Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-2007 Planning Commission Packetit October 24, 2007 CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME ADDRESS /(FS L. % it Our f -tA-. e_ W4 SUBJECT .SP IR4 D,<W b � A PPS (e 4 ?-i--n-� AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE ! Q 24 Jr 9-- TELEPHONE NO. �- TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT . ,L` (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 process 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 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 NAME yew [),) P4 1,G `— ADDRESS SUBJECT m AGENDA ITEM NO.' / DATE. TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT TELEPHONE NO. �Qq (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 process 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 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 NAME u 6 1—�' 5C . 1-4 h, ADDRESS 2--C� `I'`2 57 S SUBJECT -r-3 "— ?—ED AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE -b 2 TELEPHONE NO.. TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT `7 s (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 process 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 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 NAME ``^^ S0 (Ot %&K ADDRESS SUBJECT Va.t ZW-c AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 DATE 10 /2 K /01 TELEPHONE NO. g 6 g 16 <<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 process 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 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 NAME ADDRESS Mv42 ,1 r zo ou 0- 70 SUBJECT / (� /�% _,210 �� /..)ia � AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE �G'rt �� TELEPHONE NO.a TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT � , 3 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 process 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 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. �- /Y'L ( ' r CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME Jo ADDRESS <` SUBJECT r-e. AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE /o TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT (Please read instructions on reverse side) .?_ S_ ;)a4 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 process 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 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 CITY COUNCIL NAME 1- 6 Vvl S 11� 0 U F ADDRESS I �dS3 �t- l.L,riictl e�.d -e_ ��1,r�c.��1 D C�}- eJS07 cD SUBJECT-- ��r'� Q/� _ ��Z C/ d� ®� f� 4?wc AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE G� Ll -� % TELEPHONE NO. TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: 6 -�% CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME e � F— L, e �j ADDRESS t3 I ?,-7 U-7, (OH AVM ,,;A P-� J 05E; �q, ►%,4 SUBJECT HA-P-1 6 F t fA 2A H Ct ` 12 e�� 68 AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE /0, ?-4,07 TELEPHONE NO. Ps .17 7.9 TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT & ✓�J pm (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 process 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 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 ADDRESS SUBJECT CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE /0/2 4 � TELEPHONE NO. �166 r3, jy-- TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT S� W P d (Please read instructions on reverse side) 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 process 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 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 CITY COUNCIL NAME C 'Ol&q AGENDA ITEM NO. a DATE W 1'aLA 1 0'1 TELEPHONE NO. (40%i (*q- 55Qq TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: W50 CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME �-- ADDRESS SUBJECT AGENDA ITEM NO. Z— DATE iO( a-"l TELEPHONE NO. TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT° = S� ✓� ��— (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 process 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 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 T E PLANNING COMMISSION NAME Abb1,/ -1 /VI v°/Y'1r7 ADDRESS_ Z e/;ell AYZAe'I ' �� SUBJECT AGENDA ITEM NO. .;;2 DATE /+ TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT //C- V JC ;amoo'� / TELEPHONE NO. ,57:9 —0 :�0W .35�nti, (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 process 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 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 X0 ADDRE S E PLANNING COMMISSION NAME ADDRESS SUBJECT a Wla AGENDA ITEM NO. DATT 0 hY/C TELEPHONE NQ3 20f-% TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT lr�S orl/I (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 process 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 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 SUBJE CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE 1- • 9- •p'?TELEPHONE NO. 7 5 -3 q '7 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 process 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 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 ADDRESS SUBJECT CITY C ST TO ADDRESS SARATOGA HE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. "/-- DATE 01-2,-j 6 I TELEPHONE NO. J 'v 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 process 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 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 COP NAME __�y r, / GQG1GLA /21Z ADDRESS 18 � /it A4 / SUBJECT �/ O AGENDA ITEM NO. Z DATE 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 process 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 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 NAME / ADDRESS -Sa 15�: SUBJECT A AGENDA ITEM NO. -2— DATE TELEPHONE NO. k—;0-717 TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT "7 (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 process 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 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 PLAT ING COMMISSION NAME • �' .1 . ►_1; .. - - - SUBJECT AGENDA TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT %� / -2' p M (Please read instructions on reverse side) -1726 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 process 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 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 A REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION A NAME - lVaPq 141-4&7eWq. SUBJECT A61e, D -7 "'Ga Z — !`G AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE 2��17 TELEPHONE NO.--6W— 7-27:E5 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 process 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 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 NAME ADDRESS (,Z5 SUBJECT Srt ►o z ��+ nz v ri±+� tie AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE to uf- d'7 TELEPHONE NO. 4d,• 9u •z�/ TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT 7:10 (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 process 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 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 QUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME , ADDRESS SUBJECT-kR, j ,-_ , p— kla e p AGENDA ITEM NO. /D V b LEPHONE NO. ` ,�7 :,T7/ TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT I - _ ' , (� ,— -� (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 process 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 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 PF SARATOGA TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME ADDRESS l e,�—I? m% SUBJECT AGENDA ITEM NO.�/ DATE. TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT TELEPHONE NO. (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 process 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 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. • r� • DATE: PLACE: TYPE: ROLL CALL CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA Tuesday, October 23, 2007 — Approximately 3:30 p.m. — 5:00 p.m. City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruit-vale Avenue Site Visit Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. APPLICATION #ADR07 -0002 18524 Montpere Way Sripadanna 2. APPLICATION #07 -307 19819 Colby Court Narayan 3. APPLICATION #06 -118 20951 Canyon View Hashemich/Sarnevesh, 4. APPLICATION #07 -288 15261 Bohlman Road Campagna 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. PAPC SITE VISITS\Site Visits\2007\.SVA 102307.doc • 1] • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, October 24, 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 October 18, 2007 APPLICATION ZOA07 -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 (4) parkstrips between sidewalks and City streets. The ordinance would also specify enforcement and appeals procedures. 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. 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 project. Adjournment To Regular Planning Commission Meeting Wednesday, October 24, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers /Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Item 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: John F. Livingstone, CDD pl_ MEETING DATE: October 24, 2007 SUBJECT: Blighted Property Ordinance STUDY SESSION REQUIREMENTS: 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. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the proposed Blighted Property Ordinance and provide input to staff. FUTURE PROCESS: Continue this item for another study session or to a Planning Commission Public Hearing. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance 2. Letter from interested citizen - 1 - Attachment 1 • • 0 ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE ADDING ARTICLE 7 -50 A TO THE SARATOGA CITY CODE TO ENHANCE ENFORCEMENT AGAINST NEGLECTED PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City has been approached by a number of its citizens expressing concern about situations in which various properties throughout the City have been neglected and allowed to deteriorate; WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to promote the public health, safety and welfare within the City by requiring a minimum level of residential property maintenance to protect the public from the health, safety, and welfare hazards that result from the neglect and deterioration of property; and WHEREAS, amendments to the City Code to enhance the ability of the City to enforce against neglected properties have been proposed and duly considered and recommended by the Planning Commission and duly adopted by the City Council; WHEREAS, these amendments are intended to supplement and not to supplant or conflict with any other provisions of the City Code or of federal or State laws. Section 1. Adoption. The Saratoga City Code is hereby amended as follows: (1) Article 7 -50 is added to the Saratoga City Code to read: 7 -50 RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE 7- 50.005 Purposes of Article This Article is adopted for the following purposes: (a) To establish community standards for the maintenance of residential property. (b) To prevent property from being maintained in such condition as to cause health, safety, and welfare hazards that result from the neglect and deterioration of property. (c) To enhance the quality of storm water runoff generated from residential properties and to prevent storm water related pollution. 7- 50.010 Neglected Property It shall be unlawful for any person owning, leasing, renting, occupying or having charge or possession of private or public property in the City to allow such property to be neglected property with the result that any of the conditions listed in Section 7- 50.030 are visible from the street or from neighboring properties and are found to exist thereon for a period of more than sixty days after written notice of same has been given by the City Manager except as may be expressly allowed by any other provision of law, including other provisions of this Code. Neglected property means any privately or publicly owned, property which as a result of lack of maintenance has deteriorated so as to harbor health or safety hazards has resulted in a nuisance or substantial adverse impact on the welfare of a significant number of other residents of Saratoga. Pursuant to Articles 3 -15 and 3 -20 of Chapter 3 of this Code the City Manager may require abatement sooner than it would otherwise qualify as a neglected property under the paragraph if the situation presents a danger or emergency that warrants an expedited resolution. 7- 50.020 Calamity or Disaster Exemption Violation of this Article shall not be based on the condition of property which is the result of damage or destruction from fire, flood, drought, earthquake, other soil movement, or other similar calamity or disaster for a period of two years following the calamity or disaster. 7- 50.030 Standards The following conditions qualify as neglected property in a residential zoning district: (1) Any condition that is a hazard to the public health or safety, that constitutes a public nuisance as defined in California Civil Code Sections 3479 or 3480 or under the City Code, or is substantially adverse to the welfare of a significant number of other Saratoga residents; (2) Any building or structure that is unsecured for more than 60 consecutive days or for more than 10 consecutive days after written notice has been mailed by the City to the property, owner(s) shown on the latest equalized County of Santa Clara assessment roll. A building or structure is unsecured when any one of the following conditions exists: (A) Unauthorized persons (including, but not limited to children) can readily gain entry to the building or structure without the consent of the owner or the agent of the owner; or (B) The property contains an attraction to children or a harbor for vagrants, criminals or other unauthorized persons due to features visible from a public street, or neighboring properties, dangerous to those members of the public unable to discover the nuisance condition, or recognize its potential danger, including, but not limited to abandoned, broken, neglected or unsupervised vehicles, machinery, equipment, refrigerators and freezers,.pools, ponds, and excavations. (3) Any building or structure that is in a state of significant disrepair. A building or structure is in a state of significant disrepair when any of the following conditions exist: (A) Exterior walls or roof coverings have become substantially deteriorated, do not provide adequate weather protection, or show evidence of the presence of major termite infestation or dry rot, including but not limited to a situation where an exterior wall shows 10% or more of its area missing siding boards, bricks or blocks or where an exterior wall shows 50% or more of its area devoid of its finish paint color therby exposing wood, stucco, brick, cement or a prior paint color; or (B) Buildings which are dilapidated, abandoned, boarded up, partially destroyed, have broken windows or broken windows secured with wood or other materials or which are left in a state of partial construction, buildings subject to demolition pursuant to applicable provisions of this Code or other authority, for which demolition has not been diligently pursued. (4) The property contains overgrown weeds (as defined in 7- 15.030) or other vegetation or garbage or debris that: (A) Harbors rats, structure destroying insects, vermin, vector, or other similar nuisances; or (B) Is overgrown onto a public right -of -way more than 12 inches; or (C) Is completely dead, over twelve (12) inches in height, and covers more than fifty percent (50 %) of the front or exterior side setback areas visible from any street. (5) The property contains a hazardous condition consisting of any one or more of the following conditions: (A) Land having a topography, geology, or configuration that, due to natural causes or as a result of grading operations or improvements to the land, causes erosion, subsidence, unstable soil conditions, or surface or subsurface drainage problems that pose a threat of injury or are injurious to any neighboring property. (B) Items are present that are inadequately secured or protected and, due to their visibility and accessibility to the public, may prove hazardous including, without limitation: i. Abandoned wells, shafts, or basements; ii. Fences, gates or structures which have collapsed or extend into the public right of way or are in an other type of unsafe condition; iii. Lumber, or accumulations of lumber or other construction materials; or iv. Chemicals, motor oil, or other hazardous materials. (6) The major accumulation of abandoned, discarded, or dilapidated objects, or any combination thereof including but not limited to junk; abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicles; vehicle parts and equipment; machine parts, scrap material, appliances, furniture, household equipment and furnishings, shopping carts, containers, packing materials, scrap metal, wood, plant cuttings, rubbish and debris or similar matter which constitutes a threat to public health or safety or renders any premises a nuisance or substantially adverse to the welfare of a significant number of other residents of the City of Saratoga. (7) The major accumulation of dirt, sand; gravel, concrete, litter, debris, petroleum products, grease or other similar material, or any combination thereof, on the property which is visible from the street, from neighboring properties, or which could potentially be discharged into a storm drain system. (8) Materials or other items stacked in a manner as to be visible from the street or from neighboring properties, above any fence or in a manner which could potentially result in discharge into a storm drain system. -(9) Boats, trailers, recreation vehicles, vehicle parts or other sections of personal property which are left in a state of partial construction, dilapidation or disrepair in locations which are visible from the street or neighboring properties; or which are left parked or stored in violation of applicable zoning designation, rules or regulations. (1.0) The major accumulation of packing boxes, pallets, lumber, junk, trash, salvage materials, or other debris kept on the property and visible from the street, from neighboring properties. (11) Graffiti -or other words, lettering or drawings not otherwise permitted by the provisions of this Code, which remain on the exterior of any building, fence or wall. L 7- 50.040 - Definitions Polluted Water means water that contains any bacterial growth, including algae, 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. Vectors means any animal or insect capable of transmitting the causative agent of human disease or.capable of producing human discomfort or injury, including but not limited to, mosquitoes, flies, other insects, ticks, mites, and rats. Vermin means cockroaches, mice, rats, and similar pests. Weeds has the same meaning as provided in Article 7- 15.030 of this City Code 7- 50.050 Public Nuisance Ariy neglected property as set forth in the provisions of this Article is hereby declared . and determined to be a public nuisance. 7- 50.060 Abatement Actions Whenever the City Manager determines that a property qualifies as a neglected property, the City Manager may require or take any necessary abatement or other enforcement actions to cause the neglected property 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 and may implement those actions in accordance with the provisions of this Code or by any other lawful means. Costs for any abatement performed by or on behalf of the City are authorized to be recovered by the City in the City Manager's discretion. If the City Manager proceeds under the Nuisance Abatement provisions of Article 3 -15 or 3 -20 of Chapter 3 of this Code, the cost of abatement may be either (1) caused to be a lien to be charged against the parcel or (2) transmitted as a City Council approved report of costs together with a copy of the resolution confirming the same to the County Tax Collector, who shall add the amount of abatement costs, or unpaid portion thereof, to the next regular tax bill as a special assessment, for municipal purposes, against such parcel. The amount of the assessment shall be collected at the time and in the manner as ordinary municipal taxes. If such assessment is delinquent, the amount shall be subject to the same interest and penalties and procedure of foreclosure and sale provided for ordinary municipal taxes and the property may be sold after three years by the tax collector for unpaid delinquent assessments. The City Manager shall elect whether or not to seek, as a part of abatement costs, reasonable attorney's fees incurred in abating the nuisance. The notice and order to abate by the City Manager shall indicate whether the City Manager intends to seek reasonable attorney's fees as part of the abatement costs and shall indicate that if the City Manager elects to seek reasonable attorney's fees, the prevailing party may be entitled to reimbursement of reasonable and necessarily incurred attorney's fees. 7- 50.070 Imminent Danger (a) Any condition on a neglected property which is reasonably believed by the City Manager to be imminently dangerous to the public health or safety may be summarily abated by the City Manager, in accordance with Article 3 -20 of Chapter 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 and/or any other abatement action determined by the City Manager. (c) If there exists on a neglected property any condition reasonably believed by the City Manager to be imminently dangerous to life, limb, health, or safety should tosuch property be occupied or used by human beings, the City Manager may order the immediate restriction from use or occupancy of the - neglected property. In addition to restricting use or occupancy, the order may require that other abatement actions be taken. 7- 50.080 Procedures under this Article — Cumulative Procedures used and actions taken for the abatement of neglected property 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, structures or property. All neglected property 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 property improvement, and zoning, and all other applicable local, state, and federal laws. 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 neglected property, nor shall this Article in any way limit the City's right to enforcement under any other provision of this Code or other law or create a duty or obligation on the part of the City to enforce this Article. 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, I estoration, 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: • PJ 0 1] SIGNED: Aileen Kao, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA SARATOGA Saratoga, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: Richard Taylor, CITY ATTORNEY • • ATTEST: Cathleen Boyer, CLERK OF THE CITY OF Saratoga, California Attachment 2 :7 • PLANNING COMMISSION —CITY OF SARATOGA Having attended several sessions of Commission discussions regarding an intended adoption of a new city code related to blighted property, I submit the following as: modifications, additions, and /or deletions to the draft of Article 7 -50 as received by me Aug. 7, 2007. That draft should be referenced with this critique. Article 7- 50.010— Satisfactory as written Article 7- 50.015 —As written "calamity caused blight" might be excused indefinitely. Propose insertion of. be exempted from a designation as blighted for up to 1 year from the damage as replacement to the draft language starting with "not" and ending with "distruction ". Article 7- 50.020— Propose elimination of the section on definitions and instead define the terms where used in the subsequent Articles. Article 7- 50.030— Propose elimination of the declaration that property blight is a public nuisance. It is understood to be not only a nuisance, but also a detraction from city beauty and property values. Article 7- 50.040 —Since the code's enforcement actions are directed to the property owner, it is superfluous to name others as responsible. Also this article can have "a" and "b" combined as follows: No owner shall maintain or take any action, or allow any action to be taken, that allows property to be, or become blighted, in violation of any provision of this Article of the Saratoga code or any order issued pursuant to the provisions of this Article. Article 7- 50.050 —This extensive Article addresses conditions that could constitute blight. Propose a change in the Article title to: "Blight Conditions Defined." With this title —no longer is the next line "The presence of any ........constitutes blight" needed. (a) Since this document is specific in addressing visual perceptions, it is superfluous to include: public nuisance, public health, safety, and general welfare. Propose this be eliminated. (b) This section defining blight associated with building conditions can be shortened and made more concise. Propose: (1) Any building or structure that is unsecured such that entry can be obtained without damage to the structure, by unauthorized persons or vermin (2) Propose this Article (b2) be eliminated (3) A small hole providing access to a building by a mouse or rat would not be unsightly. Propose this 7c (b3) be eliminated (c) This 7c labeled (b) at the bottom of page 2 is satisfactory—(but may be mis- identified— should it be (c) ? ? ? ?) (d) This Article is made redundant by (bl) above. Propose it be eliminated (e) This prelude to the subsequent definition is satisfactory. (1) This definition is too subject to interpretation. Propose to identify several alternative and quantitative definitions that are less subjective as below: (1) Exterior wall showing 10% of its area with missing siding boards, bricks, or blocks (2) Exterior wall showing 50% of its area devoid of its finish paint color, thereby exposing wood, stucco, brick, cement or a prior paint color. (3) Any broken window existing for more than 20 days (whether boarded over or not) (4) Any fence having a void, caused by missing boards, missing bricks, missing blocks, or collapse, of more than 4 feet in length. (5) Any paved driveway or walkway exhibiting: (a) erosion of the original surface over 75% of its area —or (b) vertical displacement of adjoining surfaces of 6 inches or more (6) Any retaining wall devoid of 30% of its original vertical surface (f) This article addressing blight in areas other than buildings could include the existing city Code 15- 12.160 relating to "Storage of Personal Property and Materials ", approved last year. That Code addresses one segment of blight that would seem logical to be a part of this Code. If that broadening of this Code is desired, then this Article would be the place to add that subject. If consolidated under this "Blight Code ",.the "Storage Code" would benefit from the more effective abatement actions as now drafted. For purposes advancing the "Blight Code" draft no consolidation is assumed, these changes to (f) are proposed: The property contains vegetation, garbage, or debris that: (1) Since fire hazards are addressed specifically in an existing Saratoga code, it is superfluous to include it as a part of -this code, and it is proposed that it be eliminated. (2) It is proposed that this blight condition exists only when the mentioned nuisances exist. Most attractive residences have the otp ential to host vermin. Therefore, it is proposed that the language be changed to: The property harbors rats, vermin, or vector. (3) Satisfactory as written (4) Satisfactory as written (g)- If landscaping is covered by Section 7- 50.060, it is superfluous to also cover in Section 7- 50.050. Propose (g) be eliminated (h) This article contributes nothing to the definition or abatement of blight and it is proposed that (h) be eliminated. Article 7- 50.060 (a) This Article addressing the requirement for, and the definition of, satisfactory landscaping and its location; seems subjective to the judgements of the City Manager (current and his successors). The adequacy of landscaping thereby becomes a subject of debate and difficult to administer. It is proposed that the entire Article 7- 50.060 be eliminated. Reasons: (1) Bare dirt (or even vegetation lower than 12 inches, covering less than 50% of an area, and not encroaching more than 12 inches into a public right -of -way) is not ugly. There are many beautiful Saratoga developed properties having large areas visible to others that are not landscaped and are not blighted. (2) Elimination of the need for landscaping also eliminates one of the major financial hardship concerns by eliminating the need for.expensive watering by those who say they can't afford it. (3) The differentiation of the various types of property, (i.e. developed, undeveloped, open space, agricultural preserve, etc.) becomes unnecessary if this Blight Code is designated as applicable only to developed property. That designation can be made at the beginning of the Code, thereby simplifying the document, and its enforcement. Article.7- 50.070 Park - strips This Article is. not needed if 7- 50.060 (landscaping) is eliminated. Even if the Landscaping Article is retained, it is recommended that this Article be eliminated because park - strips are a part of property covered by 7- 50.050. *Article 7- 50.080 Abatement Actions This Article is very satisfactory except it should, as part of the written Code, require the City Manager to have provided warning to the offending property owner prior to implementing the more painful procedures described. Propose than an insertion: "the City Manager may, after verbal and written warnings resulting in insufficient abatement actions by the owner, after 3 months, take any necessary .......... Article 7- 50.090 Imminent Danger (a) Satisfactory as written except that its reference to "Article 3 of this Code" is confusing in that no Article 3 exists in the draft. Propose that the reference be eliminated unless it is decided to include such an Article. (b) Satisfactory as written (c) Satisfactory as written Article 7- 50.110 Procedures of this Article — Cumulative This Article seems to have the purpose of declaring that the abatement actions provided for in this Code on Blight may be used in the enforcement of other Codes. Unless there is some constructive purpose, not understood, it is recommended that this Article be eliminated. Section 2 California Environmental Act As in the above comment, this declaration that this Code is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, is not understood and is proposed that it be eliminated unless there is a constructive purpose. Section 3 Publication Satisfactory as written E.L. Vinc Z'tKin e � n 13617 Westover Drive Saratoga, CA. 95070 r� CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION 0 AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, October 24, 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 October 10, 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 Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 18, 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: Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Conformance with the General Plan (John Cherbone) PUBLIC HEARINGS: All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants /Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant /Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. APPLICATION #MOD 07 -0001 (397 -27 -010) Pichetti/Cahoon, 18935 Hayfield Court (Continued to the November 14, 2007 meeting): - The applicant requests modifications to an approved Design Review approval. Modifications include, but are not limited to, the addition of stone to the front fagade, the alteration of proposed home's placement on the site, the rotation of the garage, and additional windows on the right elevation. The property is zoned R -1- 40,000. (Shweta Bhatt) 2. APPLICATION #ADR07 -0002 (389 -26 -022) Sripadanna, 18524 Montpere Way: - Appeal of an Administrative Design Review approval for a remodel with partial demolition and addition to the existing one -story home located at 18524 Montpere Way. The proposal would enlarge the home by approximately 1,096 square feet (which includes a carport conversion to enclosed garage). Total proposed floor area, including garage would be 2,730 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed structure will not P:\PC Agendas\2007\Agn 102407.doc exceed eighteen feet (18). The maximum impervious coverage would not exceed the allowable 60% of the net site area. The lot size is 8,520 square feet and the property is located in the R- 10,000 zoning district. (Heather Bradley) APPLICATION #06 -118 (503 -28 -008) Hashemich/Sarnevesh, 20951 Canyon View: - Applications for Design Review and Variance to construct an approximately 3,635 square foot two -story home with a daylight basement on a vacant lot at 20951 Canyon View Drive. The average slope of the lot is 39.7% sloping downward toward Canyon View Drive. Pursuant to City Code Section 15- 12.061, the average slope beneath a structure shall not exceed 30% slope. Therefore, in addition to Design Review approval, the applicant is requesting approval of a Variance as specified in City Code Section 15- 12.061(a) (Heather Bradley) 4. APPLICATION #07 -307 (386 -37 -005) Praveen Narayan; 19819 Colby Court: -The applicant request Design Review approval to construct a 1,041 square foot second story addition to an existing 3,057 square foot one story single- family residence. The residence will not exceed 26 feet in height. The net lot size is approximately 15,681 square feet. The site is zoned R -1- 10,000. (Chris Riordan) 5. APPLICATION #07 -288 (517 -14 -003) Campagna; 15261 Bohlman Road: - The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new two -story single family residence and Variance approval for the retaining wall to exceed the five foot maximum height limitation. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage will be approximately 6,010 square feet. The net lot size is approximately 1.05 acres. The site is zoned HR (Hillside Residential). (Chris Riordan) DIRECTORS ITEM: None COMMISSION ITEMS: None 0 COMMUNICATIONS None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, November 14, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers /Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City 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 October 18, 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.sarato ag ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to plannincCasaratop_a.ca.us NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us J P:\PC Agendas\2007\Agn 102407.doc • • �o 9q�,T MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Acting Chair Kundtz called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: Chair Hlava Staff: Director John Livingstone, Senior Planner Chris Riordan, Assistant Planner Suzanne Thomas and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. Dave Kramer, Resident on Montreal Street: • Said that his street is located behind Gene's Market where he has lived for 17.5 years. • Explained that there had been a specific custom wooden garage door depicted on his remodel plans but they had installed a steel door instead. • Pointed out that of 38 homes in the area only one has a wooden garage door. • Said the reason for installing the steel door was for maintenance as well as fit within the neighborhood. • Reported that he has obtained signatures from 10 neighbors in support of keeping his steel garage door. • Advised that he had spoken with Chuck Page who urged him to pursue this. • Stated that he understands he made a mistake in changing the garage door from what was on the approved plans without notifying the City. They had considered the change in garage door to be minor. • Explained that they had to put up a $500 bond in order to gain occupancy quickly, which was necessary because his wife had become ill. • Informed that he was told that to apply for a change to this garage door, he would have to pay a $500 filing fee to process a Modification request with the warning from staff in advance that it would be denied. An appeal of this action to the Planning Commission would require another $500 in fees. • Said that it is difficult to understand why they can't do this. • Thanked the Commission for its time. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff if the original approval was handled under an administrative process. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 10, 2007 Page 2 Director John Livingstone replied yes. He advised that when the project was inspected for final occupancy it was discovered that a lesser garage door was installed. Staff didn't want to make a decision to change the approved door and the appeal time had passed. The best option is to file for a Modification to the approval, which staff would deny. Thereafter, they can appeal to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Zhao asked if there is any exemption from these fees, as they appear high. Commissioner Cappello explained that the fees are in place to cover staff cost. If these fees are waived for this applicant, taxpayers cover the cost as a whole. Director John Livingstone cautioned that staff couldn't waive fees. Council generally does not waive fees. He added that the request for Modification followed by an appeal to the Commission is the best way staff could come up with to get this item to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Nagpal said that this owner didn't meet the plans that were approved but needs to obtain occupancy. Director John Livingstone clarified that the applicant posted a bond and has occupancy. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of September 26, 2007. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner N a gp al seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of September 26, 2007, were adopted with corrections to pages 3 and 9. (6 -0- 1; Chair Hlava was absent) REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 4, 2007. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Acting Chair Kundtz announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15- 90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no consent items. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 10, 2007 Page 3 0 PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 Application ADR07 -002 (389 -26 -022) Sripadanna, 18524 Montpere Way (Continued to the October 24, 2007, meeting): Appeal of an Administrative Design Review approval for a remodel with partial demolition and addition to the existing one -story home located at 18524 Montpere Way. The proposal would enlarge the home by approximately 1,096 square feet (which includes a carport conversion to enclosed garage). Total proposed floor area, including garage, would be 2730 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed structure will not exceed 18 feet. The maximum impervious coverage would not exceed the allowable 60 percent of the net site area. The lot size is 8,520 square feet and the property is located in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district. (Heather Bradley) Acting Chair Kundtz advised that Item No. 1 would be continued to the meeting of October 24, 2007. Acting Chair Kundtz opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the appeal of an Administrative Design Review approval on property located at 18524 Montpere Way to its October 24, 2007, meeting. (6 -0 -1; Chair Hlava was absent) Acting Chair Kundtz advised that Agenda Item No. 2 and Agenda Item No. 3 would be heard in reverse order as Commissioner Zhao will have to recuse herself from participating on the hearing for Item No. 2 due to a conflict of interest. PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 Application #07- 126/PSP07 -0002 (385 -35 -069) Church of the Ascension, 12033 Miller Avenue /19550 Prospect Road: The applicant requests Design Review for an illuminated freestanding sign in the R -10 -10 district. The high- density urethane architectural foam sign will be mounted on a stone block base and painted beige with brown lettering, which will match the colors on the adjacent church building. The combined sign and base will be approximately five -feet high and eight -feet wide. The text will spell out "Church of the Ascension Roman Catholic" and will include he times of masses. (Suzanne Thomas) Assistant Planner Suzanne Thomas presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for a freestanding illuminated sign for the Church of the Ascension. 4P : Explained that Code allows for an illuminated sign with Planning Commission approval. Said that this freestanding sign is needed to identify the church to passing traffic. The size and placement are crucial since the church is located on a busy road. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 10, 2007 Page 4 0 • Added that if the sign were to be placed beyond the required setback, it would be located 25 feet back from the road. Instead the applicant seeks approval of a Variation of Standards so that the sign can be placed within the required setback. • Described the proposed sign as being five -feet high and eight -feet wide. It will utilize florescent lighting that will be shielded by vegetation. The proposed sign material is architectural foam that is known for its longevity and durability. The face will consist of brown lettering on a Navajo -white background. The sign rests on a stone block base. • Reported that the applicant has made many modifications to its proposal on issues of lighting, sign content and materials. • Said that one neighbor originally had some concerns but those concerns have since been resolved. Eighteen letters of support have been provided. A 500 -foot notice was sent and no negative comments were received. • Stated that this applicant is compliant with Sign criteria with the approval of a Variation of Standards. • Advised that the existing freestanding sign would be removed. • Said that this new sign would assist vehicles in finding and entering this destination before passing by on this busy road. • Provided proposed minor changes to the draft Resolution: o Finding D should read, "The proposed project will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood nor will it adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. The lighting will be directed away from nearby residences and vehicular traffic. The sign will be situated outside the triangle of visibility for the property driveway and the colors and materials will not detract from the neighborhood in that they will match those of the existing building.' o Condition 1 should replace the text " ' with "subject to," to read: "The sign shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit A, incorporated by reference, subject to the following conditions." o Condition 5 should read, "The placement of the sign as to distance from the trees shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." o Condition 7 should read, "The applicant will replace and restore any damaged landscape surrounding the proposed sign in a matter satisfactory to the Community Development Direct prior to final inspection." • Said that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approval this request. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff to verify that the illumination is via indirect light. Planner Suzanne Thomas said that the lighting is florescent and consists of only 64 watts as opposed to the allowance of up to 200 watts. The lighting is shielded both by the fixture itself and by the surrounding vegetation. The light is aimed directly at the sign. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the sign would be facing Prospect. Commissioner Rodgers said that it is located directly across from houses but those houses don't appear to have any windows facing the street. She asked if the foam sample that was at the site visit is available this evening. Planner Suzanne Thomas said that she had left the office without it. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 10, 2007 Page 5 Commissioner Rodgers said she thought the foam sample was crumbling and asked if it Co g g p 9 would be somehow treated to avoid crumbing. Commissioner Cappello said he had thought the same thing about potential for crumbing. However, he tried to carve into the sample piece using his fingernail and was unable to make a dent. It was very dense and hard. It is a very interesting material. Commissioner Kumar asked if maintaining the vegetation might hasten the deterioration of this foam material. He added his hope that landscaping would be properly maintained. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that landscaping maintenance has been conditioned. Planner Suzanne Thomas advised that there is an irrigation system in place. Acting Chair Kundtz opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Jerry Streib, Representative for the Church of the Ascension: • Said that Planner Suzanne Thomas gave an excellent summary and background of this project. • Suggested that this sign would be an asset to Ascension as well as to the neighborhood. 0 • Said that numerous discussions were held on the issues of location and type of sign. They have spoken with a number of design shops. • Explained that they visited every nearby house and discussed this sign. One neighbor had suggestions, which were accommodated. Therefore, there is agreement from all neighbors. They are pleased. • Stated his hope for approval this evening and said he was available for any questions. Commissioner Rodgers said she noticed some flaking of the foam when she handled it. She asked Mr. Jerry Streib if he had tried to scratch the foam. Mr. Jerry Streib: • Replied no. • Added that the foam sign would also be painted. • Explained that the reason they went with the foam material was due to the durability of HDU (High Density Urethane). • Advised that it is the same material used on the Alaska pipeline for insulation over the last 35 to 45 years. • Assured that there are no indications of a problem with this material. There is a 12 -year- old sign in Saratoga that is made of this material and it is in excellent condition without any deterioration. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Jerry Streib if they had considered a wood sign at any time. Mr. Jerry Streib said that was the original starting point because the current sign was already wood. However, the sign shops they consulted with recommended the HDU as a better alternative. He advised that their current wooden sign is splitting though it is an old sign. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 10, 2007 Page 6 Commissioner Rodgers agreed that the splitting on the existing wood sin is unattractive and 9 9 p 9 9 9 makes it difficult to read. Mr. Jerry Streib agreed. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Jerry Streib if he had looked at other signs along Prospect. Mr. Jerry Streib said that the closest sign is next door at Beth David. It is a two -foot by 12 -foot wooden sign attached on two poles. It is five -feet high with lighting above using a gooseneck light fixture looking down. The only other sign nearby is the North Campus, which is further west and is a painted sign. