or structure without the consent of the owner or the agent of the owner. (c) A partially constructed, reconstructed or demolished building or structure upon which work has been abandoned constitutes property blight. Work is deemed abandoned when there is no valid current building or demolition permit for the work or when there has not been any substantial work on the building or structure for a period of six (6) months or more. (d) Any building that is unsecured or a harbor for vagrants, criminals or other unauthorized persons, or is in a condition such that persons can resort thereto for the purpose of committing a nuisance or unlawful act, constitutes property blight. (e) Any building or structure that is in a state of disrepair. A building or structure is in a state of disrepair when any of the following conditions exist and are visible from the street or neighboring properties: 1) Exterior walls or roof coverings have become deteriorated, do not provide adequate weather protection, or show evidence of the presence of termite infestation or dry rot; or 2) Broken or missing windows or doors that create a hazardous condition or a potential attraction to trespassers; or 3) Building exteriors, paint, walls, fences, retaining walls, driveways, or walkways that are broken or substantially deteriorated to the extent that the disrepair is visible from the front and exterior side yards visible from the street. (f) The property contains overgrown weeds or other vegetation that: 1) Constitutes a fire hazard or other condition that is dangerous to the public health, safety, welfare; or 2) Creates the potential for the harboring of rats, vermin, vector, or other similar nuisances; or 3) Is overgrown onto a public right -of -way at least twelve (12) inches; or 4) Is completely dead, over twelve (12) inches in height, and covers more than fifty percent (50 of the front or exterior side yard visible from the street. (g) The existence of any other condition defined as blight by any provision of this Code. 7- 50.060 Landscaping Requirements (a) A property, shall have landscaping installed and maintained in the portions of the front and exterior side yards that are visible from the street and not used as a driveway, walkway, or sidewalk, provided, however, that this requirement shall not apply: a. in any Agricultural District; b. in any Agricultural Preserve Open Space Overlay District; c. in any Residential Open Space District; d. to any land with a slope greater than 40 e. to any land that is the subject of an open space easement dedicated to the City of Saratoga; f. within any creek protection setback established pursuant to this Code; or g. to any property owned by a person with a financial hardship demonstrated by showing that he or she qualifies and has been accepted for the lifeline telephone service rate pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 873, 874 and 876, as they may be amended from time to time. (b) If only Decorative Landscaping is used to meet the requirements of this section, Weed Block shall also be used and shall be maintained or replaced as necessary to prevent the emergence of vegetation into the Decorative Landscaping. (c) Failure to meet the landscaping requirements of this Section constitutes property blight. 7- 50.070 Parkstrips Any property with a Parkstrip shall have landscaping installed in the nonpaved portions of the Parkstrip. Failure to meet the landscaping requirements of this section constitutes property blight. 3 7- 50.080 Abatement Actions Whenever the. City Manager determines that property blight exists on a property, the City Manager may require or take any necessary abatement or other enforcement actions to cause the property blight to be abated in accordance with the provisions of this Code, or by any other lawful means. The City Manager may determine that temporary corrective measures are required prior to the time that permanent abatement or other enforcement actions are instituted. Costs for any abatement performed by or on behalf of the City shall be recovered by the City in the City Manager's discretion. 7- 50.090 Imminent Danger (a) Any condition of property blight which is reasonably believed by the City Manager to be imminently dangerous to the public health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the property or to the public may be summarily abated by the City Manager, in accordance with Article 3 of this Code. (b) Actions taken to abate imminently dangerous conditions may include, but are not limited to, repair or removal of the condition creating the danger and/or the restriction from use or occupancy of the property on which the dangerous condition exists or any other abatement action determined by the City Manager. (c) If there exists on a blighted property any condition reasonably believed by the City Manager to be imminently dangerous to life, limb, health, or safety should such property be occupied or used by human beings, the City Manager may order the immediate restriction from use or occupancy of the blighted property in accordance with this Code. In addition to restricting use or occupancy, the order may require that other abatement actions be taken. 7- 50.110 Procedures of This Article Cumulative Procedures used and actions taken for the abatement of property blight are not limited by this Article. Procedures and actions under this Article may be utilized in conjunction with or in addition to any other procedure applicable to the regulation of buildings or structures or property. All property blight conditions which the City requires to be abated pursuant to the provisions and permit requirements of this Article shall be subject to all provisions of this Code including, but not limited to building construction, repair or demolition and to all of property improvement, and zoning, and all other applicable local, state, and federal laws. 7- 50.120 Civil Actions Nothing in this Article shall be construed to limit any right or remedy otherwise available in law or equity to any party harmed by a blighted property, nor shall this Article in any way limit the City's right to enforcement under any other provision of this Code or create a duty or obligation on the part of the City to enforce this Article. -4- Section 2. California Environmental Quality Act. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, this action is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (the amendment is exempt because it assures the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA). Section 3. Publication. This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. The foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 2007, and was adopted by the following vote following a second reading on the day of 2007: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: ATTEST: Aileen Kao, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: Richard Taylor, CITY ATTORNEY 5 Cathleen Boyer, CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga, California REPORT TO THE PLAT\ RECOMMENDED ACTION: Application No.: ZOA07 -0002 Type of Application: Regulation of Newsracks Location: Citywide Applicant: City of Saratoga Staff Planner: Jana Rinaldi, Code Compliance Specialist Meeting Date: August 22, 2007 Department Head: John Livingstone p2., Make a recommendation to the City Council concerning adoption of the attached ordinance regarding regulation of newsracks. REPORT SUMMARY: Background: The Saratoga Village Design Guidelines call for the City to develop a newsrack ordinance to require newsrack permits for newsracks on City streets. The Guidelines note that uncontrolled placement and maintenance of newsracks on public sidewalks and other rights of way can be a physical and visual nuisance to pedestrians. Based on complaints received by City staff in recent years, this is true in the Village and elsewhere in the City as well. At its meeting of June 20, 2007, the City Council directed staff to prepare a draft newsrack ordinance for consideration by the Planning Commission. The Council requested that the Planning Commission make recommendations to the Council regarding the ordinance. On August 7, 2007 a study session was held to allow both the Planning Commission and general public the opportunity to provide some initial input on the proposed ordinance. The Study Session was published in the Saratoga News and they also ran a story about the proposed ordinance and the study session. Comments from Planning Commission have been incorporated into the draft ordinance. 