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the North Campus sign is wood. Mr. Jerry Streib said he does not know. Commissioner Rodgers said that she has a problem with use of foam instead of wood for this sign. Commissioner Cappello asked Mr. Jerry Streib if the irrigation is functioning. Mr. Jerry Streib said he checked and it is there and functioning. He assured that this church has a vested interest in maintaining the landscaping. Pastor Mark Brady, Resident on Prospect: • Advised that his residence is located directly across Prospect from this church site. • Stated that he is against this proposed sign. • Informed that he is the Senior Pastor at the Union Christian Church located in Cupertino. • Said that he loves the Church of the Ascension including its architecture and statues, which are visible from his home. • Said that the eyesore of a sign in the center of the landscaping would have a negative impact on what he sees from his property. • Recounted that he is from New England and had experience living near lighted signs. The illumination never goes away so it acts much like a night light on adjacent residences. • Said that he took a drive around the community and identified 10 churches. He only noticed small non - illuminated signs. Saratoga Presbyterian has a stone sign. Sacred Heart has no freestanding sign on the road just lettering on the building. None of them have a sign as is proposed here. • Suggested that there are ample opportunities for visitors to find access to this site. The location is easy to find. • Questioned whether there are even any illuminated business signs in Saratoga. • Reiterated that he is against this proposed sign as it is detrimental to his living situation. Commissioner Nagpal clarified with Pastor Mark Brady that his home is across the street from the church. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 10, 2007 Page 7 Pastor Mark Brady said yes, his home is across Prospect, directly across from where this sign is proposed. Commissioner Nagpal asked Pastor Mark Brady if there are bedrooms in his home facing Prospect. Pastor Mark Brady replied yes. There is a sunroom at the front of the house that would bring any light.from this sign into his residence. Commissioner Zhao asked Pastor Mark Brady if he had reviewed the neighbor notification form. Pastor Mark Brady admitted that someone from the church came by his house. He told that person that he didn't support an illuminated sign in this location. He added that he also received notice of this hearing. Commissioner Kumar asked Pastor Mark Brady if his chief concern is lighting as might be viewed from his bedroom. Pastor Mark Brady said that he is concerned with a lighted sign shining all night long directly across the street from his bedroom. He added that the church itself is beautiful and quite scenic. This sign would denigrate that beauty. Commissioner Kumar asked if passing cars were not already a problem. Pastor Mark Brady explained that at night Prospect is not that busy. The issue here is sustained lighting. Commissioner Kumar asked staff if the sign would be lighted all night long. Director John Livingstone said that Condition 5 points out that this sign would be hooked into the same lighting circuit that is used for the church's parking lot. The wattage is no more than used there. Mr. Ray Muzzy, Resident on Erik Drive: • Stated that this application represents a good example of a church cooperating with its neighbors. • Added that they have done a good job. This sign blends in well with the community and is in a good location. • Said that as this light is only using 64 watts, it is less intense than lighting that is already in the area. • Opined that as for blending in with other churches' signs, this one blends very well using good materials that will be long lasting and uses minimal text. • Reminded that the existing sign would be removed. • Pointed out that neighbors were involved in this process early on here. • Stated that this is a well- thought -out plan and asset to the neighborhood and church. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 10, 2007 Page 8 Mr. Jerry Streib: • Said that they had visited all the neighbors and left copies of the plans, the notification form and contact information. • Added that he never got any adverse feedback from Pastor Brady prior to this evening's comments. • Stated that they are keeping the lighting for this sign on the same circuit as the parking lot lighting. At 64 watts, it is much less intense than the maximum allowed wattage of 200. • Said that florescent lighting is less glaring and more uniform. • Stated that they tried to do everything possible to make this an asset. • Added that he is disappointed to get a negative comment at this late date. Commissioner Kumar asked if the reason for relocating the placement of this sign is because people miss turns onto the site. Is it more central and aimed at avoiding traffic spillover into the residential neighborhood? Mr. Jerry Streib said that this is one reason. The existing sign is not visible from one direction. They propose to move it down so it is more on Prospect and visible. They felt that moving it west was a better location. He reminded that they are restricted to a 50 -foot distance from the driveway. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the hours for illumination of this sign. Mr. Jerry Streib said that the parking lot lights go on at sundown and off between 10 or 11 p.m. Perhaps on weekends they are on a bit longer. However, they are not on all night long. Commissioner Nagpal asked if conditioning the sign illumination to be turned off by 11 p.m. is supportable by the church. Mr. Jerry Streib said it might need to be later when special services occur. Commissioner Nagpal said that the concern is that the sign not be illuminated all night. She asked if setting a limit is acceptable. Mr. Jerry Streib reiterated that the sign is not left on all night long. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the lights are on a timer. Mr. Jerry Streib replied yes. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Jerry Streib if they had considered lighting other than florescent. She advised that she is not a fan of florescent lighting although she understands they use less energy. Mr. Jerry Streib said that incandescent lighting is spotty. You can achieve more uniformity with florescent so it seemed the best alternative, offering a nice, uniform illumination across the intended area. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 10, 2007 Page 9 0 Commissioner Rodgers asked if the sign could be made perpendicular to the road. Mr. Jerry Streib said that they had considered that but felt parallel was better. If it were to be perpendicular it would require more lighting on both sides. A two -sided sign also drives up the cost considerably. A parallel placement is considered the best option. In looking at most other churches, their signs are mostly parallel. Acting Chair Kundtz advised that a recently approved sign for Saint Andrews is located perpendicular to the street. Commissioner Zhao asked how big the light fixture is. Mr. Jerry Streib said it is eight feet (96- inches) and uses two 48 -inch florescent lights that run the entire length of the fixture. It is located in front of the sign. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Jerry Streib if they have received lots of comments from people who say this church is hard to find. Mr. Jerry Streib said that it is not difficult for regulars but is for people attending weddings and funerals who are not familiar with the site. Commissioner Cappello asked Mr. Jerry Streib what time restriction for illumination of the sign the church could live with. Mr. Jerry Streib said 10 to 11 p.m. is acceptable as long as exceptions can be made for those times where there is a midnight mass or later Easter masses. Commissioner Cappello asked what would be the latest conclusion time. Mr. Jerry Streib said 2 a.m. Commissioner Cappello asked how often. Mr. Jerry Streib replied Christmas and Easter. If there is an event in the hall, it may go beyond 11 p.m. so they would need lighting when that occurs. Acting Chair Kundtz closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Director John Livingstone: • Advised that there is a diagram of the fixture on the attachment that also demonstrates the next -door sign and other church signs in the community. • Said that he is somewhat concerned with restricting lighting without the church having its calendar to consider. • Pointed out that he is not aware of any complaints regarding the parking lot lights. • Added that lights in a parking lot can also serve as a deterrent to having people hang out in the lot at night. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 10, 2007 Page 10 0 Commissioner Nagpal asked how many church signs are illuminated. Commissioner Cappello said that the Presbyterian Church's rock sign has two rather large spots demonstrating floodlights. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the sign lighting could be conditioned separately from the parking lot lighting. Director John Livingstone said certainly. Commissioner Cappello: • Stated that this is a nice - looking sign and is a dramatic improvement over the current sign. • Explained that the illumination was not a concern during the site visit but he can see it might be a nuisance to the neighbor if it were to be left on all night. • Suggested that timing the sign illumination with the parking lot lighting makes sense. • Said that he is also open to conditioning timing for the sign alone. It would represent a minor cost issue to have it on a separate circuit. • Stated his support for this request. Commissioner Kumar: • Stated his agreement with Commissioner Cappello. 10 • Said this is a good sign and its colors are fitting. It was well thought out using low wattage light. • Expressed support for conditioning the timing of the sign's illumination. • Stated that he had some initial concerns about the foam material but it seems good. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that different materials and illumination levels are allowed in different areas of the City. • Stated that she would like to see natural materials used in this sign and not foam. • Added that she is not a fan of florescent lighting. • Admitted that she usually has to turn around once or twice when searching for a new location along Prospect but it is not that hard to find where you are going. • Suggested that a natural, low- impact sign is more in Saratoga's character. • Agreed that this sign would block views of the church. • Said that she would rather see a lower height sign. • Announced that she would not support this request but suggested that if others do they should condition the hours it can remain illuminated separately from the hours of the parking lot. Commissioner Zhao: • Said that she is okay with the proposed sign and material. • Added that it is better than the existing sign. • Suggested conditioning hours of illumination giving the church some exceptions for special services. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 10, 2007 Page 11 • Said that she can make the findings to support a Variation to Standards and support this sign request. Commissioner Nagpal: • Expressed appreciation to the church for their efforts in neighborhood involvement. • Said that she too was initially concerned with the proposed foam material but it is non - reflective and durable and has a wood -like appearance. • Stated that the sign's design seems similar to other churches. • Said that the concern from the neighbor that this might serve as an "all night nightlight" resonated with her. However, that neighbor has not raised an issue over parking lot illumination, which has the same wattage. • Advised that she believes the church has a right to have a sign in front of their location. • Suggested conditioning the illumination of the sign to 11 p.m. with the exception of Christmas and Easter. • Stated her support of this request with conditions. • Said that the florescent light that is indirect and within vegetation is okay especially as it consists of only 64 watt lighting. Commissioner Rodgers asked if there is another form of energy- efficient lighting that is not florescent. Commissioner Nagpal said she does not have the answer to that question. Acting Chair Kundtz: • Expressed agreement with Commissioner Nagpal's comments. • Admitted that he wished he had been involved earlier on in the process, as he would have recommended use of a perpendicular sign placement. • Added that he is, however, also sensitive to a church's budget so he can support this application with conditions. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission granted Design Review approval (Application #07- 126/PSP07 -0002) to allow an illuminated freestanding sign at 12033 Miller Avenue /19550 Prospect Road, as modified by staff as well as the modification to Condition 6 to require that the sign illumination be limited from sundown to 11 p.m. with exceptions for Christmas and Easter ceremonies, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal and Zhao NOES: Rodgers ABSENT: Hlava ABSTAIN: None .Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 10, 2007 Page 12 Commissioner Zhao recused herself from participation on the next item due to a conflict of interest. She is excused for the remainder of the meeting and left the dais and chambers. PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 Application #07 -396 (517 -22 -075) Arimilli, 15400 Peach Hill Road (Continued from the August 8, 2007, meeting) The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new two -story single - family residence, including a basement and an attached secondary dwelling unit. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage will be approximately 6,699 square feet. The net lot size is approximately 1.6 acres and the site is zoned R -1- 40,000. (Chris Riordan) Senior Planner Chris Riordan presented the staff report as follows: • Distributed a revised materials board. • Reminded that this item was originally considered by the Commission on August 8th and continued. At the time, the applicant was seeking a Conditional Use Permit to allow a maximum height of 29.5 feet for a new 6,700 square foot residence. • Said that the Commission recommended the reduction in height to a maximum of 26 feet. • Reported that this evening's design reflects revisions that include a maximum height of 26 feet so the Conditional Use Permit is no longer required. • Described the architectural style as Tuscan that incorporates features such as a stucco and stone exterior, finished covered porches flanked by columns, shutters, wrought iron railings, recessed front entry and a hipped barrel -tile roof. There is also a basement and four -car garage as well as a deed - restricted secondary dwelling unit. • Recommended Design Review approval. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the duel piece roof tile. Planner Chris Riordan deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Rodgers thanked staff for working with the applicant in revising their plans. She asked about green design features. Planner Chris Riordan said that they are outlined on Page 6 of the staff report under Energy Efficiency. The green features are the same as originally proposed. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the landscaping plan. Planner Chris Riordan said that it is Page 8 of the plan set. It doesn't show details but a detailed plan is due prior to final. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the entrance and roundabout. Planner Chris Riordan said that it represents a turnaround for Fire access. Acting Chair Kundtz opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 10, 2007 Page 13 Mr. R. Arimilli Applicant and Property Owner: pp p Y • Said he is here this evening with his wife, family friend and architect, Marty Oakley. • Said that the previous maximum height of 29.5 feet has been reduced to 26 feet. The percentage of the roof at that 26 -foot maximum is less than five percent. • Advised that to deal with the perception of excessive bulk, they reduced the height of the roof and the width of the house (down by 15 percent). Therefore the roof structure is reduced by 40 percent. • Said that there had been a concern raised about the access to the second unit so a separate entrance was added from the back. • Explained that his neighbor, Dr. Connelly, had a concern that has been alleviated so he signed off on the consent form. • Assured that the revised design has been presented to the neighbors. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the driveway. Mr. R. Arimilli said that it is a Fire turnaround requirement. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the gate on the driveway. Mr. R. Arimilli said that there is a small gate for people who need access to the property such as to read the meters. Commissioner Rodgers asked how many cars could be stacked in the driveway in front of the gate. Mr. R. Arimilli said three. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the semi - circular area at the front also represented a driveway. Mr. R. Arimilli said it was a driveway. Commissioner Rodgers extended thanks to Mr. R. Arimilli for his letter dated September 5 th . Mr. R. Arimilli said he was able to address each issue raised at the previous meeting thanks to his architect, Marty Oakley. Commissioner Cappello asked if the garage holds four cars. Mr. R. Arimilli replied yes. Commissioner Cappello asked about the garage door. Mr. R. Arimilli said that it is a single -car garage door. A single car can turn in the garage but the rest have to be stacked. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 10, 2007 Page 14 Acting Chair Kundtz thanked Mr. R. Arimilli for the changes made as a result of Planning Commission recommendations. He said the Commission appreciates the time taken and the creative alternative design reached. Acting Chair Kundtz opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Nagpal: • Extended her compliments to the architect and property owner for this difficult application. • Expressed appreciation for the work done and the accomplished reduction in mass. • Said this represented a complete redesign. • Stated she is ready to approve this application. Commissioner Rodgers: • Expressed her agreement. • Stated that a reduction in width from 170 feet to 146 feet resulted in much less bulk. • Said she appreciates the fact that the applicant listened to the comments of the Commission. • Said that use of natural materials is important to her. • Stated that she too is ready to approve this design. Commissioner Cappello said ditto. He said that there are unique design aspects here and he can make the findings to support this request. Commissioner Kumar agreed and said he too can make the findings to support. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that Condition 12 requiring a deed restriction for the second dwelling unit should become a permanent condition of approval. He suggested reorganizing the text by bringing the last sentence to the front, "Prior to Building permit issuance..." Commissioner Nagpal thanked Senior Planner Chris Riordan for his work. Acting Chair Kundtz said that the Commission often takes staff for granted. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #07 -396) to allow a new two -story single - family residence with basement and attached secondary dwelling unit on property located at 15400 Peach Hill Road, with the added requirement that Condition 12 be made permanent, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal and Rodgers NOES: None ABSENT: Hlava ABSTAIN: Zhao Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 10, 2007 Page 15 0 DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Director John Livingstone asked for an update on how email is functioning. Commissioner Nagpal said she continues to have trouble getting it set up. Commissioner Kundtz said he still has problems. Commissioner Rodgers asked that only her Saratoga account be used. Commissioner Kumar said the same for him. Commissioner Nagpal said she would notify staff when they can switch to just the Saratoga account. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer advised that a recent challenge in Superior Court of a Planning Commission action (Bird Project on Sunset Drive) was rendered. The Superior Court upheld the Design Review and Annexation. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Nagpal reported that she attended an APA meeting last week where all cities were well represented. The event was well attended and Norm Minetta provided the keynote address. The green agenda sessions were standing room only. Commissioner Rodgers reminded that a joint Study Session with Council would occur on October 16th. She asked staff when the staff report might be available. Director John Livingstone said that it would be made available electronically as soon as possible. Commissioner Rodgers advised that on October 24th there would be a Planning Commission Study Session on Blight. After that, there are five items on the regular meeting agenda. She suggested that a scheduled break be planned for such a large agenda. Acting Chair Kundtz said he would forward that recommendation to Chair Hlava and assured that he supported the idea of such a break. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, Acting Chair Kundtz adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:40 p.m. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 10, 2007 Page 16 MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • Consent Item City of Saratoga Community Development Department MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: John Livingstone, AICP Community Development Director DATE: October 24, 2007 RE: Capital Improvement Program/Finding of General Plan Consistency The Public Works Director is requesting that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution finding that the City's Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the City of Saratoga's General Plan. In the material provided by the Public Works Director each project is listed and the associated General Plan goal or policy is stated. The environmental determination will be addressed project by project as they are funded for construction. Staff recommends the Commission adopt the attached Resolution. Attachments 1. Memo from Public Works Director, John Cherbone 2. Resolution 3. Capital Improvement Project List Spreadsheet 4. Pages from the General Plan, which include spreadsheet. supporting Goals and Policies cited in the • Memo To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: John Cherbone, Public Works Director , Date: August 23, 2006 Re: Proposed Projects for the 2006/2007 CIP Update Attachment I I am pleased to transmit to you for your review 10 proposed projects in connection to the Fiscal Year 2006/2007 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) update. The role of the Planning Commission is to determine whether the new CIP projects are consistent with the General Plan. The 10 new projects for consideration have been reviewed by the City Council. Attached to this memo is a spreadsheet with a brief description of each new project and the applicable pages from the General Plan, which correspond to the referenced Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures of the each General Plan Element. I will be in attendance at your meeting if you have any questions regarding the new projects. Ultimately your recommendation on the projects will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration at the September 6th CIP Public Hearing. If prior to your meeting you have any questions about this information, please feel free to contact me at 868 -1241. • • Page 1 Attachment 2 r� APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received a request from the Public Works Director to find that the Proposed Capitol Improvement Program is consistent with the City of Saratoga General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the materials submitted by the Public Works Director which include a listing of each capitol project and the corresponding General Plan Goal and Policy, attached as Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby find that the proposed Capitol Improvement Program is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the City of Saratoga General Plan in that the various improvement projects implement the programs and objectives outlined in the various General Plan Elements. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, on October 24, 2007, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: • Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission Attachment 4 Land, Use Element • • 16 GOALS AND POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES • City of Saratoga Land Use Element Background Report/Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures The following goals, policies and implementa- tion measures have been adopted to ensure that the vision of Saratoga can be achieved. The term "goal" designates a desired end state which the Land Use Element attempts to achieve. A "pol- icy" is a specific statement that guides decision making. It indicates a commitment of the agency to a particular course of action. The term "Im- plementation Measure" describes specific meth- ods or actions that the City can take to achieve each goal and related policies. Residential Land Use Goal LU 1: Maintain the predominantly small - town residential character of Saratoga which includes semi -rural and open space areas. Policy LU 1.1: Affirm that the city shall con- tinue to be predominately a community of sin- gle- family detached residences. Policy LU 1.2: Continue to review all residen- tial development proposals to ensure consis- tency with Land Use Element goals and Poli- cies. Policy LU 1.3: Ensure that existing undevel- oped sites zoned single - family detached resi- dential remain so designated. Policy LU 1.4: Review and update Area Plans on a periodic basis to ensure that they reflect the desires and needs of each neighborhood. Policy LU 1.5: Ensure that all development proposals are consistent with the spirit and re- quirements established by Measure G. Implementation: LU 1. a. The City shall continue to utilize the Residential Design Handbook and design review process to ensure consistency with Residential Land Use Goals and Policies. UNGO- MCCORMICK CONSULTING Jerry Haag, Urban Planner Responsible Agency: Community Devel- opment Department/Planning Commission Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Policies: 1.1, 1.2,13, 1.5 LU.1.b. The City Council shall initiate the up- date of the Area Plans as part of the update process. Responsible Agency: Community Devel- opment Department Funding Source: General Plan Fees Time Frame: TBD Related Policies: 1.4 Commercia4 Office and Public Land Use Goal LU 2: Encourage the economic viability of Saratoga's existing commercial and office areas and their accessibility by residents, taking into account the impact on surrounding residential areas. Policy LU 2.1: Non - residential development shall be confined to sites presently desig- nated on the General Plan Map for non- residential uses. Existing non - residential zoning shall not be expanded nor new non- residential zoning districts added. Policy LU 2.2: Non - residential uses shall be buffered from other uses by methods such as setbacks, landscaping, berms, and sound - walls as determined through the Design Re- view process. Policy LU 2.3: The City shall revise the zoning ordinance to allow bed and breakfast establishments as conditional uses in com- mercial or residential zoning districts where such uses have not previously been permit- ted and where such uses would be appropri- ate. (The Zoning Ordinance currently pro- vides for bed and breakfast establishments as conditional uses in. commercial and pro- fessional office districts.) Policy LU 2.4: The City shall work with commercial property owners and merchants to encourage appropriate modernization and PAGE 21 City of Saratoga.Land Use Element Background Report/Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures upgrading of retail establishments consistent with the historic character of the community to provide pleasant shopping experiences. Policy LU 2.5: The City shall monitor Zon- ing Ordinance standards to ensure that non- residential parking standards are adequate to minimize spill -over of parking into adjacent neighborhoods. Implementation: LU.2.a. When considering applications for non- residential developments, the City shall continue to utilize the design review process to ensure consistency with Commercial and Office Land Use Goals and Policies. Responsible Agency: Community Devel- opment Department/Planning Commission. Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Policies:. ' LU 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5 Goal LU 3: Promote the long -term fiscal sound- ness of the City of Saratoga through careful analysis of land use decisions and fiscal prac- tices. Policy LU 3.1: The City shall consider the economic impact of all land use decisions on the City budget through the preparation of fiscal" impact analyses for major develop- ment proposals. Policy LU 3.2: The City shall adopt-regula- tions authorizing exactions in the form of improvements or fees required from devel- opers to compensate the City for their- fair share of direct and indirect economic effects that arise from proposed development and to insure implementation of the General Plan. Implementation: LU.3.a. Revise the Municipal Code to -include requirement for a fiscal analysis for major de- velopment proposals as part of the subdivision and conditional use permit process. Responsible Agency: Planning Commis - sion/City Council Funding Source: General Fund UNGO- MCCORMICK CONSULTING Jerry Haag, Urban Planner Time Frame: FY 2007 -2008 Related Policies: LU 3.1 Implementation: LU.3.b. Continue to update the fees schedule on a yearly basis to compensate the City for eco- nomic effects of development. Responsible Agency: Planning Commis - sion/City Council Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Yearly Related Policies: LU 3.2 Goal LU 4: Provide sufficient land area for pub- lic, quasi- public and similar land uses in Sara- toga. Policy LU 4.1: Periodically monitor the amount and type of land needed for City public uses and facilities and report to City Council through the annual City budgetary process and Capital Improvement Program. Implementation: LUA.a. Update the City -owned Properties Re- port (2003) and gather public input on status and use of properties for report to City Council to help set priorities and determine funding for im- provements at facilities. Responsible Agency: Public Works /City Council Funding Source: Capital Improve- ment Budget Time Frame: FY 2009 -2010 Related Policies: LU 4.1 Neighborhood Protection Goal LU 5: Relate development proposals to existing and planned street capacities to avoid excessive noise, traffic, and other public safety hazards so as to protect neighborhoods. If it is determined that existing streets need to be im- proved to accommodate a project, such im- provements shall be in place or bonded for prior to issuance of building permits. PAGE 22 17_.� • C� • Open Space Element L ] • City of Saratoga Open Space /Conservation Element Background Report/Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures GOALS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS The following goals, policies and implementa- tion measures have been adopted to ensure that the vision of Saratoga can be achieved. The term "goal" designates a desired end state which the Land Use Element attempts to achieve. A policy is a specific statement that guides decision making. It indicates a commitment of the agency to a' particular course of action. The term "Implementation Measure" describes specific methods or actions that the City can take to achieve each goal and related policies. General Open Space Goal OSC 1: To provide °and maintain open space resources of local and regional signifi- cance accessible to the public. Policy OSC 1.1: Prepare an open space management plan in conjunction with the Capital Improvements Program. The Plan would identify open space needs as well as the appropriate use and ongoing mainte- nance needs of open space areas. Policy OSC 1.2: Encourage and facilitate the participation -of, individuals, citizens, groups, civic organizations, and those hav- ing special needs, such as the physically dis- abled, in the open space planning process. Implementation: OSC. l.a. The City shall prepare an open space management plan in conjunction with the Capital Improvement Program. Responsible Agency: Community Devel- opment/Public Works /City Council Funding Source: General Fund, De- velopment Fees Time Frame: TBD Related Policies: OSC 1J, 1.2 Goal OSC 2: To preserve the City's existing character which includes small town residential, rural /semi -rural areas and open spaces. Policy OSC 2.1: Ensure that all develop- ment proposals, public and private, are sen- sitive to the natural environment and the community's open space resources. Implementation: OSC.2.a. The City shall continue to use the design review process to ensure that all devel- opment proposals are sensitive to the natural environment and consistent with the existing character of the community which includes small town residential, rural/semi -rural areas and open spaces. Responsible Agency: Community Devel- opment/Planning Commission Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Policies: OSC 2.1 Parks and Outdoor Recreation Goat OSC 3: To provide and maintain parks and I variety of passive and, active recreational sites which are located, designed, and improved to serve the needs of the residents, the commu- nity, and the neighborhoods of Saratoga. Policy OSC 3.1: Ensure that existing and future parks and dedicated open spaces re- main part of the public domain in perpetuity. Policy OSC 3.2: Preserve open space and recreational resources provided on school sites and surplus school sites through joint use agreements, acquisition and/or land use controls. Policy OSC 3.3: Promote retention and dedication of land which provides room for a variety of passive and active recrea- tional pursuits and offers important oppor- LINGO- MCCORMICK CONSULTING Page 22 Jerry Haag, Urban Planner • • 17.J • • City of Saratoga Open Space/Conservation Element Background Report/Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures tunities for the fulfillment of human and psychological needs, including: 1. Areas of outstanding scenic value. 2. Areas of historic and cultural value. 3. Accessible areas particularly suited for parks and recreation purposes such as hiking, horseback riding, biking, swimming, tennis, ball fields and more. 4. Areas providing access to and links between major recreation, cultural. and open space reservations, including trails, utility easements, banks of riv- ers and streams and scenic highway corridors. 5. Areas with inherent qualities that hu- mans find visually pleasing, beautiful, relaxing, stimulating or enjoyable. Implementation: OSC. 3.a. The City shall continue to encourage permanent dedication of easements and open space resources through the subdivision entitle- ment process. Responsible Agency: Community Devel- opment/Public Works /City Council Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Policies: 3.1, 3.2 Goal OSC 4: Strive to achieve a ratio of 5 acres of park and open space area per 1,000 residents. Policy 4.1: Promote dedication of land for parks and recreational open space. OSC. 4.a. The City shall continue to encourage permanent dedication of parks resources through the subdivision entitlement process and other means. Responsible Agency: Community Devel- opment/Public Works /City Council Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Policies: 4.1 LINGO- MCCORMICK CONSULTING Jerry Haag, Urban Planner OSC. 4.a. The City shall continue to utilize the Park In -lieu Fee Program to assist in the acquisi- tion and maintenance of parks. Responsible Agency: Community Devel- opment/Public Works /City Council Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Policies: 4.1 Trails and Open Space Linkages Goal OSC 5: A city -wide system of hiking, bicycling, and horseback riding trails shall be provided within the community which includes regional trail linkages with City, County, State, and regional parks, and other publicly owned open space lands. r Policy OSC 5.1: The City shall continue to use the Parks and Trails Master Plan as a day -to -day guide for the development, main- tenance and financing of trails in Saratoga. Policy OSC 5.2: The City shall promote the acquisition of trails through purchase, dedi- cation, or gift. Policy OSC 53: Trail planning, acquisition, A 'evelopment, maintenance and management shall be coordinated among the various local and County volunteer agencies as well as local, regional, state, and federal agencies which provide trails or funding for trails. Policy OSC 5.4: Trails shall be established along traditional routes whenever feasible, consistent with the Parks and Trails Master Plan, and in a manner that insures linkages to existing and proposed trails. Policy OSC 5.5: Trail development, patrol, and maintenance responsibilities shall be coordinated with all entities involved in each trail segment. In most cases, development responsibilities shall be borne by the prop- erty owner with maintenance activities un- dertaken by the City. Policy OSC 5.6: Trails shall be located, de- Page 23 n Element City of Saratoga Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Background Report /Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures CIRCULATION AND SCENIC HIGHWAY ELEMENT (CI) A circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan. A scenic highway element for the development, establishment, and protection of scenic highways pursuant to the provisions of Article 2.5 commencing with Section 260 of Chapter 2 of Division 1 of the Streets and Highways Code. OVERALL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Goal CI.1.0 Provide a balanced transportation system in Saratoga to give mobility to all segments of the community and to maintain the City's rural character. Policies CI.1.1 The City shall encourage and participate in the implementation of a variety of modes of transport to serve Saratoga. CI.1.2 Encourage development of inter - regionally based cooperation to support local and regional transportation solution and improvements. STREET SYSTEM AND STANDARDS OF SERVICE Goals CI.2.0aFacilitate the safe movement of vehicular traffic within and through the City, taking into consideration the environmental, historical, and residential integrity of the City to maximize benefits and minimize adverse impacts and costs. CI.2.0b For traffic management and street design, balance the efficiency of vehicular traffic with the safety and livability of residential areas. Policies CI.2.1 Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and strive to reduce the total number of vehicle miles traveled through the arrangement of land uses, improved alternative modes, and enhanced integration of various transportation systems. CI.2.2 Maintain and develop a City -wide street system that manages vehicular access, but also provides for emergency access. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Page 39 City of Saratoga Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Background Report /Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures CI.2.14 Focus future improvements on the most congested intersections to maintain an acceptable level of mobility for all modes of transportation. CI.2.15 Require development projects to mitigate and reduce their respective traffic and parking impacts by implementing practical and feasible street improvements. Implementation Measures CI.2.16 Continue to use the Capital Improvement Program to program and implement needed improvements to the street system. CI.2.17 Implement roadway and signal timing modifications to improve operations and enhance safety (e.g., lengthen turn pockets, adjust left -turn phases, widen lanes). CI.2.18 Establish street and driveway accessibility requirements for all streets designated as a major or minor arterial roadway as shown on Figure C -2. Ensure that driveway or street access does not substantially impede arterial traffic` flow as part of the City review process for individual development projects. CI.2.19 Install coordinated signal systems on all major arterial roadways in the City to improve traffic flow as appropriate. Funding should be obtained from all available City, County, State and Federal funding sources, and developer contributions. CI.2.20 Evaluate the need for upgrading or enhancing intersection control (e.g., signalization, stop signs) at existing intersections on arterial roadways and collector streets to improve overall access and circulation. CI.2.21 Install traffic signals to serve existing and projected traffic demand, provide acceptable traffic operations issues, and enhance pedestrian safety. CI.2.22'- Require a transportation analysis for all development projects resulting in 50 or more net new daily trips. The analysis shall identify potential impacts to intersection and roadway operations, project access, and alternative travel modes, and shall identify feasible improvements or project modifications to reduce or eliminate impacts. Impact significance should be consistent with the criteria maintained by the VTA. City staff should have the discretion to require focussed studies regarding access, sight distance, and other operational and safety issues. CI.2.23 Evaluate development proposals and design roadway improvements based on established Level of Service standards. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Page 41 • • City of Saratoga Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Background Report /Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures CI.2.24 Require that roadway improvements identified as mitigation measures for development projects be in place prior to issuance of occupancy permits. CI.2.25 Require new development or redevelopment projects to dedicate property to accommodate roadway improvements at the following intersections: Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road/Prospect Road, Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road/Saratoga Avenue, and Saratoga Avenue /Cox Avenue. CI.2.26 Identify potential capacity improvements and access modifications to maintain adequate circulation in the vicinity of the Civic Center, West Valley College, Redwood Middle School, the Public Library, St. Andrews School and Sacred Heart. CI.2.27 Consider paying for improvement costs to serve a development project, as appropriate, where the City's economic development interests may be served. CI.2.28 Develop and adopt a Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) Plan to specifically include a process for identifying problem areas, and for evaluating, funding, and implementing traffic calming measures to reduce high traffic volumes and travel speeds on City streets. CI.2.29 Design local streets fo carry low traffic volumes at low speeds and to function safely while minimizing the need for traffic control devices or enforcement. Physical features sho4ld include gentle curves, changes of grade, narrow widths, short lengths, and T- intersections where feasible. CI.2.30 Design streets to minimize impacts to topography, riparian habitats and wildlife corridors. CI.2.31 Implement the action programs identified in the Hillside Specific Plan to provide adequate vehicular access including improvements identified for Pierce Road consistent with Policy CI.2.13. Where feasible, improvements will include widening of travel lanes, increasing vertical clearance, installing additional signs, and providing new pavement overlays to improve safety. TRUCK TRANSPORTATION Goal CI. 3.0 Limit the intrusion of commercial truck traffic on streets within the City. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Page 42 City of Saratoga Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Background Report /Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures CI.4.2 Install transit improvements to improve service, increase safety, and maintain traffic flow on streets serving as transit routes. CI.4.3 Encourage the public school districts, private schools, recreation groups or other operators to develop a local bus system and to expand ride- sharing activities that will help to reduce school- generated vehicle traffic in neighborhoods and on City streets. Bussing should be the first measure considered to reduce school - generated traffic before substantial roadway capacity enhancements are implemented. CIAA Investigate the feasibility of a local shuttle service within Saratoga to reduce local traffic volumes on City streets and overall parking demand. The feasibility study shall identify potential routes and funding sources. Implementation Measures CI.4.5 Require development projects to dedicate right -of -way for purposes of constructing bus turnouts and/or bus shelter pads on major and minor arterial roadways as appropriate. CI.4.6 Provide seating and shaded waiting areas at transit stops, with stop locations near entrances of buildings to encourage ridership. CI.4.3 Recommend to the Valley Transportation Authority specific streets (e.g., Cox Avenue) to be included on ne w or modified. CI.4.8 Improve the links of local transportation systems and alternatives such as bicycling and walking with private and public regional transit such as bus transit, light rail, and CalTrain. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements should be funded as Capital Improvement Program projects or through private development projects to further encourage the use of transit. . CI.4.9 Provide information to the public on available alternative transportation choices and routes. CI.4.10 Encourage local businesses to provide employees with transit passes or other financial incentives to use transit to commute to and from the workplace. CI.4.11 Recommend potential stop locations for local school bus service and provide minor street and landscaping improvements as appropriate. CI.4.12 Commission a feasibility study of local shuttle service within Saratoga. Funding for the study should be obtained from federal and state grants /sources and private development projects. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. rage vv • • • City of Saratoga Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Background Report /Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN AND EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES Goals Cl. 5.Oa Integrate facilities for safe bicycling, walking, and horseback riding into the overall transportation system. CI.5.0b Encourage equestrian and pedestrian trails and pathways pursuant to the Parks and Trails Master Plan along roadways in areas where safety and aesthetics permit. Policies CI.5.1 Develop and maintain a comprehensive and integrated system of bikeways that promote bicycle riding for commuting and recreation. CI.5.2 Integrate the City of Saratoga bikeways system with the bikeways system of adjacent communities, where economically feasible. CI.5.3 Pursue the development of a new multi -use path along the Union Pacific Railroad alignment through the City of Saratoga that will link the Stevens Creek Recreational Trail in Cupertino with the Los Gatos Creek Trail in Los Gatos. CI.5.4 Pursue other potential rights- of -wal such as Santa Clara Valley Water District and utility easements for bicycle, pedestrian, and/or equestrian trail development. CI.5.5 Assure implementation of the City's trails system by requiring trail dedication, construction, and a method of trail maintenance pursuant to the Parks and Trails Master Plan as part of the subdivision or site. approval process. CI.5.6 Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential areas linking transit centers and important community centers such as the Village. CI.5.7 Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to all public and private schools to enhance safety. CI.5.8 Provide trails, sidewalks or separated pathways along all arterial streets and along some collector streets in areas where needed to provide safe pedestrian access to schools. CI.5.9 Require adherence to the trails policies noted in the both the Parks and Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Page 45 City of Saratoga Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Background Report /Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures Trails Master Plan and the Hillside Specific Plan. CI.5.10 Develop a'set of practical and realistic transportation demand management (TDM) measures that can be used by employers in the City to reduce the number of single- occupant vehicle trips. These measures would encourage ride - sharing and transit alternatives. Implementation Measures CI.5.11 Update and adopt the Bikeways Master Plan to include goals and objectives, a detailed list and map of improvements, a signage program, detailed standards, and an implementation program. The Bikeways Master Plan should include the proposed facilities shown on Figure C -5. `CI.5.12 Upgrade existing bikeways and designate new facilities where they can be accommodated according to current Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) technical guidelines (prior to adoption of City standards in the Bikeways Master Plan). For example, travel lanes on Fruitvale Avenue north -of Burgundy Way should be restriped to provide bicycle lanes with 5 -foot minimum widths or pathways. CI.5.13 Coordinate with the school districts and other entities to develop "Suggested Route to School Plans" for all public and private schools in the City. Plans shall identify all pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and traffic control.devices for residents to determine the most appropriate travel route. The plans shall also identify existing easements for sidewalks. CI.5.14 Prohibit parking in designated bicycle lames on all streets unless adequate width is provided according to VTA guidelines or City standards. C1.5.15 Require the provision of secure bicycle parking as part of all future development projects that include multi - family residential, commercial, industrial, office, and institutional uses. CI.5.16 . Develop a plan to review and identify additional bicycle parking locations in' the Village area. CI.5.17 Require new development projects and redevelopment projects to dedicate right -of -way and/or provide improvements to accommodate. bicycle lanes on streets identified on Figure C -5. CI.5.18 Require new cul -de -sac. streets to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian Access between residential areas, public uses, and community areas. CI.5.19 . Encourage non - residential development projects to include amenities such Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Page 46 City of Saratoga Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Background Report /Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures as showers and lockers for employees to further encourage bicycling as an alternative to automobile travel. CI.5.20 Increase priority of pedestrian safety projects (i.e., pedestrian street crossings, sidewalks or pathways) as part of the Capital Improvement Program. CI.5.21 Make bikeway improvements a funding priority by: 1) continuing to consider financing bikeway design and construction as part of the City's annual construction and improvement fund; 2) incorporating bikeway improvements as part of the Capital Improvement Program and pavement management efforts; and 3) aggressively pursuing regional funding and other Federal and State sources for new bikeways. CI.5.22 Update the Parks and Trails Master Plan to maintain and expand the Citywide pedestrian path system. The plan should include the proposed trails shown on Figure C -6. CI.5.23 Prohibit motorized vehicular traffic on trails, pathways, parks and dedicated open space areas except for maintenance and emergency purposes. CI.5.24 Include new sidewalk or path construction in the Capital Improvement Program, or as part of any new development, to close gaps in pedestrian facilities on the following arterial roadways: Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga Avenue, Prospect Road, aid Cox Avenue (see Figure C -6). CI.5.25 Include new sidewalk or path construction in the Capital Improvement Program, or as part of any new development or redevelopment, to close gaps on local and collector streets near schools. CI.5.26 Review the need to install sidewalks and crosswalks on all City streets within one -half mile of all public schools. CI.5.27 Review the present equestrian zones and assess their consistency with the trails and pathways plan of the circulation element. AESTHESTIC QUALITIES AND HERITAGE LANES Goals CI.6.Oa Protect the aesthetic, historic and remaining rural qualities of Saratoga through street design and landscaping. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Page 47 • r] Attachment 3 Capital Improvement Plan F.Y. 07/08 Update - New Project List NEW CIP PROJECTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY LAND USE ELEMENT OPEN SPACE ELEMENT CIRCULATION ELEMENT SAFETY ELEMENT NOTES Street Improvement Projects GOAL POLICY IMPLEMENTATION GOAL POLICY IMPLEMENTATION GOAL POLICY IMPLEMENTATION ISSUE Annual Street Resurfacing: Annual street resurfacing connected to the City's Pavement Management Program Maintenance Project. No General Plan Element Identified Annual Street Restriping: Annual Street Restriping work t Maintenance Project. No General Plan Element Identified Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Resurfacing: Overlay and Pavement Rehabilitation on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road (Brauer to Herriman) ! 1 Maintenance Project. No General Plan Element Identified IADA Accessible Traffic Signal Project: y Audible Signal Project at various traffic signal locations throughout the City. - 5.Oa I 2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 2.20, 2.21 Highway 9 Safely Project Phase Il: Project to focus on ped improvements along the Highway 9 corridor. Majority of improvements in Saratoga. 5.Oa 4.4, 5.1, 5.7, 5.8 2.26, 2.28, 4.8, 4.9,i 4.1 1, 5.13, 5.20, 5.26 Herriman Avenue Crosswalk Improvements: Crosswalk enhancements located on Herriman Avenue @ Lexington and Saratoga Vista. 5.Oa 5.7, 5.8 1 5.20, 5.25, 6.26 Herriman Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Option I: Asphalt sidewalk/pathway leveling course between AC berm and PCC Curb. 5.Oa 5.7, 5.8 5.20, 5.25, 5.26 Herriman Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Option 2: New sidewalk/pathway along the south side including retaining walls and landscape modifications. 5.Oa 5.7, 5.8 1, 5.20, 525, 5.26 Pedestrian Refuge Area at Quito /McCoy Intersection: Center refuge area and crossing improvements on Quito Road at McCoy. 5.Oa 5.6, 5.7, 5.8 5.20, 5.25, 5.26 Glen Brae Avenue Median Choker: Concrete median choker on Glen Brae Avenue for traffic calming. 2.0a, 2.Ob 2.8, 2.12 2.16, 2.28 Komina Walking Path: Walking Path on one side of Komina adjacent to Oak Street School. 5.Oa 5.7, 5.8 1 5.20, 5.25, 5.26 Saratoga Elementary School Driveway and Sidewalk Modification: Driveway and sidewalk modification to increase capacity of drop -off lane. 5.Oa 5.7, 5.8 It 5.20, 5.25, 5.26 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road ADA Curb Ramps: ADA curb ramp improvements at various locations along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. 5.Oa 5.6 5.20, 5.24 Village Pedestrian Enhancement Project Crosswalk safety improvements and other pedestrian related enhancements in the village. 5.Oa 5.6 5.20 .+ Village News Rack Enclosures: Enhancements to the Village News Rack Enclosures. 2 2.4 Village Fagade Matching Program: Matching funds to business /property owners directed at improving building facades. 2 2,4 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road Gateway Project (pathways): Continuation of Gateway Project directed at pathway improvements. 5.Oa 5.6, 5.7, 5.8 1 5.20, 5.24, 5.25, 5.26 - Saratoga Avenue Sidewalk Project: Continuation of sidewalk/pathway improvements alone Saratoga Avenue: - 5.Oa 5.6, 5.7, 5.8 5.20, 5.24, 5.25, 5.26 Park and Trail Improvement Projects Ravenswood Park Playground Upgrade Project: Replacement of existing substandard play equipment. 1,3 Y Wildwood Park Pedestrian Bridge Rehabilitation: Rehabilitation of existing pedestrian bridge to W ildwood Park. 1,3 El Quito Park Improvements: Various improvements to El Quito Park including new water fountain, rehab of ex. picnic area and frontage landscaping. 1,3 .j Carnelian Glen Trail - Foot Bridge Replacement: Replace three foot bridges along the Carnelian Glen Trail. 1,3,5 5 , 5.3, 5.5 5.0a, 5.Ob 5.9 5.20 j Facilitv Improvement Projects Annual Facility Improvements: Provides funding for various facility maintenance projects. i Maintenance Project. No General Plan Element Identified Administrative Projects ;l Financial System Upgrade: Financial software and hardware system upgrade. Administrative Project. No General Plan Element Identified Document Imaging Project - Public Works Transfer of hard copy documents into electronic imagine format. Administrative Project. No General Plan Element Identified Item 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Shweta Bhatt, Associate Planner -- MEETING DATE: October 24, 2007 SUBJECT: Request for a Continuance MOD 07 -0001; 18935 Hayfield Court; APN 397 -24 -105 Modification of Design Review Approval The applicant for the application referenced above has requested a continuance to the November 14, 2007 hearing. The applicant is allowed one request for a continuance at which time the item is scheduled for the next available Public Hearing. The applicant has the opportunity to request a second continuance, however this must be accompanied by a fee of $250.00 and the Planning Commission has the discretion to grant or deny this second request for a 40 continuance. If the continuance is denied, the hearing will be held, the staff report will be presented, public testimony will be received, and the Planning Commission will render a decision. • • • • Item 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. & Location: ADR07-002 —18524 Montpere Way Type of Application: Appeal of Administrative Design Review ADR#07-002 - Appeal #APPC07-0001 Applicant/Owner: Sripadanna Staff Planner: Heather Bradley, Contract Planner Meeting Date: October 24, 2007 (continued from October 10, 2007) IAPN: 389-26-022 Department Head: " John F. Livingston . AICP 0 Subject: 18524 Montepere Way — APN: 389-26-022 0 500' Radius Be 1.. ffj 'X 4, 0 TR4d-'N!171-8' PER -LW.3!LAY NT TRnV I - to , I 46 J-- 4t mONTPER ".7 4. V3 ff In 3. jL7 L 6., 7 1, 3 L7 .6337 &0 L9 x 3. z , AY 4 :U 2C 2, ,ESPA CT. II u L, air L5 L is I Lz a a LLENDALE AVENUE 10z232 ;kQ- L z - 'C�: -; 4 — ". 'i 7 a. le 5 . ...... . 0.23 AQ V A 2 10 99 -Z 2 0.23 O C: 0.23 ;0 V N PLAN. 0.737 Ac 19 1.n AC. 13 O.IB AG i 4 0.25 V7 14 M21 AQ 0.11 AG PTN. UUITO IX2 CHO PLAN. (12401� 30 — Z-9 PL". R' 0.22 0.223 PLAN = 7 'i ZJ AC., Q22 A . Z-4 P . 9-0 M T - TRACT N0.1 ALE MANOR M AVENUE„ NUE F--7 -::W-7 'a 18524 Montpere Way Application No. APPC07 -0001; 18524 Montpere Way EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Two -story DR Application filed: 01/16/07 Two -story DR Application complete: 02/20/07 Two -story DR Hearing Date: 03/28/07 Two -story DR Withdrawn/ADR Application filed: 06/21/07 ADR Application complete: 08/15/07 ADR Application Neighbor Review period: 08/20/07 - 09/04/07 ADR Approved: 09/05/07 Appeal Filed: 09/20/07 Notice published: 09/26/07 Mailing completed: 09/25/07 Posting completed: 10/04/07 Request for Continuance 09/26/07 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Appeal of an Administrative Design Review approval for a remodel with partial demolition and addition to the existing one -story home located at 18524 Montpere Way. The proposal would enlarge the home by approximately 1,096 square feet (which includes a 408 square foot carport conversion to enclosed garage). Total proposed floor area, including garage would be 2,730 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed structure will not exceed eighteen feet (18). The maximum impervious coverage would not exceed the allowable 60% of the net site area. The lot size is 8,520 square feet and the property is located in the R- 10,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution denying the appeal and approving application ADR07 -002. The decision on this appeal is final and not subject to further appeal to the City Council. • 2 Application No. APPC07 -0001; 18524 Montpere Way 9 PROJECT DATA • ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M -10 (Medium Density Residential) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: Approximately 8,520 gross and net square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Approximately 3.43% GRADING REQUIRED: None ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed addition to an existing 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 dark beige stucco walls with dark green trim. Materials include cedar tongue- and - groove siding and an asphalt shingle roof. A color and material board will be available at the public hearing. 3 Application No. APPC07 -0001; 18524 Montpere Way PROJECT DATA ** This lot is substandard in width there lore percentage based setbacxs apply PROJECT DISCUSSION The appellant is seeking to overturn Planning Staff's approval of the applicants request for Administrative Design Review approval to add a single -story addition consisting of approximately. 688 square feet of living area and converting an approximately 408 square foot existing carport area. into a garage. This application was originally scheduled for the Public Hearing of October l Oth, 2007 but was continued at the request of the appellant. Background The applicant first submitted plans on January 16, 2007 for a second story addition to their home. The plans consisted of a 670 square foot second story and a 628 square foot first story addition (which included conversion of the 408 square foot existing carport to a garage) for a total area of 2,942 square feet. The architectural style of this first proposal matched the Modern Contemporary style of the original Anshen and Allen homes in this neighborhood. However, the next -door neighbor to the south, expressed concerns with preservation of the predominately single -story neighborhood, privacy loss, height and loss of solar exposure. Another neighbor expressed concern over the potential historic significance of the structure. The original Design Review application was scheduled for the Planning Commission public hearing of March 28, 2007 but was continued at the request, of the applicant to complete a historic assessment for 4 • • Proposal Code Requirements Site Coverage Residence 2,730 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable: Driveway/Walks 441 sq. ft. 60% = 5,112 sq. ft. max. Walkways/Patio 746 sq. ft. TOTAL 3,917 sq. ft. 45.9% Floor Area Existing First Floor 1,634 sq. ft. Addition 688 sq. ft. Garage (carport conversion) 408 sq. ft. TOTAL 2,730 sq. ft. 3,040 sq. ft. Setbacks Front yard 30.4 ft. 25 ft.. Rear Yard 25 ft. 25 ft. Right (north) Side 7 ft. (existing) 7 ft. ** Left (south) Side 11.4 ft. 7 ft. ** Height in feet Lowest. elevation 252.47 ft. Maximum height = Highest elevation 252.91 ft. 278.69 ft. elevation (26 Average.Elevation 252.69 ft. ft.) Topmost elevation 270.69 ft. Maximum height 18.0 ft. ** This lot is substandard in width there lore percentage based setbacxs apply PROJECT DISCUSSION The appellant is seeking to overturn Planning Staff's approval of the applicants request for Administrative Design Review approval to add a single -story addition consisting of approximately. 688 square feet of living area and converting an approximately 408 square foot existing carport area. into a garage. This application was originally scheduled for the Public Hearing of October l Oth, 2007 but was continued at the request of the appellant. Background The applicant first submitted plans on January 16, 2007 for a second story addition to their home. The plans consisted of a 670 square foot second story and a 628 square foot first story addition (which included conversion of the 408 square foot existing carport to a garage) for a total area of 2,942 square feet. The architectural style of this first proposal matched the Modern Contemporary style of the original Anshen and Allen homes in this neighborhood. However, the next -door neighbor to the south, expressed concerns with preservation of the predominately single -story neighborhood, privacy loss, height and loss of solar exposure. Another neighbor expressed concern over the potential historic significance of the structure. The original Design Review application was scheduled for the Planning Commission public hearing of March 28, 2007 but was continued at the request, of the applicant to complete a historic assessment for 4 • • Application No. APPC07 -0001; 18524 Montpere Way review by the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC). Please refer to the minutes from the March 28th Planning Commission meeting for details of that meeting. The applicants then decided to pursue a single story design to accommodate the neighbors concerns and withdrew their application for a two -story structure. On June 21, 2007 the applicants submitted new plans for a 1,303 square foot one -story addition, which was also in keeping with the original Modern Contemporary style. The applicants had a historical evaluation prepared for the property and Planning Staff took the application to the HPC for review. Although Anshen and Allen were the architects for many of the homes built by Joseph Eichler in the Bay Area, this property was found not to meet the criteria for designation as a historic structure by the Heritage Preservation Commission. During the review period for the new application Staff found some inconsistencies with the setbacks in relation to which property lines were considered to be the rear of the lot, and asked the applicants for a further redesign to increase the proposed setbacks. The applicants completed this revision by further redesigning the residence and further reducing the size of the addition to 1,096 sq. ft. (again including conversion of a 408 square foot carport to a garage) for a total floor area of 2,730 square feet. The final plans were submitted on August 15th, 2007. Staff mailed out a Notice of Intent to Approve to all neighbors within 250 feet of the project providing 15 days to review and comment on the plans. Many neighbors expressed concerns with the project, focusing primarily on the proposed height. The proposed addition has a main ridgeline running from front to back, which would increase the current height of approximately 12 feet to the proposed height of 14 feet. A smaller shed style roof is also proposed over a bedroom, which slopes from 8.5 feet to 18 feet maximum height. After carefully considering the plans, neighborhood compatibility, letters of support from neighbors and all the materials submitted by those opposed, staff concluded that all of the findings necessary to support the Administrative Design Review findings could be made. Staff did add one non - standard condition of approval at the request of the neighbors opposed to the project to prevent a green (living) roof from future conversion to living area, patio or balcony. Staff approved the plans on September 5th, 2007. The project was appealed on September 20, 2007. Appeal The appellant submitted a letter and petition signed by several neighbors along with the appeal application. The appellant expressed concerns with the proposed height of the addition and compatibility with the height of other homes in the neighborhood, and concern regarding a condition in the Notice of Approval prohibiting the flat roof from future conversion to a second floor. Staff has found that several houses in this neighborhood have undergone remodels, some fairly recently. Most of these remodels have changed the appearance to a more typical Ranch style with taller roof forms from the original modern contemporary designs of Anshen. and Allen. There are several examples of remodeled homes with average roof heights of approximately 16 feet to 18 feet in the immediate neighborhood. While the addition would not have an identical height to E Application No. APPC07 -0001; 18524 Montpere Way in the neighborhood, which vary from approximately 11 feet to approximately 18 feet. Further, the architectural style of this addition is in keeping with the original design and will be architecturally compatible with the neighborhood. Staff included the future conversion condition referred to by the appellant in the Notice of Approval as a condition at the request of the neighbors who submitted the petition in opposition of the project. Please refer to page 3 of the appellants appeal application (attachment #2) in the first item (2.) "We, the undersigned do not want the above application approved as proposed ... We are requesting a condition of permit approval be that the "green roof' not ever be allowed to be converted or used as a living are, patio, or balcony ". Staff included this condition to help ease the neighbors concerns with the project. Any request for a conversion of roof area to living area or balcony would require Planning Commission approval of a new Design Review application for.which the neighbors within 500 feet of the property would be notified. This condition has been removed from the attached Resolution of Approval, which would supercede and replace the Notice of Approval dated September 5, 2007. Trees and landscaping The applicants are not proposing -to remove any mature trees on site. The majority of mature trees in proximity to the project are located on neighboring properties and will not be impacted. The applicants are proposing planted beds at the front of the house and a new lawn on the south side of the_ house. Existing fencing will remain in place. Green Building Techniques The applicants have 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: north -south orientation to minimize east -west heat gain, large roof overhangs for shade, whole house fan, insulated roof panels, radiant heating, recycled wood materials, green (living) roof. Please see the Energy Efficiency list .(attachment #4) submitted by the applicant for further reference.. 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 addition will in keeping with the existing rural_ atmosphere of Saratoga in that; the project will match the architectural style of the existing residence and the predominant architectural style of the neighborhood of Anshen & Allen homes built in the early 1950's. The proposed additions include enclosing an existing carport for use as a garage; expanding an existing living room and adding a third bedroom. The majority of the roof area will have a maximum height of 14 feet while only a small portion ,will slope up from. 8:5 feet to 18 feet. This portion of the addition will be located approximately 25 feet from the closest property line. Earthtone colors will be used that will blend with the overall appearance of the site and neighborhood. Existing mature landscaping will be retained. 6 Application No. APPC07 -0001; 18524 Montpere Way • 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 project will be compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings in that all of the following Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative. The firm Archives and Architecture assessed the project for the historical significance of the existing structure. The structure was not found to be historically significant nor was it found to meet minimum requirements for a listing as a local historic resource by the Saratoga Historic Preservation Commission at their meeting of Tuesday August 14, 2007. 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 additions will be located well within the required setbacks and will be located at the back of the residence, far from the street. Existing mature vegetation will be preserved. The majority of the roof structure is 14 feet in height with only a small portion over a bedroom addition that slopes up to a maximum height of 18 feet. This finding may be made in the affirmative. b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The project meets this finding in that no mature landscaping is proposed for removal and no grading beyond minimal foundation work will be required. This finding may be made in the affirmative. c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The project meets this finding in that no ordinance - protected trees will be removed or impacted by the proposed construction. This finding may be made in the affirmative. d) Minimize the perception of excessive bulk. The project meets this finding in that the addition is in keeping with the style and massing of the existing residence. The additions will be placed toward the rear of the residence and have varying wall projections that help avoid the perception of excessive bulk. The total addition is 1,096 square feet of which 408 square feet is a conversion from an existing carport to a new garage. The total proposed square footage is 2,730 sq. ft. including the garage. This finding may be made in the affirmative. e) Compatible bulk and height. The project meets this finding in that the project proposes an average height of 14 feet, which is compatible with all other homes in the neighborhood. The area of the roof that is proposed at 18 feet is compatible with several other homes in the neighborhood that have been remodeled from the original Anshen & Allen designs. The proposed height is also compatible with other homes in this same zoning district that can be up to 26 feet in height. This finding may be made in the affirmative. f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The project will conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. This finding may be made in the affirmative. 7 Application No. APPC07 -0001; 18524 Montpere Way g) Design policies and techniques. The project conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, avoiding unreasonable interference with views and privacy as detailed in the findings above. The project has taken energy efficiency into account and has utilized a green roof in portions of the addition to help moderate the indoor temperatures. The project preserves the neighbor's privacy by keeping the addition approximately 25 feet away from the property line at the rear and approximately 17 feet away from the property line on the side where only 10 feet is required. This finding maybe 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 that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution denying the appeal and approving application. ADR07 -002. The decision on this appeal is final and not subject to further appeal to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution denying the appeal 2. Appeal application and accompanying letter 3. Notice of Approval 4. Minutes from Planning Commission Public Hearing of March 28, 2007 5. Minutes from Heritage Preservation Commission meeting of August 14, 2007 6. Historical and Architectural Evaluation prepared by Archives & Architecture, April 12, 2007 7. Energy Efficiency_ list and Green Roof information 8. Correspondence 9. Emails 10. Neighborhood Notification Letters 11. City of Saratoga Notice, Noticing Affidavit, and Noticing Labels 12. Applicant's Plans, Exhibit "A" 0 • � ATTACHMENT 1 • Application No. APPC07 -0001; 18524 Montpere Way RESOLUTION NO. Application No. ADR07 -002 Denial of Appeal of Administrative Design Review Application No. APPC07 -0001 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION - STATE OF CALIFORNIA Sripadanna; 18524 Montpere Way (owner) Ho (appellant) WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an appeal of Administrative Design Review application No. 04 -307 which proposes to construct a 1,096 square foot addition to an existing 1,634 square foot existing residence (including conversion of an existing 408 square foot carport to garage) WHEREAS, the. Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on October 10, 2007 at which time the Appellant requested a continuance to the Planning Commission Public Hearing on October 24, 2007 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 single -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 appellant has not met the burden of proof required to support approval of application APPC07 -001, overturning approval of application ADR07 -002 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 addition will in keeping with the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga in that; the project will match the architectural style of the existing residence and the predominant architectural style of the neighborhood of Anshen & Allen homes built in the early 1950's. " The proposed additions include enclosing an existing carport for use as a garage, expanding an existing living -room and adding a third bedroom. The majority of the roof area will have a maximum height. of 14 feet while only a small portion will slope up from 8.5 feet to 18 feet. This portion of the addition will be located approximately 25 feet from the closest property line. Earthtone colors will be used that will blend with the overall appearance of the site and neighborhood. Existing mature landscaping will be retained. b). Land Use Element Policy 5.0 — The City 'sball 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 project will be compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings in that -all of the following Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative. The firm Archives and Architecture assessed the project for the historical significance of the existing structure. The structure was not found to be historically 1 Application No. APPC07 -0001; 18524 Montpere Way significant nor was it found to meet minimum requirements for a listing as a local historic resource by the Saratoga Historic Preservation Commission at their meeting of Tuesday August 14, 2007. WHEREAS, the appellant has not met the burden of proof required to support approval of application APPC07 -001, overturning approval of application ADR07 -002 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: a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The additions will be located well within the required setbacks' and will be located at the back of the residence, far from the street. Existing mature vegetation will be preserved. The majority of the roof structure is 14 feet in. height with only a small portion over a bedroom addition that slopes up to a maximum height of 18 feet. This finding may be made in the affirmative. b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The project meets this finding in that no mature landscaping is proposed for removal and no grading beyond minimal foundation work will be required. This finding may be made in the affirmative. c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The project meets this finding in that no ordinance - protected trees will be removed or impacted by the proposed construction. This finding may be made in the affirmative. d) Minimize the perception of excessive bulk. The project meets this finding in that the addition is in keeping with the style and massing of the existing residence. The additions will be placed toward the rear of the residence and have varying wall projections that help avoid the perception of excessive bulk. The total addition is 1,096 square feet of which 408 square feet is a conversion from an existing carport to a new garage. The total proposed square footage is 2,730 sq. ft. including the garage. This finding may be made in the affirmative. e) Compatible bulk and height. The project meets this finding in that the project proposes an average height of 14 feet, which is compatible with all other homes in the neighborhood. The area of the roof that is proposed at 18 feet is compatible with several other homes in the neighborhood that have been remodeled from the original Anshen & Allen designs. The proposed height is also compatible with other homes in this same zoning district that can be up to 26 feet in height. This finding may be made in the affirmative. f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The project will conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. This finding may be made in the affirmative. a) Design policies and techniques. The project conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, avoiding unreasonable interference with views and privacy as detailed in the findings above. The project has taken energy efficiency into account and has utilized a green roof in portions of the addition to help moderate the indoor temperatures. The project preserves the neighbor's privacy by keeping the addition approximately 25 feet away 2 Application No. APPC07 -0001; 18524 Montpere Way from the property line at the rear and approximately 17 feet away from the property line on the side where only 10 feet is required. This finding maybe made in the affirmative. 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 APPC07 -0001 appealing the Administrative Design Review application No. ADR07 -002 has been denied, and approval of Administrative Design Review No. ADR07 -002 is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PERMANENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL There are no permanent conditions of approval for this project. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The proposed home shall be located and constructed as shown on "Exhibit A" (incorporated by reference, date stamped August 15, 2007) and in compliance with the conditions stated in this Resolution. This Resolution of Approval supercedes and replaces the Notice of Approval for Administrative Design Review Application #07- 002 dated September 5, 2007. 2.- Any proposed minor 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 January. 16, 2007. . 4 _Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution, and the Historic Evaluation Report dated April 12, 2007 and Minutes from the Heritage Preservation Commission meeting of' August 18, 2007 as a separate plan page (s) 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 utility plan with the location of air conditioner units shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. 3 • 11 • Application No. APPC07 -0001; 18524 Montpere Way 7. 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. 8. Water and /or runoff from the project site shall not be directed toward the adjacent properties. 9. Fences walls and hedges shall conform to height requirements provided in City Code Section 15 -29. 10. In order to comply with standards that minimize impacts to the neighborhood during site preparation and construction, the applicant shall comply with City Code 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. 11. Should any trees require removal in order to complete the project, approval shall be received from the City prior to its removal. Following removal, new trees will be required that are equal to the appraised value of the removed tree. 12. The disposal of harmful products, including but not limited to chemicals, paint rinse water, fuel, cement rinse water, herbicides, or other materials, is prohibited beneath tree canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath tree canopies. 0 PUBLIC WORKS 13. An Encroachment Permit issued by the Public Works Department is required for all improvements in any portion of the public right -of -way. As part of the Encroachment Permit conditions, the owner shall remove material blocking drainage gutter and replace rolled curb and gutter as necessary. 14. 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. 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 4 Application No. APPC07 -0001; 18524 Montpere Way 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 24th day of October 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. Property Owner Date 5 • • 0 ATTACHMENT 2 • Appellant Name: Address: CITY OF SAFA:TOGA APPEAL APPLICATION (Revised July 2007) Telephone Name of Applicant (If different than Appellant): P �� 4 k 1 Project file number and address: A D R 0 'Z 4P4 1 v Decision being appealed: -e 15"h..�eV,le W ����`T .�Uh7tPer>✓ (v C'- Lf � Scr C A. Grounds for appeal (Letter may be attached): Applicant Signature: C (`zC•� v City Code Section 2- 05.030 (a) appeals: • No Hearing • With Hearing Date: :51, l � ADO 7 $100.00 $600.00 City Code. Section 15- 90.010 appeals (Zoning retaie): • _ Appeals from Administrative aistrative Decisions to the Planning Commission City Code Section. 15 appeals (Zoning related): Appeals from Planning Commission to the City Council $600.00 F City Code Section 13- 20.060 appeals • Appeals from Heritage Preservation Commission to the No Charge Planning Commission. City Code Section 15- 50.100 (a) appeals (Trees): $500.00 Appeals from Administrative Decisions to the Planning Planning Commission F Request for a Continuance: First Requests No Charge 2nd Request $250.00 Date Received: Hearing Date: Fee: Receipt #: p: \Forms & Procedures\Appeal Application.doc We are appealing the approval of Application No ADR 07002: Administrative Design Review of 18524 Montpere Way on the grounds that some elements of this design do not meet General Plan Findings — Conservation Element Policy 6.0 or City Design Review Findings 15- 45.080. Furthermore, the Future Conversion clause under Project Specific Conditions reflects an element to the design that was not included in the application. General Plan Findings — Conservation Element Policy 6.0. Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of the new development. Houses in the neighborhood average 11 -11.5 feet in height. A remodeled house with a 14 foot roof (18 feet in one area), located at the high point of the neighborhood, will tower over neighboring homes and have a significant visual impact on the surrounding area, given the architectural style of these homes. The Compatible bulk and height with existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district. While the height of this remodel is compatible with newer homes in the same zoning district, this measure is not sufficient to meet the requirement of the code. The home must also be compatible with existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those in the immediate neighborhood. The Notice of Approval notes that "the project proposes an average height of 14, which is compatible with all other homes in the neighborhood" A proposed average height of 14 feet is not compatible with all other homes in the neighborhood. Major remodeling projects, those with additions and altered roof heights, are rare in this neighborhood, and, at least one house was denied an application, in the past, to remodel with a 14 foot roof (2001). Of the 38 homes in the Peremont tract, 34 have roofs with an average height of 11 -11.5 feet. The garden design of these homes, with their low ceilings and ceiling to floor windows on the back side of each house, is designed to create both privacy and an unimpeded view of landscaping rather than adjacent structures. And, it is the design of the homes that has, traditionally, attracted people to the neighborhood. o neighborhood.have approval of remodels with raised roofs. The most recent remodel (2007) was approved with a 16.5 foot roof. While, in the past, the neighborhood relied on the City to enforce its code regarding bulk and height, neighbors are now aware that they need to more clearly state their objections. Although there was stated opposition to the last remodel, neighbors now realize that this alone is not enough and so we have submitted a group petition and paid the $400 fee for an appeals hearing. Project Specific Conditions — Future Conversion: The plan, as reviewed, is for a one story house, yet the Notice of Approval includes a clause specifying conditions for a future conversion of a flat roof portion to a "living area, patio or balcony." It makes no sense, to us, that a one story house would have this condition placed on the application. The Peremont neighborhood opposes the conversion of homes to two stories, which would negatively impact the privacy and views of neighboring homes. Finally, we would like to stress that our appeal reflects neighborhood concerns regarding architectural style and the heights of roofs and their impact on privacy and views. This appeal, in no way, reflects negative feelings towards the Sripadanna family. Although they have never lived in the neighborhood, several people have met with them and feel that they will be a great asset to our neighborhood. 9/19/2007 Montpere Way Neighborhood Petition Against Approval of Planning Application ADR 07 -002, on 18524 Montpere Way September 1, 2007 We, the undersigned do not want the above application approved as proposed. 1. We are requesting the height not exceed current height of other neighbored houses that being approximately 14 feet. 2. We are requesting a condition of permit approval be that the "green roof' not ever be allowed to be.converted or used as a living area, patio, or balcony. We believe the following facts are important and need to be carefully considered. before this application is approved or disapproved by the Planning Department or Planning Commission: 1) The average height of houses in the neighborhood is 1.0 -1.1. feet. 2) The maximum height of houses in the neighborhood is 14 -14.5 feet including recent remodel heights. 3) This proposed project exceeds this maximum neighbor home height by 3.5 -4 feet. 4) A remodel submitted to the city in 2001., at 18611 Montpere Way proposed a height of 15 feet. This plan was rejected by the Planning Department /Commission due to the excessive height relative to the surrounding homes. This house was later approved with a reduction in the height to more closely match those of exisiting houses. We urge you to require this applicant to submit a design for a single story remodel which will not exceed recent remodel heights of 14 to 14.5 feet. Dame Address O v Address 7 • • • Name Address Name Address t ` - v z r.,�.:�%; 25��= � a 7 i t` o.v � Pry rL.e: Ch.��-'.• Name Address Name • Name Na Name Name • WI® Address Address 9VF "C Address Address t7 Address Address k �k Name Address Yyg-�_ ,A t-'fVa f- � 61.1, Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address • 0 ATTACHMENT 3 • Tixr"aictiCktdmi-_ 1T6 J [ l 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 NOTICE OF APPROVAL COUNCIL >\1EMBERS: Jill Hunter - Aileen Kao Kathleen King Chuck Page Ann Waltonsrnith Via email & US Mail To: Hari & Sasi Sripadanna 3327 Benton Street Santa Clara, California 95051 From: Heather Bradley, Contract Planner Date: September 5, 2007 Subject: Application No. ADR 07 -002; Administrative Design Review 18524 Montpere Way, Saratoga, California Your application for a single story remodel with partial demolition and addition to the existing "one -story home located at 18524 Montpere Way (APN 389 -26 -022) has been approved subject to a 15 -day appeal period (ending at 5:00 pm on September 20 'h , 2007) and the following findings have been made: FINDINGS 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 of up to three single - family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists of remodeling and adding to one single- family residence. GENERAL PLAN FINDINGS Conservation Element Policy 6.0 - Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The addition will in keeping with the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga in that; the project will match the architectural style of the existing residence- and the predominant architectural style of the neighborhood of Anshen & Allen homes built in the early 1950's. The proposed additions include enclosing an existing carport for use as a garage, expanding an existing living room and adding a third • • Notice of Approval: Applion No. ADR 07 -002 Project Address: 18524 Montpere Way September 5`h, 2007 bedroom. The majority of the roof area will have a maximum height of 14 feet while only a small portion will slope up from 8.5 feet to 18 feet. This portion of the addition will be located approximately 25 feet from the closest property line. Earthtone colors will be used that will blend with the overall appearance of the site and neighborhood. Existing mature landscaping will be retained. 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 project will be compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings in that all of the following Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative. The project was assessed by the firm Archives and Architecture for the historical significance of the existing structure. The structure was not found to be historically significant nor was it found to meet minimum requirements for a listing as a local historic resource by the Saratoga Historic Preservation Committee at their meeting of Tuesday August 14, 2007. DESIGN 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. The project meets this finding in that it is a single story addition and a majority of the existing residence will be maintained in the same location and with the same footprint. The additions will be located well within the required setbacks and will be located at the back of' the residence, far from the street. Existing mature vegetation will be preserved. 'The majority of the roof structure is 14 feet in height with only a small portion over a bedroom addition that slopes up to a maximum height of 18 feet. This finding may be made in the affirmative. 2. 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. The project meets this finding in that no mature landscaping is proposed for removal and no grading beyond minimal foundation work will be required. This finding may be made in the affirmative. 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. The project meets this finding in that no ordinance- Page 2 Notice of Approval: Appli3tion No. ADR 07 -002 Project Address: 18524 Montpere Way September 5`h, 2007 •protected trees will be removed or impacted by the proposed construction. This finding may be made in the affirmative. 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. The project meets this finding in that the addition is in keeping with the style and massing of the existing residence. The total addition is 1,096 square feet of which 408 square feet is 'a conversion from an existing carport to a new garage. The total proposed square footage is 2,730 sq. ft. including the garage. This finding may be made in the affirmative. 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. The project meets this finding in that the project proposes an average height of 14 feet, which is compatible with all other homes in the neighborhood. The area of the roof that is proposed at 18 feet. is compatible with several other homes in the neighborhood that have been remodeled from the original Anshen & Allen designs. The proposed height is also compatible with other homes in this same zoning district that can be up to 26 feet in height. This finding may be made in the affirmative. 