1 Item 5 ING COMMISSION Although newsrack regulations are a standard feature in many cities' codes, the City and newspaper distributors sought to address the issue through a cooperative memorandum of understanding developed in 1998. The MOU has not been implemented in some time, however, and the City continues to receive complaints from neighborhood businesses located throughout the Village expressing concerns about several new free standing newsracks along Big Basin Way. The City has also received complaints about newsrack in the Gateway and elsewhere in the City. The placement of newsracks and the distribution of periodicals are protected activities under the California and US Constitutions. This limits the City's ability to regulate newsracks and enforce newsrack regulations. However, the City is allowed some discretion to regulate the placement of newsracks and the distribution of periodicals within the City. While courts have invalidated broad "anti- newsrack" ordinances, they have held that cities retain authority to impose reasonable "time, place and manner" regulations on the placement of newsracks and the distribution of periodicals. Such ordinances must protect legitimate governmental interests while preserving the right to place newspapers and periodicals in a manner designed to achieve the City's goals without unduly restricting the free distribution of information. Discussion: Staff prepared the attached ordinance based on newsrack ordinances adopted in other jurisdictions and the 1998 MOU. Staff reviewed similar ordinances in Los Gatos, Los Altos, Carmel, Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco. Staff also reviewed materials prepared by the Newspaper Association of America. In general, the attached ordinance would require a permit for all newsracks on City streets. Newsracks in the Village would be required to be placed in newsrack encasements built by the City. Elsewhere in the City (or in the Village if sufficient space is not available in City encasements) newsracks would need to be located in a manner that does not interfere with use of City streets and sidewalks. The City would be authorized to remove non complying newsracks after giving the newsrack owner an opportunity to cure the violation or request reconsideration of the City's decision. Removed newsracks that are not claimed within 45 days could be destroyed by the City. The newsrack encasements will be developed by the Public Works Department. The Department will consult with the Village Ad Hoc committee and Village merchants regarding encasement design. The design will be submitted to the City Council for approval and budget authorization. The ordinance provides that the encasements must be developed with consideration of applicable guidelines regarding the design, location, and size. The following describes the key features of each section of the ordinance. 2 Section 10- 40.010 Purpose Findings The findings describe the reasons the City decided to adopt this ordinance. The findings express the determination that the ordinance is being adopted to address concerns over aesthetics, safety of vehicular traffic, and the safety and welfare of pedestrians on sidewalks. Many of these findings are similar to those from the City of Los Gatos' newsrack ordinance, as well as other cities' ordinances. Section 10- 40.020 Definitions This section establishes the definitions of several key terms used in the ordinance. Where possible, the definitions cross reference existing terms used elsewhere in the City Code to avoid inconsistent definitions. Section 10- 40.030 General Prohibition: Newsrack Permit Required This section sets forth the requirement that in order to install a newsrack on a public sidewalk, a newsrack permit from the City is required. Requiring a newsrack permit is common to the ordinances of most cities that were reviewed. Section 10- 40.040 Permit Requirements and Standards This section sets up the permit system. A newsrack permit is good for multiple newsracks in multiple locations, for one year, and may be renewed or amended to add or subtract newsracks. The designated staff person must review the application within a fixed time period and decide whether or not the application complies with the ordinance. If so, a newsrack permit, which also operates as an encroachment permit, shall be granted. If not, the staff person must provide notice of the denial. This section also authorizes the City Council to establish fees for processing permit applications, amendments, and renewals, and it allows the City to require posting a bond to cover the cost of removing the newsrack and returning the sidewalk to its original condition if that work is not properly performed by the newsrack owner. Section 10- 40.050 Insurance and Indemnification Requirements This section establishes a requirement that in order to obtain a valid newsrack permit, the permittee must agree to indemnify the City against any injury caused by the installation or operation of the newsrack, as well as provide the City with proof of liability insurance in the amount of $250,000 in case an accident occurs. Several of the other city ordinances we reviewed included similar provisions, which are important to protect the City from liability for injuries caused by newsracks on sidewalks. 3 Section 10- 40.060 Design Standards for Newsracks This section establishes size, color, and other design requirements for newsracks. It builds on provisions in the Saratoga Newsrack MOU. Like the MOU and the City of Carmel ordinance, it provides sample models that will comply with the design guidelines. Most of the design guidelines as to height appear to be necessary to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and are common to most of the ordinances reviewed. Color requirements are also imposed by the Saratoga Newsrack MOU, and the cities of Carmel, Los Altos, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. The prohibition on external advertising is modified from provisions in the Saratoga Newsrack MOU, as well as the ordinances of Carmel, Los Gatos, San Francisco, and San Diego. Pictures of the newsrack designs contemplated by the ordinance are included as Attachment 2 to this staff report. Section 10- 40.070 Location Standards for Newsracks This section sets location standards primarily with reference to safety concerns with respect to pedestrians, traffic, and emergency vehicles, as well as the orderly flow of pedestrians and the reasonable use of adjacent private property. This section also operates to limit both newsrack sprawl and congestion by requiring co- location of newsracks until the group of newsracks is eleven feet in length, at which point no more newsracks may be located within 50 feet of that group. This prohibition does not apply if there are no other suitable locations within 100 feet of this location on the same block. In addition to numerical standards, the ordinance includes a general health and safety standard to allow the City to reject a permit application or order the removal of a newsrack based on factual findings which are specific to that location. For the most part these provisions are similar to provisions in the Saratoga Newsrack MOU, as well as ordinances of Carmel, Los Altos, Los Gatos, and San Diego: Section 10- 40.080 Special Newsrack Regulations in the Village Because of the special historic and aesthetic concerns in the Village, this section imposes a requirement that all newsracks be placed in a newsrack encasement in the Village, if there is space available in a newsrack encasement. The Cities of San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco have imposed special requirements for certain areas of those cities, similar to the standards proposed for the Village (although the San Francisco ordinance was challenged in court, the case was settled and the ordinance continues to be enforced). Section 10- 40.090 Maintenance and Removal of Newsracks This section imposes requirements on the applicant to maintain the newsracks in a clean condition and to maintain the coin -return mechanism in working order. These provisions are similar to those in the Saratoga Newsrack MOU, as well as the ordinances of Los Altos, Los Gatos, Cupertino, San Diego, and San Francisco. In addition, this section reiterates the prohibition on external advertising and the requirement that the newsrack include the permittee's contact information. Lastly, this section requires that upon removal of a newsrack, the permittee must return the sidewalk to its 4 ID original condition, including filling holes. Numerous other cities include similar provisions, as does the Saratoga Newsrack MOU. Section 10- 40.100 Display of Certain Material Prohibited This section prohibits the display, sale or distribution of pornography or other harmful publications in a newsrack on a public sidewalk. Section 10- 40.110 Enforcement and Abatement of Nuisance This section provides mechanisms for enforcing the ordinance. In general, it requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before removing a newsrack, unless the newsrack is a danger to public safety. Previous court cases have held that notice and a hearing generally are required, except for threats to public safety. This provision also allows the City to seek to recover its costs of removing newsracks, such as abandoned newsracks. It also allows for the recovery of newsracks which were removed and impounded by the City, after payment of the costs incurred by the City. These provisions generally are similar to those in numerous other cities' ordinances, and it is probably most similar to that of the cities of Los Gatos and Los Altos. The Saratoga Newsrack MOU contains no similar enforcement provisions. Section 10- 40.120 Appeals This section allows for appeals from the denial of a permit or from a decision of the Newsrack Permit Administrator ordering removal of a newsrack. Appeals are heard by the Newsrack Appeal Officer, and that decision can be appealed to the City Council in accordance with section 2- 05.030 of the Municipal Code. Section 10- 40.130 Compliance Period This section provides a three month period for owners and operators of existing newsracks to comply with the provisions of the ordinance. Nearly all other cities' ordinances included a compliance period. FISCAL IMPACTS: Staff recommends that fees for newsracks be waived until July 1, 2008. Subsequent annual fees would be implemented in the 2008/2009 Fee Schedule. The Community Development Department is charged with administration of the program and estimates that it will require 0.33 staff FTE for administration and enforcement. Costs associated with program administration may be recovered through fees adopted in the 2008/09 Fee Schedule. In addition, the ordinance would require a deposit sufficient to cover the costs of abatement if the newsrack is ultimately abandoned. 5 CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City cannot enforce against placement of newsracks without the ordinance in effect. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Staff will forward the Commission's recommendation to the City Council. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice of this meeting was properly posted and published in the San Jose Mercury on August 11, 2007. Notices were mailed to businesses in the Village and newspaper publishers. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance 2. Pictures of standard newsracks 3. Notice and noticing labels 6 Attachment 1 ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE ADDING ARTICLE 10 -40 TO THE SARATOGA CITY CODE RELATING TO NEWSRACKS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Adoption. Article 10 -40 is added to the Saratoga City Code to read: 10- 40.010 Purpose and Findings The purpose of these regulations is to acknowledge and achieve the following: a. There is a substantial governmental interest in promoting the public health, safety, welfare and convenience by ensuring that persons may reasonably use the public streets, sidewalks, rights -of -way, and other public property without interference with such use and by ensuring that the streets are maintained in an aesthetically pleasing manner that avoids congestion and clutter of structures on sidewalks and other public rights of way. b. Newsracks placed and maintained on the streets, sidewalks or other public rights -of- way, absent some reasonable regulation, can under certain circumstances unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of such streets, sidewalks and public rights -of -way, and present hazards to persons or property. c. The streets, sidewalks and public rights -of -way are historically associated with the distribution of newspapers and other publications, and access to and use of these areas for such purposes is not to be denied except where such use unreasonably interferes with the use of these areas by pedestrians or traffic, where such use presents a hazard to persons or property, or where such use is carried out in a manner that creates congestion and clutter or detracts from the design of the surrounding streetscape. d. Reasonable accommodation of these competing interests can be achieved by adoption of this Article, which imposes time, place or manner restrictions which regulate the placement and maintenance of newsracks. e. The public health, safety, welfare and convenience require that: 1. Interference with vehicular, bicycle, wheelchair or pedestrian traffic be avoided; 2. Obstruction of sight, distance and views of vehicular traffic, traffic signs and street- crossing pedestrians be eliminated; 3. Damage done to sidewalks or streets be minimized and repaired; 4. The good appearance of the public streets and grounds be maintained; 5. Trees and other landscaping be allowed to grow without disturbance; 6. Access to emergency and other public facilities be maintained; and 7. Ingress and egress from properties adjoining the public rights -of -way be protected. g. The regulation of the distribution of newspapers and other publications dispensed in newsracks as set forth in this Article provides the least intrusive and burdensome means for ensuring the purposes stated in this section are carried out while still providing ample opportunities for the distribution of news and other printed matter to the residents of the City. This Article applies only to newsracks on public property and does not apply on private property. 