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. The project meets this finding in that the project conforms to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. This finding may be made in the affirmative. 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. The project conforms to the- applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, avoiding unreasonable interference with views -and privacy as detailed in the findings above. The project has taken energy efficiency into account and has utilized a green roof in portions of the addition to help moderate the indoor temperatures. The project preserves the neighbor's privacy by keeping the addition approximately 25 feet away from the property line at the rear - . and approximately 17 feet. away from the property line on the side where only 10 feet is required. This finding maybe made, in the affirmative. Thus the above analysis concludes that the findings required for granting administrative design review approval 07 -002 can be met. The proposed application was properly noticed and Page 3 • 1 • Notice of Approval: Appli'c5tion No. ADR 07 -002 Project Address: 18524 Montpere Way September 5`h, 2007 circulated to property owners within 250 -feet of the subject site. The review period for their comments ended September 4th, 2007. Staff has received numerous comments both in support and opposed to the project. However, after a fair and impartial analysis of the plans and all supporting materials both against and for the project staff has made the determination that the project is consistent with all the above guidelines and all the necessary zoning regulations. 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 Project Specific Conditions Planning and Building Department 1. Future Conversion. The green roof portion of the residence as shown on the plans "Exhibit A" shall not be converted to a second floor living area, patio or balcony, unless otherwise approved as a new Design Review application by the Planning Commission. 0 Public Works Department 2. Encroachment Permit. An Encroachment Permit issued by the Public Works Department is required for all improvements in any portion of the public right -of -way. As part of the Encroachment Permit conditions, the owner shall remove material blocking drainage gutter and replace rolled curb and gutter as necessary. Standard Conditions 3. All Applicable Requirements. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. 4. 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. 5. Appeal and Effective Date. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of City Code Section 15 -90, this Approval shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of this Notice of Approval. 6. Expiration. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within thirty -six (36) months from the date of adoption of this Notice of Approval or approval will expire. Page 4 Notice of Approval: Applic Lion No. ADR 07 -002 Project Address: 18524 Montpere Way September 51n, 2007 7. 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 fagade 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. Staff will not approve downgrading of the exterior from what is shown on the approved plans. Any exterior changes to approved plans may require filing an additional application and fees as a modification to approved plans. 8. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to staff review prior to issuance of Zone Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum, include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as "Exhibit A" in the planning department file; and b. Drawings /reports /materials required by the Building Department; and c. This signed and dated Notice of Approval printed onto separate plan pages; and d. A boundary survey, wet - stamped and wet - signed by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying. The stamp shall reflect a current license for the land surveyor /engineer, the document shall be labeled "Boundary Survey," and the document shall not contain any disclaimers. e. A Site Plan containing 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." f. Minutes from the Heritage Preservation Commission meeting printed onto separate plan pages; and . g. Historic Evaluation Report dated April 12, 2007 printed onto separate plan pages; and h. A utility.plan that shows location of air condition units; and i. 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. An explanatory note shall be provided if all storm water cannot be maintained on site. - 9. Fences, Walls and Hedges. All fences, walls and hedges shall conform to height requirements provided in City Code.Section 15 -29. 10. Fire Department Requirements. Owner /applicant shall comply with all Fire Department requirements. 11. 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 City Code 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. Page 5 Notice of Approval: Appli - tion No. ADR 07 -002 Project Address: 18524 Montpere Way September 5th, 2007 Arborist Review 12. No trees are scheduled for removal as part of this project. Should any tree require removal in order to complete the project, approval shall be received from the City prior to its removal. Following removal, new trees will be required that are equal to the appraised value of the removed tree. 13. The disposal of harmful products, including but not limited to chemicals, paint rinse water, fuel, cement rinse water, herbicides, or other materials, is prohibited beneath tree canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath tree canopies. Public Works Department 14. 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. 15. Encroachment Permit. An Encroachment Permit issued by the Public Works Department is required for improvements in any portion of the public right -of -way. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** END OF CONDITIONS OFAPPROVAL * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** If you wish to appeal any conditions of this administrative approval to the Planning Commission, you must file an application with the Planning Division within fifteen (15) calendar days of the approval date. The Planning Division front counter is open from 7:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Monday through Friday for information regarding an appeal. Please note City Hall is closed every other Friday; a schedule for City Hall is available on the City's webpage: http: / /www.Saratoga.ca.us. 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. Please sign below and return the original to the Planning Department. Please keep a copy of the original to be turned in as a separate plan page for the Building Department. 0- Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date p Y Page 6 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 28, 2007 Page 8 40 Chair Rodgers: • Said that it appears that half of the Commissioners, those seated to her right, want a limitation on hours while those seated to her left do not. • Pointed out that the Village gets quiet after 10 p.m. • Stated that it would be nice to allow this applicant to experiment with hours of operation. • Reminded that there is plenty of parking at this end of the street that is available in the evenings. • Said that there is a niche for this food and that this restaurant offers a mix for the Village. • Stated that this location has been a restaurant for a long time. Commissioner Hlava said that she thinks the hours are fine and the applicant can be brought back if there are issues as a result of hours. Commissioner Kundtz said that he is happy to go with this as well. Commissioner Nagpal asked for a clarification on the alcohol permit. What is ABC? City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Explained that ABC stands for Alcohol Beverage Control. • Suggested adding the word "fences" to Condition #9 to read, "...such as fences, umbrellas and awnings." Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a new restaurant with alcohol sales on property located at 14441 Big Basin Way, as modified by the edit to Condition #9 and striking Condition #13, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumer, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #07 -218 (389 -26 -022) SRIPADANNA, 18524 Montepere Way: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to remodel the first floor, including removing exterior walls, and construct a second -story addition to an existing single -story, single - family residence. The total floor area of the proposed residence will be approximately 2,942 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be higher than 26 feet. The net lot size is 8,520 square feet and the site is zoned R -1- 10,000. (Therese Schmidt) Associate Planner Therese Schmidt presented the staff report as follows: Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval for a second story addition to an existing home. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 28, 2007 Page 9 • Reported that an email was received from a concerned neighbor on Monday raising the question as to whether this home might be historically significant. • Stated that since the home is over 50 years old, staff advised the applicant that they would have to get an historic assessment done and offered a "continuance to get that prepared. • Said that the historic consultant is currently working on the assessment. It will likely be forwarded to the Heritage Preservation Commission in May and to the Planning Commission after that. • Recommended accepting the applicant's request for a continuance. Commissioner Zhao asked if just one neighbor was concerned. Planner Therese Schmidt replied that just one expressed concern based on potential historic significance of the structure. Two others had originally supported this application but changed their minds and no longer do. She added that neighbors are organizing against a second story. Chair Rodgers'asked if the applicant wants to speak this evening. City Attorney-Jonathan Wittwer said that the action requested is a continuance and that it is important to state that the continuance could be for the purpose of redesign. Chair Rodgers opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. and asked the applicant to come forward to state his request. Mr. Hari Sripadanna, Applicant and Property Owner: Explained that -he has asked a consultant to review the house for historic relevance. • Added that until, the findings from that assessment are reached, he does not know what they-will have to do. City Attorney 'Jonathan Witter. asked Mr. Hari Sripadanna if it is his intention to withdraw or to continue his.application this evening. Mr. Hari Sripadanna replied yes. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer asked if it might be for the purpose of a redesign. Mr. Hari Sripadanna said that this depends on the results of the historic review. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer explained that there are laws that require cities to process applications iri a specific time period. He advised that he needs to hear Mr. Hari Sripadanna say for the record that this continuance is for potential redesign. That stops the clock. Mr. Hari Sripadanna said that he is willing to go through the process and understands that redesign may be required. Chair Rodgers advised that . she spoke with Mr. Hari Sripadanna this afternoon and encouraged him to attend this evening. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 28, 2007 Page 10 Mr. Robert Me rritt Neighbor on Monte ere Way: • Thanked the Commission for allowing him to speak tonight. • Explained that he travels quite a bit and so he cannot be sure if he will be around when this comes back to the Commission for public hearing. • Said that he is concerned about keeping his neighborhood intact. • Reported that he has lived on Montepere for 28 years. • Stated that it is easy for people to come in and place additional stories that change the character of a neighborhood. • Asked that the Commission be sensitive to long- established neighbors. • Cautioned that the valley is becoming one with high -rise homes that are situated property line to property line. • Assured that he would try to come back if this request comes back still as a two -story. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Robert Merritt if he is an adjacent neighbor. Mr. Robert Merritt replied no, he lives down the street. Chair Rodgers asked Mr. Robert Merritt if he objects to the second story aspect. She asked him if these are Eichler Homes. Mr. Robert Merritt said that they are not Eichlers. He added that he is interested to learn if these are historic homes or not. He agreed that his concern is mainly a second story. Ms. Dana Merritt, Neighbor on Montpere: • Said that she is Robert's wife. • Explained that she has talked with a lot of her neighbors. • Said that this two story would be very large and look down on adjacent properties. • Reminded that there are floor to ceiling windows at the back of these homes and that neighbors would lose their privacy with a second story neighbor. • Said that she is not against new neighbors coming in if they go with a single -story addition. Ms. Linda Ho, Neighbor on Montpere: • Identified herself as the neighbor next door to the applicant. • Said that award - winning designers who were students of Eichler designed these homes. • Said that there is uniqueness to these houses with a floor to ceiling window design. • Advised that the lots are not rectangular but rather are different shapes. Therefore a second story would overlook everyone's backyard. • Added that there is a topography issue with each lot having differing elevations. The applicant's home is at the highest point of this cul de sac. • Stated that she is against the applicant's design for a second -story based on Findings A, B, D and E. The home would intrude on privacy, would not preserve the natural landscape, is excessive in bulk and is not compatible with the community. • Suggested that the applicant chose to add either through a basement or expansion of the first floor. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 28 2007 Page 11 Commissioner Zhao asked Ms. Linda Ho where her home is located in relation to the applicant's home. Ms. Linda Ho: • Replied that her house. is located on the left side of the applicant's home if facing the applicant's house. • Added that with a second story, her family would lose all of its privacy. • Pointed out that there is a big lot to allow expansion with a single -story addition. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Linda Ho for the lot size in the area. Ms. Linda Ho said that they are generally 8,520 square feet and that most lots are approximately the same size although some neighbors have a.double lot. Planner Therese Schmidt advised the Commission that Mr. and Mrs. Ho were originally not in support. When the applicant agreed to plant trees, they later signed a letter of support. She asked for verification from Ms. Ho that she is withdrawing her support. Ms. Linda Ho said that she is not sure they ever signed a letter of support for this _project. Ms. Margo Nitis, Neighbor on Montepere: • Said that she has resided here since January 1970. Reported that she was once denied a two -foot height increase for an entry expansion. • Added that she did additions on a single -story format. • Stated that she is against second -story additions in her neighborhood. • Advised that people across are,building right on the creekside. • Said that these homes are all windows and most don't have drapes. • Explained that this is a nice neighborhood and she wants to keep it that way. A nice, quiet, one = story ' neighborhood. - • Added that she has wonderful neighbors and everyone knows one another. They have a block party once a year. • Suggested that this. neighborhood be kept as a one -story neighborhood. Clarified that the lots differ in size and she has a double lot. Mr. David Ho, Neighbor on Montepere: • Said that he is an immediate neighbor. . Stated that he is against second story additions that would have a huge impact on this neighborhood. • Suggested that this is. a good chance for the applicant to redesign after hearing the comments from the neighbors this evening. • - Offered two suggestions for alternate designs, a basement or single -story expansion. He said that a basement is energy efficient._ The lot is also large enough to accommodate a singe -story addition. • Reported that there is somewhere between 10 and 20 neighbors who oppose a proposed second -story addition with three of the five houses on the cul de sac included. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 28, 2007 Page 12 Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. David Ho if he had initially provided an acceptance letter for this project. Mr. David Ho said that he has never been in favor of a second story addition. Chair Rodgers asked Mr. David Ho if his objection is the second story not being in context with the architecture of the neighborhood that includes homes with floor to ceiling glass. Mr. David Ho said that this is a unique neighborhood and that a second story addition is not appropriate as it would intrude in the privacy of the neighborhood. Ms. Sasi Murthy: • Identified herself as the wife of a very sensitive architect who is the applicant for this project. • Said that she shares the passion for this style of architecture. • Explained that they have lived in a two -story Eichler for 10 years now in Santa Clara. • Reported that they are a working couple with two young children. • Assured that they have made a best -faith effort to work with neighbors. • Stated that the reason for a continuance is to consider concerns and issues raised. • Added that they don't want a jumbo house. • Advised that they have also received some enthusiastic support. Ms. Kathryn Nomof, neighbor on Montepere: • Said that she lives next door to the Ho Family. • Explained that she has a bad hearing problem and has not heard everything said tonight. • Reported that there are 12 signatures on a petition against allowing a second -story addition. Those signatures represent 10 households. Chair Rodgers thanked Ms. Kathryn Nomof for coming and asked her if the story poles were helpful. Ms. Kathryn Nomof: • Said that she made up her mind when she saw the poles. • Explained that she originally signed in support but has since rescinded her support. • Reported that this matter is divisive of this neighborhood, where she has resided since 1964. • Added that this is the first time something like this has come up and started problems. Chair Rodgers closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Chair Rodgers asked staff to verify that there is no single -story overlay in this area. Planner Therese Schmidt replied no. Chair Rodgers asked Planner Therese Schmidt to explain to everyone what a single -story overlay is. Saratoga. Planning Commission Minutes for March 28, 2007 Page 13 Planner Therese Schmidt reported that there is one such overlay in Saratoga. It is' located at p Y 9 Saratoga and Prospect. There are only two to three two -story homes in that area. With the single -story overlay, the rest of this neighborhood is restricted to single -story. Chair Rodgers said that this overlay requires a change to zoning. Planner Therese Schmidt said yes. While it has the same zoning designation there is also a single -story overlay applied to the zoning designation. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission CONTINUED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN consideration of a Design .Review Approval (Application #07 -218) to allow a first floor remodel and second -story addition to an existing residence at 18524 Montepere Way, until after a recommendation on any potential historic significance for this structure is forwarded to the Planning Commission by the Heritage Preservation Commission, by the following roll call vote: AYES:: Cappello, Hlava, Kumer, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None. ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Rodgers explained that the Heritage Preservation Commission meets on the second Tuesday of each month. PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #07 -101 (397 -08 -027) KRIENS, 18940 Monte Vista: The applicant requests Design Review- Approval- to demolish a single- family residence with attached garage and construct a single- family, single -story residence and multiple detached accessory structures. The total floor area of the proposed residence and all accessory structures will be approximately- 6,331 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be higher than -26 feet. The net lot size is 56,018 square feet and the site is zoned R -1- 40,000. (Therese Schmidt) Associate Planner Therese Schmidt presented the staff report as follows: •._ Advised (that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval for a rather large and intricate project. Explained that the project consists of 6,331 square feet that includes a primary structure and several accessory structures. • Informed that the owner of the adjacent property also owns this subject property. • Described the accessory structures as including: M o A second dwelling unit with. basement. This basement required geotechnical clearance and received it. • 9 ATTACHMENT 5 • Date: Place: Type: 1 2. City of Saratoga HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES 0 Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:30 a.m. Planning Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting — Please meet in the parking lot in front of the Warner . Hutton House at 8:30 A.M. and Staff will provide transportation to the site visit under New Business and return to the Planning Conference Room by 9:20 A.M. ,Routine Organization A.- Roll Call PRESENT. Commissioners Gomersall, Louden, McCarty, Marra, Chair Koepernik, and Vice Chair Kellond GUESTS: Ms. Rosemarie Dippel, Ms. Sasi Murthy, Mr. Sergio Ramirez STAFF. Senior Planner Chris Riordan B. Approval of minutes from July 10, 2007 meeting — Approved C. Posting of Agenda — Pursuant -to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda was posted on August 9, 2007 D. Oral & Written Communication - Any member of the public may address the Commission about any matter not on the agenda for this meeting for up to three minutes.: Commissioners may not comment on the matter but may choose to place the topic on a future agenda. - None E. Oral Communications —'Historic Preservation Commission direction to Staff — Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. -None Old. Business A.' Discuss National Registry & Saratoga Landmark Plaques — Item discussed. Mr. Riordan stated that the Saratoga Landmark Plaques had arrived and he proceeded to show them to the Board. The Board discussed the process of presenting . the plaques to the recipients. Chair Koepernik stated that the presentation of the plaques to the recipients should not be done all at the same time so as. to maintain momentum. Commissioner Marra stated that that the city staff should be responsible for mounting the plaques. Vice Chair Kellond stated that there should be a photomontage of all the properties with a statement of why they were received. Commissioner Louden stated that he wanted to make sure that the financial donation from the Lions club be acknowledged. Chair Koepernik stated that the city council should be involved in the presentation of the plaques and. the local paper should be contacted so that the citizens of. Saratoga are shown the goodness of what the City is doing. Commissioner Gomersall thought stated that the public outreach was important because it was her opinion that most Saratoga citizens were unaware of the existence of the Board. Chair Koepernik stated that he would "spearhead" the efforts. Vice Chair Kellond stated that Commissioner Louden should represent the Board in front of the Board as an acknowledgement of the time and effort he had put into the plaques. Chair Koepernik stated that he would write up a procedure of how the Board was going to move forward with the plaques. B. Discuss Heritage Orchard Signage — Item discussed. Chair Koepernik stated that he is still in the process of getting bids for the orchard signage. C. Discuss Historic Incentives — Item discussed. Commissioner McCarty stated that she would be interested in some kind of financial incentives. Commissioner Marra stated that he would be interested in finding out what kind of incentives the City would support. Chair Koepernik responded that the Board should formulate some ideas for historical incentives for presentation to the City. Commissioner Marra stated that the City should consider an incentive that would lower application fees. Chair Koepernik responded with a suggestion that all members of the Board should consider some ideas for historical incentives that will encourage positive public response and we will discuss them at the September meeting. Commissioner Marra stated that the public should be made aware of the incentives and the process for applying. Commissioner Gomersall stated that there should be an article in the paper. Commissioner Louden stated that there should also be an article about the plaques. Chair Koepernik stated again that the Board should come up with some creative ideas for historical incentives. D. Discuss Mustard Walk — Not discussed E. Discuss Sign for McWilliams House — Not discussed F. Discuss Orchard Pathway — Item discussed. Commissioner McCarty stated that a friend had but her ankle while walking on the orchard pathway. Commissioner Marra stated that he would like the opportunity for the HPC to walk the location of the proposed path. Chair Koepernik stated that there has been clearing of vegetation along the creek, he is aware of an idea for construction of a wooden bridge to span the creek, is most concerned about access, and requested that staff research the status of the pathway for the next meeting. 3. New Business A. 8:35 A.M. Site Visit — 13601 Saratoga Avenue — Review proposed replacement buildings for Saint Andrew's Parish and School and determine consistency with Heritage Lane. Site visit completed with representative from Saint Andrew's Episcopal Church & School present. Motion to approve by Commissioner Louden and seconded by Commissioner Gomersall and carried by. a 6 -0 vote. • B. 8:50 A.M. Site Visit — 18524 Montpere Way — Determination of the historical significance of the residence that the owner would like to remodel. Site visit is completed with applicant (Ms. Sasi Murhty) present. Item discussed. Commissioner McCarty questioned the accuracy of the site coverage that is stated on the project plans. Ms. Murhty stated she was aware of the inaccuracy and that the site plan is to be revised. Commissioner Gomersall stated that she did not believe that the building was historic and Commissioner's Louden and McCarty agreed. Motion to approve by Commissioner Marra and stated that the building was not on the historic inventory nor historically significant with respect to its design or individuals associated with the property; motion seconded by Commissioner McCarty and carried by a 6 -0 vote. C. 9 :05 A.M. Site Visit - 15211 Hume Drive — Determine if the existing residence is of historical significance. Applicant is proposing demolition. Site visit completed with applicant (Mr. Sergio Ramirez) present. Item discussed. Mr. Ramirez stated that he was ready to answer any questions about the project. Mr. Ramirez stated that the house will be demolished and the building materials will be recycled, the house will be green structure and with some of the power to be supplied by photovoltaic panels. Commissioner Kellond stated that the proposed new structure would most likely be more historically significant than the existing structure to be demolished and Commissioner Marra agreed. Mr. Ramirez stated that the adjacent neighbors were given an opportunity to review the plans and they were supportive of the design. Motion to approve- by Vice Chair Kellond following recommendation #1' from the project memorandum, motion seconded by Commissioner Marra and carried by a 6 -0 vote. 4. Pending Items A. Historic Resources Inventory B: McWilliams House Renovation C. National Register Applications D. Adopt a Tree Program for the Heritage Orchard E. Update Heritage Ordinance F. Review Oak Street as a Heritage Lane G. Review additional content for Heritage Resources webpage H. Historic Preservation Data Base I. Review list of properties with structures 50 years and over in age 5. .Adjournment Adjourn to 8:30 a.m.. Tuesday, September 11, 2007, Planning Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. C • 0 ATTACHMENT 6 AQCHIVEeS 0 ARCHITECTURE HERITAGE RESOURCE PARTNERS PO Box 1332 San Jose CA 95109 408.369 -5683 408.228 -0762 /fax April 12, 2007 Hari Snpadanna and Sasi.Murhty fig I r 18524 Montpere Way hi 15 L5 Saratoga CA 95070 JUL 2 3 2007 RE: 18524 Montpere Way, Saratoga (APN: 389 -26 -022) CITY OFSARATOGA Historical and architectural evaluation COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dear Hari. and Sasi: Please find attached completed historic property recordation forms (DPR523), prepared for the property located at 18524 Montpere Way, Saratoga, California. The forms were prepared for your •use and submittal to the City of Saratoga in conjunction with your application for a remodeling permit for your home. This letter and the attached forms constitutes an historical and architectural evaluation of the property, based on the significance statement made within the above referenced DPR523, pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) — Preliminary Review of Projects and Conduct of Initial Study. For the purposes of CEQA, the City of Saratoga is required to consider historical significance if a property meets the criteria for listing on the California Register. Generally, properties that are at least.50 years old are considered. historic and require some level of evaluation by the agency. The attached DPR523 forms dated April 11, 2007, which we prepared, documents the historical and architectural aspects of the property at 18524 Montpere Way, Saratoga. The house was built 1954 - 1955 based on the County of.Santa Clara building permit for the property and other property records. The original owners /occupants were James and Dorothy Hurt: They purchased the house and property from California Pacific Title Insurance Co. -the developer of the Peremont Tract. The property has not been previously surveyed for or recorded on any local, state, or national registers. We indicated within the DPR523 forms that the property appears not to qualify for listing on the California or National Registers. .We also considered the property in light of the criteria for consideration as a locally designated •landmark. Chapter 13 of the City of Saratoga Municipal Code outlines criteria and procedures for local designation. For a property to qualify, it must satisfy any two or more of the criteria listed • A u c u 1 V F. 6 ss n P c n i r e c r u u r; below and retain a substantial degree of architectural and structural integrity with respect to the original design: (a) It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history of the City, the County, the State or the nation; or (b) It is identified with persons or events significant in local, county, state or national history; or (c) It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials; or (d) h is representative of the notable design or craft of a builder, designer, or architect; or (e) It embodies or contributes to unique physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or district within the City; or (f) It represents a significant concentration or continuity of site, buildings, structures or objects, unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical or natural development; or (g) It embodies or contributes io a unique natural setting or environment constituting a distinct area or district within the City having special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value. Although the building retains a substantial degree of architectural and structural integrity, it does not appear to qualify for local landmark status, as it does not individually exemplify special architectural elements and/ or distinctive character, and although possibly representative of an important design firm, is not a notable example of their work. Lastly the property is not identified with persons of significance. We believe that development of this property, to include alterations to the extant building, would not appear to cause an adverse impact to the environment as defined by CEQA, because the property is not historically significant according to the minimum requirements for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, nor is it individually eligible for designation as a local historic landmark. Sincerely, ranklin Maggi, Architectu a] Historian Page 2 • • Page 1 of 13 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) Hurt "House P1. Other Identifier: None *P2. Location: ❑ Not for Publication ® Unrestricted *a. County Santa Clara and (P2b and Plc or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary,) . *b. USGS 7.5' Quad San Jose West Date 180 photo revised T .7S ; R .1W; Mount Diablo B.M. c. Address 18524 Montpere Way City Saratoga Zip 95070 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and /or linear resources) Zone 10S; 589130 mE/ 4124986 mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc:, as appropriate) Assessor's Parcel Number: 389 -26 -022, Montpere Way between Allendale 'Avenue and Quito Road. *P3a Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting; and boundaries) This one -story residence is a form of Modern residential design known in the San Francisco Bay Area as an "Eichler "; however, this house is not a part of one of the Eichler tract developments found throughout the region. It appears; but has not been substantiated, that the architects of this house and the surrounding subdivision were Anshen and Allen, who did' work regularly with 'tract builder Joseph Eichler in the 1950s, designing many homes in his mid - century subdivisions. The house is a compact and modest representation of the mid - century Modern residential style, known for its low -slope roofs, slab foundations, large areas of glass, and walls and windows configured to provide an indoor /outdoor connection fitting for the California environment. (Continued on page 2, DPR523L) *P3b. "Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2. Single family property 'P4 Resources_ Present: ® Building ❑ Structure ❑ Object ❑ Site ❑ District ❑ Element of District ❑ Other (Isolates, etc.) *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none ".) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #) View from street facing southwest, April 2007. *P6. Date Constructed /Age and Sources: ® Historic ❑ Prehistoric ❑ Both Constructed 1954 -1955, permit, 55 years old. W. Owner and Address: Bhagavan Sripadanna & Sasi K Murthy; 18524 Montpere Way Saratoga, CA 95070" *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) F.Maggi, L.Dill, J.Kusz Archives & Architecture PO Box 1332 San Jose CA 95109 -1332 *P9. Date Recorded: 4/11/07 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive None 'Attachments: ❑ NONE ® Location Map ❑ Sketch Map ® Continuation Sheet ® Building, Structure and Object Record []Archaeological Record ❑ District Record ❑ Linear Feature Record ❑ Milling State Record ❑ Rock Art Record ❑ Artifact Record ❑ Photograph Record ❑ Other (List) DPR 523A * Required information • • • t 0 s Page 2 of 13 1 *Resource Name or 8 (ASSigneo Dy recoraer) purr. house *Recorded by F. Maggi, L. Dill, & J. Kusz *Date April 11, 2007 ® Continuation ❑ Update (Continued from previous page, DPR523a, P3a) The residence is located on a cul -de -sac within a subdivision featuring a selection of similar house designs; they are all simple in form, consisting of asymmetrical gabled roofs over rectangular footprints that integrate carports or garages. The roughly wedge- shaped tract is bounded by Quito Road, Allendale Avenue, and Varona Creek, near Wildcat Creek. Many of the rectangular houses in the area are parallel with the street frontage, but some are also set, as is the subject house, with a narrow fagade facing the street. The area has many mature trees, and the setting is designed to be informal, including a curved street and cul- de -sac that feature sloped gutters and no sidewalks. About a quarter of the surrounding residences have been altered significantly (e.g., full siding replacement, new windows, and /or roof -pitch changes); of the remaining more - original houses, about half have undergone some alteration, including enclosure of car ports, minor window changes, and less- extensive additions. The subject lot is narrow at the street frontage (northeast) and wedges out to the southeast side and southwest rear. The house is parallel with, and near to, the northwest property line. The side yard opens wide to the southeast; this area is fenced off from the front yard, creating a large private space. The portion of the site to the southwest of the house is landscaped in part as a patio, opening from the center of the house. The patio curves outward with red - stained concrete sections separated by reveals, with no imbedded formwork. Large trees follow the southeast property line, primarily on the neighboring parcels, and the patio area includes lawn areas and small trees and shrubs. The rear yard is shaded, is currently unplanted, and has no designed interaction with the house. The front yard includes a lawn area next to the concrete driveway, and a row of evergreens along each side property line. Although the footprint of the house is a rectangle, the open carport is recessed into that space, creating an "L "- shaped living space. The plan is ordered along a center hallway that acts as the spine of the house. Bedrooms flank the hallway on both sides, and in the center of the plan, the kitchen /living room space is open across the width of the house. A recessed two -car carport occupies the east corner of the house; square posts wrapped in wood trim support the roof beams at this location. Entry is from the north side; a series of cast -in -pace rectangular concrete stepping stones lead from the driveway to the entrance. The front door is flush, with a single, textured -glass sidelight. Opposite from the main entry is a garden entry. This doorway is recessed into the house slightly; it is flanked on one side by the red brick chimney. A single door opens into the carport as well. The house has an asymmetrical gable roof above its simple footprint. The southern slope is at a lower pitch and longer than the northern slope. The roof is carried on four large beams at the front fagade; one beam supports the ridge; one beam is at the north side wall; a third beam - -set very low -- supports the outer eave along the carport, and the fourth is set centered within the longer roof, between the parking spaces. The beams cantilever forward, flush with the rake edge of the roof. At the rear of the house, there are also four exposed beams, but these are set in a different configuration. There is a ridge beam, two wall beams, and a beam set at the centerline of the wall, near the ridge under the longer roof slope. The roof has no apparent rafters; instead, the roofing is carried on a pattern of structural 2x board -and- batten decking. The decking is exposed continuously from the eaves into the interior ceilings. The spacing between the boards is approximately the same size as the battens. An angled outer frieze board conceals an integral metal gutter along the edge of the tar -and- gravel roof. (Continued on next page, DPR523L) DPR523L * Required information • • Page 3 of 13 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Hurt House *Recorded by F. Maggi, L. Dill, & J. Kusz *Date April 11, 2007 ® Continuation ❑ Update (Continued from previous page) The envelope of the .house is a composition of sections of siding that alternate with full - height window bays. In some places, the wood- framed window sash are full- height; in other places the windows top stucco lower-panel s. The windows are all fixed sash, and ventilation is provided by.narrow, full - height, vertical screened openings with internal shutters. The solid shutters are decorated with an exterior pattern that looks similar to a louver, but they open as a single unit on hinges, like a door. The siding consists of vertical boards with a board- and - batten pattern; each board has three narrow bands separated by thin reveals. The siding is continuous from the exterior walls into the interior, creating a visual connection between indoors and out. r The northwest wall has no overriding design pattern; instead, a long series of the higher windows alternates with the narrow, full - height screen openings and wider wood siding sections along a single plane. The front door and its sidelight create the only interruption along this fagade; they are in line with the rest of the wall, without any eave changes or other features to distinguish their location; the door is set relatively far from the front of the parcel. The southeast wall has a roughly symmetrical form, centered about a very wide recessed area. The majority of the center will is set back beneath a deep eave and centers on the wide, red- brick chimney. The south corner steps out in plan; this area has only shallow eaves. The north side of the fagade also steps out at the carport, where the eaves are almost non - existent. The corner of the carport adjacent to the house includes a storage shed with doors made of matching siding; this storage area'creates a solid form at the end the recessed area. A portion of this wall has a pattern of three, wide, full- height windows separated by three narrow, full- height ventilation openings; a sided area creates the solid wall adjacent to the recessed area. Within the recess, next to the chimney, is a symmetrical pattern, centered about a simple flush door. Each side of the door features a pair of full- height windows that flank a single ventilation opening. On the other side of the chimney, under the deep eaves, is.a symmetrical composition of three wide full- height windows separated by a pair of ventilation openings... Facing the street, the front fagade is narrow, under the shorter length of roof. The carport is recessed under the other - length of roof. Near the corner of the wall is a vertical ventilation opening and a full- height, narrow decorative -glass window. The rear fagade is clad in the vertical wood siding, unbroken by windows, but with a pair of the narrow, full- height ventilation openings at the center of the wall. Interiors: The interior of the house reflects many of the same details as the exterior. Such finishes as the ceilings and walls are continuous with the exterior materials. Such details as the high interior wall glazing accentuate the form of the residence. The kitchen and bathrooms have been altered, and the parquet floor is not likely original. Integrity and character- defining features The property maintains adequate historic integrity as per the National Register's seven aspects of integrity. It maintains its original location in the post -War suburban neighborhood that became part of Saratoga shortly after its development; it is still surrounded by most of its historic residential setting, including surrounding houses of I imilar scale and design and mature trees -. It retains its mid - twentieth- century residential scale and feeling and continues, through its form, massing and detailing, to illustrate its associations with patterns of development in the South Bay Area. The building has integrity with its Modern design, including its low, asymmetrical roof form and its repetitive patterns of fenestration and ventilation. • • �JJ �J I Page 4 of 13 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Hurt House *Map Name: USGS San Jose West / Cupertino *Scale: n.t.s. *Date of Map: 1980 photo revised r'itl 70FOP I N.......z.1 z-! t:r--Fh: DPR523J * Required informatioin • Pi • Page 5 of 13 rvnnr• aiaius �,oae oz *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) B1. Historic Name: James and Dorothy Hurt House B2. Common Name: None B3. Original use: Single family residential B4: Present Use: Single family residential *B5. Architectural Style: Modern *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Constructed 1954 -1955 in Santa Clara County, building permit #39324 issued to viola Lumber Company. *B7. Moved? ® No ❑ Yes Unknown Date: n/a Original Location: n/a *136. Related Features: None. B9a Architect: Anshen and Allen (prob.) b. Builder: Viola Lumber Company *B10. Significance: Theme Architecture and Shelter Area Saratoga Period of Significance 1955 Property Type Residential Applicable Criteria None (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) This single - family residence was built on Lot 19 of Peremont Tract Unit 2. This second phase of a three_ -phase 79 -lot residential subdivision was recorded on May 25, 1954, and a building permit issued by"the County -of Santa Clara on Sept. 13, 1954. The building permits were obtained by Viola Lumber Company, who appears to have acted as the General Contractor for the project as well as for the first unit.-In late. 1955, the house at 18524 Montpere Way, located on a short cul -de -sac along this through street, was owned and occupied by James E. and Dorothy J. Hurt (OR 3365:437.12/20/1955). They bought the property from California Pacific Title Insurance Co. James was an engineer at Lockheed Industries at that time. The Hurts were residents until at least the late.1970s. Subsequent-to their residency, the property changed ownership at least five times until acquired by the present owners in 2006. The Peremont Tracts were developed by George Myran and B. M. Blanchard of California Pacific Title Insurance Company. The first unit consisted of 14 lots along Quito Road and Allendale Avenue; and went on the market sometime.in 1954. The second unit included completion of Montpere Way and included 24 additional' lots, filling in the area between the first unit and Varona Creek (the confluence of,Vasona and;Sobey Creeks). (Continued on next page, DPR523L) B1.1. Additional Resource Attributes: "(List attributes and codes) None *B12. References: Ditto, J. Design for Living Eichler Homes, 1995.; 'Polk Directories, Los Gatos and Saratoga. Santa Clara County Recorder — maps, official records Santa Clara County building permits. Sunset Magazine, June ,1956 (Vol. 116). www..anshen.com www.digital.lib.washington.edu www.eichlernetwork.com B13. Remarks:. Proposed addition *B14. Evaluator: Franklin_Mag_gi *Date of Evaluation: April 11, 2007 (This space reserved for official comments.) DPR 523B P # so i/ .li C Zt4, yi X a. it r * ..:�'�i .