10- 40.020 Definitions For the purposes of this Article, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section, unless the context or the provision clearly requires otherwise: a. Abandoned newsrack means any newsrack which contains no printed material supplied by the newsrack permittee for fourteen consecutive calendar days, except that a newsrack remaining empty due to a labor strike or any temporary and extraordinary interruption of distribution or publication by the newspaper or other publication distributed from that newsrack shall not be deemed abandoned. b. Newsrack Permit Administrator means an employee of the City of Saratoga working within the Community Development Department and designated by the Community Development Director to manage and process the implementation and enforcement of a violation under this Article. c. Newsrack Appeal Officer means the Director of the Community Development Department authorized to hear appeals of decisions of the Newsrack Permit Administrator. d. Newsrack means any box, container, storage unit, or other dispenser installed, used or maintained for the display and distribution of newspapers, periodicals or other printed matter. Newsrack includes both modular newsracks, which have more than one opening, and single newsracks, which have only one opening. e. Newsrack encasement means a City owned and maintained, modular receptacle inside which one or more privately owned newsracks may be placed. The newsrack encasement shall be large enough to accommodate a newsrack which complies with the standards of this Article, be permanently affixed to the ground or the side of a wall or other structure and be of a design which is architecturally compatible with the surrounding area. f. Public right -of -way has the same meaning as that term is defined in section 15- 06.570 of the Saratoga Municipal Code. g. Roadway has the same meaning as that term is defined in section 9- 10.150 of the Saratoga Municipal Code. h. Sidewalk has the same meaning as that term is defined in section 9- 10.160 of the Saratoga Municipal Code. i. Single -slot opening means an individual opening within a modular newsrack. j. Street has the same meaning as that term is defined in section 9- 10.180 of the Saratoga Municipal Code. k. Village has the same meaning as that term is defined in section 15- 06.710 of the Saratoga Municipal Code. 10- 40.030 Newsrack Permit Required No person shall place or cause to be placed a newsrack on public right -of -way unless such person (1) obtains a newsrack permit from the Newsrack Permit Administrator and (2) complies with all requirements of this Article. 10- 40.040 Permit Requirements and Standards a. General. A newsrack permit is applicable only for the newsrack(s) and location(s) described in the permit. b. Duration. A newsrack permit shall be valid for one year and shall be renewable annually. c. Permit Application. The newsrack permit application shall state the name, address and telephone number of those responsible for installation, use and maintenance of the newsracks, and shall describe, with particularity, the model and design of the newsrack(s) and the location(s) proposed for installation. Contact information must be updated by the applicant within ten (10) days of any change. d. Review of Permit Application. The Newsrack Permit Administrator shall review each application to determine whether each proposed newsrack complies with the requirements of this Article. The Newsrack Permit Administrator shall, within thirty days of receipt of the permit application, either issue a newsrack permit or deny the application, in whole or in part, and notify the applicant in writing of the decision. If the application is denied, this notification shall include an explanation of the reasons for denial. A denial may be appealed in accordance with this Article. The authorization for any newsrack included in a newsrack permit shall be of no further force and effect if that newsrack becomes an abandoned newsrack. e. Amendments. A newsrack permit may be amended from time to time upon application for an amendment containing the information described in subsection (c), above, for each additional newsrack or location to be the subject of the permit. The Newsrack Permit Administrator shall review such applications in accordance with subsection (d), above. f. Encroachment Permits. A newsrack permit issued pursuant to this Article shall operate as an encroachment permit and no separate permit pursuant to Article 10 -20 of this Code shall be required. g. Fees. If a newsrack permit fee has been established by the City Council no newsrack permit shall take effect until payment by the applicant of said fee. Any fee or fees adopted by the City Council shall not exceed the costs of processing permit applications, amendments and renewals, as well as the costs of maintaining newsrack encasements and enforcing this Article. The Newsrack Permit Administrator may also require a bond or other form of security in an amount reasonably necessary to ensure removal of each newsrack authorized by the newsrack permit in the manner required by this Article. h. Permit not a Bar to Enforcement. The issuance of a newsrack permit under this Article shall not prevent the City from subsequently enforcing this Article, if a violation is later found to exist. 10- 40.050 Indemnification and Insurance Requirements a. Indemnification. Every newsrack permit holder shall agree, prior to the effectiveness of the newsrack permit, to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers and employees from any loss, liability, damage or cost sustained by any person or property, arising from the installation, operation or use of such newsrack; provided, however, that such obligation to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers and employees shall not extend to any loss, liability damage or cost resulting from the acts or property of another. b. Liability Insurance. Each newsrack permit holder shall, prior to the effectiveness of the newsrack permit, furnish to the City a certificate showing that the permit holder has then in force public liability and property damage insurance naming the City as an additional insured in an amount of not less than $250,000 minimum liability combined single limit (bodily injury and property damage) per person and per occurrence. The permit holder shall provide and keep in force that policy of public liability insurance during such time as it continues to own, operate, use, or maintain any newsrack on a public right -of -way in the City. The evidence of insurance filed with the City shall include a statement by the insurance carrier that 30 days' notice will be given to the City before any cancellation. 10- 40.060 Design Standards for Newsracks a. Newsrack Models. Each newsrack shall be substantially equivalent to a 49 -16 or 100 style (as manufactured by "Sho- Rack a KJ50/KJ55F (as manufactured by "K- Jack a M- 30/M -33 (as manufactured by "National Newsvend a "armorhood 80 style" rack, or a "Ganset" rack, as determined by the Newsrack Permit Administrator consistent with the provisions of this section. b. Size Requirements. No newsrack shall be installed in a public right -of -way that does not meet the approved newsrack dimensions of not more than fifty -four (54) inches high including the pedestal measured from the ground to the top surface of the newsrack, not more than two (2) feet deep and not more than thirty (30) inches wide. c. Dangerous Design Prohibited. The design of a newsrack shall not create a danger to the persons using the newsrack in a reasonably foreseeable manner. d. Installation Standards. All newsracks shall be pedestal mounted and shall be permanently affixed to the ground, except as permitted under this Article. Newsracks shall not be chained or otherwise attached to a bus shelter, bench, street light, utility pole or sign pole, to any other single or modular newsrack, or to any tree, shrub or other plant. e. Height Requirements. The highest operable part of the coin slot, if provided for the newsrack, and all controls, dispensers and other operable components of newsracks shall not be greater than forty -eight (48) inches above the level of the adjacent pavement or sidewalk, nor lower than fifteen (15) inches above the level of the adjacent pavement or sidewalk. f. Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is intended that the provisions of this Article shall be interpreted and applied consistent with accessibility standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, P.L. 101 -336, as amended. g. Color Requirements. The color of all newsracks shall be tones of brown. h. Advertising. A newsrack may display the logo or name of the publication it offers for distribution. A newsrack must also display the identification label required by section 10- 40.090(d). No other advertising or displays are allowed on the exterior of a newsrack. i. Newsrack Encasement Designs. The City may establish newsrack encasements in various parts of the City (e.g., the Village area). The City will consult with and consider any applicable design guidelines regarding the design, location, and size of the newsrack encasements. 10- 40.070 Location Standards for Newsracks a. Location Standards. Newsracks shall comply with the following standards: 1. Permissible Locations. Newsracks shall only be placed near a curb or adjacent to the wall of a building, unless in a City approved encasement. The back of newsracks placed near the curb shall be placed no less than eighteen inches nor more than twenty- four inches: from the edge of the curb. The back of newsracks placed adjacent to the wall of a building shall be placed parallel to such wall and not more than six inches from the wall. No newsrack shall be placed or maintained on a sidewalk or parkway opposite another newsrack or a kiosk which distributes primarily newspapers, periodicals or other publications. 2. Roadways and Streets. No person shall install, stock, or maintain any newsrack which projects onto, into or over any part of the roadway or street of any public right- of -way, or which rests, wholly or in part, upon, along or over any portion of a roadway or street. 3. Prohibited Locations. No newsrack shall be placed, installed, used or maintained: a. Within ten feet of any marked or unmarked crosswalk as measured from the curb return; b. Within five feet of any fire hydrant, fire callbox, police callbox, or other emergency facility; c. Within five feet of any driveway. d. Within five feet of any bus bench; e. Within five feet of any red curb of a bus stop zone; f. Within five feet of any blue curb or a disabled parking zone; g. In such a manner as to obstruct pedestrian or driver views of traffic signs or oncoming traffic; h. At any location where the clear space for the passage of pedestrians is reduced to less than six feet; i. In such a manner as to impede or interfere with the reasonable use of any commercial window display; j. Within fifteen feet of the curb return of any wheelchair curb ramp not in a marked crosswalk; k. Within a landscaped area; 1. In such a manner as to unreasonably obstruct or interfere with access to or the use and enjoyment of abutting property. 4. Other Prohibited Locations. No person shall install, stock, or maintain any newsrack which in whole or in part rests upon, in or over any sidewalk, when such installation, use or maintenance either (1) endangers the safety of persons or property, 5 (2) is in a location used for public utility purposes, public transportation purposes or other government use, or (3) unreasonably interferes with or impedes the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, including handicapped access, the ingress into or egress from any residence, place of business, or the use of poles, posts, traffic signs or signals, hydrants, postal service collection boxes or other objects permitted at or near such location. b. Limitations on Proximity of Newsracks. Newsracks shall be placed next to each other whenever feasible. However, no group of newsracks placed along a curb shall extend for a distance of more than eleven (11) feet. A newsrack may not be located on the same block within fifty (50) feet of a group of newsracks unless there is no other suitable location within one hundred (100) feet of the proposed location, in which case it may be located no less than four feet from that existing group of newsracks. c. Use of Newsrack Encasements. Where a newsrack encasement has been provided by the City at a given location, and there is available space in that newsrack encasement, no newsracks may be installed outside of the newsrack encasement on the same block as the encasement. If adequate space in existing newsrack encasements does not exist, the City shall construct a new or expanded newsrack encasement within 30 days or shall permit the applicant to install a newsrack adjacent to the newsrack encasement until such time as the City constructs a new or expanded newsrack encasement. 10- 40.080 Special Newsrack Regulations in the Village a. Findings. The City has determined that the Village is a unique, historic area of the City. Because of numerous complaints from merchants in the Village, and in light of the special aesthetic concerns and the extensive pedestrian use of the area, special regulation of newsracks in the Village is necessary. In light of the unique conditions in the Village the City will install newsrack encasements in the Village. b. Use of Newsrack Encasements Mandatory. Within the Village, no newsrack may be located except within a newsrack encasement. If adequate space in existing newsrack encasements does not exist, the City shall construct a new or expanded newsrack encasement within 30 days or shall permit the applicant to install a newsrack adjacent to the newsrack encasement until such time as the City constructs a new or expanded newsrack encasement. 10- 40.090 Maintenance and Removal a. Regular Maintenance Required. Each newsrack shall be maintained in a neat and clean condition and in good repair at all times. For example, without limitation, the newsrack shall be reasonably free of dirt and grease, be reasonably free of chipped, faded, peeling or cracked paint, be reasonably free of rust and corrosion, have no broken or cracked plastic or glass parts, and have no broken structural parts. b. Adhesive Labels Prohibited. Adhesive labels, other than City issued identification/approval labels and advertising permitted pursuant to section 10- 40.060(h) shall not be displayed on newsracks. c. Coin Return Mechanisms. Each newsrack which requires the deposit of money to obtain the publication shall be equipped with a coin -return mechanism to permit persons using the machine to secure a refund in the event they are unable to receive the publication paid for. The coin -return mechanism shall be maintained in good working order. d. Contact Information. Every person maintaining a newsrack under the terms of this Article shall have his or her name, current address, and telephone number (updated within ten (10) days of any changes) and permit number affixed to it in a place where such information will be readily visible and shall include, with such identification, instructions on how to receive a refund in the event of coin -return malfunctions. e. Removal. Upon the removal of a newsrack, the public right -of -way, shall be returned to its original condition including but not limited to the refilling of holes installed for purposes of securing the newsrack. Any bond or security furnished to the City in connection with a newsrack permit shall be returned to the newsrack owner upon removal of a newsrack in accordance with this section. 