° , "�. F wg p1 +�- "� * � u� �V.i � b S •F � � , � •3Y<. "1 I'� I r Ar if r u r� a' v r +rcr an.:te:x►on7.: ;w:� * Required information • • • L-1 L-1 Page 6 of 13 'Resource Name or #F (ASSignea Dy recoroer) nurc nuubu *Recorded by F. Maggi, L. Dill, & J. Kusz *Date April 11, 2007 ® Continuation ❑ Update (Continued from previous page, DPR523b, B10) The third unit was consisted of 41 lots north of Varona Creek at its confluence with Wildcat Creek, and included the construction of Harleigh Drive and Perego Way, a cul -de -sac. This last unit appears to have been developed after Saratoga's incorporation as a city, and the style by then had been changed to California Ranch. The first two units of Peremont appear to have been designed by the architectural firm of Anshen and Allen, based on the style and detailing of the houses. Confirmation could not be obtained, as the drawings are not presently available in the public record. Anshen & Allen formed as a partnership between S. Robert Anshen (1910- 1964), and William Stephen Allen (1912 -1992) who began their practice together in San Francisco in 1939 after their graduations from the University of Pennsylvania. As an architectural firm in mid - century California, they completed a variety of buildings, although the bulk of their work was in residential construction. Early published buildings include the Chapel of the Holy Cross in Sedona, AZ (1956) and Dinosaur National Monument Visitor Center in Utah (1957). Later works include Research and Engineering Center for FMC in Santa Clara (1961) and the Science and Laboratory Building for the University of California, Santa Cruz (1964) . In 1949, Joseph Eichler collaborated with Robert Anshen as the architect for Eichler Homes in the South Bay area for the Sunnyvale Manor Addition. Eichler had lived in a rented Frank Lloyd Wright designed Usonian house, the Bazett -Frank house in Hillsborough, and along with Anshen, was inspired early on by the modernist.designs of Wright. Although Eichler had the concept of mass - produced high - quality homes, he enlisted the talent of an architect to fully realize this vision. Anshen & Allen developed Eichler's concept with the use of post- and -beam construction which allowed for quick construction and was also flexible enough to be able to provide individual designs when necessary. In 1953, a rift developed between Anshen and Eicher at which time Eichler retained Quincy A. Jones & Frederick Emmons to work as the architect for Eichler Homes. It is during this time, in late 1953 and early 1954, that the Peremont Tract was developed by Myran and Blanchard. The dispute with Eichler was short - lived, and eventually both architectural firms were working concurrently on residential design for the company. Anshen & Allen would go on to create houses for other subdivisions as well. By 1962, Anshen & Allen had completed the design for over 3,000 houses in the Bay Area. EVALUATION The houses in the Peremont Tract are similar in design to Anshen & Allen designed residential developments that first appeared in the early 1950s in the South Bay area. This house design, constructed elsewhere for builders Joseph Eichler and Elmer Gavello won Merit Awards in Sunset Magazine's summer issue in 1956 (Vol. 116). Many of these housing tracts remain as distinct reminders of trends in modern architecture during Santa Clara Valley's period of industrialization and urbanization following World War II. While they have historical significance as groupings - reflecting patterns of development and architectural innovation - buildings such as the Hurt House are not individually distinctive in a way that would enable eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources as individual resources. In some local communities, these tracts, when found to have a high level of artistic merit and integrity to their original designs, have been found to qualify for designation as local historic districts. Within the Peremont Tracts, changes to the original building fabric associated with the 1954 -1955 period of construction have already reduced the integrity of the subdivision to a level that would limit the ability to establish the grouping as being eligible for the California Register as a historic district. Due to this reduced integrity, the lack of distinction of the Hurt House as an individual property, and the inability to association the property with persons who have made important contributions as individuals to the community, it would appear that the property would not be eligible for the National or California Registers under any of the applicable criteria. DPR 523L * Required information : � � \. � y< : : � � : ��y ±� .. :2\»9R � � 6r« s. cam, � `� §<� { 23/ z� m } +f� ��� \� � � �� \ td ir:, t3✓�y d / / //"� a d i d � i u Alai- yy pl mi $a £ "� Yw° < w ����ft+'•• q[ MV VS w 4 1°x�#,�•r" r"ua..F!si'r 4r,4� i5'"# ifs t Z. �'a�; . r:�.,..�.�+;s.-is -�S srsvx� x. ,P�.,'•= _v.ii..s5'�'arli" a Z5e�r, 8" <, x -YKi'e .!' d�'s/� _ . a: . IN- i Rg-vm� ^S Alai- yy pl mi $a £ "� Yw° < w ����ft+'•• q[ MV VS w 4 1°x�#,�•r" r"ua..F!si'r 4r,4� i5'"# ifs t Z. �'a�; . r:�.,..�.�+;s.-is -�S srsvx� x. ,P�.,'•= _v.ii..s5'�'arli" a Z5e�r, 8" <, x -YKi'e .!' d�'s/� _ . a: . IN- i A Wn to to wpm I �� �1AWK : y � }� {��(��&y����k �. 3 y « / f r s J I ; � s �F•' � �i"".� '`max y'' �1��, �'�� U" V4 14 as 'M—w 0 m �p' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 S Page 12 of 13 *Resource Name or# (Assigned by recorder) Hurt House *Recorded by F. Maggi, J. Kusz, & L. Dill *Date April 11, 2007 ® Continuation ❑ Update Rear elevation, view facing northeast. DPR 523L * Required information a It Page 13 of 13 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Hurt House *Recorded by F. Maggi, J. Kusz, & L. Dill *Date April 11, 2007 ® Continuation ❑ Update a It DPR 523L * Required information • • • 7 0'^ ;'�: Y 5 no5z Pl;6f,I6k P Wts IN j, y,f��i����" �'£• . s��`Z,a�� per $,��^a 4 � 9�r >i y y />'✓i1 e'T DPR 523L * Required information • • • • 9 ATTACHMENT 7 • Energy Efficiency features considered for the design of 18524 Montpere Way. The design is oriented similar to the existing building, so that the linear form of the building and roof aligns with the north south direction, thus minimizing East -West heat gain. ■ The proposed design has deep shading devices such as roof overhangs and trellis elements on the South fagade, that limit the summer Sun (situated high in the sky) but allows passive solar heating through orientation of the roof and large windows, during the winter (as sun light comes in at a low angle). Glazing on the East and West facades has been reduced to a minimum. The house design features green roof over the flat roof areas, created to allow for a south facing clearstory windows with out increasing the roof height too high. The green roof feature, besides being a live roof, allows for passive cooling of the roof and reduces surface runoff for the rain water. This feature also is'designed to take advantage of the recent developments in green roof design, recent technical 'advances in waterproofing and variety of green roof products make it pratical & affordable for the scale of residential construction. ■ The North (indirect light) & South facing clerestory windows located in the higher portion of the roof would bring in natural light and spread it further into the room, reducing the need for artificial lighting. ■ The house is designed to have a continuous high ceiling space to allow for flow of air movement. Operable windows will bring in cool air from the lower spaces and vent. through the exhaust fan (whole house fan) located above in high ceiling areas, naturally cooling the -house. ■ R3.0 Roof insulation panels.specified, provide an air separation between the shingles and the insulation below to allow -air circulation from eaves to the ridge for higher efficiency. The design will use the latest.technology available for radiant heating- a clean and dust & noise free, energy efficient system for heating the house with gas. ■ Dual glazed windows reduce the. solar heat-gain in summer and heat loss during the winter. ■ The materials specified for the house would be products made from recycled materials such as wood fiber decking or from renewable resources such as bamboo flooring or wood siding. ■ Impervious paving has been kept -to a minimum and storm water run off will be directed to be absorbed into the landscaping. energy saving features -1 0 Green Roofs in the News /Product News • • Denver, Colorado's new 232,000- square -foot United States Environmental Protection Agency building, which opens in a few months, aims to earn Gold certification under the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Rating System. One of the components of the LEED bid is their green roof. (Prepared from GreenGrid Press Release from November 2006) City of Port Coquitlam - Pioneering Green Roof Regulation in Canada On December 11, 2006, Port Coquitlam City Council in British Columbia, adopted a Zoning Denver EPA Green Roof - Courtesy GreenGrid / Weston Solutions bylaw amendment which would require green roofs "for all large format buildings over 5,000 sq.m. (53,821 sq.ft.)." This zoning bylaw amendment is an integral part of an 11 point Sustainability Initiative outlined on the City of Port Coquitlam's website (for more information see: www.city. port- coquitlam. bc .ca /City_HaIt /City_Departments/ Development_ Services /Sustainabitity_Initiative. htm) intended to ensure that the City's improvements to infrastructure, transportation and other services respect the community's commitment to fiscally, socio- culturally and environmentally responsible land use development. With regard to the amendment, the City's website notes: 'The primary purpose is to obtain environmental benefits including intercepting and reducing storm water run -off, improving building thermal performance and energy consumption, and reducing the urban heat island effect. Secondary benefits would relate to enhanced views, where dwelling units or offices overlook the roofs, and increasing biodiversity. The estimated higher cost of 10% is normally recovered within the first two years of building operation and the energy savings and storm water reductions continuing for the life of the building." __ Product Release: LiveRoof - Liveroof announces the first and only modular green roof system with patent pending Soil Elevators'' and Moisture Portals'' to create beautiful, seamless, instantly mature green roofs with the look and function of a conventional "continuous membrane" green roof, the very day of installation. Developed by horticulturists in conjunction with green roof experts, logistics professionals, roofers, architects, and ergonomic experts, LiveRoof brings substantial benefits to designers, installers, building owners, and facility managers. The modules of LiveRoof are "invisible' and therefore the system looks beautiful the day of installation, with no ugly containers to detract from the aesthetic quality of the green roof. LiveRoof saves maintenance dollars as it is pre -grown and does not require the intensive maintenance of "conventional" green roof systems. LiveRoof also reduces or eliminates the risk associated with "conventional" green (brown) roofs. Because it is pregrown, LiveRoof systems are not predisposed to wind and rain erosion, or weed encroachment. Nor do the plants need to be grown for several seasons to become mature. That process has been reduced to a few months in a nursery environment. The LiveRoof system is available throughout North America (U.S., and Canada) and is supplied to local markets by local growers. Contact LiveRoof at 1- 800 - 875 -1392 or Premiumplants.net. LiveRoof module 30 The Green Roof Infrastructure Monitor - www.greenroofs.org Spring 2007 r� 0 ATTACHMENT 8 • I� r F OCT 1 ZU0, C;TY 00M MILJINITY DEVELOPMENT October 11, 2007 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga CA 95070 Re: ADR077002 -18524 Montpere Way A majority of the homes in the Peremont neighborhood continue to maintain their original architectural designs and roof heights. Attached are photos of a representative group of these homes from Montpere Way. The twenty -two (22) homes pictured have low, 11- 11.5 floor ceilings and ceiling to floor windows for optimum garden viewing, Their positioning, relative to adjacent homes, is designed for privacy. . The ro osed remodel at, 18524 Montpere Way does not meet the "compatible bulk and Th p p P Y height" standard for this neighborhood. 18512 Montpere Way Saratoga CA 95070 (408) 379 -3279 1 � z r - , � 'Y - , ". VILA 1 "A T me 105"A4, k W",N ; "'k q. n "S A jZ07 t6 t 4'4 U of F�� 'P" , M"J! GAIN lots SAM MW — d wy MUMS 1414Wg :f'v"Q 10JUVA0 6014 MY all, "'J.—Yg ­" Z�' " c �1 1�i' I ' 11 1 1 ". , k F m. ` " --V& , , 0 , Qw., vwxv- N, 1�11" Pv R UPS 1WINVY'll w a WK�' , MAL DOW; AAR OAT 9. Zli AA� I ASSA Toy ­� F.;A: , M'cf;p-- 5T '; 4 1—M 11 Am& 'i t. N%_;' _kz z r - , � 'Y - , ". VILA 1 "A T me 105"A4, k W",N ; "'k q. n "S A jZ07 t6 t 4'4 U of F�� 'P" , M"J! GAIN lots SAM MW — d wy MUMS 1414Wg :f'v"Q 10JUVA0 6014 MY all, "'J.—Yg ­" Z�' " c �1 1�i' I ' 11 1 1 ". , k F m. ` " --V& , , 0 , Qw., vwxv- N, 1�11" Pv R UPS 1WINVY'll w a WK�' , MAL DOW; AAR OAT 9. Zli AA� I ASSA Toy ­� F.;A: , OL 41 '10 k .00 -1 AM One Moor OP �:-�v ,- 7. -17 'Ja -T-7- .... ...... I "t-Al Qt Lo it mow ITS OIL., Sy 121 MIM kw 711, -1 7 71 �e tl 17 i V§r 7x, S" Q, PENN - I I.N I A "I s try :%may, Y4} VJ e[ WM g 4 Ilk rn. � �` �:. 3� si0 .4� :• pi rl MEN I " gal Al a Is ..... .... . . . . ....... FIX fill f y S ft, 1S7,�It � t t�'Fpna{ � fl } Ff }• .t tM �f ap� . N } h( f�w t �41 �.•} ' thy,' "D 5F � i� h •T . . r p s s- R:•' ,yeti , .:� s s t �1 4 4 r Y `y 1 1 f Sy r N a f y S ft, 1S7,�It � t t�'Fpna{ � fl } Ff }• .t tM �f ap� . N } h( f�w t �41 �.•} ' thy,' "D 5F � i� h •T . . r p s s- R:•' ,yeti , .:� s s t �1 4 4 r Y `y 1 1 � Sy � � K, It y s a iy a a � t RIF MY w a; ua d ,rl Z eo VP Zwl TR_n U, C- _�k 4� - 'it r7* Mr. J­z T, �mg I L�ej AM as T* Sac- is" too of '0 Ammar tk _ e y n (; � _ v Js 1 l" v -. f - i` ✓'� ,tom - 4. w 4w mwv a not 1, w g g t{ ty ? F z ,,€ °�. �r c <: {° � ' � �l fiMoss c Won . -A d = }y r f f F-n g' "Y19 "'e'+4 ?' '*1't 'S-i`o f•�+'S� 1 .q, z+9 F �`.,� KS '$aE �f r d- � e tf y„ • C'°'{ ". lz 'f i" R 'x - °9 A S8r 4 sr�` E gam' 7 �' .f.. - w.i.._ .._.. - :,,, •A° -. �.a_ Y^v -�-g i.� v- ,.�_G3- •4 -.i`� � 'S .a.- e.- +ms,. -..� - ..5 er• ... v. ..w�.�a .. v '^�'' 7r'- � 4 f �r .k P Yr �• A - ,� .hrt. ' Fyn .. 1 Aw ..:� 41;�" .. fiee'✓✓ � � :d�" � � ��` 2 w 'M +b ,.b nu -..Xr. •s�•�8„r F .. 41 956 de ✓` ? AE 1 j 5 i e t,. r AV SAO Ilk- tj AU n, 4 O- 41 .4. T-1 i A,4 rA t. �v g �. zi AL qt" l.v 6 fnr'. C9= 4x �..s` M . Or r x� ` [ T I \� \� � � ` <�\ \ � \§� %) ! [ \ . . � :y�y� \ � % < \� / \, \ \ \ �... .. :. \ .» .� . \� \/� /�$� 7\ \ >z - � -- � \ 40 T-I Jf-^. la I s • • I- C) 0 C11 00 rn d f�}y y g� cd "`�'�my AZT �n low" t „, t� y�,bg All t iy�b�Gu yy2�s Qw- '`hYJ �� � hy�� 4 ' /s•�,i � � ��' °w a t�} { � J<,4y� �,y ;� � k�$ a vttWb�'0�gf i S, 0�w}� fed . } ay- .., a.r. rnr � �` '� � 4 °`� i "z, �' +,«• �,,� -1"�� � �, aq^�} � t �y � st tie, � �� � a join 1C ay i.T s y F4 } w 1 # i Shy i dz �4"•Y ,i x a' 1 0U 3 �} � � r•,, tai i is t �" � �, � ' »• � 6�� R .r ? , { t ,P�� a� �: t eve l��oli r�kt ,� .A�+•,l ��t. h`"�yJ: �tit�. t i t �m h. '�'� _f r p '$y„ `"E R Y" F�$1 4A � F� ` S yN f b 4 1 ..n r nx �'� u ti {� � ��{ z b• 4iC dr " 4 s F r 4 tt F> i 4. _ Y p , ""`t Ala Vil ..( c� •yl S? f t �i Are ± Jd q Al fat °a y �t§aa4 ""4 d ird11IIII M`r � iN JIM� r a t � Y � 1� 0011211 114 l • x ,.,, F' ,sip �bk•w`� fM,rS:" m44 a k rx`� S ib ��� 9 -Y t .• �' _ f "i' n � � �i` �a. t [�� � tai" q '. "- r ;t 1y r•` tl t :. ,t .. "C` - ����a�f�e' Yµ;S 1 /'4 - 3,�;.i fj ` F F F } +r•1e of r.� ., wy tea �„�Sro a � ' '. a �b �, t 1 ` e�..y rz �� r . .�A ' •: � �*� y% &� l;: " drP a� v'}v�°�A� �I � r�,A'Y a .y`�' r.'t :. �q �-• J' � s � P' " q� rrl, fyr P � '�yT;✓ q v C akt�x ';wi�craau,>'.kNMd N {y t) t4 to e � r s 4 rh . g7 r d k r x Mpg " WYF� R 4F1 a r u r ,�, r �'�t"lFceF'� Far' t a 5� • $ `O * s i. 4�r v � d xj.r iui ly f..' e i x� d ll t a qk fit~ -% �� ;$ w• I it �R � r F t F i-li of F +S as s e i s7 r rr � L ih. V d•1 � 7 I �. M!'­= a m 4' Ftv,g. 'i t . . . . . . . . . . vP 4h, io IVE, 40. ti "vgmg gi� '� A Wi. PRE", *M"5 '44 " VS M)it" LAI �fo yr 'ao.' "molim tW "vgmg gi� '� A Wi. PRE", *M"5 '44 " VS M)it" LAI �fo yr 'ao.' "molim tW yr 'ao.' "molim tW tW 541 lit ........... N-Otll"W �,Iir�,, 44 0 .,4A Iv J4 IWO fllh.r. [ r vu.T A� ., �.� .xk�.' #`.{ d+'?S'•+ i .. du IX ri t .. nAaki `AiC9 ANTE mood ILN -4. 1 1 , Mrs "S J; A-t AAe'' ;ee 'Will ce eZ73- WO lx .............. PAZ- t!4 R to p 0 I p"ZIA A' NWww- -to ,Aqg- Wk Ply- -w -3- "MUM &Oy, pa-, V. gu, A W M6 "WY4 I Vv 14 AQW 41* !sJ sigma VSK )Z '.0 wt W, . Ky "Je "Al W" n-W, -01 TP Apo g, Ov —gap ,4 M!4QW r Aw AIR' I In. . . . . . . . . . as aA; W "P, Jo Rainie Rodgers 18500 Montpere Way 0`7 408-378-8227 j1 it Saratoga, CA 95070 0C ( 408 - 378 -8227 jo rainie oyaboo.com Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 October 10, 2007 Re: The appeal of the approval of Application No ADR 07002: Administrative Design Review of 18524 Montpere Way. I am joining my neighbors in expressing my objection to the remodel plans for 18524 Montpere Way. My objection is based on the General Plan's policy regarding the visual impact of a development on a neighborhood and on the bulk and height code. This home sits. at the top of the hill on Montpere Way, which increases its visual impact. Also, the average height of a house in this neighborhood is 11-11.5 feet. The remodel would have an average 14 foot high roof, with one section at 18 feet. The mention of a possible future conversion to a second story is also of great concern to me. Finally, I am concerned that there is an inconsistency in City policy with regards to remodels in this neighborhood. In 2005, my husband and I visited the City planning office twice to obtain city guidelines regarding remodeling and additions. The first time, we were told that we could not alter the footprint of our 50+ year old home. We returned, again, after another home was sold as a "tear down" (see attached) and were told that we could extensively remodel the outside of the house and double its size, as long as the plans were approved by the City. These are two very different perspectives — one focused on preservation and consistency and the other focused on' unlimited development, for a price. We were extremely confused by this response and disappointed in the lack of consistency in the message we were given. I can also see this inconsistency exhibited in my neighborhood. Of the 38 homes that form this old Peremont neighborhood, 9 of the homes have been extensively remodeled or torn down, and, to date, none of the remodels adhere to the architectural style of the neighborhood, which is quite distinct and consistent. The most recent remodel, completed this summer, bears no resemblance to the house that it replaced. The other 29 homes have had minimum structural changes, although owners have upgraded heating systems, water lines, windows etc. I would also like to ask the City of Saratoga to agree to work with the Peremont neighborhood, as it struggles to both preserve its past and define itself as part of Saratoga in the twenty first century. I do not have a good grasp of how Saratoga manages development in older neighborhoods and, as a resident of a mid 1950s neighborhood, I, and my neighbors, need a better understanding of the General Plan, the Historic Preservation Initiatives and City policies regarding development and redevelopment. Saratoga residents have long been concerned with concepts of community and neighborhood. My family purchased my residence at 18500 Montpere Way in .1954. We watched our house being built (see attached) and then moved in at the end of June, 1955, eager to join this growing community. We moved to Montpere Way and continue to live here because we love the architectural style of these homes and we love the neighborhood. The design for my Ashen and Allen home won a national AIA award. At the time, this design was the only tract home design in the US to ever win such an award. Perego and Montgomery, two local developers, realized the growing interest in this design (the Gavello Glen homes in Sunnyvale quickly sold out), and decided to build 38 homes in, what was then, a rural area in Santa Clara County. You have probably seen old photos of 1950s Allendale, Fruitvale and Quito Roads, with their beautiful orchards and rambling farmhouses. The original owners of the Peremont homes were an eclectic group who were drawn to the privacy and openness of these homes. Charter owners included Pat Brown, grandson of the "unsinkable" Molly Brown, Spruce Goose Flight Engineer Don Smith, three well known physicians, a noted psychiatrist and abstract artist Ruth Rainie, who taught art at Montalvo as well as her studio /workshop on Fourth Street, and later Big Basin Way, in Saratoga. Neighbors purchased homes, and stayed in this neighborhood for its strong sense of community and open, "mid century modern" architecture. i have known several families who moved away, only to return and buy another house in the neighborhood: Several homeowners are relatives of people who had previously owned homes in the neighborhood. Today there are half a dozen rental properties, but, overall, there remain many people who have lived on the street for decades. Until recently, the original style of these homes had been maintained, fairly consistently, in the neighborhood. However, today's new homebuyers often purchase property for the lot size or location, rather than the neighborhood or the home. Their goal is to build their dream mansion in a desirable location and this trend is causing great concern in my neighborhood. My neighbors have voiced concerns, to the Planning Commission, about the potential loss of our neighborhood's unique modern architecture, open, garden designs, and complementary household privacy /close community structure - and.l share their concerns. According to the City's website "... the City of Saratoga strives to maintain the elements of its natural beauty and colorful past through careful zoning policies and historic preservation." This, combined with the City's Vision Statement and Survey of Heritage Resources, implies that Saratoga prides itself on its historic resources and careful planning for the future. Yet, the story appears to end before the City of Saratoga became a reality. Saratoga has little to say about its history during the middle of this last century and it appears to ignore, rather than preserve, its historic resources from that era. My parents, and their neighbors, worked on the 1956 campaign to incorporate the city and preserve its, residential character. My neighborhood is a prime example of the early modern, custom home movement that continues,, today, in Saratoga. Perhaps I'm also looking for a better understanding of how the City views its role in determining the look and feel of neighborhood. Thank you for considering my objection to this remodel and my request for support for this historic neighborhood. Sincerely, Jo Rainie Rodgers cc: Saratoga City Council members • 101 1� ON LUN Lovely home on double size lot of approximately 16,295 sq ft: Could' "` build a 4,000+ sq ft hoe. Located at the end of a quiet street. Open, airy floor plan with ots of windows. Updated kitchen and master bath. Fenced child proof area around pool, perfect for entertaining. n — FINE FEATURES: • 4 Bedrooms and 2 bathrooms , s t • Approximately 1, 895 s q f • Double size lot, approximately 16,295 sq ft could build • 2 Fireplaces a 4,000+ sq ft home • Central air • Garage converted to master bedroom with fireplace, • Inside laundry room approximately 380 to 400 sq ft Patio, fenced pool and spa, great for entertaining • Remodeled master bath, the floors New exterior paint • Updated kitchen with small eat in area and neuter appliances • Auto sprinklers front and back • Spacious living room and dining room combo with vaulted • Newer roof ceilings • End of quiet street • New hardwood floors Offered at $1., 195, 000 Hadi &Bobbie Over $450 Million Sales in Real Est a to 95, `96, `97, `98, `993 `00, `Ol, 102, 103 & 104 Top Producing Team 408.872.3500 Direct 408.406.0006 Cell . .. ° .`� ze- s �rliOCT 0 �J1 Annette Rau Ravanello & Renato Ravanello 18541 Montpere Way CITY OF sAR—; T 0GR Saratoga, CA 95070 COKIJ,,�,1UNITY DEVELGFMENT (408) 374 -5547 Heather Bradley, Contract Planner Oct. 5, 2007 City of Saratoga, Community Development Dept. 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Support of #ADR07 -002 —18524 Montpere Way, Applicant Sripadanna Dear Heather and Members of Saratoga's Planning Commission: We own a house and live on Montpere Way, about 300ft from the Sripadanna residence. We have received notice of the abovementioned application for a remode /addition, and we would like to express our support for the project for the following reasons: 1. The project is architecturally compatible with the neighborhood — This house would be the best remodel in the neighborhood in this regard. The proposed design is very much in keeping with the original Eichler (Ansen & Allen) -style and would be the ONLY remodeled house on Montpere Way to be true to the original aesthetic. 2. No privacy or view interference — From our review of the plans, it appears care has been taken to maintain neighbors' privacy. 3. Remodeled house will have positive effect on neighborhood — Many of the remodeled homes on Montpere Way are not at all in keeping with the original Eichler (Ansen & Allen)- style; many of the un- remodeled homes are aging and unkempt (essentially, starting to look "dumpy "). This proposed remodel will only be a positive for the entire neighborhood. Please approve the project as presented. Thank you very much for your kind time and attention in considering our viewpoint. Sincerel ette Rau and Renato Ravanello • LETTER OF SUPPORT October 1, 2007 Heather Bradley Contract Planner City of Saratoga Planning Division 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 RE:- Application No. ADR07 -0002; Design Review 18524 Montpere Way, Saratoga, California Dear Heather: I` L'UEC'�'�Fn' OCT 0('-'Z007 Ll CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT This letter serves as our support for single story design application filed June 21, 2007 to construct a remodel /addition at 18524 .Montpere Way. We have reviewed the proposed project drawings, dated 06/18/07 and find the, design complements the character of the neighborhood in its scale, proportions and style of architecture. This single story .revision- respects the privacy _(of the indoor out door quality) of our houses in the neighborhood. We believe this proposal is thoughtful and responsible in its design to the community and the environment. Please feel free to contact us with any questions that you may have. Sincerely, Neighbor Name: . Shawn and Azita Kazemzadeh Neighbor Address: 18501 Montpere Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Neighbor Phone Number: 408 - 482 -1780 -. i • • n!! CITY OF G A OOMENT COM ., U , F _. October 1, 2007 City of Saratoga Community Development Department Attn: Heather Bradley 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga CA 95070 For the reasons listed in our neighborhood appeal, I am opposed to your approval of ADR07- 002 -18524 Montpere Way. My signing the neighborhood petition and contributing to the fee for the appeal also show my opposition to this approval. 18512 Montpere Way Saratoga CA 95070 (408) 379 -3279 • • 0 JP SEP 0 2007 CITY OF 6ARA,T0GA CGMMj LAITY DEVELOPMENT Jo Rainie Rodgers 18500 Montpere Way Saratoga, CA 95070 408- 378 -8227 jo rainie ciivahoo.com Heather Bradley, Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 September 03, 2007 Dear Heather, This letter is a follow -up to my visit last Weds. Thank you for reviewing the proposed plans for the remodel at 18524 Montpere Way with me. I think the lack of detail in the plan regarding the proposed attic and its dimensions should be addressed before the plan is approved. I know you suggested that I contact the owner for clarification, but I don't feel that verbal clarification, alone, is adequate. I would like to see the attic detailed, relative to the bedroom and the corridor, and I am sure that you would, as well, since you were unable to answer some of my questions and I know that you're trying to be thorough. I did speak with Hari and he tells me that the windows under the overhand at the high point of the house light the corridor below it and that the attic will be built over the closet in the bedroom. This should be clearly indicated in the design. You mentioned that past remodels (the most recent completed in July) resemble tract homes and do not fit the architectural style of the neighborhood as well as the proposed plans for 18524 Montpere Way. Having reviewed the plans, I agree that, with the exception of the proposed second story area, this plan is more consistent with the neighborhood's architectural style. I am at a loss to understand why the City has so readily approved other remodels at c early avy a not fit the architectural style of neigh or ood� I - -- - -- am hoping that someone in the planning department can explain this trend to me. You also suggested that most of the existing homes have already been remodeled. Actually, of the homes on Quito, Allendale and Montpere Way that comprise the Peremont Tract, only 9 of the 38 homes have been extensively remodeled. A majority maintain the look and feel of the original homes. I understand your concerns about older homes not meeting today's code. As I mentioned, this is a chronic problem with older homes and one that can be mitigated without tear downs or extensive remodeling. I would hope that your dislike of mid - century modern architecture would not influence your decisions as a planner. You might do some research on Anshen and Allen. As I mentioned, they really are well known. They are a global architectural firm and this was the first tract home design to win a national AIA award. My family had our house built in 1954 -55, so I am quite familiar with the neighborhood, and I would be happy to give you more information about these homes. Thanks, again, for your time. v Jo Rainie Rodgers Montpere Way Neighborhood Petition Against Approval of Planning A�Jlication D ADR 07 -002, on 18524 Montpere Way $EP Q A 200) CITY OF SAP,4TOGA September 1, 2007 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT We, the undersigned do not want the above application approved as proposed. 1. We are requesting the height not exceed current height of other neighbored houses that being approximately 14 feet. 2. We are-requesting a condition of permit approval be that the "green roof' not ever be allowed to be converted or used as a living area, patio, or balcony. We believe the following facts are important and need to be carefully considered before this application is approved or disapproved by the Planning Department or Planning Commission: 1)'The average height of houses in the neighborhood is 10 -11 feet. 2) The maximum height of houses in the neighborhood is 14 -14.5 feet including recent remodel heights. 3) This proposed project exceeds this maximum neighbor home height by 3.5 -4 feet. 4) A remodel submitted to the city in 2001, at 18611 Montpere Way proposed a height of 15 feet. This plan was rejected by the Planning Department /Commission due to the excessive height relative to the surrounding homes. This house was later approved with a reduction in the height to more closely match those of exisiting houses. We urge you to require this applicant to submit a design for a single story remodel which will not exceed recent remodel heights of 14 to 14.5 feet. Name t , a,,, a. Name Address %5V,V 7 • Name Name v: Name Name lvame N Name Name 2Sr� vim% Address ` l 8 `16 a Address Address 0 6—�- -C>t- r Address 1 X521 �► h�,�-P� -,�� �J�/ Address kvp H-C Address /�', J Address c6) 71�' /�s39 � ✓a���r� wy Address ` s�v ni d Address N Address Address a e v Address - -- -Name -- —A-d-dress Name Address Name Address Name Address • • Ril M Nt nA �i 3,.�f'° }�:' G tit e 41, 't......n.u_.. .2,�. ur.c w.�.+�r... •, ..J .S. +.. r. r_... n.i ..r. ....��r m1+'rw .� f 2 d ...x.� �. . . r. ' > a� d h�• ��"i�k' ��� � i �� r �i_ w ..8 ^� . �. �... .wk .a,.e. .. ..� v.. .r .t i .. .. ., a _ .. _ , .. x -.. 9 rp. r .+ rs , .. -7 I�n Ml 0 Ir Aft M 0 0 M 0', uo *Icdn S�m -77 aA 4,— tel, I, U11.01 m,7 W&Y y. i AN Al Lai Agft Tr Li r. � . k r r�� wi j�§r _� �a [� i r1 � e f x vim' ` icsaens ^e�z•..ii. °t�dcRa"�- -he'�sr� c �,-`� e.�K ��`+ 7' �.�� ,`S- G•y C�.. G k s� { ♦✓ �� � rx "e' �� f i art S � Y r r ✓ 4� t ► �r' t,�' .. cc ti r k ( r � �4 r �K � � h.�.... sq' 1 f t , } t t s . '� d • t � � • 'r �FF `" �a �3a f� r ' • �xe } ,i! it .e. ° ?.�x`�,�ys } ��""°w E*"�'� cr' „�"�.�`:;� �F z= ' � r �' • r r . p •t _ t S + . -a "' � �i«i^'__ s kY ty r� M�,k*a'h'1`�Ix ^ i�'j; Lf t^�'�x"Y" t .e�r�"•:�y } � f e.�C `+ "'�r.pa a. t �SjP+f'3t2� {I' .,�t� G.f �''Gr F' 1'J {* L • 4: Yl ` • +{ c„E ". ryR, �.]u ➢`,�y}iJYry�~��' ° ;: tz 8 ! g �p,r �, .Js+'•- w�' �3✓t �!',{�a'.�'f� �at'ny+� _'I ��t,,te�ia.1 tts��t�,. 't�'k',�4`•�COe• �,r,�4u ,1 � '� Z t �` .-,� 'h`.e-s�Y'"�yP�t '�A'} •> is �r � �q�e� }�"`Y►�,a"'i'Eyt w fF'' =i I.�°� .aS S'+"'� i�Y;'? r'+�` •tyj,�Ms�x r., 1 -�t eft ri.i`'`' : S V. �.rt t p�*wF� >•C. ar. N ,w•A._.nN`. c r,�+ dXi ;� k��. � r rr ;�.,s,. f„ �- r'"•*Mtx'i � �,r� a k �� r t � j d tX,,,��i f ��,k,;�� , sti°" �F�.,',4.�;�rt+,�g��+y - ay'�'x�',r- r� >��` t x " .rK��;'�xar1g.: fa^ f r�s yk�•'k`1 �'�,•r�P�°'tii'������,���i�h�� r '�, v f ff� -t.` '°4a",v'4 E "try r 1`tti�` ��s , h i , ;;2 ,�,,��yy v"Y�,At '_�drL"�. ' {: i'�? c��r�'r�� �.y�eryRS�.•�,: °�,1� , �"�K r9$ ts• iaE'Y'.'i r : s C � d�`�f� � ✓ i4 �K .e�. w5t �q��1ky �°�,. � tW3'w. +�' z d��.� •�'^ t k 'ra^ Vii. � "te =�i� ��'`'-`: ' AN .60 s: N, iv MT N.Vlt-M�IAI x w 1 F r't � sk � � t I kt ♦ '' p4 i.: d yF. t � wY 1 r } • a ti,,y r ��f � y< � ' ?, y y • A J} J,. a p i � g l• x � � � r s'' kx >r l ',a ;i �,�, �;;�;� w.. t4 t . 3 �t � y 1 F r't � sk � � t I kt ♦ '' p4 i.: d yF. t � wY 1 ry � gES �y'��' t l a '^ x a x., b w 'y d r � •: l Yt t '• y t 5 l F P a l } jt • i i o- JS a✓ � +. ��' 4�yy�t r aFr�< � ,yxx¢. .:..� �,* .� 1. Is U .�w,.m.,.,, ,...x_ _.... M,... y..._&°, t..»... : ..e...ti........,.;.;aK.,.,.,.a. wr_'..r. <, �.... u; z::... .,_:.....,... 4u..,........ a�.. ...w.....»x..:._...u._,r.� <�. ,�r�a�+t.��"T�1��*- '41R"m. {'r ,� 7 - '. ^^ tm < a.. ;, +d4 R r..i sv n4� x� °a N' ,•s S � a M- 51�.�.8., xi `4i ,.. ia..�,�, ,. .. ��..i ,a JS ''�..3•F i. J >�re .. �y .y.. ' -i kr", UIV -z j�l I 'Y 14 ryet 1P. w-4. 'At ryet Is WIN, I SAO, 11 1 01M Wn oy OQ 001 v to I AR 3 AM !M.pfWq M Nf" I li! laj "i; . Ad- Ana," Pir ­ . . . . . . . . . . ............ dJ CHI Nt14A'{� AK v t Wd w 1­1 FL Ff N S.A j � � ;.Y�u ,. . n > _. ,,.. � .... ..,. ,,,x� .� .v� .Lrr, a&uyi+.� Ka ].�ebr8lu a�'%� �• +� r ` a � % n � r 4 f � .. r t rc '1'F - nr •+1 d'r } ¢'n"` 4 ; W f4, `5 C X r!A r h �✓ �� t�i�� � ���.�i T i !' x. -„ �r t � F "YS .d4 Y 3 -of �Cr bP�v.r q• % � % ed w � ti �h A,k �4F "a F ; d 4 \ "3 'crir tax .h: 5• �' yw.c a ° ^`°" �'; s .W .r� � 4 �hJ M t p. ._ t � +; _mot r y 4•" \ r a 4..�. !^�ar■'' ar a wo, r 3; ... � "� . .. #I�...,,ww.- .- :°..t++;:a t ,• "r'�M�`�i ��'�>� � � tf t � � � f ,. � � � �,......-- r �'" �a,:.o q d ;�$ $� y � • �.` ;tt r SY ' t� t�,t'f A } s t ?• t ,�• i� �,i"w �y.t �•'ty s y -... :r5i'.�:Ar t "t'w;i'.. ,r v � }�� _ •.o '.;'I w1, Af. a� pa' ro- A' a,+ m °7 • rr ".. <, s. w t d + � t »: y, � .. yt ®` - t y i I 'y'zw�4•q�^3..'6` J' a -xw�,, ya.0 •�'.": 'i.'! . ). a `�. ,- a ! fit• y Y i e� t JY`` r. �« °i +e i. rI kt^ 1 a t s �yrct„m aa",1`Vr,..+'.' ti .'i . +.. .y 4�.. r .'t` _ 4 b + 4. fit. A + t i -M: f � w` r . �t= '�'� ,� a .r^ *. w• k t 4 t ", u � t r � ,. r;,.. •t +r d°, .e ¢ ,tai. +i $ t r.+'yL t i e; tr ! ♦ gTTT a C .th„ d,t�ti?"f y,•. *. �Vo,4` .s�6 `' ytw.., r�.� :4.1 ,�.t{r!'E.e y ai � rJ°+ r '4 hap 4$"�a`{'� Y t«x': .e ♦ w 5 s „ �a ,�— .W. =r�;,�+�.:i�� � �' . w;m7n..'o , �. v�ri: -b n • c 1 y rh �,at� t � � 3: ,4,, � f� �• v �.,• tt , s � °dyer ":t °aa •:! Y, "�••�' t'•;'1 .'L+.'° 3 .js tt' t :ft `F t6 ,'` E y. �Y '.r 8. ..ate Y°t" t•� 3 v i t}' z� ' ' �r,9,+°' i' • �� �t e 3 a N r �Si.• s r,( r t i. a t; y E . ' `r •+� �Ca F ' � —.4, 1s., k J. i ltt Er'I A S..i 4 •t °"� y4.v.. :`. :,s„r,_ y«. ° 'iS .� �a4 :' M . 5%; ' +�� � i' mod`- ;��;��z,�;r, rD` �t� ��'p�,'>•' e +.fin t w e Y iat.� � �','�ay4� � �tt�6 *st�' 1''7.4:x' /j a msz - t' w' x'�„� ZSAtit'1�Cr• ly eY�d +.""`�,�r§�y "'r .r x'z: 4�t�$i'etq«d att` C + `' '.•t t'� .w- ;.'17.. :r' l: }r , ,a t�• 5 �,. c. ! d,� t+ 'Y'✓,t��. �..P "S�r . as r 3 .a.. '.. 1'►J. t o_�g. ,4c y'}yS +'L i'+ ,��N » y�si.{• �jr2t.:i,4! ?�' .{• 3 :''""'L° ! t• '. `' am'k S. ,S F'«'!. b' i •i �iYSY pt✓ ' �' F4 C tk'•'J•yi r ;•Yws '1 d,' �• � � / dt��..�? a+?.. tl'• "` *. al... a PC t � +C '�v.�+ � b � 5,.; `� q � t` ', .b y� 5 �.r tit' iy� Y'" .t•.. p � j q a » ». r'iG�jia °,a,t �s,i�"" dart t h °� 7`•tv �+,r N!� � xue �' 1'' �,ta '��`' � "�,�r.v t �'.:w � ,,'.a biY�, `5. i'iY��!_ "�,,� .,'�.Ry� 2lfr��4• Lo �ft, °��. pia s "� "z � IL 4ht j}44+p W'Y,. C< *b' tnSyh� � ,' vc t � ♦ •� �^�"'y' "+ "u + � +Fib e�ti � � "ttr,= '! ate'. '•a •. ( S yy � dWy. f +Ctt+" "ttX W 4' - �''`��� � � � i'. s ■ � r�91;,, » � t« ���� 1� *t+.a•:•flvf, t.�'+ "'.,'.� `� a`d t. iJ "y: � e ��t � �� t t � zy '!,�a s �> t i'' w�� ,.. k.S� � r ''�h '• •� -g4 a� 1 • � r vi a s �'' d" � ""�`s` '�. ,� 2• 5 : S � T )�! u'y r t . � a .t a^ > „� � { z 1 Y �� t"�� � � w to .v. �ia3 t"xyi,• rXtE4 � '" 14t 9"� �, { 1r• ,y zi "` i. t a r o - � ,f' x1 � � { a t+ > xt" i y o., . �: �v�a'., ��& cu�Et. v. JS9. ��rt ",mm�^;,�n�t..rd3J[s�r,.:.v. `._ L„^. a: i.- S. v, S,,. nso...`. ra�. y, �i w.,. �,... �.... z., �,,,+. a...: sb.... i. �.. a:. i15.,•. vWL. n.'.%.. ssy._ a>v._.......,.,.,,..... r�sa., y...... �_..,.. x... �.....,..,., a....._.._.......... � ...,...�,�...,.......a.w.%,4s. �...ws:,. >'i "' d, ���K n 5n �, wa '+" ( Co s n. e S f � a•+rs 1 Y 4b xr i• q c a�,nx �ri:'�:"•�A�.sa."'��rr f;??•g !$R�'��1,'�Ks;}","?z". � ;�'.7^�.,�'x?+'x ,;w;rrr {u,: os .w"><�m.�":.�w"'���»" �uw,..., .. ,. ..... ... + � ■ t t t xt „a a k)d a UI � t � 0 Irl Q 1SI"t'.rl p� 4� s�' a x 3't i3� s � 1 t � � as t �' y v � t '�♦ f � � 'F'1y'�'�* ¢'� �t 4� a..x, )"rda tp 4�ds� r� r}� ;•. ^; a 1 �� t"cy ) X nw, s .;.:� �,h� ' � k �: y CYY•� l•� � � .L �+ ....-.c....l? ..�a:r.'� w..a .w- ._.xr.+,......+...ww..w..n Y�a.a..£.15... .._J.. -s_..s w.,.__.�+..• M b � w 7- Y f'r�.?r z�gs:R"` 4"'�'i= �sa�.rFra..-+�Kr>. �rm'+�° d xbrt° �+ °ir e. :,• v k i`t t wt :e'i 'r F '� ➢ F` ,t��; rt i ; �� � 7 � 1 T, y yv 1"" # � ` Yn�" �tiT, r� T'� ♦ '.��, 4 s 4`4 .� 3°s� Y:. xf "irk} ,'�^ , PA n 'h �' o t¢ c G c 4 lyxY ` PraE y0. A Nis r� a 2. m �.,,�., � Y 4 w ,.:..+.x ..r< -,= 2,; � !. ? k �" n' ' �,.. ; �•.c�.`�. ��'•�" k, t x Ma ��l y � t � ��F � u` Pr d i p ,ri y a ax r i taa ° i RO �' t ¢ X 6 "4 sT• t� 1 � P v' R r 4 >, t t tc� d �;. _ Jy; S�` i d � � � Y 3 ". y � *.� axv� �• a� '� s 3�� Jk: «� � w.L:" s.e...,.. vz_m.L:..Lw,�ss.l...... � - �•..a..R...3�.i 4,u........,..J.r...,, . a: S.... .....,*,s...w.u'_�..hi..,�d.w.. ,...., 1v.�.- artr.�...wu. M:Y. R / „i.a}A.w s.Lr� + w 17-4 4A i • 40 ® ® i , • �t i ur r�o` uw•q'. __+.��, �`YS',r'• _ ::�.�Z' }�r�i.'} .�w..... �.. e D 0 it � A 0 [ f ` 6 �dsoa t �'1i iii et c 0Lt t. R.M S M-H-19 _ w q q SM as I se I °e 1 e� t'ut i "'�b3_`' • T— -- , * t > i 8� �'�'' � g� qJ � �i ^� s� 'u _,� � rot•• � tI ►c,..e �. �e�� ►: etm '+ TRaC �"' , .'W Y ��� 0 . • .UR3 — „ 1 J rpyR + ::' • ss q� PERFIAONT TR.AwLpT r •.�� r O a • 1 0 „ ' �O�l e z� t .� . 4r kv. Is 41 21 I 31 4. ( 41 �/� J. A''�� +E.K e• TA 13 vx5 10 rt��h Ftd�''s'i'"ris� fsh'. w �� � � i v .aLa � °d � �e t��� � •rte , ywe�'�a ��at� '"���y°.`'� � 4e � xi `` ss �� � n p,ER7~ �ta..� �. a fir: � T• $ � � i Tp R u F pia µ0 tI 1 4t 23 _ O s V 0 3 JL 2-4P, 3 1 s, g is K IR I 10 I 9 i SI a 11:`'1 Id � s u , 2t - =w _ I t —""' AVEN u E. f R... ALLENDALE RACT R:IT98••vsREMO14T TRACT Rental Vacuum 397 „ r. : *n .W ;- Wa s It ATTACHMENT 9 • • • • • Page 1 of 1 Heather Bradley From: David.Z.Anderson @seagate.com Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 11:34 AM To: Heather Bradley Cc: John Livingstone Subject: Application #ADR07 -002 -- 18524 Montpere Way; APN: 389 -26 -022 Below is a written communication I would appreciate to be including in the Planning Commission's information packets pertaining to application #ADR07 -002 address 18524 Montpere Way; APN: 389 -26 -022. Dear Commissioners, We are strongly against the Administrative Design Review's approval of the remodel to the property at 18524 Montpere Way. The Saratoga neighborhood bounded by Quito Rd, Allendale, and Sobey and Wildcat creeks, in which Montpere Way runs through, is a historically and architecturally unique onclave. All of the houses were built by the world renown architectural firm of Anshen &Allen (on again / off again partners of Eichler, while these houses were actually built under A &A's auspices -- a rare occurrence). The neighborhood and associated houses were built in the 1950's -- they were conceived as "houses of the future" of extremely high quality architecture, indoor /outdoor living, affordable, unique, etc. The architecture is the epitome of the California lifestyle with tributes to the area's Japanese roots. All this said, a structure that is 18 feet high in this neighborhood would ruin the architectural integrity of the neighborhood, be extremely unsightly, and a physical nuisance. There are currently no structures 18 feet high in this special onclave on Montpere Way and there never should be any structures 18 feet high. We are not opposed to an appropriate remodel within the spirit of the architecture and style of the existing houses in this unique neighborhood; but any remodel should be as such and not be a height taller than the existing houses. As such, we plead with you to approve the appeal of the Administrative Design Review's approval for remodel and reject, in its entirety, application #ADR07 -002 for the address 18524 Montpere Way. Sincerely, David & Suzanne Anderson 18491 Montpere Way 10/1/2007 Heather Bradley From: Hari Sripadanna [ Hari .Sripadanna @hmcarchitects.com] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:50 PM To: Heather Bradley Cc: Murthy, Sasi Subject: 18524 Montpere Way Page 1 of 1 Heather I was talking one of our neighbors today. He substantiated the fact (as mentioned in Tom's e-mail) that some of the neighbors are spreading false information to coerce others to sign the petition against our house remodel. Under normal circumstances I would ignore such attempts to personally discredit individuals, but in this case I feel it is important to let the planning department be aware of such false information. He mentioned that the neighbors against this project are claiming that • We do not send our kids to the local school and we are faking that fact and that we intend to develop this house for resale. This is not true. We would like to move in to the house ASAP and our kids do go to Marshal lane. . We are showing an different version of drawings to the neighbors than the drawings submitted to the planning department. Our neighbor came to the planning department and found the copy of the drawings given to him are identical to the drawing submitted. • We plan to build a two story building (story pole pictures and drawings prepared for the two story are being used to coerce other neighbors) . You are aware of this lie as well. Obviously, this information is absurd, and the neighbor wasn't willing to be identified as he might be victimized by this group as well. I would like this e-mail to be on record. Thank you Hari Sripadanna, AIA Project manager HMC 1570 The Alameda, Suite 330 San Jose, California 95126 p: 408 977 9160 x252 f: 408 977 9170 wwwL. hmcarchitects_com HMC: File Code: Qri v,?nm • • L_-] i i Heather Bradley From: Rumzie, Tom [tom.rumzie @intel.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 1:12 PM To: heather @mplanninggroup.com; Planning; Heather Bradley Subject: Letter supporting 18524 Montpere Way Importance: High Page 1 of 1 Heather, I am writing in support of the project at 18524 Montpere Way. The project complies with existing city guidelines and goes to great lengths to preserve the original design. I am actually saddened by the campaign that has been lead by the Ho's opposing this project. The Ho's have been canvassing the neighborhood to convince people to oppose. the project — in at least one case returning to a house 4 times to attempt to convince people to sign the petition. The Ho's are using misleading tactics such as old story pole pictures and accusing the Sripidanna's of being developers who are not intending to occupy the property in an effort to get signatures: You need to look at city guidelines and make your decision. The design is well within design guidelines and goes to great length to conform to the neighborhood. As I understand city code, you would need to rezone this neighborhood in order to reject or modify this project because city code allows 18 foot single story residences. I would vigorously oppose any rezoning. Please approve this project based on its merit and allow the Sripidanna's to move forward. The existing structures were built to 1950 standards and are extremely inefficient. The structure is in need of updating and the neighborhood as a whole will benefit from this project. You should send a message to the neighborhood that development within reason benefits the neighborhood and the environment. Sincerely, Thomas Rumzie 18511 Montpere 408 219 1565 • 9/4/2007 i 0 Heather Bradley From: John Livingstone Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 6:03 PM To: David.Z.Anderson @ seagate.com'; Therese Schmidt Cc: Heather Bradley Subject: RE: Application #.07 7002; Address: 18524 Montpere Way; APNs: 389 -26 -022 Dear Mr. Anderson, Page 1 of 2 Thank you for your comments. They have been forwarded to the project planner Heather Bradley at 868 -1232. Thank.you, . John L 868.1231 • From: David.Z.Anderson @ seagate.com [ mailto :David.Z.Anderson @seagate.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 5:19 PM To: Therese Schmidt Cc: John Livingstone Subject: Application #07- 002; Address: 18524, Montpere Way; APNs: 389 -26 -022. 7 Below is a written communication t would appreciate to be including in the Community Development Department's informational materials pertaining to application r#07-002 address 18524 Montpere Way; APNs; 389 -26 -022. This is emailed to you and copied to Mr Livingstone as I could not find Ms Bradley's email address on the www.sataoga.ca.us web site. Dear Sirs /Madams, We are strongly against the proposed remodel to the property at 18524 Montpere Way. As mentioned before (below), and it has not changed, the Saratoga neighborhood bounded by Quito Rd, Allendale, and Sobey and Wildcat creeks, in which.Montpere Way runs through, is a historically and architecturally unique onclave. All of the houses were built by the world renown architectural firm of Anshen & Allen (on again / off again partners of Eichler, while these houses were actually built under A &A's auspices -- a rare occurrence). The neighborhood and associated houses were built in the 1950's -- they were conceived as "houses of the future" of extremely high quality architecture, indoor /outdoor living, affordable, unique, etc. The architecture is the epitome of the.California lifestyle with tributes to the area's Japanese roots. All this said, a structure that is-18-feet high in this neighborhood would ruin the architectural integrity of the neighborhood, be extremely unsightly, and a physical nuisance. There are currently no structures 18 feet high in this special onclave on Montpere Way and there never should be any structures 18 feet high. We are not opposed to an appropriate remodel within the spirit of the architecture and style of the existing houses in this unique neighborhood; but any remodel should be as such and not be a height taller than the existing houses. As,such, we plead with you to reject application #07 -002 for the address 18524 Montpere Way in its entirety. Sincerely, .