10- 40.100 Display of Certain Material Prohibited No person shall sell, offer for sale,, keep or maintain for sale, or distribute, or place or maintain harmful matter, as such term is defined in Section 313 of the Penal Code of California, in any newsrack on any public right -of -way. 10- 40.110 Enforcement and Abatement a. Declaration of Public Nuisance. Any newsrack in violation of this article shall constitute a public nuisance. b. Removal of Newsracks. Abandoned newsracks, any newsrack not authorized by a newsrack permit that remains in effect, and any other newsrack otherwise in violation of this Article may be removed by designated City employees as provided in this section. c. Notice Required. Before any newsrack is removed, the owner shall be provided notice of the violation and the City's intent to remove the newsrack. Notice shall be provided by posting on the newsrack. For newsracks authorized by a newsrack permit, notice also shall be mailed to the address for notice provided in the newsrack permit. The notice shall list the code sections being violated and shall provide the owner fourteen (14) days from the date of the notice to remedy the violation or file an appeal. The notice shall state the address and location to file an appeal of the notice of violation and intent to remove. d. Opportunity to Contest Removal. Any person notified under this Article may file a request for reconsideration of the notice of violation and intent to remove with the Newsrack Permit Administrator. The Newsrack Permit Administrator shall set a time for a meeting with the appellant at least three (3) but not more than ten (10) business days following receipt of the request for reconsideration. The meeting shall be informal, but oral and written evidence may be given by both sides. Any action by the City with respect to the alleged violation shall be stayed pending the decision of the Newsrack Permit Administrator following the meeting, which decision shall be rendered in writing no later than ten (10) business days after the meeting. The Newsrack Permit Administrator may give oral notice of the decision at the close of the meeting, but shall 7 give written notice, as well, of all decisions. A decision of the Newsrack Permit Administrator may be appealed as provided in section 10- 40.120 of this Article. e. Removal. The City may remove a newsrack if, following issuance of the notice of violation and intent to remove, the person responsible for the newsrack has (1) not timely filed a request for reconsideration with the Newsrack Permit Administrator or (2) not timely remedied the violation. If a request for reconsideration has been filed the City may remove the newsrack that was the subject of the request for reconsideration fourteen (14) days after the request for reconsideration or appeal was denied if no further appeal has been filed with either the Newsrack Appeal Officer or the City Council. Within three (3) days of removing said newsrack the City shall notify the permit holder, if any, of the removal and of the opportunity to recover the newsrack within 45 days of the date of removal. Where the newsrack was placed without a permit the City shall provide notice to any persons provided notice in connection with the initial notice of violation and intent to remove and any persons who filed an appeal of said notice. f. Summary Removal for Dangerous Newsracks. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (c) of this section, prior notice of removal is not required where the newsrack poses a danger to pedestrians or vehicles. The City shall, within three (3) days of removing said newsrack, provide notice and an opportunity to contest the removal of the newsrack in substantial compliance with the provisions of this section. g. Recovery of Removed Newsracks. Removed newsracks shall be retained and may be recovered by their owner within forty -five days of their removal. The owner shall pay an impound fee recovering the actual cost to the City of removing, transporting, and storing said newsrack. Newsracks removed by the City shall be retained within the City of Saratoga. Newsracks which are not claimed within forty -five days shall be deemed permanently abandoned and shall be disposed of. If a bond or other security has been filed with the City in connection with a newsrack that has been removed, said bond or security shall be paid to the City. No recovery fee shall be required of an owner of a newsrack for which the City has recovered a bond or other security. h. City Recovery of Costs. The cost of investigating, removing and storing newsracks under this Section shall be chargeable as a civil debt to the owner thereof and may be collected by the City in the same manner as it collects other civil debts or obligations, provided, however, that no costs shall be chargeable for any amount recovered by the City pursuant to a bond or other security filed in connection with a newsrack. i. Remedies Cumulative. The enforcement and abatement provisions provided in this section are a cumulative remedy and supplement the City's ability to enforce this provision under other procedures specified in this Code. Abatement under this section does not constitute a defense to any proceedings which may be employed simultaneously pursuant to the general provisions of this Code. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to limit any right or remedy otherwise available in law or equity to any party harmed by a newsrack, nor shall this Article in any way limit the City's right to enforcement under any other provision of this Code or create a duty or obligation on the part of the City to enforce this Article. 8 10- 40.120 Appeals a. Appeals of Permit Denials. If a permit application is denied by the Newsrack Permit Administrator, the applicant shall have ten calendar days within which to appeal that decision to the Newsrack Appeal Officer. The Newsrack Appeal Officer shall conduct a de novo review the decision of the Newsrack Permit Administrator. The review shall be informal, but oral and written evidence may be given by both sides. If the denial of the permit application is upheld by the Newsrack Appeal Officer, the applicant may appeal that decision to the City Council, in accordance with the appeals provisions of Section 2- 05.030 of this Code. b. Appeals of Removal Orders. If the Newsrack Permit Administrator denies a request for reconsideration of a decision to remove a newsrack under section 10- 40.110, the applicant shall have ten calendar days within which to appeal that decision to the Newsrack Appeal Officer: The Newsrack Appeal Officer shall conduct a de novo review the decision of the Newsrack Permit Administrator. The review shall be informal, but oral and written evidence may be given by both sides. If the removal order is upheld by the Newsrack Appeal Officer, the applicant may appeal that decision to the City Council, in accordance with the appeals provisions of Section 2- 05.030 of this Code. 10- 40.130 Compliance Period Every pre- existing newsrack located within a public right of way in the City shall comply with all provisions of this Article and obtain a newsrack permit within three (3) months of the effective date of this ordinance or be voluntarily removed. Thereafter, any newsrack not in compliance shall be subject to enforcement as provided in section 10- 40.120. Every new newsrack proposed in the City after the effective date of this ordinance shall comply with the provisions of this Article. Nothing contained herein shall limit the City's authority to remove newsracks that are a threat to public safety during the three month compliance period. Section 2. California Environmental Quality Act. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, this action is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (the amendment is exempt because it assures the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment). Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or part of this article is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the final decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this article and the remaining portions of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. Section 4. Publication. This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. The foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 2007, and was adopted by the following vote following a second reading on the day of 2007: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: ATTEST: Aileen Kao, Cathleen Boyer, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga, California Saratoga, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: Richard Taylor, CITY ATTORNEY Attachment 2 Traditional 49- 16/100 with Top TK -100 Slanted TK -100 with Center Radius Top Click Options for Prices Impressions I TRAYS 15 3/8" deep (front to back) PEDESTALS 18 Wide, 6 3/4" deep, 14" x 14" base Sho -Racks to be Displayed MB #1 Single Width 24 1/4" wide 14 lbs. Shipping Wt. MB #2 Double Width 48 1/2" 22 lbs. Shipping Wt. MB #3 Triple Width 72 3/4" 31 lbs. Shipping Wt. MP #1 15 1/4 high 26 lbs. Shipping Wt. MP #2 19" high 28 lbs. Shipping Wt. MP #3 23" high 32 lbs. Shipping Wt. ne K 100 One Needed One Needed TVs K 100 s` N fed One Needed One- Needed Two Needed Two Needed wo K -49 -16 (Stacked) One Needed One Needed wo K -49 -16 (Side -by -Side) One Needed One Needed hree K -49 -16 (Side by Side) One Needed Two Needed Four K -49 -16 (Stacked) High r Wide One Needed One Needed Six K -49 -16 (Stacked) High 3Wide One Needed Two Needed to-Rack Traditional 49-16/100 of 2 Kaspar Co. I Sho -Rack I Die &Tool I KASELCO I Wire Works 1 Kaspar Outdoors 1 Electroplating Home Place Order Broadsheet Modulars Tabloid Mechanisms F.-- Mech Seminars Decals Impressions Color Chart Contact Us http://www.shorack.com/coinoperated/Traditional49-16_100.htm COIN OPERATED NEWS RACKS MODULAR 7/31/2007 7:20 AM One K -100 and Two K -49 -16 (Stacked) One Needed One Needed Two K -100 and Two K -49 -16 (Stacked) One Needed Two Needed. One K -100 and Four K -49 -16 (Stacked) 2 High 2 Wide One Needed Two Needed ;ho -Rack Traditional 49- 16/100 Place Order http://www.shorack.com/coinoperated/Traditional49-16_100.1nrn Kaspar Co. 1 Sho-Rack 1 Die Tool KASELCO 1 Kaspar Wire Works 1 Kaspar Outdoors 1 Electroplating Company History 1 Contact Us 1 Careers na, Kaspar's 2000 Kaspar Corporation. All rights reserved. of 2 7/31/2007 7:20 AM Attachment 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408 -868 -1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 22 day of August 2007, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. The public hearing will be held at the Civic Theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. 5:00 p.m. The public hearing item is: APPLICATION /ADDRESS: APPLICATION ZOA07 -0002 (City Wide) APPLICANT /OWNER: CITY OF SARATOGA Description: Proposed Newsrack Ordinance The Planning Commission will consider a draft ordinance to regulate the placement of newsracks on public property in the City of. Saratoga. The ordinance would establish permit requirements and procedures, newsrack design standards, placement specifications, maintenance requirements, and enforcement and appeals procedures. 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 Tuesday, August 14, 2007. 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. Jana Rinaldi Code Compliance Specialist jrinaldi@saratoga.ca..us 408- 868 -1214 Easy Peel Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® Today's Home Magazine 0 al n Lisa Ross, Editor et Lane, Suite 280 nut Creek, CA 94598 The Wave Magazine 1735 Technology Drive, Suite 575 San Jose, CA 95110 Metro Newspapers 550 South First Street San Jose, CA 95113 -2806 The Mercury News Attn: News Rack Distributor 750 Ridder Park Drive San Jose, CA 95190 ttiquettes faciles a peler Feed Paper See Instruction Sheet for Easy Peel Feature' Home and Land Attn: Tom Garsh 101 Main Street Los Altos, CA 94022 Jobs Careers Newspaper Attn William Booth 2600 El Camino Real San Mateo, CA 94403 Parents Press 1454 Sixth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 The McClatchy Company 405 Alberto Way Los Gatos, CA 95032 -5406 Sens de charaement Los Gatos Weekly Times 634 N. Santa Cruz Ave, #206 Los Gatos, CA 95030 -4361 The Property Pages Attn: Dax Legaspi 1565 Meridian Avenue San Jose, CA 95125 SAVERY ®5160® Bay Area Parent Magazine 1660 S. Amphlett Blvd. San Mateo, CA 94402 Media News Group 101 W. Colfax Ave, Suite 1100 Denver, CO 80202 Consultez la feuille www.avery.com &instruction 1- 800 -GO -AVERY Advanced -HR, Inc. 14407 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The Basin 14572 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Blue Rock Shoot 14523 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Bob Ray Creative Services, Inc. 14567 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Brian Berg Berg Software Design 14500 Big Basin Way. Saratoga, CA 95070 Comerica Bank 14401 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 C R Motors 14585 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Diamonds by Filice 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Divine Wear 14419 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Floral Fantasia Saratoga 14440 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Aegis Gallery of Fine Art 14531 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The Bank Bar 14421 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Big Basin Chiropractic 14471 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Butter Paddle Gourmet Kitchen 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The Coffee Grounds 14567 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Carol's Gallery 14455 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Cathleen M. Peterson, E.A. 14583 Big Basin Way #4 Saratoga, CA 95070 Deja Company 14567 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The Echo Shop 14477 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 F1oBell 14519 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Bank of America 14476 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Bella Saratoga 14503 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Bruce Bartlett, D.D.S. 14567 Big Basin Way #C Saratoga, CA 95070 Bangkok Palace 14515 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Coldwell Banker/NRT 14506 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Curves 14456 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Claudia Quella 14664 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The Design Atelier 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Exclamation Point 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The Florentine Restaurant Groin 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The French Tailor lgaBig Basin Way Sga, CA 95070 Golden Mirror 14415 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Harmonie Skin Body Care 14501 Big Basin Way #A