- -David & Suzanne Anderson 9/5/2007 • • . 40 Page 2 of 2 18491 Montpere Way - - - -- Forwarded by David Z Anderson /Seagate on 09/04/2007 04:55 PM - - -- David Z Anderson /Seagate 011 -65- 6485 -2666 03/20/2007 03:05 AM To tschmidt @saratoga.ca.us cc Subject Application #07 -218; Address: 18524 Montpere Way; APNs: 389 -26 -022 Below is a written communication I would appreciate to be including in the Planning Commission's information packets pertaining to application #07 -218 address 18524 Montpere Way; APNs: 389 -26 -022. Dear Commissioners, We are strongly against the proposed remodel and construction of a second -story addition to the property at 18524 Montpere Way. The Saratoga neighborhood bounded by Quito Rd, Allendale, and Sobey and Wildcat creeks, in which Montpere Way runs through, is a historically and architecturally unique onclave. All of the houses were built by the world 10renown architectural firm of Anshen & Allen (on again / off again partners of Eichler, while these houses were 1 actually built under A &A's auspices -- a rare occurrence). The neighborhood and associated houses were built in the 1950's -- they were conceived as "houses of the future" of extremely high quality architecture, indoor /outdoor living, affordable, unique, etc. The architecture is the epitome of the California lifestyle with tributes to the area's Japanese roots. _ Attbis_s_aid a two -story structure in this neighborhood would not only ruin the architectural integrity of the neighborhood and be unsightly, it would be physically intrusive on the indoor /outdoor lifestyle of the neighborhood. There are currently no two -story structures in this special onclave on Montpere Way and there • never should be any two -story structures. We are not opposed to an appropriate remodel within the spirit of the architecture and style of the existing houses in this unique neighborhood; but any remodel should be as such and not include a second -story addition. As such, we plead with you to reject application #07 -218 for the address 18524 Montpere Way in its entirety. We are sorry we are unable to attend the meeting on March 28 as we are currently out of the country. Sincerely, David & Suzanne Anderson 18491 Montpere Way 9/5/2007 , • • Page 1 of 3 Heather Bradley From: John Livingstone Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 5:57 PM To: 'Robert Merritt'; Aileen Kao Cc: Dana Merritt; Heather Bradley; Heather Bradley (heather @mplanninggroup.com); Dave Anderson Subject: RE: Time Sensitve Email - - - - - -- Building Perit Application ADR 07 -002 Dear Mr: Merritt, Unfortunately you are getting some of your information third person and some of it is not accurate. I would like the opportunity to talk with you in person about the city planning process and also have you meet Heather and give us your comments about the proposed project. Please contact me as soon as possible to set up a meeting. Heather will be in the office tomorrow afternoon and I could also be available to meet with you at that time. Thank you, John L 868.1231 From: Robert Merritt [mailto:rxmerritt@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 5:37 ,PM To: Aileen Kao;. John Livingstone Cc: Dana Merritt Subject: Time Sensitve Email - - - - - -- Building Perit Application ADR 07 -002 Dear ayor Kao an - irec or Livingstone-, I'm writing with regard to a problem that I see developing with our neighborhood's relationship with the Planning Department. Last evening I had a conversation with several neighbors regarding the attached email from Heather Bradley (city planner). concerning ADR 07 -002. I thought Heather had made a point worth discussing with regard to the maximum height for the project. During our discussion several comments were made by neighbors regarding face to face discussions they had with Heather where she allegedly made the following points: 1) She planned to make a decision to approve the project on Tuesday (Sept 4th) in the morning. a. . An undated letter sent to some neighbors from the Community Development Dept. said that the review period would end at 5:00pm on Sept 4th and a decision would follow. b. While Heather may have misspoke, some neighbors had construed this to mean that Heather will not wait for all comments to reach her before making a decision c. There is a petition that has been circulating with regard to the height of the project and now there is concern that a decision will be made before the petition can presented sometime Tuesday afternoon. 2) She commented that she did not like the architecture of the homes in our neighborhood and made disparaging comments about it that made at least one neighbor think that she wanted to see 9/5/2007 • • Page 2 of 3 the character of the neighborhood changed because of her personal preference. She mentioned that she had a Victorian stile home which she implied to be much nicer than our homes. a. Neighbors that have heard this naturally feel that she will be biased in her decision regarding this project. While I did not hear these comments myself, but only second hand from people who had talked to Heather, the allegations certainly have caused grave concern with neighbors who will be affected directly and indirectly by the decision on this project. While not implying wrong doing by Heather I want to urge that some additional supervision be provide to help address concerns of bias with regard to the project. On a slightly different topic, it has also become obvious that the folks in our neighborhood feel that there is a lack of consistency from the planning department. Some neighbors have said that they received conflicting statements from the planning department (I don't know who in the planning dept) regarding what kind of remodeling projects might be done on their property. Is there anything that we could do to help correct the perception that projects are not treated in a consistent and fair fashion? My own thoughts on this are that we, as neighbors, need to be more educated on the city planning process and what the city is trying to achieve with that process. It would be helpful if we learned of any ways in which the planning department helped to educate citizens which regard to there objectives. Sincerely, Robert Merritt 18611 Montpere Way Work Phone (408) 382 -3175 Home Phone (408) 379 -2081 From: Heather Bradley [mailto: h brad ley@saratoga.ca. us] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 9:24 AM To: Merritt, Robert Subject: RE: Application ADR 07 -002 Hi Mr. Merritt, thank you for your email. I will include it in the correspondence for this file. The Planning Staff does take all neighbor's comments into consideration when reviewing Administrative Design Review applications such as this. You didn't mention whether you had the opportunity to look at the plans or not, but I would like to mention that the area of the roof that is 18 feet maximum height is a very small portion, and is set back quite a way away from the street and the neighbors on either side. The roof slopes away from the neighbor to the south, starting at approximately 7.5 feet and going up to 18 feet. The slope of the roof is maintained at 3:12 to match the exiting home and other homes in the neighborhood. The majority of the roof is kept at 14 feet in height. The portion that goes up to 18 feet is covers a small bedroom which is approximately 8 feet wide. The plans have been substantially reduced in scope and size from the two -story that was proposed several months ago. I hope you have the opportunity to come in and look at the plans. You can also contact the owner at this email address and request a copy of the plans. hari.sripadan.na( i)hmcarchitects.con] OThank you, Heather Bradley Contfact Planner 9/5/2007 Heather Bradle From: Heather Bradley • Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 4:39 PM To: John Livingstone Subject: 18524 Montepere Way Hi John, here are a few items of clarification regarding Mr. Merritt's email. 1. 1 have never spoken to'him directly and except for the email you were forwarded I have not had any other interaction with him. 2. Last week I spoke to Jo Raine Rodgers and Trish Cypher and tried my best to explain the plans to them. I also asked that they let me know as soon as possible if they were going to have any comments on the plans because Monday was a holiday and we only had Tuesday to receive comments. I never meant that I would be approving the plans a day before the deadline for comments, but only that with the holiday this week they would need to get me comments either last week, or Tuesday September 4th of this week since the deadline is 5:00 p.m. 3. 1 did. receive the petition, as well as several letters and a powerpoint presentation. 4. 1 never said that I did not like the architectural style of the homes in this neighborhood. I said that the design of the addition to this -home was more in keeping with the original architectural style than many other additions in the neighborhood. I would not use -my personal preferences to interfer with my professional judgement. I make design review decisions based on the regulations of the zoning ordinance, design guidelines and neighborhood and architectural compatiblity. 5. -1 do not have a Victorian home. The discussion I had with Mrs., Rodgers was that these homes did not meet many building and fire safety code. regulations and could be quite dangerous in a fire, so that I expected as the homes were bought and sold a lot more renovations would be made to them. She said that no older homes meet these safety standards and l said that actually even my home, which is about 25 years older than these homes, have operable windows that can be used for escape in a fire, whereas these homes do not. 0 would welcome the opportunity to meet with Mr Merritt directly and discuss his concerns. Thank you, - - -Heat eh r bra Consulting Planner • 1 r] Page 1 of 1 0 Heather Bradley From: Hari Sripadanna [hsripadanna @hmcarchitects.comj Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 9:30 AM To: jo_rainie@yahoo.com Cc: Heather Bradley; Murthy, Sasi Subject: 18524 Montpere Way Jo Ann I have tried to call you couple of times this morning after Sasi let me know that you left a message. It looks like your phone is not taking any messages. Please call me on my Cell phone at 407 5078138 Or my office phone # below. Thank you Hari Sripadanna, AIA Project manager Associate HMC 1570 The Alameda, Suite 330 San Jose, California 95126 p: 408 977 9160 x252 f: 408 977 9170 www_h_mca..rchitects..com. HMC #: File Code: 01A/)0m Page 3 of 3 From: Merritt, Robert [mailto: Robert. Merritt@analog.com] Sent: Thu 8/30/2007 3:21 PM To: Planning; Heather Bradley Cc: Dana Subject: Application. ADR- 07 -002- Dear Heather, I wanted to express my concern regarding the remodel at 18524 Montpere Way, (Application ADR 07 -002). I was recently shown a letter that the city seems to have sent out saying the project could be as tall as 18ft. 1 had previously attended a Planning Commission meeting where I voiced concern over the original two story plan because of a concern about maximum height. Now they have brought the height down to 18ft but this is still significantly taller than the other homes in the immediate area and I think the larger area of a few blocks around as well. Taking maximum heights up to 18ft will change the nature of our neighborhood dramatically and I would hope the planning department would be sensitive to this. There was another recent remodel across from the court where the subject property is located and it was allowed to go to 14.5ft. I'm.surprised that this was allowed and would have appreciated a notice from the city about that project. When we remodeled our home a few years ago the architect drew the plans with a 15ft max height and the City Planner rightfully asked that we take it down to 13ft which seemed reasonable to us considering the other homes on the street. So what has changed that in only a few years the max height has gone from 13ft max to 14.5 to 18ft max as dictated by the Planning department? I suppose you could say that since 14.5ft was approved within the last year that is the - -- president;- but - please- don4 -k -eep- going --up!! TheJ�ellow- next- to -us -is -also -on -a- hi]Lw-ithsesp_ect - - - -- to our property and if you allow him to do the same we'll never see the sky again! Sincerely yours, Robert Merritt 1861-1 Montpere Way Saratoga; .CA 95071 Work Phone (408), 382 -3175 Home Phone (408) 379 -2081 El 9/5/2007 hoo! Mail - heather @mplanninggroup.com http: //b7.mail.yahoo -co ym/mplanninggroup.com/ShowLetter ?box =... YAZ400t SMALL BUSINESS Print - Close Window From: knomof @att.net To: heather @mplanninggroup.com Subject: Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 21:33:06 -0700 Your intent to approve the remodel /addition for 18524 Montpere Way, in my opinion, is unethical; very unfair. David Ho bought his home at 18518 Montpere Way in May, 2006, and has lived there every day since moving in immediately. He and Linda would not have bought this property if they had known about the future applications for change. The Sri Padanna's bought their house in July, 2006, and have never lived there a single day, though a neighbors car has been parked in their car port since six (6)) days before the March 28th Planning Commission Meeting. They have twice asked the city of Saratoga for approval for a house height that would completely obliterate the privacy of the kitchen and two bedrooms and the entire yard of the David Ho home. Talk of "new and exciting and upgrading" does not sanctify the direct and indirect losses that a house the requested height would cause. These requests are polarizing our neighborhood and it is just not RIGHT. I ask you to please reconsider your thinking and what the approval would mean now and also to others in tfie -h6 ghborhooa eventually -- Please —het w at -t e -- majority of the neighbors are saying, as per our petition . Please think carefully about the damage that approval of the mentioned application would cause. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Nomof 18512 Montpere Way 408 379 -3279 .J 1 1 9/4/2007 8:48 AM shoo! Mail - heather @mplanninggroup.com http: //b7.mail.yahoo.co ym/mplanninggroup.com/ShowLetter ?box =..: 14t>0! SMALL. BUSINESS Print - Close Window Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 08:44:29 -0700 (PDT) From: "Heather Bradley" <heather @mplanninggroup.com> Subject: Re: Petition Forms Against Approval of Planning Application ADR 07 -002 (18524 Montpere Way) To: taweihoho @yahoo.com Thank you Mr. Ho. I will read through all of this today and will consider your concerns. Sincerely, Heather Bradley Contract Planner City of Saratoga David Ho <taweihoho @sbcglobaLnet> wrote: Dear Heather, In response to the notice of intent to approve of planning application ADR 07 -002, 1 would like to address our concern. We have ten families on Montpere Way , who are against the approval of this design. This includes the Mr. and Mrs. Kawamoto, who withdrew their previous consent of approval. The signed petition form is attached and turned in to the planning department. I hope that you review this design in detail and consider the voice from majority of our neighbors. Thanks. Sincerely, David Ho • • if 1 9/5/2007 5:41 PM hoo! Mail - heather @mplanninggroup.com http: //b7.mail.yahoo.com ym/mplanninggroup.com/ShowLetter ?box =... -yX1400t SMALL BUSINESS Print - Close Window C_F`S From: "David Ho" <taweihoho @sbcglobal.net> To: heather @mplanninggroup.com CC: 'planning @saratoga.ca.us', 'h brad ley @saratoga.ca.us, akao @saratoga.ca.us Subject: Petition Forms Against Approval of Planning Application ADR 07 -002 (18524 Montpere Way) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 01:24:45 -0700 Dear Heather, In response to the notice of intent to approve of planning application ADR 07 -002, 1 would like to address our concern. We have ten families on Montpere Way , who are against the approval of this design. This includes the Mr. and Mrs. Kawamoto, who withdrew their previous consent of approval. The signed petition form is attached and turned in to the planning department. I hope that you review this design in detail and consider the voice from majority of our neighbors. Thanks. Sincerely, David Ho Attachments _.. _.... ...... ... _ Petition_Pagel.jpg (357k) [View) Petition_Page2Jpg (212k) [View] • v, 9/5/2007 5:38 PM • • Page 1 of 2 Heather Bradley From: Hari Sripadanna [ hari .sripadanna @hmcarchitects.com] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 11:00 AM To: Heather Bradley Cc: Murthy, Sasi Subject: RE:.Application ADR 07 -002 Heather I got a phone call from Bob last night, (Trisha's husband) asking us to reduce the height to 14' -0 ", as any higher roof changes the precedent. I declined. Based on my conversation with him, I am sure you will get more letters in the next couple of days. We are not sure if you will, or need to respond to these letters. Please let us know if there is anything you would like us to do in response. I guess the question is not about 18' height but how specifically it affects the concerned neighbor. And that is why planning department reviews projects on an individual basis to see how the neighbors are specifically affected. In our case it is such a small area and so far back into the property that it doesn't effect anyone and complies with planning department's requirements. A fear about some one else's neighbor might do something in future shouldn't a basis on why all projects need to self impose to a particular and arbitrary height. By the way the 14' height is not a standard they claim, as it is evident in the pictures I sent. We are in the process of collecting more neighbor support letters. Thank you for the update. Regards Hari. Sripadanna, AIA Project manager Associate HMC 1570 The Alameda, Suite 330 San 7ose,.California 95126. p: 408 977 9160 x252 f4 408 977 9t?O www.hmcarchitects.com HMC #: File Code: From: Heather Bradley [ma ilto: h brad ley@sa ratoga -ca. us] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 9:10 AM To: Hari Sripadanna Subject: FW: Application ADR 07 -002 Hi Hari, Here.is.the only letter I have recieved so far. I am curious what the addtion to this house looks like, I will try to drive by and see it before Tuesday. The remodel must have been done some years ago because his plans were not in our files, I will have to research our microfilm to see what the reasoning was for making him lower the height to 13 feet.. You can call Iveta Harvancik in our Public Works Department to find out more about the sewer issues. She said it is the jursidiction of West Valley Sanitation and they have not informed the City of any problems out there. Heather Bradley Contract Planner City of. Saratoga 9/4/2007 • • • Page 2 of 2 From: Merritt, Robert [ma ilto: Robert. Merritt@analog.com] Sent: Thu 8/30/2007 3:21 PM To: Planning; Heather Bradley Cc: Dana Subject: Application ADR 07 -002 Dear Heather, I wanted to express my concern regarding the remodel at 18524 Montpere Way, (Application ADR 07 -002). 1 was recently shown a letter that the city seems to have sent out saying the project could be as tall as 18ft. 1 had previously attended a Planning Commission meeting where I voiced concern over the original two story plan because of a concern about maximum height. Now they have brought the height down to 18ft but this is still significantly taller than the other homes in the immediate area and I think the larger area of a few blocks around as well. Taking, maximum heights up to 18ft will change the nature of our neighborhood dramatically and I would hope the planning department would be sensitive to this. There was another recent remodel across from the court where the subject property is located and it was allowed to go to 14.5ft. I'm surprised that this was allowed and would have appreciated a notice from the city about that project. When we remodeled our home a few years ago the architect drew the plans with a 15ft max height and the City Planner rightfully asked that we take it down to 13ft which seemed reasonable to us considering the other homes on the street. So what has changed that in only a few years the max height has gone from 13ft max to 14.5 to 18ft max as dictated by the Planning department? I suppose you could say that since 14.5ft was approved within the last year that is the president, but please don't keep going up!!! The fellow next to us is also on a hill with respect to our property and Of you allow hirn te de the sarne we'll neveF see the sky again! Sincerely yours, Robert Merritt 18611 Montpere Way Saratoga, CA 95071 Work Phone (408) 382 -3175 Home Phone (408) 379 -2081 9/4/2007 Heather Bradley From: Hari Sripadanna [ hari .sripadanna @hmcarchitects.com] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 11:17 AM To: Heather Bradley Cc: Murthy, Sasi Subject: RE: Hi Page 1 of 12 Heather, Thanks for the update. I would like to send some existing house pictures by the end of today (via e- mail), that have similar scale and proportion . e Trisha wants to see the existing roof in relationship to the proposed. I don't know if that is any relevant, as these houses would need to modified to meet 7'6" clear ceiling height (CBC) code requirement. . There are plenty of other houses that have a roof height of 18 feet including the newly remodeled house at the beginning of the street, where Montpere way turns in to a Cul de Sac. Therese was the project planner for that remodel and you may still have the drawings. A majority of the roof (85 %) is at 14' -0" height. Only a small portion (set back 76' from the front) property line reaches the height close to 18' -0 ". . Our proposed roof is at the minimum roof pitch 3 " -12" recommended by shingle roof manufacturers. . If 14' height over the roof overhang at the clearstory (which is the majority of the roof height) is of concern to her, a conventional roof without clearstory with roof sloping on both sides would have a roof peak at only 1' -8" below the 14' -0" overhang height. I am including a drawing as an attachment,, that illustrates this point. Please let me know if you want me to fax you this drawing. • A 14' roof height is probably the height 99.9% house in Saratoga have. We are _in the process of collecting letters of support from our immediate neighbors that touch our property and others in the vicinity..The, neighbors on the north side, North west side, South side, touching our property and one directly opposite to our house (other side of the cul de sac) all agreed to give us letters of support or have already given us,the .letters. You may have already, received letters from some of them. There are at least 4 more people with in 250 feet range o our property are sending us letters of support as well. I am including t! ie sample lettei of support we asked our neighbors, to sign. I will submitt the letters of support ASAP. I am very glad to -know your daughter is going to the same class. My daughter "Sahana" was very anxious know more about her new teacher. 'I am glad to know she is getting a good teacher and that your son had her as well. Thanks. - Hari Sripadanna, AIA Project manager Associate HMC 1570 The Alameda, Suite 330 San Jose, California 95126. p: 408 977 9160 x252 f: 408 977 9170 www _hmcarch itects.com HMC „. File Code: 8/27/2007 • • hoo!-Mail - heather @mplanninggroup.com • http: //b7. mail. yahoo. com/ym /mplanninggroup.com/ShowLetter ?box= A� SMALL BUSINESS Print - Close Window 0 From: "David Ho" <taweihoho @yahoo.com> To: "'Judie Soo Gilli- <judie @mplanninggroup.com >, heather @mplanninggroup.com Subject: RE: Concern about the project of 18524 Montpere Way, Saratoga Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 15:49:09 -0700 Hi Judie, I truly appreciate your help. If there is any information I can provide, please let me know. Thanks. Cheers! David - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Judie Soo Gilli [ mailto :judie @mplanninggroup.coml Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 3:45 PM To: David (Tawei) Ho; heather @mplanning2roup.com Subject: Re: Concern about the project of 18524 Montpere Way, Saratoga Thank you for your email and concern. Heather Bradley is going to be working on this project from now on. Actually, she knows the project better than I do, so it is in good hands. I will let her respond to you regrading your concerns. Heather's email is in this cc. - -- "David.(Tawei) Ho" <dho@ovt.com> wrote: > Hi Judie, > Thank you for your time reading my • email. My name is David • Ho, a resident of 18518 Montpere way, Saratoga. • From the city planning • department, I know that you are in charge of the • 18524 Montpere Way • project. As its immediate neighbor, I would like to • express my concern • about this project. • As you may know, the owner /architect was going to • apply for second story • expansion. Due to the strong oppositions from the • neighbors, they • withdrew their first application. Now they filed • the first floor • expansion application. Basically, I am fine with • the first floor • expansion. It is the height that I concern about. • From its design • draft, the highest point of the roof is 18 feet. It • breaks the • integrity of community environment. If you have a • chance to visit this • neighborhood, you will notice that most of the > houses are around 10 feet > tall. Plus the project property's foundation is at > the highest point of > the neighborhood. Therefore, I suggest that they > have a more compatible > outlook as every neighbor. > Because the public hearing is not required for 9/5/2007 5:40 PM boo! SIN ail - heather @mplanninggroup.com http: //b7. mail. yahoo. corn/ ym/mplanninggroup.com/ShowLetter ?box =...' > single floor projects > with less than 18 feet height, we have to examine it > in detail to make > sure our community environment is preserved. I have > confident that with > your professional expertise, we can reach a perfect > ending of this > project. Thanks. > Sincerely, > > > David Ho > > . F 7 • rJl • 9/5/2007 5:40 PM hoo! Muil - heather @mplanninggroup.com ,SMALL BUSINESS From: "David Ho" < taweihoho @yahoo.com> To: "'Heather Bradley "' < heather @mplanninggroup.com> http: //b7.mail. yahoo. com/ ym/mplanninggroup.com/ShowLetter ?box =... • Subject: RE: Concern about the project of 18524 Montpere Way, Saratoga Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 17:00:47 -0700 Print - Close Window Dear Heather, Thank you for looking into this matter. There is no hurry and we will try to communicate with the owner too. Thanks. Cheers! David From: Heather Bradley [mailto :heather @mplanninggroup.com] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 4:56 PM To: taweihoho @yahoo.com Subject: RE: Concern about the project of 18524 Montpere Way, Saratoga Hi Mr. Ho, I will take another look at this property in regards to your concern with the height. I will get back to you early next week. Thank you, ,Heather Bradley Contract Planner City of Saratoga • David Ho < taweihoho a�yahoo.com> wrote: Hi Judie, I truly appreciate your help. If there is any information I can provide, please let me know. Thanks. I Cheers! I David - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Judie Soo Gilli [ mailto .judie @mplanninggroup.com] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 3:45 PM To: David (Tawei) Ho; heather @mplanninggroup.com Subject: Re: Concern about the project of 18524 Montpere Way, Saratoga Thank you for your email and concern. Heather Bradley is going to be working on this project from now on. Actually, she knows the project better than I do, so it is in good hands. I will let her respond to you regrading your concerns. Heather's email is in this cc. f 1 9/5/2007 5:38 PM ioo! Mail - heather @mplanninggroup:com. http: //b7.mail. yahoo. cQm/ ym/mplanninggroup.com/ShowLetter ?box =...` - -- "David (Tawei) Ho" wrote: > Hi Judie, > Thank you for your time reading my > email. My name is David - > Ho, a resident of 18518 Montpere Way, Saratoga. > From the city planning > department, I know that you are in charge of the > 18524 Montpere Way > project. As its immediate neighbor, I would like to > express my concern > about this project. > As you may know, the owner /architect was going to > apply for second story > expansion. Due to the strong oppositions from the > neighbors, they > withdrew their first application. Now they filed > the first floor > expansion- application. Basically, I am fine with > the first floor, > expansion. It is the height that I concern about. > From its design . > draft, the highest point of the roof is 18 feet. It > breaks the > integrity of community environment. If you have a chance to visit this. > houses are around 10 feet > tall. Plus the-project property's foundation is at > the highest point of > the neighborhood. Therefore, I.suggest that they > have a more compatible > outlook as -every neighbor.. > Because the public hearing is not required for > single floor projects - -> with less than 18 feet height, we have to examine it > in detail -to make "... > sure our-community environment is preserved. I. have > confident that with > your professional expertise, we can reach a perfect > ending of this " > project. Thanks. >. > Sincerely, -2 9/5/2007 5:38 PM hoo! Mail - heather @mplanninggroup.com • • • > David Ho http: //b7.mail.yahoo.c: ym/mplamiinggroup.com/ShowLetter ?box= 9/5/2007 5:38 PM ATTACHMENT 10 • • • • • SEP '10 2007 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Pft��/� �- moo , c�►- 9sa7lo . No�oRv Bid s A� , 7r7fl LETTER OF SUPPORT July 25, 2007 Heather Bradley Contract Planner City of Saratoga Planning Division 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Application No. ADR07 -0002; Design Review 18524 Montpere Way, Saratoga, California Dear Heather: This letter serves as our. support for single story design application filed June 21, 2007 to construct a remodel /addition at 18524 Montpere_Way. We have reviewed the proposed project drawings, dated 06/18/07 and find the design complements the character of the neighborhood in its scale, proportions and style of architecture. This single story revision respects the privacy (of the indoor out door quality) of our houses in the neighborhood. We believe this proposal is thoughtful and responsible in its design to the community and the environment. Please feel free to contact me with any questions that you may have. Sincerely, Neighbor Name: _Patrick and Hyun KUGLER Neighbor Address: 18481 'MONTPERE WAY SARATOGA, CA 95070 Neighbor Phone Number: _408- 378 74203 Signature: Printed. _Patrick Kugler E C E U U AUG 2 81007 CITY OF SAKATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • • • • LETTER OF SUPPORT July 25, 2007 Heather Bradley Contract Planner City of Saratoga Planning Division 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Application No.'ADR07 -0002; Design Review 18524 Montpere Way, Saratoga, California Dear Heather: This letter serves as our support for single story design application filed June 21, 2007 to construct a remodel /addition at 18524 Montpere Way. We have reviewed the proposed project drawings, dated 06/18/07 and find the design complements the character of the neighborhood in its scale, proportions.and style of architecture. This single story revision respects the privacy (of the indoor out door quality) of our houses in the neighborhood. We believe this proposal is thoughtful and responsible in its design to the community and the environment. Please feel free to contact me with any questions that you may have. Sincerely, u ... ✓ice Neighbor Name: s i4vv D EC V 0 AUG 2B M7 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Neighbor Address: ) 9 �� IiVPAJ7;�el A-)�9 y 0 If Neighbor Phone Number: 6DA' Rzk 1 s r- s3� �a A Alan Alameda F RO/ g -2� - o LP vt UZ-1 AAZ > �j _ N3A "welgndor Phone Number. j ition filed June 21, 3/07 and find the tale, proportions and door quality) of our ,ign to the community lave. AUG 2 8 ZUU7 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • LETTER OF SUPPORT July 25, 2007 Heather Bradley Contract Planner City of Saratoga Planning Division 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Application No. ADR07 -0002; Design Review 18524 Montpere Way, Saratoga, California Dear Heather: This letter serves as our support for single story design application filed June 21, 2007 to construct a remodel/addition at 18524 Montpere Way. We have reviewed the proposed project drawings, dated 06/18/07 and find the design complements the character of the neighborhood in its scale, proportions and style of architecture. This single story revision respects the privacy (of the indoor out door quality) of our houses in the neighborhood. We believe this proposal is thoughtful and responsible in its design to the community and the environment. Please feel free to contact me with any questions that you may have. Sincerely, Neighbor Address: I L 11 O irk �. Neighbor Phone Number: n (� AUG 2 8 2UU7 J�- CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C LETTER OF SUPPORT July 25, 2007 Heather Bradley Contract, Planner City of Saratoga Planning Division 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Application No..ADR07 -0002; Design Review 18524 Montpere Way, Saratoga, California Dear Heather: • This letter serves as our support for single story design application filed June 21, 2007 to construct a remodel /addition at 18524 Montpere Way. We have reviewed the proposed project drawings, dated 06/18/07 and find the . design complements the character of the neighborhood in its scale, proportions and style of architecture. This single story revision respects the privacy (of the indoor out door quality) of our houses .in the neighborhood. We believe this proposal is thoughtful and responsible in its design to the community and the environment. Please feel free to contact me with any questions that you may have. Sincerely, Neighbor Name: TO Y�A 4 S fig"`' '0 Neighbor Address: I155'I PfL(ems�ute l ve +v'� CA .15-o70 Neighbor Phone Number: L'f° g Signature: Printed: T 0r`nw``/ 5'r Pv P g ti p, j n r- 7. Ui Al. I ,, ?'8 Z00 1 J CITY OF `ARA T OGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT s 0 • • • LETTER OF SUPPORT July 25, 2007 Heather Bradley Contract Planner City of Saratoga Planning Division 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Application No. ADR07 -0002; Design Review 18524 Montpere Way, Saratoga, California Dear Heather: • This letter serves as our support for single story design application filed June 21, 2007 to construct a remodel /addition at 18524 Montpere Way. We have reviewed the proposed project drawings, dated 06/18/07 and find the design complements the character of the neighborhood in its scale, proportions and style of architecture. This single story revision respects .the privacy (of the indoor out door quality) of our houses in the neighborhood. We believe this proposal is thoughtful and responsible in its design to the community and the environment. Please feel free to contact me with any questions that you may have. Sincerely, Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: ', t� l,/��l1�• , Neighbor Phone Number: Signature: Printed: • Weer 372- ot E C E !", "N E 0 AM, ? A 20U..1' CITY OF SARA TOGA OGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT r � LETTER OF SUPPORT • July 25, 2007 Heather Bradley Contract Planner City of Saratoga Planning Division 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Application No. ADR07 -0002; Design Review . 18524 Montpere Way, Saratoga, California Dear Heather: This letter serves as our support for single story design application filed June 21, 2007 to construct a remodel /addition at 18524 Montpere Way._ We have - reviewed the proposed project drawings, dated 06/18/07 and find the. design complements the character of the neighborhood in its scale, proportions and style of architecture. This single story revision respects the privacy (of the indoor out door quality) of our houses in the neighborhood. n responsible in its design to the community and We believe this proposal is thoughtful and esp g y the environment. Please feel free to contact me with any questions that you may have. r Sincerely, Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: . NeighborPhone.Number: Signature: Printed: ► V r AUG 2 8 ?007 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .7 9 ATTACHMENT 11 • 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 21s' day of September 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: APN: 389-26-022 Address: 18524 Montepere Way that on -said day: there was. regular communication by United States Mail to the V addresses shown above. Demse Kaspar Advanced Listing Services • • ATTACHMENT 12 CJ GENERAL NOTES 1. E%60NG CONSTRUCTION DATA SHOW ON THE DRAMPICS WAS OBTAINED FROM AVMABLE DRAWINGS THE CONTRACTOR SHA L VFREY ALL D SW CONDITIONS AND SHALL TONY THE ARCHITECT OF ALL EXCEPTIONS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WDRIL 2_ SEE ARDITTECNRAL DRIO NGS FOR LAYOUT DND6pNS AND ELEVATORS EXCEPT WHERE INDICATED OTHERWISE. 3. ALL DISCREPANDES BETWEEN DFAYINWS MALL BE Q,M3M WON THE ARCHITECT PRIOR ro PROCEDNG WITH WORK ♦ IN THE EVENT THAT CERTAIN FEATURES a THE CONSTRUCTION ME NOT FULLY SHOW OR DETAILED ON THE DRAWINGS OR CALLED FOR N THE GENERAL NOTES. THEN THEW CONSTRUCTION SHA L BE OF THE SAME CHARACTER AS 9NIIAR CONDITIONS THAT ME MOWN OR CALLED, FOR. S. DUDISpNi ELEVATIONS AN D D W CONDITIONS HALL BE CHECKED AID VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE BY EACH CONRwice. ERROR, OMISSIONS. OR W- MEPNE]ES SMALL BE REPORTED TO THE MOIIIECT BEFORE WORK BEGOLS OR SUPPLES ARE- ORDERED, 6. VIIdR ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL. FINE NAM T01 HONE AND SECURITY REOUREMENTS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS 7. MORN SHALL BE PERFORMED N CONFORMANCE WITH LOCAL COOOY. STATE, AND HDERN CODES, IMPS AND REMATIOS AL PIKERS E to MS WORK NCUDNG CCR TITLE 19, AND 2001 CSC PAS I THROUGH S. E. COMPACTOR SHALL DSPOSEO' ALL REMOVED AND/ OR DEMOLISHED WTERPL. WASTE AND DEWS CASED BY WORK, 9. ANY ITEM COW 10 BE DEMOUS EDP REMOVED OR RETDGTm 5 TO BE COMPLETELY REMOVED. INCLUDING BUR NOT LIMITED TO ANY CONCEALED REMS (PIPES. CURBS, TRAM BEAMS, FASTENERS, ECG). A. ITEMS W/ N A DEAObNED AREA THAT MUST BE REROUTED N ORDER TO MAINTAIN COMNUTY SNAIL BE DOFF SO AT NOT LEM IN DULLITY THAN EXISTING. AND AT NO ADRIDNAL COST. ANY AREA OF DEMOLITION OP REMOVAL SHALL BE LEFT IN A COMPLETELY FINISHED CONDITION. 10. REGRNNG CUFFING AND PATCHING: THE CONTRACTOR SHNL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CVr NC AND PATCHNC MTH REGARD FOR PROPER INSTALLATION OF MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT. AND FOR PROTECTION OF ADJACENT CONSTRUCTION CURING AND WEAKERNG OF EXISTING STRUCTURAL WALL FLOOR AND ROOF MEMBERS 5 PROHIBITED UNLESS SPECIFIED ON THE PLAN. 11. WORK INDICATED AS "TIMER FUUDI CONTRACTOR W&L D' (O.F.C.I.) HALL MITT ALL APRIGBLE DOES AND 'REGULATORY REDRD.IENTS INDICATED wrri THESE DOCUMENTS AND SHALL BE INSLALID AND FULLY OPERAINNAL PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVER AND OCCUPANCY a THIS PROJECT. LEGEND AND SYMBOLS North MRIIIAMON IRECDN OF PUN NORM CONTROL POND MROW INDICATES TRUE NDRTH AF.F. OR WORK POINT -()� OR MAW PINT I.OI KEYNOTE NIIIBER ENpDEIEVAl10N SHADED NVI INDICATES AB.O VIEW DIRECTION 1.01 oENatnION KEYNOTE BIWL091G NEGITOI 1 1 SECIIDN IpENTIFGTW {.01 PAM IOY'TIMOL AD.O .0 SHEET WHERE SECTION IS DAWN FIDE OF CONCRETE SANDED TRIANGLE INDICATES MEW IRECIpN Of CEMDNNE ME- SWIYATIONRIE71- O WRDOIYIYPE SHADED TRIANGLE INDICATES DEOREES M. THE SIDES CONSIDERED FILE OF STUD ELEVATION IDENOFlGTW SHEET WERE 0-NATION 6 LAWN DIAMETER OR ROUND DaSTING R. NRR KTALGALL,WI 001E19W A&D SECTION EFRUICATIN IMERAOMNG S TO FACE a STUD M. SHIER WENT OETAL 6 DEAN U.O.K INCH/INCH S SITE PLAN WITH ALLOWABLE SETBACKS INDICATED ABBREVIATIONS 0 AT F.O.C. FIDE OF CONCRETE ----- �___ Of CEMDNNE F.O.F. F.O.P. FILE OF FINISH FILE OF PLYWOOD ' DEOREES F.O. FILE OF STUD . OR DN DIAMETER OR ROUND DaSTING R. NRR FDOT FURRRNG FOCI G GUIOE INCH/INCH S CAV. CALVANIID (N) NEW G1 GAVANZED IRON ^ PWS/Mus MP. RD KIL GYPSUM BOARD HDSE BIB + POND/NUAEER WT. KJIR AB. AW}KKR BOLT INN. A.C. A .F. ASPHMLTIC CONCRETE ABOVE FINISH FLOOR NSU W. INFORMATION NSULATION INTERIOR MOIL ARCHfTECILWAL L.D. LANDSCAPE DRAWRJGS BD. B0. BaVD BOTTOM a LH. MAX HEFT HERD MAXIMUM BOA. BOTTOM "T' FDapNG M. MACHINE BOLT BLDG BILK. BILK. BURRING BLOCK NB ECK NR. MEDIANICAL FORA RING B.S. BLOCKING DTH AGES MFR. MIN. MANUFACTURER MINIMUM CAB GANNET RISC MSCDLANEOUS C.D. CEM. CIVIL DRUMV S CEMENT M. NA MOUNTED HOT APPLKANE CEP C.F.C.1. CERAMIC CONTRACTOR UNSHED N.I.C. KTS NOT IN CONIHACT NOT ro SCNE COU71441OR INSTALLED 0/ OVER C.G. L.L CORNER CAMD LAST HON 0.G OF.CJ. ON CENTER OWNER NRNARED CA CIG CONTROL JOINT CDUND O.FD.L CONfRAC10R INSTALLED OWNER NRTMHED CUED ELK. COUNG CLOSET °PP- OWNER PETALLED OPPOSITE CULL CLEAN O.H. OPPDOE HAND COL. CAR) COLUMN CONCRETE MAWARf IUD PAV. PARING GD CLEAN OUT P.H. R PANE HARONWE MITE CONG CONCRETE P.LVE WIINAP COIN. CONT. CONNECTION CONTNACUS PLIIWB. P. - PLUMBING .8I PLYWOOD CASK COUNTERSINK P- D.G COI RANT CONNECTION CTR ,11". CENTER COLD WATER RAD. ROJO.D. RADIUS ROOF DRAIN/OVERFLOW DRAIN Dl. DEWO, DOUBLE DEMOUTION RR. REFERENCE DET. DRM REFIT REFRIGERATOR DA OM. DIAMETER DIMENSION RED. RH.MS REOUNFD ROUE HEAD "NNE SCREW OLD. SIER DSPENSER RHSAI ROUND HEM SHEET METAL SCREW DIS ON ODOR DOWN V ICES RW.L RENO HEAD WOOD SCREW RAN WATER LEADER ON. DOR 5CO SEE CML DRAWINGS 0.1 DWG. DOWNSPOUT DMW04G S.C. SECT. SOD, CORE SECTION G EACH SID SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS EJ. E1EG EXPANSION .RENT ELECIRKAL SF. SHE SQUIRE FOOTAGE SHEET ELEV. ELEVATION AM. SIMIWR ED. ELPT. EQUAL EWPMENT SLUT AE SEE MECNWICIL DFAWNG.S SHEET METAL SCREW EOS. EDCE OF SLAB SPIT SEE PLUMING DRAWINGS E.W. EXT. FAON WAY EXTERIOR SPED S SPELFKATON STAINLESS STEEL FA FIRE ALARM ISO SEE SIRUCIII DRAWINGS F.D. FOK FLOOR TRAIN FOUNDATION STD SR STANDARD STEEL F.F. F.HMS FINISH FLOOR Mr HEAD MACHINE SCREW SWUCT. SYM - STRUCTURAL SYGADAKK EHW.S. Mi HEAD WOOD SCREW T.C. TOP OF CURB F.M.S.M.S. H MT META SHEET METAL SCREW T.O.0 Fl D,9 TOP OF CURB/CONCRETE F.a FACE OF T.O.P. TOP OF PAAAPET/TOP OF MITE 1 J H / PROPERTY LINE / r � ' / �� - EXIBTN09UIUMNGtAFANBd1 _ CAPPDRT 370 / - x / WAIL TO BE REMOVED I 0.A B \ \ \ II Z59 SOFT IOSO E \ \o\ SCALE 1/B' =T -0' REMODEL & ADDITION TO SRIPADANNA RESIDENCE 18524, MONTPERE WAY, SARATOGA, CA 95070 ZONNING REGULATIONS OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY ree�/�M THIS SIZE LUT 5 A =ALLY NON- CONDRNm SIZE AS IFS FRONTAGE NA WROTH ARE LESS THAN THE NIDNED DIMENSIONS BRAGAVM SRIPADAMNA R SW NURDff T.C.S. TOP OF STED/TOP OF STAR BY MNWJPAL CODE SECTION. 15-12.070 la R -I Uisuict 16524 MONIPERE WAY, SARAIOGA G T.O.W. TOP OF WALL ERIE FRONTAGE ALLOWED =D' -0'. Td. (408) 296 0708 F.P.D. TOILET PAPER DISPENSER DOSTING SITE FRONTAGE - D' -9' T.S TUBE STEEL T.V. TELEVISION SITE MNH ALLOWED - a'� PROJECT INFORMATION M. TiPIW. EXISTING SITE MOTH fig' -9' -C*VWb Pa Mmi ipd CP SMW- 15 -0 -M REERENOD BELOW. SEE N50 SITE W. UNDERCUT DIMENSIONS COGRAY. U.O.K UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED VIF. VERIFY N FEND 'Siw -U mane U. horiaonfd fu- belwWa ixk bt Giw. mamursd d right wyla W UN dM depN d a PiM PROJECT DESCRIPTION :THE PRt1POBED PROJECT CONATS a ANGLE FIDOR ADDITON AND MODIFYING W/ WYN midwoY bdvaen NA front aid rem bl f w M tAere T. ro rwr M Gne. a< tlN m THE DSYNC INTERIOR SINCE. WITHIN THE NLONIfAE SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA. AND ROOM TO N.C. WATER CLOSET keoJ' Pdnta A the ideraa:6, dM AN D6'IINC SINGLE FAIRLY OWELUNG wO WOOD lot 9- W p WfTOUUT ATE SIDE YARD SETBACKS ARE CALCULATED BASED ON THE MUNEPA CODE SECTION '15"65.160 Nom f" W2u' ASSE40R'S PARCEL I : 789 -26 -022 ^9 ASSESS a PROJECT ; 1852{ 389-26-022 W/o WAY. SAM70GL G 95070 W. WATER HEATER REFERENCED BELOW. OWNERS NAME : BWf,AVAN SRIPADANNA A SW WENT W. P. WATER PROOF X.C. I WOD INSTITUTE a CALIFORNIA 'A Iu f* -Ad ails IKn+q on arra, frontal width w depth Im Bwn uN midmwna PraC Ted W UN ftt id in E]OSfING USE : REABENCE W.S. WEATHER STRIPPING which uN dh is bmtM mq bs wed fa a PemvlW a corefi0aral m. bM a 11 be aubjecl b dl WuM regMO6ona Iw ZONING DISTRICT : R- 1- 10.000. SNGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WSCT WAINSCOT ft dMid m Which uN ails u bcotM. -pt ON (oA Vq: AGE OF ALL STRUCTURES : CONSTRUCTED 1955 -> 51 YEAS WWM WELLED NWE MESM (o) Where the ri th of a 0.L jo rat waform with ft d ,d for IN dmt,4 tlN TVIi m width .1 interior aide SIZE OF LDF : M20 SOFT- a fta area fa FYA IIa II ahoA be Hal KD Nan Mn Peranl d NN width of tM ails or si- led *NchaVer b grevtw, wk UN Ti';- YdN of an edW ., aide aetb.& areo M ! of Ibaa of a comer w a 11 Ee not k0. tlwn lwerd7 FLOOR MG STANDARD, LOS !I= " 10.05 - ;/D S0. R. PLUS 160 M R. FOR EVERY perttid d 1 ,MANN d W ft 0.r Nfan fat, wTidaVer is grraRW. i1N aecwq wow aNEO Jr am fw iM wH 1.000 S0. R. OF NET SITE MG OVER SOD,) M R. atwior Ida dnD M 9are®d Wn ad6Umd f reel' ALLOWABLE FLOOR MG - 3.01E SO. R. SET BACK TABLE FUM MG OF STRUCTURES : (E) LSE FLOOR . 1634 MET. ARM OF PROPOSED ADDFIDN LUNG d GARACE MG =6% SOFT, SETBACK EXISTING REQUIRED PROPOSED 1 ST FUR 1ST FLR 1ST FLR IST FLR FRONT 26-Cr 25' -0' 25' -0' SIDE 7' -0-(MIN) 7' -0' 7' -0'(E) REAR 25' -10' 25'-0' 25' -10' RFM BEDROOM MG =139 SOn. INTERIOR CORRIDOR AREA -49 SO.R.(DUIBE COUNTED M CWK M. EXCEEDS 15-07 TOTAL AREA a PROPOSED ADUT 1098 SOFT. TOTAL FLOOR AREA (DOSTM A PROPOSED)- (10411D %I-27M SO R TOTAL LENGNI OF EXIEWIOR WALLS - 225 IT. LENGTH a EXTERIOR WAIL TO BE REMOVED - IN R. (LESS THAN HALF OF EIOSTNC) EF �°'^ NPF1M0. 1F GOAfAAGE PROPOSED fRSTNG k NFWI RPERWIE SITE STRUCTURE RPORT - 1.639 SO. R. SIRIICTIME . 2)30 50. R. (nduda. Cw9a) CARPORT - 113 SO. R. DRIVEWAY = 173 SO. R. DRIVEWAY - HI SO R. PATIOS - I.I70 SO. R PAID = 239 S0. R. (--w PO. 1 PAVERS 316 SO E W.W(WAYS 507 SO.R. roTK COVULAGE = 3. %9 50. R. TOTAL COVERAGE - 3917 ST. R. SITE DIMENSIONS (LEGAL NON CONFIRMING) ALLLOWAWABIEFCOVVEER�Q PERCENT O PROPOSED SITE COVER ACE - 4S97X AV1RAa SLOPE DN SITE : 3.43% HETCNT INFORIAIKD : LOWEST ELEVATION PT AT BUTT. EDGE : 25217' HENNEST ELEVATION PT AT BLDG. EDGE : 25291' A3Y-0 - AVERAGE ELEVATION PT : 25269' TOP MOST ELEVAIDN PONT OF STRUCTURE : 278.5' ro MID POINT OF 65 _fi FRONT PROPERTY LIE UNEAR FEET OF TOTAL 228' -0' (E) EXTERIOR Wins IIJ' -0- (E) EXTE)" WAILS TO BE DEMOLISHED K SOW (O PROPOSED SETBACKS FOR FIRST SE: MJACFM SITE PUN MD PINT a MMI�Y PoNTa AA�EDIfE LINE OPERIY DHEs PERSPECTIVE VIEW KEi DRIVEWAY Nor th L 0.H -� �3� •..:. 70�� �T SHEETINDEX AN TITLE SHEE7 COI STTE k DOU SURVEY PLAN A02 STfE PLAN ACAS DEGKKTpN PUVI AN FLOOR PLANS AM ROa RAN AN CaERIOR ELEVATIONS AGO BUILDING SECTIONS VICINITY MAP 1 0 ESL - C /TY R%Ir0 cgr OF'a,1 ENE. SARA TOGAc r SOS O g a�Ao S a�ob ,NHY - AONTP ESIXTA i ALLFNOALE AVE RAVENN000 ` NARSN,ALL LN 1 PROJECT �)IIL LEGEND 4E PROPOSED FLOOR AREA EXISTING FLOOR AREA PROJECT TFLE Remodel & Addition at SRIPADANNA RESIDENCE 18524 Montpere Way, Saratoga, CA. 95070 COVER SHEET ARCHITECT SCALE Hai Sripadarim NA 33278 enion 51. Santo CIOID G 9505). DATE Phone: 1408) 2960708 OP ax .NG NO. A01 N ZS'- _ ___ - ----- �___ SCALE 1/B' =T -0' REMODEL & ADDITION TO SRIPADANNA RESIDENCE 18524, MONTPERE WAY, SARATOGA, CA 95070 ZONNING REGULATIONS OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY ree�/�M THIS SIZE LUT 5 A =ALLY NON- CONDRNm SIZE AS IFS FRONTAGE NA WROTH ARE LESS THAN THE NIDNED DIMENSIONS BRAGAVM SRIPADAMNA R SW NURDff T.C.S. TOP OF STED/TOP OF STAR BY MNWJPAL CODE SECTION. 