Saratoga, CA 95070 Hong's Gourmet 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 International Coffee Exchange 14471 Big Basin Way oga, CA 95070 Knitting Arts 14554 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Law Offices /Thomas W. Davies 14625 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Lupretta's Delicatessen 14480 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 M. E. Benson's Antiques 20603 Third Street Saratoga, CA 95070 Masu Japanese Bistro 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The Fat Robin/La Mesa 14429 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Gallery Saratoga Co /op, Inc. 14435 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The Hair Conception/Du Pont 14451 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Hakone Foundation Gift Shop 21000 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Kirk Co. Hair Design 14443 A Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 La Fondue 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Little Amsterdam 14490 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 L'Avenir Salon 20601 Third Street Saratoga, CA 95070 Mechanical Technology Services 14660 Big Basin Way A Saratoga, CA 95070 Michael Steinberg Photography 14572 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Gervais Restaurant Francais 14560 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Hair Studio 14451 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Hillview Cleaners 14440 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 James Craig Stanley /Options 14567 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Kurt Heisig Music 14428 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 La More Michelle 14467 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Louise M. Smith, M.S. 14567 Big Basin Way #B Saratoga, CA 95070 Martin B. Fenster, Attorney 14625 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Madam Shaunas 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Pelio Associates, Inc. 14573 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The Perfect Trainer 14584 Fifth Street Saratoga, CA 95070 Per -Am Ventures, Inc. 14560 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Pat Richard Insurance Agency 14540 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Remax Team Advantage 14471 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Robert S. Pollack 14500 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga Dry Cleaners, Inc. 14495 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga Kitchen Bath Design 14482 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Studio 67 14440 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga Barbers 14440 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga Wine Merchants, Inc. 14500 Big Basin Way A Saratoga, CA 95070 Pat Smith's Extravaganza 14443 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Parkmark 14654 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The Plumed Horse 14555 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 RTM Enterprises, Inc. 14612 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Reve un Salon 14415 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Shoe Topia 14440 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga Chamber of Commerce 14485 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga Buy Save Market 14440 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Sent Sovi 14583 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Shanthi Madreiddi 14567 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Prime Cuts 14529 Big Basin Way #.0 Saratoga, CA 95070 Preston Wynne 14567 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Rose Deli Market 14445 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Rezi/Reve 14417 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Rapunzel 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Skin Prophecy 14531 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga Oaks Lodge 14626 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Sandra Kamiak, M.D. 14567 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga Cafe 14445 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga Plaza Bakery 14440 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga Pool Service lidaBig Basin Way S ga, CA 95070 Saratoga BP 14395 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Tanner Asset Management Group 14417 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Venz Fine Photography 14567 Big Basin Way #3A Saratoga, CA 95070 Wells Fargo Investments 14428 Big Basin Way Ir a, CA 95070 Ronald Barbara Worden P. O. Box 52085 Phoenix, AZ 85072 -2085 Downey Savings Loan Assoc. P. O. Box 6000 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Casabonne P. O. Box 247 El Verano, CA 95433 -0247 George M. Payne 15940 Rochin Terr Los Gatos, CA 95032 -4823 Lees Partnership 14493 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga Nails 14511 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Southwest Electric 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The UPS Store #1291 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Vienna Woods Delicatessen 14567 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Warren B. Heid AIA Assoc. 14630 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Zambetti Associates 14540 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 L M Louella Sullivan 20570 Canyon View Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 Elizabeth P. Klear 20387 Thelma Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 -4946 James Arlene Rosenfled 14219 Okanogan Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 -5549 William Julie Carson 621 Del Roy Court Campbell, CA 95008 -1834 Stephen D. Hall, CPA 14457 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The Trattoria Restaurant 14500 Big Basin Way #A Saratoga, CA 95070 U. S. A. Nails 14479 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Warren Lampshire 14457 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 W. Jeffery Heid 14630 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Zazoo 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Otto M and Bette Crawford 12471 Green Meadow Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 -3032 Robert Shirley Cancellieri 14860 Cody Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 Bernard A Wallace 1999 Windward Pt Discovery Bay, CA 94514 -9512 Carl ET Holm 1 Goodwin Court Redwood City, CA 94061 -2446 Helen Joseph Brozda 235 Linden Street Santa Cruz, CA 95062 -1019 Ruth M Long P. 0. Box 2095 Saratoga, CA 95070 -0095 JoseWSan 374 W Santa Clara Street San Jose, CA 95113 -1502 Virgil Evelyn Herring 14995 Wonderland Blvd Redding, CA 96003 -8522 LaBarbera 1246 Fruitdale Avenue San Jose, CA 95128 Trafalgar Inc 1735 Westbrook Avenue Los Altos, CA 94024 -5321 Mitch Tracy Cutler 14480 Oak Place Saratoga, CA 95070 -5929 Charles Elisbeth Stauss 20 Chestnut Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 -5804 Klaus Yvonne Pache 14555 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 -6013 C H Davies P. 0. Box 2039 Saratoga, CA 95070 -0039 Joseph Ann Fitzsimmons 14611 Big Basin Way E Saratoga, CA 95070 -6073 Gladys P Hernandez 19641 Charters Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 -4407 Wanda Robert Pollack 14500 Big Basin Way C Saratoga, CA 95070 -6076 Cali Investments 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 -6090 Donald Hunt 14658 Nelson Way San Jose, CA 95124 -3517 Jeff Gasik 21070 Dorsey Way Saratoga, CA 95070 -5336 Barbara Michael Purcell 200 Via Genoa Newport Beach, CA 92663 Ruth M. Long P. 0. Box 2095 Saratoga, CA 95070 -0095