15-12.070 la R -I Uisuict 16524 MONIPERE WAY, SARAIOGA G T.O.W. TOP OF WALL ERIE FRONTAGE ALLOWED =D' -0'. Td. (408) 296 0708 F.P.D. TOILET PAPER DISPENSER DOSTING SITE FRONTAGE - D' -9' T.S TUBE STEEL T.V. TELEVISION SITE MNH ALLOWED - a'� PROJECT INFORMATION M. TiPIW. EXISTING SITE MOTH fig' -9' -C*VWb Pa Mmi ipd CP SMW- 15 -0 -M REERENOD BELOW. SEE N50 SITE W. UNDERCUT DIMENSIONS COGRAY. U.O.K UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED VIF. VERIFY N FEND 'Siw -U mane U. horiaonfd fu- belwWa ixk bt Giw. mamursd d right wyla W UN dM depN d a PiM PROJECT DESCRIPTION :THE PRt1POBED PROJECT CONATS a ANGLE FIDOR ADDITON AND MODIFYING W/ WYN midwoY bdvaen NA front aid rem bl f w M tAere T. ro rwr M Gne. a< tlN m THE DSYNC INTERIOR SINCE. WITHIN THE NLONIfAE SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA. AND ROOM TO N.C. WATER CLOSET keoJ' Pdnta A the ideraa:6, dM AN D6'IINC SINGLE FAIRLY OWELUNG wO WOOD lot 9- W p WfTOUUT ATE SIDE YARD SETBACKS ARE CALCULATED BASED ON THE MUNEPA CODE SECTION '15"65.160 Nom f" W2u' ASSE40R'S PARCEL I : 789 -26 -022 ^9 ASSESS a PROJECT ; 1852{ 389-26-022 W/o WAY. SAM70GL G 95070 W. WATER HEATER REFERENCED BELOW. OWNERS NAME : BWf,AVAN SRIPADANNA A SW WENT W. P. WATER PROOF X.C. I WOD INSTITUTE a CALIFORNIA 'A Iu f* -Ad ails IKn+q on arra, frontal width w depth Im Bwn uN midmwna PraC Ted W UN ftt id in E]OSfING USE : REABENCE W.S. WEATHER STRIPPING which uN dh is bmtM mq bs wed fa a PemvlW a corefi0aral m. bM a 11 be aubjecl b dl WuM regMO6ona Iw ZONING DISTRICT : R- 1- 10.000. SNGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WSCT WAINSCOT ft dMid m Which uN ails u bcotM. -pt ON (oA Vq: AGE OF ALL STRUCTURES : CONSTRUCTED 1955 -> 51 YEAS WWM WELLED NWE MESM (o) Where the ri th of a 0.L jo rat waform with ft d ,d for IN dmt,4 tlN TVIi m width .1 interior aide SIZE OF LDF : M20 SOFT- a fta area fa FYA IIa II ahoA be Hal KD Nan Mn Peranl d NN width of tM ails or si- led *NchaVer b grevtw, wk UN Ti';- YdN of an edW ., aide aetb.& areo M ! of Ibaa of a comer w a 11 Ee not k0. tlwn lwerd7 FLOOR MG STANDARD, LOS !I= " 10.05 - ;/D S0. R. PLUS 160 M R. FOR EVERY perttid d 1 ,MANN d W ft 0.r Nfan fat, wTidaVer is grraRW. i1N aecwq wow aNEO Jr am fw iM wH 1.000 S0. R. OF NET SITE MG OVER SOD,) M R. atwior Ida dnD M 9are®d Wn ad6Umd f reel' ALLOWABLE FLOOR MG - 3.01E SO. R. SET BACK TABLE FUM MG OF STRUCTURES : (E) LSE FLOOR . 1634 MET. ARM OF PROPOSED ADDFIDN LUNG d GARACE MG =6% SOFT, SETBACK EXISTING REQUIRED PROPOSED 1 ST FUR 1ST FLR 1ST FLR IST FLR FRONT 26-Cr 25' -0' 25' -0' SIDE 7' -0-(MIN) 7' -0' 7' -0'(E) REAR 25' -10' 25'-0' 25' -10' RFM BEDROOM MG =139 SOn. INTERIOR CORRIDOR AREA -49 SO.R.(DUIBE COUNTED M CWK M. EXCEEDS 15-07 TOTAL AREA a PROPOSED ADUT 1098 SOFT. TOTAL FLOOR AREA (DOSTM A PROPOSED)- (10411D %I-27M SO R TOTAL LENGNI OF EXIEWIOR WALLS - 225 IT. LENGTH a EXTERIOR WAIL TO BE REMOVED - IN R. (LESS THAN HALF OF EIOSTNC) EF �°'^ NPF1M0. 1F GOAfAAGE PROPOSED fRSTNG k NFWI RPERWIE SITE STRUCTURE RPORT - 1.639 SO. R. SIRIICTIME . 2)30 50. R. (nduda. Cw9a) CARPORT - 113 SO. R. DRIVEWAY = 173 SO. R. DRIVEWAY - HI SO R. PATIOS - I.I70 SO. R PAID = 239 S0. R. (--w PO. 1 PAVERS 316 SO E W.W(WAYS 507 SO.R. roTK COVULAGE = 3. %9 50. R. TOTAL COVERAGE - 3917 ST. R. SITE DIMENSIONS (LEGAL NON CONFIRMING) ALLLOWAWABIEFCOVVEER�Q PERCENT O PROPOSED SITE COVER ACE - 4S97X AV1RAa SLOPE DN SITE : 3.43% HETCNT INFORIAIKD : LOWEST ELEVATION PT AT BUTT. EDGE : 25217' HENNEST ELEVATION PT AT BLDG. EDGE : 25291' A3Y-0 - AVERAGE ELEVATION PT : 25269' TOP MOST ELEVAIDN PONT OF STRUCTURE : 278.5' ro MID POINT OF 65 _fi FRONT PROPERTY LIE UNEAR FEET OF TOTAL 228' -0' (E) EXTERIOR Wins IIJ' -0- (E) EXTE)" WAILS TO BE DEMOLISHED K SOW (O PROPOSED SETBACKS FOR FIRST SE: MJACFM SITE PUN MD PINT a MMI�Y PoNTa AA�EDIfE LINE OPERIY DHEs PERSPECTIVE VIEW KEi DRIVEWAY Nor th L 0.H -� �3� •..:. 70�� �T SHEETINDEX AN TITLE SHEE7 COI STTE k DOU SURVEY PLAN A02 STfE PLAN ACAS DEGKKTpN PUVI AN FLOOR PLANS AM ROa RAN AN CaERIOR ELEVATIONS AGO BUILDING SECTIONS VICINITY MAP 1 0 ESL - C /TY R%Ir0 cgr OF'a,1 ENE. SARA TOGAc r SOS O g a�Ao S a�ob ,NHY - AONTP ESIXTA i ALLFNOALE AVE RAVENN000 ` NARSN,ALL LN 1 PROJECT �)IIL LEGEND 4E PROPOSED FLOOR AREA EXISTING FLOOR AREA PROJECT TFLE Remodel & Addition at SRIPADANNA RESIDENCE 18524 Montpere Way, Saratoga, CA. 95070 COVER SHEET ARCHITECT SCALE Hai Sripadarim NA 33278 enion 51. Santo CIOID G 9505). DATE Phone: 1408) 2960708 OP ax .NG NO. A01 N SETBACK EXISTING REQUIRED PROPOSED 1 ST FUR 1ST FLR 1ST FLR IST FLR FRONT 26-Cr 25' -0' 25' -0' SIDE 7' -0-(MIN) 7' -0' 7' -0'(E) REAR 25' -10' 25'-0' 25' -10' RFM BEDROOM MG =139 SOn. INTERIOR CORRIDOR AREA -49 SO.R.(DUIBE COUNTED M CWK M. EXCEEDS 15-07 TOTAL AREA a PROPOSED ADUT 1098 SOFT. TOTAL FLOOR AREA (DOSTM A PROPOSED)- (10411D %I-27M SO R TOTAL LENGNI OF EXIEWIOR WALLS - 225 IT. LENGTH a EXTERIOR WAIL TO BE REMOVED - IN R. (LESS THAN HALF OF EIOSTNC) EF �°'^ NPF1M0. 1F GOAfAAGE PROPOSED fRSTNG k NFWI RPERWIE SITE STRUCTURE RPORT - 1.639 SO. R. SIRIICTIME . 2)30 50. R. (nduda. Cw9a) CARPORT - 113 SO. R. DRIVEWAY = 173 SO. R. DRIVEWAY - HI SO R. PATIOS - I.I70 SO. R PAID = 239 S0. R. (--w PO. 1 PAVERS 316 SO E W.W(WAYS 507 SO.R. roTK COVULAGE = 3. %9 50. R. TOTAL COVERAGE - 3917 ST. R. SITE DIMENSIONS (LEGAL NON CONFIRMING) ALLLOWAWABIEFCOVVEER�Q PERCENT O PROPOSED SITE COVER ACE - 4S97X AV1RAa SLOPE DN SITE : 3.43% HETCNT INFORIAIKD : LOWEST ELEVATION PT AT BUTT. EDGE : 25217' HENNEST ELEVATION PT AT BLDG. EDGE : 25291' A3Y-0 - AVERAGE ELEVATION PT : 25269' TOP MOST ELEVAIDN PONT OF STRUCTURE : 278.5' ro MID POINT OF 65 _fi FRONT PROPERTY LIE UNEAR FEET OF TOTAL 228' -0' (E) EXTERIOR Wins IIJ' -0- (E) EXTE)" WAILS TO BE DEMOLISHED K SOW (O PROPOSED SETBACKS FOR FIRST SE: MJACFM SITE PUN MD PINT a MMI�Y PoNTa AA�EDIfE LINE OPERIY DHEs PERSPECTIVE VIEW KEi DRIVEWAY Nor th L 0.H -� �3� •..:. 70�� �T SHEETINDEX AN TITLE SHEE7 COI STTE k DOU SURVEY PLAN A02 STfE PLAN ACAS DEGKKTpN PUVI AN FLOOR PLANS AM ROa RAN AN CaERIOR ELEVATIONS AGO BUILDING SECTIONS VICINITY MAP 1 0 ESL - C /TY R%Ir0 cgr OF'a,1 ENE. SARA TOGAc r SOS O g a�Ao S a�ob ,NHY - AONTP ESIXTA i ALLFNOALE AVE RAVENN000 ` NARSN,ALL LN 1 PROJECT �)IIL LEGEND 4E PROPOSED FLOOR AREA EXISTING FLOOR AREA PROJECT TFLE Remodel & Addition at SRIPADANNA RESIDENCE 18524 Montpere Way, Saratoga, CA. 95070 COVER SHEET ARCHITECT SCALE Hai Sripadarim NA 33278 enion 51. Santo CIOID G 9505). DATE Phone: 1408) 2960708 OP ax .NG NO. A01 N RFM BEDROOM MG =139 SOn. INTERIOR CORRIDOR AREA -49 SO.R.(DUIBE COUNTED M CWK M. EXCEEDS 15-07 TOTAL AREA a PROPOSED ADUT 1098 SOFT. TOTAL FLOOR AREA (DOSTM A PROPOSED)- (10411D %I-27M SO R TOTAL LENGNI OF EXIEWIOR WALLS - 225 IT. LENGTH a EXTERIOR WAIL TO BE REMOVED - IN R. (LESS THAN HALF OF EIOSTNC) EF �°'^ NPF1M0. 1F GOAfAAGE PROPOSED fRSTNG k NFWI RPERWIE SITE STRUCTURE RPORT - 1.639 SO. R. SIRIICTIME . 2)30 50. R. (nduda. Cw9a) CARPORT - 113 SO. R. DRIVEWAY = 173 SO. R. DRIVEWAY - HI SO R. PATIOS - I.I70 SO. R PAID = 239 S0. R. (--w PO. 1 PAVERS 316 SO E W.W(WAYS 507 SO.R. roTK COVULAGE = 3. %9 50. R. TOTAL COVERAGE - 3917 ST. R. SITE DIMENSIONS (LEGAL NON CONFIRMING) ALLLOWAWABIEFCOVVEER�Q PERCENT O PROPOSED SITE COVER ACE - 4S97X AV1RAa SLOPE DN SITE : 3.43% HETCNT INFORIAIKD : LOWEST ELEVATION PT AT BUTT. EDGE : 25217' HENNEST ELEVATION PT AT BLDG. EDGE : 25291' A3Y-0 - AVERAGE ELEVATION PT : 25269' TOP MOST ELEVAIDN PONT OF STRUCTURE : 278.5' ro MID POINT OF 65 _fi FRONT PROPERTY LIE UNEAR FEET OF TOTAL 228' -0' (E) EXTERIOR Wins IIJ' -0- (E) EXTE)" WAILS TO BE DEMOLISHED K SOW (O PROPOSED SETBACKS FOR FIRST SE: MJACFM SITE PUN MD PINT a MMI�Y PoNTa AA�EDIfE LINE OPERIY DHEs PERSPECTIVE VIEW KEi DRIVEWAY Nor th L 0.H -� �3� •..:. 70�� �T SHEETINDEX AN TITLE SHEE7 COI STTE k DOU SURVEY PLAN A02 STfE PLAN ACAS DEGKKTpN PUVI AN FLOOR PLANS AM ROa RAN AN CaERIOR ELEVATIONS AGO BUILDING SECTIONS VICINITY MAP 1 0 ESL - C /TY R%Ir0 cgr OF'a,1 ENE. SARA TOGAc r SOS O g a�Ao S a�ob ,NHY - AONTP ESIXTA i ALLFNOALE AVE RAVENN000 ` NARSN,ALL LN 1 PROJECT �)IIL LEGEND 4E PROPOSED FLOOR AREA EXISTING FLOOR AREA PROJECT TFLE Remodel & Addition at SRIPADANNA RESIDENCE 18524 Montpere Way, Saratoga, CA. 95070 COVER SHEET ARCHITECT SCALE Hai Sripadarim NA 33278 enion 51. Santo CIOID G 9505). DATE Phone: 1408) 2960708 OP ax .NG NO. A01 N PERSPECTIVE VIEW KEi DRIVEWAY Nor th L 0.H -� �3� •..:. 70�� �T SHEETINDEX AN TITLE SHEE7 COI STTE k DOU SURVEY PLAN A02 STfE PLAN ACAS DEGKKTpN PUVI AN FLOOR PLANS AM ROa RAN AN CaERIOR ELEVATIONS AGO BUILDING SECTIONS VICINITY MAP 1 0 ESL - C /TY R%Ir0 cgr OF'a,1 ENE. SARA TOGAc r SOS O g a�Ao S a�ob ,NHY - AONTP ESIXTA i ALLFNOALE AVE RAVENN000 ` NARSN,ALL LN 1 PROJECT �)IIL LEGEND 4E PROPOSED FLOOR AREA EXISTING FLOOR AREA PROJECT TFLE Remodel & Addition at SRIPADANNA RESIDENCE 18524 Montpere Way, Saratoga, CA. 95070 COVER SHEET ARCHITECT SCALE Hai Sripadarim NA 33278 enion 51. Santo CIOID G 9505). DATE Phone: 1408) 2960708 OP ax .NG NO. A01 N • I. c .: 4 • LANDS OF AAAWAM070 APN 769 -26 -020 DOG. Na 11205J71 18550 MZINIPERE WAY LOT 17,, TRACT IJ24 50 MAPS 20-21 i z65�1p �YgND ;•A2' LANOS O' SIRIXIP APN J99-26 -015 DOG Na 16644566 18561 ALLENDALE AV£ LOF 72 7RAC7 1195 46 MAPS 40-41 -DNRJ E WAD 6•.�..� (TYP) It.W 2. 5'01A � PLACK } Ww �lb HEADER �P11� �T1+ 1P 8 dA 10 ERROR NANEERS. -.. 4~44 \ 6 HIGH WOOD FENCE 6WHOIOONO • 61,55 TNIE LANDS OP WNG APN J89 -26 -021 r 1525 ODIC NO. 16436184 LINE NGGOA lLCLf!!Lf/LU�1.1!!O PEAK 21.2 5 185JD MOVI7PERE WAY LOI 1Q 7RAC7 IJ24 !y G y a5 15;7'1 WOOD. ,f' iY 1.. 5 75 55 WOOD. 50 MAPS 20-21 � W W [ t 2 CS 't I i/ �� .1 ! CARPJIif AREA U� 4 m� .... 8,�° 14 ..... M" { DOUBLES% , 5 89.Z. 1 yeI WD SMH y7'5713 - IN 6 .n r.r • y,5 v M 21 275 N•275.00 L.347 v a � •- - -- ' -.- --- - - .ya-�_ __ _ T __ - - __ _ L- 12027 . R- 1275.00 L- 163.14 .00 - bb'24'17' 4 I s RECORDED ON MAY 25, 1954, IN BOOK 50 OF MAPS AT PAGES 51 9 20-21, INCLUSIVE, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS. ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: � 2 - a F A HEM L: STING DFFD� 11 -PAID 15 EG DOC. NO. 19015632 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: E�y THE PROPOSED PROJECT CONSISTS OF ADDING A SINGLE STORY WITHIN THE ALLOWABLE SETEIACKS M AN WILL BE Z M O N T P E R E WAY 1,400 SQ. FT. WITH A MAMMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OF 18' FT. W j $I 7I OWNER NAME: PREPARER'S NAME: BHAGAVAN 9UPADANNA AND SAS K. MURTHY SIERRA WEST LAND SURVEYING, INC. (A PUBLI C ROAD - 50 WI 0E) 8> i m p I I p Y (408) 977 - 9160 (209) 645 -9042 FAX ....._ . _.. _.. ._ __.,.Ti f L 3 _...,,.. ._._. ._.......... --- - Fl OOD ON INFORMATION• -LINE 1a-- o--eUeT7n sr I Y 9 91AIE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY PANEL NUMBER: 060351 0004 C MIMM M LOT AMA INTERIOR LOTS - 10,000 SOFT. EFFECTIVE DATE: JULY 3, 7997 g O LANDS OF AAAWAM070 APN 769 -26 -020 DOG. Na 11205J71 18550 MZINIPERE WAY LOT 17,, TRACT IJ24 50 MAPS 20-21 i z65�1p �YgND ;•A2' LANOS O' SIRIXIP APN J99-26 -015 DOG Na 16644566 18561 ALLENDALE AV£ LOF 72 7RAC7 1195 46 MAPS 40-41 -DNRJ E WAD 6•.�..� (TYP) It.W 2. 5'01A � PLACK } Ww �lb HEADER �P11� �T1+ 1P 8 dA 10 ERROR NANEERS. -.. 4~44 \ 6 HIGH WOOD FENCE 6WHOIOONO • 61,55 TNIE LANDS OP WNG APN J89 -26 -021 r 1525 ODIC NO. 16436184 LINE NGGOA lLCLf!!Lf/LU�1.1!!O PEAK 21.2 5 185JD MOVI7PERE WAY LOI 1Q 7RAC7 IJ24 !y G y a5 15;7'1 WOOD. ,f' iY 1.. 5 75 55 WOOD. 50 MAPS 20-21 � W W [ t 2 CS 't I i/ �� .1 ! CARPJIif AREA U� 4 m� .... 8,�° 14 ..... M" { DOUBLES% , 5 89.Z. 1 yeI WD /�PONA16RCE IN 6 .n r.r • IR '__ r 1525 yam; -___ Rd01'PEAI� ROOF LINE NGGOA lLCLf!!Lf/LU�1.1!!O PEAK 21.2 5 IM24 MONTPERE WAY LOT SIZE WOOD FR S0. FT. ' ONE STORY HOOD FRAME HOUSE !y G y a5 15;7'1 WOOD. ,f' iY 1.. 5 75 55 WOOD. . FT, BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA - 1,639 SO�f-�L � W W [ t 2 CS 't I FL" ELEVATION -2253M �� .1 ! CARPJIif AREA U� 4 m� O1 9. HIGH 5 1.yD BHRIG( M" { DOUBLES% , 5 89.Z. 1 yeI WD 7241 , =Y�I '. ^��� DOOR 5� r 1525 0 , TS._ ^ H J 15yE ✓ - a -CRET1 1 5 0 SRIPADANNA / MURTHY bl�. y,5 v � LIAR a � 19, AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON THAT BEING ALL OF LOT CERTAIN TRACT MAP ENTITLED ' PEREMONT TRACT UNIT 2, I'll, ; o RECORDED ON MAY 25, 1954, IN BOOK 50 OF MAPS AT PAGES 51 9 20-21, INCLUSIVE, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS. ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: � 2 - a F A HEM L: STING DFFD� 11 -PAID 15 EG DOC. NO. 19015632 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: E�y THE PROPOSED PROJECT CONSISTS OF ADDING A SINGLE STORY WITHIN THE ALLOWABLE SETEIACKS M AN WILL BE Z DOSING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. THE APPENDOMATE MMMUM AREA OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION aycyt, _ SL - 11 1,400 SQ. FT. WITH A MAMMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OF 18' FT. W OWNER NAME: PREPARER'S NAME: BHAGAVAN 9UPADANNA AND SAS K. MURTHY SIERRA WEST LAND SURVEYING, INC. � ICI a' J o � to SEC A - I1 _ 4f WOOD 6 xp• •y5165 FENCE £ 1528 5y65 EC DRIPLEDFIE EG a� (m,) �.. '.L AREA DECORATIVE PAVING \ FIR •..• .,1 \ ., I TIE •I. 1 A by 9\ 25'NC�{Dl615i? AAV J99-25 -014 DOC. NUJ. 13613179 185J1 AL).ENDALE AYE: L07 17,17RAC7 1195 46 M^PS 40-41 GRAPHIC SCALE m ^i ( IN FM) 1 i-h- 10 tL ....... __ ........ ......_._. ............. ............._ . .. _.._... .._... LAI. 6HOGH WOOD FENCE M88O247' \ p f z �p N 68'49'0 w. Afi• 7 \ zg g l 4.45 L-14.45 L -14.45 o-41'24 35 ROILED / \ , c \ G%IRB f Y R-40 00 L -1518 ......¢214317: 4iWr , JLL.GuTrr- \ Al ' P El / 4 CONCRETE tH. - PAsc it yr � �w- LAWN, AREA i 1a •y u 51 D q 1 E V \�C %t WEAET7TEEERRR BG . FAVIZ LINE RNVE A L ^� 11YEAxx \ BOJOS T:P� •� \ 'T SAVE DNE y yEb ,v<,yV EFEG ,1_ -' -ISM' b` • ' %•/•A6'1 y6 )_••- -x"��� rP t2uC1'F' {y 041 DE n '` CONCRETE :: aS1_V±'d•� _ A v(!EAY�1` f T .� _ .'Wf1DOQ M65 JO'40• �.. FENCE WHICH 152'p^p+OJA WOOD sc V FENCE BUILDING _ �EAVE LINE WOD HOUSERY LANDS DOr NO. 18951704 AIN J89-26- �lJ /t/yt / %ly/���J Jjn�%I!J!l /ll] %lIIJI /J/Ill� �4 76518 MOVIPER£ WAY (� COT 20, TRACT IJ24 50 MAPS 20-21 I C17-Y SARA TOGA SITE PLAN AND SURVEY 0 H OF THE LANDS OF SRIPADANNA / MURTHY bl�. 18524 MONTPERE WAY, SARATOGA, CA. a � 19, AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON THAT BEING ALL OF LOT CERTAIN TRACT MAP ENTITLED ' PEREMONT TRACT UNIT 2, I'll, ; o RECORDED ON MAY 25, 1954, IN BOOK 50 OF MAPS AT PAGES 20-21, INCLUSIVE, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS. ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: � i; � 369 -26 -022 a E2 1p L: STING DFFD� 11 °a 1°vv DOC. NO. 19015632 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: THE PROPOSED PROJECT CONSISTS OF ADDING A SINGLE STORY WITHIN THE ALLOWABLE SETEIACKS M AN WILL BE Z DOSING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. THE APPENDOMATE MMMUM AREA OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION �+ N 1,400 SQ. FT. WITH A MAMMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OF 18' FT. W OWNER NAME: PREPARER'S NAME: BHAGAVAN 9UPADANNA AND SAS K. MURTHY SIERRA WEST LAND SURVEYING, INC. � ICI a' J o � to 18524 MONTPERE WAY 1359 SAND HILL CT. p SARATOGA CA OAKDALE. CA 95361 C/0 HMC ARCHITECTURE 209) 645 -2773 p Y (408) 977 - 9160 (209) 645 -9042 FAX 1 IIWI G] (408) 977 -9170 FAX Fl OOD ON INFORMATION• y TONING INFORMATION: CINETN ZOMM R-1 -1%000 MM NAME CITY O SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA Y 9 91AIE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY PANEL NUMBER: 060351 0004 C MIMM M LOT AMA INTERIOR LOTS - 10,000 SOFT. EFFECTIVE DATE: JULY 3, 7997 g O MNDAY LR FRONTAGE 60 Fl. M MIJUM LOT WIDER 85 FT. ZONE: % h m MINIMUM LOT OPEN: His R' AREAS OF 500 -YEAR ROOD; AREAS OF MA)UN 97 COVERAGE 601 100 -YEAR ROOD WITH AVERAGE DEPTHS OF LESS THAN 1 FOOT OR WITH DRAINAGE MAMMM HEIGHT 26 FEET AREAS LESS THAN 1 SQUARE MILE. AND Q" SETBACK IFOI/ATOW. INTERIM LOTS AREAS PROTECTED BY LEVEES FROM .� FIRST FLOOR FROND. 25 FL 100 -YEAR FLOOD. SEE. 10 FT.. SITE USE TEAR 25 FF. r W " .. •. CURRENT USE SINGE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SECOND RWl fAOHH i5 R. USE SINGLE FAIRLY RESIDENTIAL (NO CHIANTI) > I PROPOSED SIDE 15 Fr. REAR: 15 FA. ADJOINING PROPERTY USE SINGLE FAMILY RE90FTR6LL �7 AGE OF STRUCTURE: BUILDING SETBACK VERIFICATION: PRIOR THE TH U C RD MAIL P A WRTF N E THE QTY. 7M 11AL O RECORD MAIL PROMOS HAS: 51 Y ERUCTED: 1955 A EtI THAT All BUILDING SETBACKS ARE AGE - 51 TEARS � � U �I R TH APPROVED PER THE APPROVID RAMS T � PARKING SPADES SINGLE FAMILY DRILLING - TWO COVETED A RAF p OP OF CI - l SPACES WTIRN A GARAGE. A - 0.195592 ACRES FEET L - 293 HEIGHT INFORMATION: I - 1 LL� LOWEST ELEVATION PT AT BUILDINGS EDGE -2524r ,00229(1)(7.) / A - S ELEVATION PT AT BUILDINGS EDGE - 25291' .00229 . 1 E 293 / 0.195592 - 3.43 25269' HIGHEST Q 0 D AVERAGE ELEVATION - TO' MOST ELEVATION POINT OF STRUCTURE - 263.24' HEIGHT - 10.55 1 AVERAGE SLOPE -3.43 1 7 !" IXTERIOR WAIL LENGTH: IMPERVIOUS SITE COVERAGE: // /'� Z EXSITNG COEAIM WALL LENGTH - 224.98 CARPORT - 1.639 50. T. SMITING E%SERIOR WALL TO BE DENOUSRED - 0 CARPORT - 413 SQ. FT. DRIVEWAY- Q Q Z (�Q:. PATIOS s 1.178 5Q. FT. PAVERS 316 M FT W Z W APN ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER TOTAL COVERAGE - 3.969 SO. FT. Q `� W {� BC BACK OF CURB PERCENT OF STE COVERAGE - 48.581 BL BUILDING LINE � CHAR CHIMNEY ALLOWABLE COVERAGE - 601 O Q CL CENTERLINE CO. COLUMN t. pt I OWAB F OOR AREA COR CORNER I FI CPHT CONTROL PUNT SIZE OF LOT - 8.520 SO. FT. O DIA. DIAMETER DOG NO. DOCUMENT NUMBER FLOOR AREA STANDARD: LOTS 5.000 10 000 EC EDGE OF CONCRETE SO. FT. PLUS 160 50. FT. FOft EVERY - 2.400 EIEC ELECTRICAL 1.000 SQ. FT. d: NET SITE AR EA OVER 5.000 N GRAS METER SQ. FT. NOR HEADER BOARD (FLUSH) ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA - 3,040 SO. FT. w IP IRON PIPE 8 JOINT POE (GOT ' I I'' ' .�. Oj PAVE ELEVA OWH PAV PAVEMENT SP PUNTR PLANTER (R) RADIAL RENO REDWOOD , D RE c• co VJ SLOPE A ROPE SSCO SANITAR Y SEWER CLEANO UT Z ssM SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE H SQ. FT. SQUARE FEET (TYP) TYPICAL WM WATER METER + EJI ^/F-- OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL AND TELEPHONE LINE eTeI SANITARY SEWER LINE - WATER LINE f - - - GAS LINE c c SUBJECT PROPERTY LINE _- CENTERLINE - BUILDING EAVE LINE BUILDING LINE ` TREE DRIPUNE - SHRUB DRIPUNE BASIS OF BEARINGS- THE BEARING SOUTH 21' 11' EAST, OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE CUL -DE -SAC BONG A PORTION OF MONTPFAE WAY, BETWEEN THE TWO FOUND MONUMENTS ON ME CENTERLINE OF SAID CL L -DE -SAC, AS SAID CENT RLUME AND MONUMENTS ARE SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN TRACT MAP ENTITLED 'PEREMONT TRACT UNIT 2. RECORDED IN BOOK 50 OF MAPS AT PAGE 21, SANTA GLARA COUNTY RECORDS, WAS USED AS THE BASS OF ALL BEARINGS SHOWN ON THIS MAR. BFNCHMARK: S.CV.W.O. BM -167 - BRASS DI% ON THE TOP OF THE CONCRETE ABUTMENT CAP AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER ; OF THE SP.RR. BRIDGE OVER SAN TOMAS CREEK IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA. - y ELEVATION - 279.43' DATUM: USC -GS NOVO 1929 NOTE.SL 1. DATE OF SURVEY: AUGUST Z2 2006. 2 ALL DISTANCES ARE SHOWN IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF. F 3. ALL BEARINGS ARE SHOWN IN DEGREES, MINUTES AND SECONDS. 4. UNDERGRWNO UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE APPROMMATE ONLY. 5, CONTOUR INTERVAL - 1 FOOT. tlIR YORS STATEMENT: .r � TIRIS NM ANO THE SURVEY ON .1. IT IS BASED WERE PREPARED BY ME OR PREPARED UNDER MY MPFt`nG1. BRADIEY A. BILBO PLS 6141 E)IP.: 03/31/08 DATE E MONTPERE WAY WLBNG �P - ®Q WDE) APN 3W26-021 RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY APN 1 US 26- 20 REESIDENSIDENTIAL PROPERTY 1� TI i 4 !�i M MONTPERE WAY PuaJGew -- na'wDEI GENERAL NOTES 1. RRIDR 10 FODNOATION WSPECDON BY i E ODY, THE DS OF RECORD SHNL PRO.'DE A WARREN CERTPMATDN ANT ALL 6UNDG SETBIGI6 ME PEA THE xPPROrID %ARE. 2 PRUEM NO PROMU NL DWW TP65 WRH 8' OW(OR GREATER) TRLNL 3. SEE CML SURREY PIAN MR FOR NL EIOSDNO TREE SOE, LOW MA SPECIES- RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VICINITY MAP CITY OF SARA TOGA RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY PROJECT SII t North RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ,. ... ...... <. PROJECT nTLE Remodel & Addition at SRIPADANNA RESIDENCE 18524 Montpere Way, Saratoga, CA. 95010 Ia Rll I 611E oenwo, I W. I REI S DATE North Pw,x�xR P,Rxx1K ov,s7o� DRAW NC T fl� SITE PLAN & CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPING PLAN ARCHRECT SCALE DRAWING N0. HoJi Sri padonno 33276enI -' A02 SITE PLAN 1 Santa Cl.. CA 95051. DATE Plane: IA0812960708 manta -- OF __ • DEMOLITION NOTES 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (0 M WOOD FDa - - - - CUTTING AND PATCHING FOR PROPER INSTALLATION OF MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT, AND FOR PROTECTION OF SEE PORrION ARCFI. on� ADJACENT CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING SHORING OF EXSTING STRUCTURE. �� 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE BMW OF R�M(ET PORTION 7— �c�c7vvvVVCCJCJC7cn7otx7c7. 7c7c7VC7VVVVC7gOObcX7JVt7VVVVVC 7VVC7VVC7VVGC70000cx7l7VVVC7VVVVVCC700oc7Cx7l7JC7VC7vVVVCICJ000OCx7 .'7VVt7VVVVC7VC�JO0ocx7�T WI .' YYYYYYYX�YYYYYYYY.X�YYYYYYXY.Y YYYYYYY.X�YYY Y Y YYXXXXXXYXY3(YY.X Y Y YYYX�YYYY Y Y. x { _ _ _ (E) ROOF AND DECK ALL DEMOLITION WITH DESIGN DRAV904CS AND REMOVE ONLY WHAT IS NECESSARY. 3. CUTTING AND WEAKENING OF EXISTING STRUCTURAL WALL FLOOR AND ROOF MEMBERS IS PROHIBITED x oWMn+W�WxMR�wr� II %j1j — - I I I <X UNLESS SPECIFIED ON THE DRAWINGS. II {<X - - -- x II II-- ------ ------- `-J' II I 4. REMOVE ALL INTERIOR B EXTERIOR FINISHES TO FACE OF STUD. II CX x II II �"�� jj r -_ II I <z 5. REMOVE ALL FLOOR FINISHES 6 PREPARE LEVEL pc x- 11 It _� I I I I r I I 1 {y If it 11 II II II IC_____�__ .___- AWWww�Wr___`i W( �<x SURFACES, SUFFICIENT FOR INSTALLATION OF 'WARM BOARD' RADIANT SYSTEM. x a - 11 II IFS\ a <k II I I �\ <X 6. REMOVE ALL EXISTING DOORS AND WINDOWS. 7. REMOVE ALL SHELVING CASEWORK, PLUMBING FIXTURES a X 1 11 I I 11 \ I I I I n fT 11 \ <X P' X II II UI \\ �j II �I 11 11 = = =a <Y 'syv S. REMOVAL. STORGE OF APPLIANCES SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH OWNER. x r7 Pr .,yvv- .T- v- v-rv�� x x xT xT xT aK 7tiKRRSC sc xzxzxx> x7r sr nx,KXx xx,K xx XR x x <x/.Xn/.� <xh 4xh <nT <x? <nh nnx nnJt x �,xYYY x.r/JxYSxv\S.�vJ.r `� Z'ivx YYY YY x'JYxwxwxwXw xYYXYY XXIOX x xT xTTTT x7T.a. xJ. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 9. REMOVE ALL LIGHT FIXTURES, ELECTRICAL WIRING k COMPONENTS, INCLUDING MAIN ELECTRICAL PANEL TT xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx xx xx xx xx xK <% x 'r YYwY�Y xv/J.rYSx.r/Jx.rS.�.nh.� x xL. Xnn Xnn Kx� <xh <xnh <nh nnk�xh h x x x A x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx,( xx.( xx,< xx.(Xx,K x x vx YYXYVx �wnxX kx YYxvY xv x?"o>1 X X'� xvvxYYxvvx`N�CYV Kn Kxn XnnX x x <nh nnh nnh x1l xy DYx�/Yx 10. REMOVE EXISTING RADIANT HEATING BOILER, WATER HEATER AND OTHER MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT COORDINATE WITH OWNER. x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Xx Xx Xx xx {x YYX YYx x x YvY xvYxy�xk�x X '�` ,2'�:YvY xY�xY�x xaKnOXxnYXx/�Xx�KxhCnh�nh�nnhl�xJ•/.BXch X x 'S x xJT�TTx x %xxxxx xx xx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx Xx -+(1 Xx x xx YY vx VX YXwXY XY Xy\�Xyl/hCy« ['r yvy�ri�i� ,�YJ,�(x x � k � x .xTT xT %xxxxx% xX XXXxXxxxxxxxxx Xx Kxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx YIX Kx <x,? <x axxOxxt%YV O'YxnYvx�X xvY~xv y�xy�xX(Qxa 11. CUTTING AND PATCHING OR REMOVAL OF UTILITIES (ABOVE OR BELOW GRADE), DURING CONSTRUCTION x j �yYW7 x�x .�1,Y �y /� K /� Xx� <x/�Xx� <nn/.nhYnnX x7•//��x? xh k kJ,Z.Xn %%XXXXXXX %X XXXX kX xx Xx XXXXI( X% Xxxxxxxx XXxxx XXXxx XXXXXXXxXX XX % <X K% X`/xXYxX YX YX YYYYXY X)OXy�/XyOXyQ � % %yy �(iiYY" .Yy y CK KnnnnntiXh x>. xX X x� CC C(( �zY�X�V SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH OWNER AND ASSOCIATED UTILITY COMPANY. k{�<TYy XXXX XX XXXX XX XXXXXXXXXXX Xxxx XXXXXxxxxxx XXx XXxxxxxx Xk ,($�+(Xx <X'<2/X <,^X X CC( k X VXYYYV�AO Xy�X �X M x �ykZ' xxxxxxxxxxx, xx kxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXx xxxxx Kx +CX' >r+`x"� '•'T+'x7 Y'`XX.29°/ > ACx/��Cn �x/. Cxnnnnxnv.x�/�xh/�xh,\n/�j�f/�x x NJ� x >� ,x >� x7X% xx XXXXXX X-4 XXk XXXXXX %XXXXXXX XXXXXXxxxxx XXXxx XXXx XXXXx) xX x� KX.<KX.0 KX O•(XY+(X�(XYxXYYYVYYy YXjrYXy�/Xy�/Xx�/X •vY� xPKx��x��cx /Y�nnnnXl�xnx.xn/�xh/�xhh tx X y�<`�Y % % % %� ?�Y to COW- MVMY S`�n�Sy x ?1J�1J,�� (K x X k k JJ..k x XXXXXXX XX Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx XXXXXX -%yK X%XXXXXXXXXXXX xX *XCy <% <% X (X X xXY ,(XYYVy YXk YXX YX }VXy� y x x x �xY��� xxxxx x x •(? •CT's a� 'fix Cx�nX.�nnlv�xnX.xn�.x xh x x -4 �tY- +E '/- K- x�- K�KYUUy- .,nr -k-� YYYY Xls zsx ti ztss 7c�s is xxxxx x xx,' X' <x X N. �X nXh <x Xx .Cx.xnn/�nxMx��,xn�.xnx.x xh x} k I<xaxxOxxYxxvxxy vxkvxk YxyQxy4xy<� x X�YxY x�YkYYk xxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxA xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xx xx kx xx?2<xj .Kx �TJ/.j. .(/�.� v YlX.tnXMX/Y�XnfxnJ.xhTXn/�x ? ^xi % �xyY kYY %?'Y kYY kYYX XX1(XX %XXXXXXXXXXX %XX XX %XXXXXXX )C TC JCxF x %XXxX %x% xX`CXX`Cx x%`Cx%_<(X O(XO <xY KN<, ) )':WyYxk YXX YYy Yxy�/XY xn xh X xx Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx%-%- xxy c - xycxxxxxxX'Xx- xx7C ) tXiFXyK7( +(ft'F+E X- `fX`CxX`!xx x xxY,(xY,(xy(xy �xy(xy YXk YxX YYX�xy� Cn/ inn /�<-,x /�xnnx/,nx/�/,xnJ.XnJ.xX x,Y XXXXXX %XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX%XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX xX xX`CXX`Cxx Yx:i xX`CxX`Cx% OKXY aK�YnY,(Xy (Xy (Xy (Xy (Xy YXX YYX YYX�XX ,(x <-,x x„ xc„ x. �--x- x-- x.a,c,c,c���,�vYV�.�.�.ryYx. NOrth ' " \ DEMOLITION ROOF PLAN 1 - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - 8' WOOD FETTLE � THE STUD FRWNG '2 OFM A o E TYP LEGEND ®SAWCUT <E> FLOOR SLAB /FOUNDATION NECSS II 7 I I I I I I I I I I I aq LL__ __ ______ ___ __________it II I REMOVE PORTION OF EXISTING ROOF & SHEATHING t I I I AN ATE F� SAW CUT Sue TO fAa,70E I I r- I I I sAw art vec�royIrJ�,t I1 �K( CrecwAY s I a mN r �-/� ��aoRCNKre 11 1 r 11 1 LL �jI II /yri�sTRUDram WONCS IC________..____ ___LL; r =3 REMOVE EXISTING WALL II II JJJ/ SrauDRM+x ORAwr4cs II 111 III`\\\ -\�\ (+' -[. (E) 2x4 WOOD STUD WALL TO REMAIN _ i A / II M;,�;1 L Ik 4FIt N I I , 4 DDPAWO it aEVwrelr a %7/1 KsrRUCnmk mAwiwMas �, /1 'II 11 1 1 II -- - - -�� tl 11 II � if _ -- / II II II - II (E) i. DRYMAY ;ET I 1 I Icy (E) POSTS. TYP. - P �/ T/ T/ 7777T717 /7/T/irir'T /4Fyt'------ � �� ��%7 �� No,❑, - - --- //' V � III - ... .. _ _ .. ... - LI nt I Yl %LL�/11L1 1 /1 %/�1/�iL� ProaN��°E (E\ Own FM I ° / , IExm1r v ExiRIOR reTx sraCUaL oRU1ws a d�NNEY. L i� -� x�1 / 0 0 ❑ / c = ==TI RdO,E (O POSTS, TV. \ \ \ / 11 L. 1 I (O caNC PANNC \` I \ � / PROJECT MU Remodel &Addition at -_ -\ ,----------- - - -- - \\ - SRIPADANNA RESIDENCE \ I� 18524 Montpere Way, Saratoga, CA. 95070 \ // \ \\ W RM90AS MTE W. REN S DATE // RFNO.E (E) WLL/MCE r GTE %p \ \ ansro� / p \ \\ \u� - -'- \` '" North DRAwiNC mU DEMOLITION PLAN - - -- \ ARCHRECT Hai Snpadanno an; as CA95051. Phone: (408) 296 0708 SCALE � D� Comm DRAWING N0. A03 -- oc -- DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN 1 1 /4' = 1'-0• T ll�i • FLOOR PLAN GENERAL NOTES 1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD, U.O.N. 2. SEE WINDOW SCHEDULE FOR WINDOW TYPES 3. SEE ROOF PLAN FOR CLfMSrORY WINDOW LOCATIONS 4. PROVIDE RI I BATT INSULATION OVER (E) ROOF 5. PROVIDE R30 THERMAL BATT INSULATION AT NEW ROOF 6. PROVIDE TYPE GYP. BOARD AT INTERIOR GARAGE WALLS. J. PROVIDE R11 INSULATION IN ALL EXTERIOR WALLS U.O.N. B. ALL INTERIOR WALLS SHALL RECEIVE GYP. BOARD (LEVEL 4) FINISH. BLOCK DIAGRAM OF <E> AND NEW CONSTRUCTION oO o o .............................. ............................... ............................... ............................... ..::...::::::::>::::: :::::::::::::::................ 16 -0' 13' -6' e3' -r 13' -9' I I (E13•-C V.IS. I 21'-4' t .............. ............................... t C-C A7 I E{ A]_—_—_—_—_—_—_— _— _— _- _— _— _— _— _— _— _— _- _— _ —_ —_-_ —_ —_ _ -- �_.�_ —_ — _�._— _— _- - _ —_ —_� _— _— _— _— _— _- _— _— _— _— _— _--- _ —_ —_ —_ LEGEND s 'M7 gS TOIL Bg I LE t� s1aWRC I ( 0 21 4 a 2x6 WOOD STUD WALL, SEE S.D. _ MZSM (E) 2x4 WOOD STUD WALL ° i ..1.......7 KITCHEN I 'a'.fi ale' Y PANTRY/ -. STORAGE s -10' 5' -s �+ i ® CONC. PAVING 4' THICK BEDROOM T r- t°QR-B' a1e' -e' STUDY j Y -0DOy6'a' s (AWN B—_ —_ —_ . o ¢ 171 ee 00th DOOR DINNING °'' ° WASHERR)RYE HOOD 7 -000x°R5a' s -0xe-e' I' I 2'-0- 2 CAR GARAGE °x°a' DRNEWAY ^ I _ - - - - -- - --- CLOSET CLOSET I (�Y B ° CONVRIm GARAGE fi. _2. E I ODOR s -n6*a. w GRACE -1 3'fi'a' j 1 I CORRIDOR I Y-OW - D _ _ —_ —_ —_ ____ r ' • -4- a e' DOOR , 3 e' e - le' -� --- - - -- -- T_ 0 CLOSET A] LIVING DOOR I A7 CLbSET }•;� I I _ T DUAL =' FIRE I' ooaa 3•- 0'718 -E' I WALK WAY /' / ..... as �.� I BEDROOM I _ I ] 4' -3' Ds 2-z I I - CONLREM PAVD5 `\ i Ij A7 A7 _— _— _— ___— _— _--- _- - -_ —_— _ - - - -_— / PRa1ECt TIRE \ / Remodel & Addition at -/ SRIPADANNA RESIDENCE / / 18524 Montpere Way, Saratoga, CA. 95010 ND REYl40N5 CATE W. REnows DATE Ww—' /VOrtn DRAWING Tnu FLOOR PLAN ARCHITECT Han Snpodanrw 3327 Benton St. SCALE DMWINC N0. A04 j FLOOR PLAN 1 DATE oe.lem Sant. Clara CA 95051. Phone: (408) 2960708 -_ C`-- 114". BNIDING OUR/K E 8 M I I I LEGEND EXISTING ROOF ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF TPO SINGLE ROOFING MEMBRANE GREEN ROOF \ NortA PRWECT TITEE Remodel & Addition at SRIPADANNA RESIDENCE 18524 Montpere Way, Saratoga, CA. 95070 RB! REVm DATE I W. 1 RET6 M I DATE North FLAT ROOF SPECIFICATIONS: �\ �`/J�} 1. WHITE, COOL ROOF CERTIFIED SINGLE MEMBRANE, 2. 60 MIL MEMBRANE MIN. �CH�� Hvi SripodannD 3. MECHANICALLY FASTENED, ORAWING NO. 4. ROOF SLOPE 1/4':12 TYP. 1 5. 1/4' OR 1/2- DENSE DECK UNDERLAYMENT 6. SLOPE : TAPPERED INSUILMON (BY ROOFING CONTRACTOR), UNLESS INDICATED AS RIP CUT BEAMS AS 5'o aCapnCA95Q51. INDICATED ON ROOF FRAMING PLAN (BY FRAMER) 7. 15 YEAR WARRANTY MIN. 1/4• =1'-0• 8. SEE ROOFING DETAILS FOR ADDRIONAL REOUIREMENTS. M I I I LEGEND EXISTING ROOF ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF TPO SINGLE ROOFING MEMBRANE GREEN ROOF \ NortA PRWECT TITEE Remodel & Addition at SRIPADANNA RESIDENCE 18524 Montpere Way, Saratoga, CA. 95070 RB! REVm DATE I W. 1 RET6 M I DATE North 1 1 I 1 1 �\ �`/J�} DMWING iRLE ROOF PLAN �CH�� Hvi SripodannD SCA E ORAWING NO. ROOF PLAN 1 A05 5'o aCapnCA95Q51. F E 1/4• =1'-0• Phone: 140BI 2960708 em • LEGEND WOOD SIDING ASPHALT SHINGLE RDOF CEMENT PLASTER • MEMO ' IN ME ff 0 N I M1 mill P-WEUT� Remodel& Addon at IMEM-01IMPMERM-71 Nil F=--1 SRIPADANNA RESIDENCE 18524 Montpere Way, SaTatogo, CA. 95070 n"' Mk L. PLASU 25'-0* WN. MLE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS NORTH ELEVATION EXTERIOR ELEVATION S-10 'V-1th T I T T T SECTION B-B —,rA -6wmvndlp _1190, rneE T.O. PARAPU KITCHEN LIVING ROOM DaMR.RIDE GPAK ... ... . . SECTION D-D D T T (E) 3:12 7- " " Ril —00 v Al o " "' l "DO R l GARAGE BOILER ry 7C U ) 0 0 7C) 7C) 0 OL 0 n 7M.IV MOW LO 45k LO 00 i. i� Tt 4_ V) 0 I-- LL E 0 V) AL i. i� Tt 4_ V) 0 I-- LL E 0 V) Item 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. & Location: 06 -118: 20951 Canyon View Drive Type of Application: Design Review & Variance Application #06 -118 Applicant/Owner: Hash emi ch/S arn evesh Staff Planner: Heather Bradley, Contract Planner Meeting Date: October 24, 2007 APN: 503 -28 -008 Department Head: John F. Livingston-K, AICP Y. M1C r °sr $ 6?, r,°�°_1L ro C^•I E� HAE LS ]°fs° s ' \� ,.• ^...>' 7 A WAY �N \W �2 L K • Y. ; D a �� 5 i spa 9 ° r•' 102 AC. R k >d�a �y ''.•i 1 4 ra> r ras ....L�ASl.iL ,>° • \� as •. a~';F p Y IB r.rrrs 2$ 27- Trt>!•,r C $! , � � ', t > `• var J...I; 3 rya °f` Y 't fps a ,hY�• ; ! a Y.'•., i 36 n . 3S 34 � '' Sr 1�a !9 30 •'° {j.`'��'c•`�r i� 6 y, •`�',c./�t'� t t Y! : �;�'�''.i..,' .�� � _ s; 5. / !, , y�� 23 '•rOT6/s ':.V R eti.YY'-:x• J Y'•., : rr t 32 29 D ?a` 22 . as l D l� h .. _ a 3 rasa, 58 r v� 7 h h ,ya° .,� `gr`� •'d; ` 7 net ! "'21 20 ` 7 a ` K I^n� to ,1, t 13 ` K � e e � � •••" . r` zi 1 16 1 to . .s� . >;•Y +r _. oar r 9 y y° '.s ±� / r, 9 o # 69 .. 63 ! ,P 65, f -v. .♦ Q3t�. � -70 AI 74 135 Nstf.as 2 t 11 12 110 are, o y� a J'Y� rs �tt •: >� FC `a: w r �ayc Y SUBJECT: 134 �''••. ;•)' Canyon View @ Fourth �� �� =y. t' -.,;:� APN: 503 -28 -008 Z38 AC. �,' Ac. PLAN. '' ,g2 500' Radius 20951 Canyon View Drive 110 are, o y� a J'Y� rs �tt •: >� FC `a: w r �ayc Y SUBJECT: 134 �''••. ;•)' Canyon View @ Fourth �� �� =y. t' -.,;:� APN: 503 -28 -008 Z38 AC. �,' Ac. PLAN. '' ,g2 500' Radius 20951 Canyon View Drive Application No. 06 -118; 20951 Canyon View Drive PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting Design Review and Variance approval to construct an approximately 3,635 square foot two -story split level home with a basement on a vacant lot. The average slope of the lot is 39.7% sloping downward toward Canyon View Drive. Pursuant to City Code Section 15- 12.061, the average slope beneath a structure shall not exceed 30% slope. Therefore, in addition to Design Review approval, the applicant is requesting approval of a Variance as specified in City Code Section 15- 12.061(a) for the building site and pool site. The property is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the applications for Design Review and Variance for the building site by adopting the attached Resolution of Approval. Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission deny the application for Variance for the pool site by adopting the attached Resolution of Denial. Staff is recommending one permanent condition of approval for this project aimed at preserving the view corridor of a neighbor at 21011 Canyon View Drive. • 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 09/22/05 Application complete: 09/24/07 Notice published: 10/10/07 Mailing completed: 10/15/07 Posting completed: 10/18/07 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting Design Review and Variance approval to construct an approximately 3,635 square foot two -story split level home with a basement on a vacant lot. The average slope of the lot is 39.7% sloping downward toward Canyon View Drive. Pursuant to City Code Section 15- 12.061, the average slope beneath a structure shall not exceed 30% slope. Therefore, in addition to Design Review approval, the applicant is requesting approval of a Variance as specified in City Code Section 15- 12.061(a) for the building site and pool site. The property is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the applications for Design Review and Variance for the building site by adopting the attached Resolution of Approval. Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission deny the application for Variance for the pool site by adopting the attached Resolution of Denial. Staff is recommending one permanent condition of approval for this project aimed at preserving the view corridor of a neighbor at 21011 Canyon View Drive. • 2 Application No. 06 -118; 20951 Canyon View Drive 9 PROJECT DATA ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential — Very Low Density MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: Approximately 32,670 gross and net square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Approximately 39.7% GRADING REQUIRED: 3,196 cubic yards of cut (excluding basement) 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 an Earthtone green body color, with a darker green and Mahogany for the trim and accents details. Materials include horizontal wood -style siding, dry -stack stone veneer retaining walls, a composite roof in a dark gray palette, double -hung wood windows and a carriage style garage door. A color and material board will be available at the public hearing. • Application No. 06 -118; 20951 Canyon View Drive PROJECT DATA • ** The lot is substandard in width; thereiore the requirea siae yarn seTOacxs are iv- pciccii� �� „� avciarc W . which is 13.2 feet, the second floor setback is required to-be an additional 5 feet . PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting Design Review and Variance approval to construct an approximately 3,635 square foot two -story split - level home on a vacant lot. The average slope of the lot is 39.7 %. Pursuant- to City Code Section 15- 12.061, the average slope beneath a structure (including pools) shall not exceed 30% slope, therefore, the applicant is requesting approval of a Variance as specified in City Code Section 15- 12.061(a) for the building footprint and pool. History This application was submitted on September 22, 2005 and was discussed at the Planning Commission's Study Session of October 25th 2006. At that time the applicant was proposing a 3,880 square foot modern Mediterranean -style house. The Commission directed the applicant to 4 Proposal Code Requirements Site Coverage Residence 2,666 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable: Driveway /Walks 3,400 sq. ft. 35% = 11,434 sq. ft. max. Pool/Patio 1,881 sq. ft. TOTAL 7,947 sq. ft. 24.3% Floor Area Lower Floor 130 sq. ft. Middle Floor 1,580 sq. ft. Upper Floor - 1,518 sq. ft. Garage 407 sq. ft. (Basement) (1,620 sq. ft.) TOTAL 3,635 sq. ft. 3,880 sq. ft. Structure Setbacks First - Second First - Second Front yard 33 ft — 40 ft. 30 ft. — 30A. Rear Yard 160 ft. — 160 ft. 50 ft. — 60A. Right Side 40 ft. — 40 ft. 13.2 ft. —18.2 ft. ** Left Side 15 ft. — 20 ft. 13.2 ft. — 18.2 ft. ** Pool Setback . Right Side 15 ft 13.2 ft. Height -in feet, elevation 572 ft. Maximum height = 608 Highest elevation 592 ft. ft. elevation (26 ft.) Average Elevation 582 ft. Topmost elevation 607 ft. Maximum height 25.0 ft. ** The lot is substandard in width; thereiore the requirea siae yarn seTOacxs are iv- pciccii� �� „� avciarc W . which is 13.2 feet, the second floor setback is required to-be an additional 5 feet . PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting Design Review and Variance approval to construct an approximately 3,635 square foot two -story split - level home on a vacant lot. The average slope of the lot is 39.7 %. Pursuant- to City Code Section 15- 12.061, the average slope beneath a structure (including pools) shall not exceed 30% slope, therefore, the applicant is requesting approval of a Variance as specified in City Code Section 15- 12.061(a) for the building footprint and pool. History This application was submitted on September 22, 2005 and was discussed at the Planning Commission's Study Session of October 25th 2006. At that time the applicant was proposing a 3,880 square foot modern Mediterranean -style house. The Commission directed the applicant to 4 Application No. 06 -118; 20951 Canyon View Drive change the architectural style, reduce the bulk and mass of the house, and bring down the overall square footage and grading quantities. Since that time the Planning Division staff have had several meetings with the applicant and architect to work on revisions to the plans. The original Mediterranean -style design showed a flat roof, terraced floor levels and stucco exterior. Retaining walls were proposed in the front yard to accommodate a circular driveway and swimming pool and terraced yard area were proposed at the rear. On July 11`h, 2007 the applicants presented a revised plan to the Planning Commission at another Study Session meeting. These plans were in a rough sketch form, but showed a craftsman style design with a smaller footprint than the original proposal and significantly less grading since all of the rear yard improvements had been eliminated. At that meeting the Planning Commission commented that the project had been significantly improved and encouraged the applicant to proceed with the new design. Project Design Characteristics The proposed home is a split - level, designed to take advantage of the steep slope and minimize grading by cutting the structure into the hillside and stepping it back along the contours of the site. The home is long from side to side, but narrow from front to back. A circular driveway is proposed within the front yard and terraced retaining walls have been carefully designed to meet the height and setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. A small pool, spa and patio area are proposed off the right side of the house. The home has been designed as a craftsman style with horizontal wood siding, wood columns, decorative wood rafters and gable roof braces, clipped gable roof forms, wood windows and wood carriage -style garage doors. Correspondence and Neighbor Review The applicants attempted to contact 16 adjacent neighbors by mail, but to date Planning Staff has received only one Neighbor Notification form from a neighboring property owner (please refer to attachment 4). Staff also received correspondence from a neighbor to the left who expressed concerns with loss of views if tall growing trees are planted in their view corridor. Staff has included a condition of approval that no trees or shrubs be planted along the left side property line that would grow taller than 15 feet. The applicant has also informed Staff that they will try to get Neighbor Notification forms from their adjacent neighbors prior to the Public Hearing. City notices have been sent out for this meeting and both of the two previous Study Sessions. Fencing A six -foot fence is proposed at the back of the house and around the property line. Retaining walls will be needed at the front of the house and at the rear. There will be three parallel retaining walls at the front of the house located within the front setback. Each wall is not more that three feet tall and will be separated by five feet. These walls will be faced with a decorative stone veneer. A six -foot retaining wall is proposed at the rear of the residence, and around the 40 pool and patio area. 5 Application No. 06 -118; 20951 Canyon View Drive GeotechnicaUGrading This application has undergone a substantial geotechnical peer review given the characteristics of the site. On May 4�h, 2006 a geotechnical clearance was granted by the City Geotechnical Engineer. The project proposes a total of 3,196 cubic yards of cut with a negligible amount of fill proposed. The home is designed to take advantage of the contours of the site, by stepping the floors and running them parallel to the contours. The majority of the proposed cut is in the driveway, with approximately 1,4.09 cubic yards. The house and garage will require 1,230 cubic yards (the basement will be an additional 750 cubic yards which is not counted toward total grading quantities), and the proposed pool and patio area would add another 557 cubic yards. Arborist Review /Trees An Arborist report was prepared on October 5, 2005 by David Babby, consulting Arborist. Since that time the building footprint and rear yard grading have changed slightly and the City Arborist has reviewed the revised plans and provided updated comments which have also been included in the attachment. , There are. 22 trees on or adjacent to this site that are regulated by City Ordinance. Of these nine are coast live oaks, six are Monterey pines, two are olives and five are fruit trees. The proposed design requires removal of nine trees with a total appraised value of $2,430. The City. Arborist has recommended replacement at the full value, and tree protective fencing to protect' trees on neighboring properties. Landscaping A landscape plan has been submitted which shows 24" box oaks located on the sides of the house for screening as well as 24" box olive and Japanese maples along the rear of the house. 24" box Eastern redbuds and crepe myrtles are proposed at the front of the house adjacent to the street: Staff has received a letter from a neighbor on Canyon View who shares a portion of the left side property line. That neighbor has asked that no tall trees be planted adjacent to their property line so that they can maintain their views. Staff has added a condition in the Resolution for.the landscape plan to be modified to accommodate the neighbors' request and show that no trees of shrubs -be planted which grow taller than 15 feet in height. Staff has made this a permanent condition of approval. Green Building Techniques The "applicant proposes to use insulated concrete with high volume flyash content (virtually no ' construction waste), engineered wood .and Forest Certified Council (FSC) wood for trusses, sub- floors and framing, engineered wood decking, low or zero VOC paint and adhesives, cellulose insulation, LED exterior lighting; double pane energy efficient windows, and energy star appliances. Additionally the house is cut into the hillside and will have passive insulation. G • is • Application No. 06 -118; 20951 Canyon View Drive 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 be stepped back into the hillside to help lessen the visual impacts of construction on the site,. the design will utilize Earthtone colors and materials that will blend with the overall appearance of the site. Most mature landscaping will be retained as part of the project and new landscape will be planted to help to screen the project from neighboring properties and the street. The proposal has decorative elements such as horizontal siding, wood trim and details, and stone veneer on the retaining walls that provide interest to the fagade and promote 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 project is situated at a lower elevation than many of the surrounding homes with a substantial setback to the rear. Consideration has been given to the neighbor's views and privacy through window placement, and additional tree plantings. Staff has further conditioned the project to eliminate tall growing trees at the left side (south) property line to preserve the neighbors view. This finding can be made in the affirmative. b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Proposed grading and topographical changes have been limited to the structure and driveway with only a small additional area proposed for a patio and pool. Most of the mature landscaping on the site will remain and additional plantings are proposed. 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 retained on site will be adequately protected during the construction process with tree fencing and only a limited number of low value trees will be removed. No heritage trees are located on this site. 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 7 Application No. 06- 118; 20951 Canyon View Drive roofline will create interest and add detail to the fagades. 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. stepping the house into the hillside and using appropriate window placement and setbacks and adding additional trees for screening. This finding can be made in the affirmative. - . VARIANCE Pursuant to City Code 15- 19.020 (d), the average slope beneath a structure (including pools) shall not exceed 30- percent slope. The property has a continuous average slope of 39.7 - percent which holds true at'the building and pool footprint as well. Therefore, the Variance application is necessary to allow any structure to be built on this parcel and to allow the proposed pool. While staff is: able to support the Variance findings for the proposed house as explained in the following, staff is not able to make these findings to support the variance for the proposed pool and has prepared a Resolution for denial for the Variance relating to the pool. VARIANCE FINDINGS The proposed residence is supported by the findings for Variance approval subject to City Code 15- 70.060:, (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulations would deprive "the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in. the same zoning district. Due to the steep topography of the site, construction of any structure would not be possible without the granting of a Variance and the property is a legal lot of record. Staff has determined that the structure is consistent with all'.of the Design Review findings and that denying the development due to slope would be an undue hardship and deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners and businesses -in the vicinity. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. That the granting o the variance will not constitute a rant o special privilege (b) g g f g f inconsistent with the imitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same 8 Application No. 06 -118; 20951 Canyon View Drive zoning district. Granting of this Variance request would not be a grant of special privilege in ithat many of the homes in this neighborhood would have been built on properties with a similar slope and would have been granted a variance or were built at a time that predates City Zoning Code regulations for variances. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. (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. The granting of this Variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safely or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The building will be required to meet the current California Building Code Standards and has received a Geotechnical Clearance conditions that will be met. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. The proposed pool is not supported by two to the three findings for Variance approval subject to City Code 15- 70.060: (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. It is not a deprivation to deny the variance application for a pool on this lot as this is a neighborhood of steeply sloped lots, and pools are only constructed on those properties with areas of level ground where a variance is not required for their approval. Therefore, this finding cannot be made in the affirmative. (b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the imitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. Granting of this Variance would be a grant of special privilege in that there are very few pools in this neighborhood and those would have been built on properties with a level area so that a variance approval would not be required. Therefore, this finding cannot be made in the affirmative. (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. The granting of this Variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safely or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The pool would be required to meet the current California Building Code Standards and Geotechnical Clearance conditions would be met. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. CONCLUSION Staff finds that all of the Design Review and Variance findings can be made in the affirmative to support construction of the residence and the proposal is consistent with the General Plan. 0 0J Application No. 06 -118; 20951 Canyon View Drive STAFF RECOMMENDATION Commission approve the Design Staff recommends the Planning Co pp Review and Variance application for the residence and deny the Variance application for the pool by adopting the attached Resolutions. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution of Approval - Design Review & Variance for the residnece 2. Resolution of Denial —Variance for the pool 3. Arborist Reports of October 3, 2005 and October 12, 2007 4. Neighbor Notification forms 5. Correspondence 6. Green Building Strategies 7. City of Saratoga Notice, Noticing Affidavit, and Noticing Labels 8. Applicant's Plans, Exhibit "A" 1 10 • 0 ATTACHMENT 1 • Application No. 06 -118;. 20951 Canyon View Drive RESOLUTION NO._ Application No. 06 -118 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Sarnevesht/Hashemieh; 20951 Canyon View Drive Approval of a new two -story split -level residence with attached garage WHEREAS,, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review and Variance approval to construct a new 3,635 square foot residence. The new residence will not be more that 26 ft. in height and will be situated on a 32,670 square foot lot located at 20951 Canyon View Drive, which is located in the R -1- 40,000 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 new single - family residence, is Categorically exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15.303(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 be stepped back into the hillside to help lessen the visual impacts of construction on the site, the design will utilize Earthtone colors and materials that will blend with the overall appearance of the site. Most mature landscaping will be retained as part of the project and new landscape will be planted to help to screen the project from neighboring properties and the street. The proposal has decorative elements such as horizontal siding, wood trim and details, and stone veneer on the retaining walls that provide interest to the faeade and 'promote 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: a) Avoid un' reasonable 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. 1 • • • Application No. 06 -118; 20951 Canyon View Drive The project is situated with at a lower elevation than many of the surrounding homes with a substantial setback to the rear. Consideration has been given to the neighbor's views and privacy through window placement, and additional tree plantings. Staff has further conditioned the project to eliminate tall growing trees at the left side (south) property line to preserve the neighbors view. This finding can be made in the affirmative. b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Proposed grading and topographical changes have been limited to the structure and driveway with only a small additional area proposed for a patio and pool. Most of the mature landscaping on the site will remain and additional plantings are proposed. 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 retained on site will be adequately protected during the construction process with tree fencing and only a limited number of low value trees will be removed. No heritage trees are located on this site. 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 fagades. 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 stepping the house into the hillside and using appropriate window placement and setbacks and adding additional trees for screening. This finding can be made in the affirmative. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Variance approval for the proposed residence, in accordance with the following findings of Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 70.060: (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. Due to the steep topography of the site, construction of any structure would not be possible without the granting of a Variance 2 Application No. 06 -118; 20951 Canyon View Drive and the property is a legal lot of record. Staff has determined that the structure is consistent. with all of the Design Review findings and that denying the development due to" slope would be an undue hardship and deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners and businesses in the vicinity. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. (b) That 'the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the. imitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. Granting of this Variance request would not be a grant of special privilege in that many of the homes in this neighborhood would have been built on properties with a similar slope and would have been granted a variance or were built at a time that predates City Zoning Code regulations for variances. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. (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. The granting of this Variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safely or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The building will be required to meet the current California Building Code Standards and has received a Geotechnical Clearance conditions that will be met. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. 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 06 -118 for Design Review and Variance - approval for the new residence is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: . PERMANENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. In order to preserve the view corridor of the left side neighbors at 21011 Canyon View Drive (APN 503 -28 -013), no trees or shrubs of a variety that grows taller than 15 feet shall be planted. along the left side (southwest) of the property within said view corridor. Prior to issuance of building permits this condition shall be recorded as a deed restriction with documentation submitted to the Community Development Director. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. = 17-. The proposed home' shall be located and constructed as shown on "Exhibit A (incorporated by reference, rdate :.stamped October 12, 2007) as modified on the appropriate Sheets to eliminate all reference to the pool. A redesign of the patio shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director and in compliance with the conditions stated in this Resolution. 18. Any proposed minor changes- including but not limited to faeade 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 3 • Application No. 06 -118; 20951 Canyon View Drive 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. 19. The Landscape Plan sheet L2 shall be modified to show that proposed trees and shrubs along the left side of the property be a variety that shall not grow taller than 15 feet in height, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director and the City Arborist. 20. The project shall use materials and colors as illustrated on the Finish Materials Board dated stamped October 12, 2007. 21. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 22. 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." 23. 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. 24. Water and/or runoff from the project site shall not be directed toward the adjacent properties. 25. 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. ARBORIST 11. All recommendations of the Arborist Reports dated October 3, 2005 and October 12, 2007, are incorporated herein by this reference and shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. 12. Tree protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist, shall be installed and inspected by Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. The tree notes on Sheet L -1 shall be deleted. Tree numbers shall conform to those in the October 3, 2005 arborist report. 13. Trees shall be numbered on the Site Plan, Sheet A -1, according to the arborist report dated October 3, 2005. All trees shall be shown on this plan and those that require removal shall be clearly indicated. Removal of trees #1 — 8, 16, 19 and 20 may occur following issuance of building division permits. 4 Application No. 06 -118; 20951 Canyon View Drive 14. Owner shall plant ten 24 inch box trees following construction to replace removed trees. A minimum of five -trees shall be of one of the native species listed above in the body of this report. 15. Prior to issuance of Building Permits the applicant shall obtain a tree bond, or similar funding mechanism as approved by the Community Development Director, in the amount of $9,400.00 to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees. 16. The .City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The -bond shall be released after the planting of required replacement trees, a favorable site inspection by the City Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. 17. A Tree protective fencing plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of any building division permits. The notes on tree protective fencing on Sheet C -1 shall be deleted. Tree protective fencing shall conform to #13 of the arorist report dated October 3, 2005. Locations for tree protective fencing shall be clearly shown on the site plan. 18. Tree protective fencing shall be installed prior to any grading or the arrival of construction equipment, onmaterials 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 19. A specific shoring plan shall be prepared for the project. The layout and design details of any, proposed- soil nails shall be detailed. The maximum unsupported height of excavation; prior to soil nail /shoring placement shall be specified. The shoring plan shall be, pre. pared by a structural or civil engineer. Appropriate documentation to address the above shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of permits for project construction. 20. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements, construction shoring - plans and design parameters for foundations) to confirm that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations. The consultant shall review structural calculations for all project retaining walls to verify that appropriate geotechnical design parameters have been utilized.. The. results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a`letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of permits for project construction. 21. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading; site surface and subsurface 5 • Application No. 06 -118; 20951 Canyon View Drive drainage improvements, and foundation (pier drilling) construction, prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. The project Geologist shall be present during initial site excavation to conclusively determine site bedrock structure, and the potential for adverse bedding or other discontinuity orientations. Periodic inspections of site excavations shall be performed by the Project Geologist during project construction. Discovery of any adverse bedrock structure conditions shall immediately be brought to the attention of the Project Geotechnical Consultant and the City Building Official. Appropriate design modifications shall be completed, as necessary, to ensure the stability of site slopes. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and Project Geologist in a letters and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final (as- built) Project Approval. 22. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 23. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless form any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. FIRE DEPARTMENT 24. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Saratoga Fire District. CITY ATTORNEY 25. 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. Application No. 06 -118; 20951 Canyon View Drive PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 24th day of October 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. Property Owner Date 7 • 0 ATTACHMENT 2 • Application No. 06 -118; 20951 Canyon View Drive RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 06 -118 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Sarnevesht/Hasbemieh; 20951 Canyon View Drive Denial of Variance for pool on greater than 30% slope WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received a Variance application to allow a proposed pool to be constructed with a greater than 30% slope at the pool footprint; 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 new 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 not met the burden of proof required to support said application for Variance approval for the proposed pool, and the following findings have not been determined: (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. It is not a deprivation to deny the variance application for a pool on this lot as this is a neighborhood of steeply sloped lots and pools are only constructed on those properties with areas of level ground where a variance is not required for their approval. Therefore, this finding cannot be made in the affirmative. (b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the imitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. Granting of this Variance would be a grant of special privilege in that there are very few pools in this neighborhood and those would have been built on properties with a level area so that a variance approval would not be required. Therefore, this finding cannot be made in the affirmative. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: • Application No. 06 -118; 20951 Canyon View Drive After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Samevesht/Hashemieh for Variance approval has been denied. 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 24th day of October 2007 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Joyce Hlava, Chair, Planning Commission 0 ATTEST: • John F. Livingstone, A1CP, Secretary, Planning Commission 2 ATTACHMENT 3 0 • • Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Califomia 95070 Canyon View Drive at 4th Street ARBORIST REPORT APN 503 -28 -008 Owner: Hashemieh and Samevesh INTRODUCTION Application #:06 -118 October 12, 2007 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Phone (408) 868 -1276 The property owners of the vacant lot on Canyon View Drive at 4th Street have submitted plans to build a new single family house and swimming pool on the property. An arborist report by David Babby dated October 3, 2005 reviewing the impact of the project on 22 trees on the site was reviewed. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheet C -1, Grading and Drainage Plan by ADCO Engineering, dated September 21, 2007, a Cover Sheet, Sheets A -1 through A -4, Site Sections, Floor Plan and Elevations, no date, by Design Group, Inc. and Sheets L -1 and L -2, Landscape Plans, dated September 2007 and prepared by HLD Group Landscape Architecture. SITE OBSERVATIONS, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION The site plan does not show trees that are in conflict with the project and should show all trees whether they are in conflict with the design or not. If removal is necessary to construct the project, this should be clearly indicated on the drawings. Trees should be numbered on the site plan and all other plan sheets where trees are indicated using the numbers in the arborisi report dated October 3, 2005. Sheet L -1, the landscape concept, shows all trees numbered, but uses different numbers than those in the arborist report prepared for the project. It also includes recommendations to retain or remove trees that are not from the arborist report. This information should be deleted from the plan set and information from the arborist report prepared by David Babby should be used instead if desired. A significant cut into the hill of this lot is required in order to create a level area for the house and yard. Trees #1 — 8, 16, 19 and 20 will require removal to construct the house. Their total appraised value is $4,990. Most of the trees requiring removal are small orchard trees in fair or poor condition. Four small coast live oaks also.require removal. This is acceptable as the site would be better served by removing and replacing these trees than by trying to protect them. Ten 24 inch box trees of native and ornamental species would be acceptable replacements, with five total from the City's list of natives. Retaining walls and drainage should be designed so that no excavation is necessary underneath the neighbor's Monterey pine ( #22), as damage to the root system could kill the tree. Sheet L -2, the planting plan, shows a selection of trees to plant following construction of the house. The legend includes medium screening trees, but none are indicated on the plan. Either they should be added Canyon View Drive at 4th Street to the plan, or deleted from the legend. The species indicated are all acceptable for the project. The ones that would satisfy the requirement for a native species include the coast live oak, the blue oak and the redwood. Other acceptable native species include the Douglas fir (Pseiudotsuga menziesii), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), California buckeye (Aesculus Californica), valley oak (Quercus lobata) and black oak (Quercus kellogii). Per City Ordinance 15- 50.080, a bond in the amount of $9,400, which is equal to 100% of the total appraised value of trees 9, 12, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, is required. This is modified from the original bond amount of $13,990, based on revised plans impact fewer trees. Appraisal values are calculated according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 91" Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The arborist report dated October 3, 2005 and this arborist report shall be included in the final building plans in their entirety. 2. Trees shall be numbered on the Site Plan, Sheet A -1, according to the arborist report dated October 3, 2005. All trees shall be shown on this plan and those that require removal shall be clearly indicated. 3. Owner shall obtain a tree protection bond in the amount of $9,400 prior to obtaining building division permits. The bond shall remain in place for the duration of the construction project to ensure the protection of the trees. Once the project has been completed and inspected by the City Arborist, the bond can be released. 4. Removal of trees #1 — 8, 16, 19 and 20 is acceptable to construct the project. Removal may occur following issuance of building division permits. 5. Owner shall plant ten 24 inch box trees following construction to replace removed trees. A minimum of five trees shall be of one of the native species listed above in the body of this report. 6. The notes on tree protective fencing on Sheet C -1 shall be deleted. Tree protective fencing shall conform to #13 of the arborist report dated October 3, 2005. Locations for tree protective fencing shall be clearly shown on the site plan. 7. The tree notes on Sheet L -1 shall be deleted. Tree numbers shall conform to those in the October 3, 2005 arborist report. Page 2 of 2 • f ^r ARBORRESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF A PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT 8 CANYON VIEW DRIVE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: Hashemieh & Sarnevesht APN M 503 -28 -008 APPLICATION #: 06 -118 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE -4001A October 3, 2005 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources @comcast.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.240.0777 • Licensed Contractor #796763 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist October 3, 2005 INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the proposal to construct a residence on a vacant lot at 8 Canyon View Drive (Canyon View Drive at 4th Street), Saratoga. This report presents my findings and recommendations. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheet G &D -1 (Grading and Drainage Plan by ADCO Engineering, dated 9/15/05) and Sheets L -1 and L -2 (Landscape Plans by HLD Group, dated 9105), The trees' locations, numbers and approximate canopy dimensions are presented on an attached copy of Sheet L -1 (Landscape Site Plan). The trees are sequentially numbered from 1 thru 22 and are identified on site by numbered ribbons attached to the canopies or trunks. Please note that this report includes only those trees deemed to be of Ordinance -size. In doing so, the numbers shown on Sheet L -1 do not reflect those within this report. FINDINGS There are 22 trees inventoried for this report that are regulated by City Ordinance and exposed to potential impacts during site development. They include nine Coast Live Oaks ( #2, 8, 9, 12 -16, 19); six Monterey Pines ( #10, 11, 17, 18, 21, 22); two Olive trees ( #3, 4); and five fruit Trees ( #1, 5 -7, 20). Specific data compiled for each is presented on the attached table. Trees #2, 11, 13 -15 and 21 are not presented on the proposed plans and must be added. Their locations as presented on the attached map are approximate and should not be construed as being surveyed. The proposed design requires the removal of nine trees that include #1, 3 -8, 19 and 20. Given their species, size and/or overall condition, I recommend their removal be permitted for development and mitigation include the installation of trees (of native origin) equivalent to their combined appraised value of $2,430. By implementing the proposed design, tree #22 would be severely damaged and expected to decline. As this tree is situated on the neighboring property and appears worthy of retention, revisions to the grading design are necessary to achieve a reasonable assurance of its survival. In doing so, I recommend the wall is established at least 12 feet from its tree's trunk to allow a 10 -foot minimum setback from its trunk for any soil cuts or disturbance. The bond amount required for adhering to the recommendations presented in this report is determined to be $11990.' This amount represents the combined value of trees being retained and is calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9'h Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. Hashemieh & Sarnevesht Property, 8 Canyon View Drive, Saratoga Page I oJ4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department r1 L • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist October 3, 2005 RECOMMENDATIONS All recommendations presented below are intended to serve as measures to mitigate the foreseeable impacts to Ordinance -sized trees on site and adjacent properties. They should be carefully followed and incorporated into construction plans. Should the plans be revised, the recommendations may require modification. Design Guidelines 1. The trunk locations and canopy dimensions of trees #2, 11, 13 -15 and 21 should be surveyed and presented on Sheets G &D -1 and L -1. Additionally, trees being retained should be shown on Sheet L -2 (Proposed Landscape Plan). 2. The numbers assigned to trees within this report should be shown on the aforementioned plans. I also recommend the `Existing Tree Legend' presented on Sheet L -1 is either omitted or revised to reflect information presented on the attached table. 3. The proposed retaining wall beneath tree #22's canopy shall be revised so no grading or trenching occurs within 10 feet from tree #22's trunk. In doing so, and to comply with the following recommendation, the wall should be established at least 12 feet from the trunk. 4. The proposed retaining walls within 10 feet of tree #2 and 12 feet of tree #22 should require no more than a two -foot overcut for drainage purposes. 5. The drainage design for the project, including downspouts, must not require water being discharged beneath the canopies or towards the trunks of retained trees. Additionally, swales, drain lines and dissipaters should be established outside from the designated fenced areas presented on the attached map. 6. All underground utilities and services should be designed outside from beneath the canopies of retained trees. I should be consulted in the event this is not possible. 7. Plans for landscaping the backyard should be reviewed for tree impacts prior to implementation. 8. This entire report should be incorporated into the set of final building plans and be titled Sheet T -1 (Tree Protection Instructions). Additionally, the Site Plan should show the location of protective fencing as identified on the attached map. 9. The notes shown on Sheet G &D -1 should be revised, if needed, to conform with recommendations specified within this report. 10. The scale presented on Sheet G &D -1 slightly differs from its reported scale of I " =20'. The plan should be adjusted accordingly. Hashemieh & Sarnevesht Property, 8 Canyon View Drive, Saratoga Page 2 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department • • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist October 3, 2005 11. Mitigation for the removal of trees #1, 3 -8, 19 and 20 shall include the installation of new trees approximately equal to their combined appraised value of $2,430, which is roughly equivalent to six trees of 24 -inch box size. Replacement tree values are presented on the bottom of the attached table. Acceptable replacement species include Quercus agrifolia, Quercus lobata, Quercus kelloggii, Quercus douglasii, Quercus' dumosa, Acer macrophyllum, Aesculus californica, Pseudotsuga menziesii and Sequoia sempervirens. The trees should be planted prior to final inspection and, as necessary for support; be double- staked with rubber tree ties. Irrigation should include a drip or soaker hose system placed on the soil surface and not in a sleeve. 12. The following additional recommendations should be incorporated into the landscape design: a. New plant material should be avoided or limited towards the outer portion of the area beneath the trees' canopies; it should comprise no more than 20- percent of the canopy area. Plant material installed beneath the Oak canopies shall be drought tolerant and compatible with Oaks. b. Irrigation should not spray beneath the Oak canopies or within five feet from the trunks of all other trees. c. Any trenching for irrigation, lighting, plumbing lines or drainage should be designed beyond the trees' canopies. If irrigation or electrical lines for lighting are designed inside this distance, the trenches should be in a radial direction to, the trunks and established no closer than three to five times the diameter of the nearest trunk; if this not be possible, the lines can be placed on top of existing soil grade and covered with wood chips or other mulch. d. Stones, mulch or other landscape features should be at least one -foot from the trunks of retained trees and not be in contact with the trunks of new trees. e. Tilling beneath the canopies must be avoided, including for weed control. f. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the trees' canopies should be established on top of existing soil grade. Protection Measures during Demolition and Construction 13. Tree protective fencing shall be installed precisely as shown on the attached map and established prior to any demolition, grading, surface scraping, construction or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of six -foot high chain link mounted on eight -foot tall, two -inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 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. 14. Unless otherwise approved, all .construction activities must be conducted outside the designated fenced areas (even after fencing is removed) and outside from beneath the canopies of Ordinance -sized trees not inventoried for this report. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: demolition, grading, surface scraping, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. i Hashemieh & Sarnevesht Property, 8 Canyon View Drive, Saratoga Page 3 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department is David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist October 3, 2005 15. Each recommendation presented within the `Design Guidelines' section shall be followed. 16. All approved grading and trenching beneath a tree's canopy shall be manually performed using shovels. Roots encountered during the process shall be cleanly severed on the tree side of where the cut occurs; roots with diameters of two inches and greater shall be wrapped in a plastic sandwich bag that is sealed with a rubber band. In the case of any approved trenching, roots two inches and greater in diameter should be retained and tunneled beneath. 17. Tree pruning must be performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained at http: / /www.isa- arbor.com. 18. Throughout construction during the dry months of April thru October, supplemental water should be provided to trees #2, 21 and 22 every two to three weeks. In doing so, I suggest 10 gallons of water per inch of trunk diameter is supplied to the soil areas beneath the trees' canopies through low pressure soaking (the water should not be poured against the trunks). 19. The disposal of harmful products (such- as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. In addition, fuel should not be stored nor shall any refueling or maintenance of equipment occur within 100 feet of the trees' trunks. 20. Herbicides should not be applied beneath the canopies of retained trees. Where used on site, they must be labeled for safe use near trees. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (a copy of Sheet L -1) Hashemieh & Sarnevesht Property, 8 Canyon View Drive, Saratoga Page 4 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department I Coast Live Oak - 2 (Quercus agrifolia) 8 20 20 75% 25% Fair Low 2 X X $410 Olive Tree 5, 4, 3 3 (Olea europaea) (3), 2, 2 20 30 100% 25% Fair Low X $500 Olive Tree multi - 4 (Olea europaea) stem 20 20 100% 25% Fair Low - X $500 • 15- gallon = $120 24 -inch box = $420 36 -inch box = $1,320 48 -inch box = $5,000 52 -inch box = $7,000 72 -inch box = $1 Site: 8 Canyon View Drive, Saratoga Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Depart Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA I of 2 101312005 • TREE INVENTORY TABLE o i� p ° y. a; Od O as o �^ j Aw C� cL TREE . ;?;. i c.. > a II o o o Z -. NO TREE NAME [� Flowering Plum (Prunus cerasifera) --8, 6, 5 25 30 50% 25% Poor Low - X $240 I Coast Live Oak - 2 (Quercus agrifolia) 8 20 20 75% 25% Fair Low 2 X X $410 Olive Tree 5, 4, 3 3 (Olea europaea) (3), 2, 2 20 30 100% 25% Fair Low X $500 Olive Tree multi - 4 (Olea europaea) stem 20 20 100% 25% Fair Low - X $500 • 15- gallon = $120 24 -inch box = $420 36 -inch box = $1,320 48 -inch box = $5,000 52 -inch box = $7,000 72 -inch box = $1 Site: 8 Canyon View Drive, Saratoga Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Depart Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA I of 2 101312005 • 0 TREE INVENTORY TABLE 0 Monterey Pine 21 (Pinus radiata) —12 30 30 100% 75% Good High 3 X X F$360 Monterey Pine Coast Live Oak 1 — 8,7,6, 1 1 1 1 1 17 (Pinusradiata) —13 16 (Quercus agrifolia) 75% 5,4,3 1 15 1 20 100% 25% Fair Low 3 - $2,150 Monterey Pine 21 (Pinus radiata) —12 30 30 100% 75% Good High 3 X X F$360 Monterey Pine 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 17 (Pinusradiata) —13 1 40 35 75% 100% Good High 4 - X $420 Monterey Pine 21 (Pinus radiata) —12 30 30 100% 75% Good High 3 X X F$360 Monterey Pine 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 18 (Pinus radiata) --12 40 25 50% 75% Fair Moderate 3 - X $260 Monterey Pine 21 (Pinus radiata) —12 30 30 100% 75% Good High 3 X X F$360 Coast Live Oak 1 1 1 I 19 (Quercus agrifolia ) 1-6,5,3, 3 1 15 1 30 100% 25% Fair Low - X X $640 Monterey Pine 21 (Pinus radiata) —12 30 30 100% 75% Good High 3 X X F$360 Flowering Plum multi - 2p (Prunuscerasifera) stem 20 25 50% 25% Poor Low - X X $0 Monterey Pine 21 (Pinus radiata) —12 30 30 100% 75% Good High 3 X X F$360 p 7CL' rL I15- gallon = $120 24 -inch box = $420 36 -inch box = $1 Site: 8 Canyon View Drive, Saratoga Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Depam Prepared by: David L. Bobby, RCA NT TREE VALUES 48 -inch box = $5,000 52 -inch box = $7,000 72 -inch box = $15,000 2 of 2 101"005 Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) �13 35 35 75% 75% Good High 1 X $370 p 7CL' rL I15- gallon = $120 24 -inch box = $420 36 -inch box = $1 Site: 8 Canyon View Drive, Saratoga Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Depam Prepared by: David L. Bobby, RCA NT TREE VALUES 48 -inch box = $5,000 52 -inch box = $7,000 72 -inch box = $15,000 2 of 2 101"005 • 8 CANYON VIEW DR1q SARATOGA (Canyon. View Drive @ 4"' Street) 1.7 -4, _f .11 4 1 j Iilol.,EXIIAVEI 9 f -.2 I , JENCING N 9 N A." FENCING 4. 2/ Not to Scale �1- 9 F- -I L--j L] • 0 ATTACHMENT 4 • i Date: 11/41/Z,006 PROJEC DRESS: Applicant Name: City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form 8 Canyon View Dr. @ Fourth St. Nader Sernevesht Application Number: 06 -118 Design Review 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. PLEASE SELECT ONE: My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; 1. understand the scope of work; and. I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: �� J FC-Ifr; Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone• #: Signature: Printed: 909- 309 - X3-7 t" /mil l�r �c�v City of Saratoga Planning Department I` P.1 IL "I.. c [t] I • s a OW: �.u: IT I rn ' :l r ., r i. G nn N $ M Postage U3 C3 Certified Fee t io Return Receipt Fee C3 ( Endorsement Required) ' 0 Restricleci Delivery Fee M (Endorsement Required) ;11Act IUD loll* W7 ('- Tofe1 Postage &Fees $ ��1 Q- 0 r_ I` P.1 IL x Aii i c >. .ran a OW: �.u: IT I •C •• "s M ru O Postage $ ' C3 Certified Fee rk r • A O Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) r IS C3 Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) %, V & Fees y .7 r� Total PosMe a _. C Send o s5ree;�aCr+o.: '�._.. 11 0 N or PpgoxNo. ______________ ........ -'.- --- ---- ...— _.._.__ - -' c ry stare. zr Ok rn� t � C � °t,C0Za 9:0 4MM UV PIP FU _. ( Iv MO Postage $ 03% C3 Postage g Fee r� `s 0 3 � - L • � tk � Certified Fee �1 y 3 postmark r O Return 88ecelptfee Regtmedl t O C3 C Return Recepp! Fee • - (Endorsement Required) Here l7 p ( Endorsement RestricledDellveryFee Sf1,L� .. C3 Restricted Delivery Fee U l = L- p (Eniorseman'Requved) E +S S3,it6 f 2007 ° (E '1dnrsementRecutred) ;_, Q S3. U6 _ 12007 ra )t iota! Posk�ge S Fees $ • >- {� C3 ; Totsi ,'o :age e. Fees O Sent 70 1 3 S a (��` `� Vii f ILI O- Sent Tr --- •--n--- ° --- -------- t - — �' p SrrceC Apt. No: t7l Y `'�� �� _ J} O —_. ... ! _ — — .................. M Street, Apt. Na; `.7� rnc' A or PO Box M. v __ ...__ »._.. _.._ C1ty, Smite, Z Pr4 •l .— .._..... . City Sere, Z1P+4 T -- - -- - -: CA, c A- ° ►� v r r . "r �r. 1 a i Wit. )... .• �' M nj O Postage $ �'•t� a �` `a�iS. ._ .. Certified Fee [ V S O P•o mark ' � M - RetumRecr -W Fee +'`' I1,(�l 'y}{ re ... p (ErdorserneN Required) Y [ W J Restrcted Dal" Fee (Enoorsamere Required) tl l S E Fees $ fi6 c.$ tr'2007 tt O Total Postage f t� Serf To --- S.'reet. Apf. N. : 1 D 1 I �-•- 1 1 1 _ - n G — \/t -•-- or PO Box N-- iG _ _ ary siaie.'ziP" i` !' _ .... _. l 5a 70 r, Ci October 20th, 2006 Dear Neighbor, PARhGOIN URBAN DE51�,� & PILA\�JNItl`^^ C I am writing on behalf of our client to request a time, at your convenience, to meet with you and present our proposal for a new home at #8 Canyon View. Please call Paragon at (408) 358 -3707 to arrange a convenient time to meet. Sincerely, Rodger Griffin, FAIBD President PARAGON DESIGN GROUP, INC. 105 Aibeilo VJry Service by Design suite C Los Gotos. CA 95032 408.358.370-, fcx c5t. -i96q poro onc? nFget;oi'rd:;. hSEI ^ietf L.,.... • • • c ud� oyl 4�1 M Tam N La PO Box 2174 Saratoga Ca 95070 -0174 Resident 20961 Canyon View Dr Saratoga Ca 95070 -5809 Jerry J Banks & Aky Mashayekhi 200 Pawnee PI Fremont Ca 94539 -3303 Resident 2101 Canyon View Dr Saratoga Ca 95070 -5717 Fred & Renate Fenster 21027 Canyon View Dr Saratoga Ca 95070 -5717 Benjamin & Dora Ting 21120 Sullivan Way Saratoga Ca 95070 -5723 Niko & Jasna Glumac 21130 Sullivan Way Saratoga Ca 95070 -5723 Brian H Berkeley 3655 N 1 st Street San Jose Ca 95134 -1707 Resident 2140 Sullivan Way Saratoga Ca 95070 -5723 James & Elena Solomon 21142 Sullivan Way Saratoga Ca 95070 -5723 Kenneth & Swaran Bahl 14645 Big Basin Way Saratoga Ca 95070 -6081 Resident 20915 Sullivan Way Saratoga Ca 95070 -5738 Loc Tran 20931 Canyon View Dr Saratoga Ca 95070 -5809 Ronald & Yolanda Martin 14251 Springer Ave Saratoga Ca 95070 -5823 Qian -yang Trust 14261 Springer Ave Saratoga Ca 95070 -5823 Donald & Ruth Schwartz 14271 Springer Ave Saratoga Ca 95070 -5823 0 ATTACHMENT 5 0 • 9 0 July 9, 2007 Heather Bradley Contract Planner City of Saratoga Dear Heather, • I am writing you regarding the residential building project identified as follows: Application /Address: #06 -118- Canyon View @ Fourth Street Applicant: Hashemich /Sarnevesh APN: 503 -28 -008 From the preliminary plans my wife and I previewed for the planned structure we have only one concern. The backyard and building site of the proposed home is under our primary view corridor and we would only request that any trees to be planted in this area do not block our view corridor. Our home has been located here for -50 years and that view is a major component of our reason to purchase this home and make it our primary residence several years ago. As the property that is the subject of this Study Session is of a far greater slope than is allowed by Saratoga housing codes for building a home it was our belief that this view corridor would be preserved. Now that there is the possibility of relaxing the code for this proposed building we would like to have our rather small request granted in exchange for our support for the City's possible allowance to build a structure on that site. Best Regards, Jerry Banks Aky Mashayekhi 21011 Canyon View Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 • • ATTACHMENT 6 � • • • S�,ro Y^ , No, dA-f- TOLLGATE BUILDINGS Green Building Strategies 14639 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 �a�.t r�Q.✓"-� Jul This Mixed Use Project will incorporate many sustainable strategies, technologies and building techniques that are healthy and conserve energy and natural resources. Currently several "green - certified" builders have been interviewed to construct the project. A few highlights of the Green Building Strategies and Materials are as follows: Materials and Products ■ The Lower Floors and retaining walls will be constructed using Insulated Concrete Forms ICF with HVFA High Volume Fly Ash concrete. (Creates virtually no construction waste sent to landfill). • Concrete Pier and Grade Beam Foundation shall contain 50% flyash. ■ Engineered wood: floor trusses, gluelam beams, OSB for subfloors and shearwalls ■ FSC certified wood framing ■ Engineered "wood" siding (Hardiplank) ■ Recycled — content decking ■ Bamboo flooring (Eco Timber) • Recycled glass tile flooring, counter tops and shower stalls (Oceanside) ■ Zero -VOC interior paint (Benjamin Moore Pristine Eco Spec) ■ Low -VOC adhesive (PL Premium) ■ Pervious Driveway with salvaged concrete pavers Energy & Systems • Cellulose insulation in ceiling (Cocoon by US GreenFiber) • Photosensitive and LED exterior lighting • DLA pane, Low E Windows and Door systems • House wrap under siding (Tyvek) • Cool Roof — (Galvalume) • Energy Star dishwasher, refrigerator, cloths washer and dryer • Tankless water heater Site Design • Project's length is oriented along east — west direction • Smaller home / apartment size uses less energy to heat • Lower portion of home set into hillside for passive insulation • Native / xeroscape landscape conserves water 'Ie 1-J 6 CIO -no W-,� 74 pp � a� F 0551 WOfK�OY1 O g S 3 2r wS'j / tA.G , o n P.1 • ATTACHMENT 7 0 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 24th day of October 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: #06 -118 — 20951 Canyon View APPLICANT: Hash emich /Sarnevesh APN: 503 -28 -008 PROJECT DISCRIPTION: Applications for Design Review and Variance to construct an approximately 3,635 square foot two -story home with a daylight basement on a vacant lot at 20951 Canyon View Drive. The average slope of the lot is 39.7% sloping downward toward Canyon View Drive. Pursuant to City Code Section 15- 12.061, the average slope beneath a structure shall not exceed 30% slope. Therefore, in addition to Design Review approval, the applicant is requesting approval of a Variance as specified in City Code Section 15- 12.061(a). All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed no later than Monday October 15, 2007. A site visit will be held on the day preceding the hearing date listed above as part of the standard Site Visit Committee agenda. Site visits occur between 3:30 and 5:00 p.m. The site visit is open to the public. The Site Visit Committee will convene at the City Hall parking lot at 3:30 p.m. on the day preceding the hearing and visit the site listed above and may visit other sites as well. For more information please contact the Community Development Department at 408 868 -1222 or review the Site Visit Agenda on the City Website at www.sarato2a.ca.us. 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. Heather Bradley Contract Planner hbradley @saratoga.ca.us (408) 868 -1232 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 4th day of October 2007, that I deposited 89 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 : -' 20951 Canyon View Dr AP N : 503 -28 -008 that on said day there was regular - communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. t r Denise Kasparr Advanced Listing Services • • )CTOBER 3, 2007 ;00' OWNERSHIP LISTING 'REPARED FOR: ;03 -28 -008 - rULIA HASHEMIEH :0951 CANYON VIEW DR ; ARATOGA CA 95070 ;03 -26 -003 503 -26 -004 503 -26 -005 :AYE A &WILSON HOLBROOK - DORIS BRONZICH PATRICK K LAM - )R CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER :0980 CANYON VIEW DR 20896 4TH ST 20880 4TH ST ; ARATOGA CA 95070 -5810 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5839 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5839 �03 -26 -006 503 -26 -007 503 -26 -008 'AUL D KASS MASOUD JAFARI ERIC O KRAULE )R CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER :0870 4TH ST 20860 4TH ST 20850 4TH ST ; ARATOGA CA 95070 -5839 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5839 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5839 503 -26 -010 503 -26 -011 +03 726 -009 SCHROEDER 2006 ERNEST O & PAULA KRAULE MET TRAN .. - OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 'O BOX 3754 14425 SPRINGER AVE 14433 SPRINGER AVE ; ARATOGA CA 95070 -1754 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5827 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5827 503 -26 -014 503 -26 -015 03-26-01.3,1057, 058 � , TODD A & LISA BEATTY ANN BARBER iRNEST KRAULE OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 4433 SPRINGER AVE 14461 SPRINGER AVE 14471 SPRINGER AVE ;ARATOGA.CA 95070 -5827 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5827 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5827 - ;03 -26 -035 503 -26 -046 503 -26 -048 AICHAEL W & ROSALIA WARREN KENNETH P & CAROL SCHULZ SHAO -HUNG LIU )R CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER • ' 4481 SPRINGER AVE 15001 SPRINGER AVE 14491 SPRINGER AVE ; ARATOGA CA 95070 -5827 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5874 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5827 ;03 -26- 055,056 503 -27 -001 503 -27 -002 RASSOUL POURANI 'HILLIP JACKLiN MARJORIE FOOTE OT OR CURRENT OWNER )R.CURRENT OWNER 1411 MELODY 1411 MELODY 20900 CANYON VIEW DR 4436 ESTERLEE AVE_ CA 92831 -2032 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5810 ; ARATOGA CA 95070 -5825 ;03 -27 -003 503 -27 -004 503 -27 -009 . tEZA MAZAHERI KING OF STARK 1996 ROGER D & KATHLEEN ARNO )R CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER :0890 CANYON VIEW DR 20880 CANYON VIEW DR 14343 ELVA AVE ; ARATOGA CA 95070 -5887. SARATOGA CA 95070 -5887 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5813 03 -27 -010 - - 503 -27 -011 503 -27 -012 :ANDOLPH M GRANADO ROSALEEN SPEARS HAMID R SARRAMI )R CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 4341 ELVA AVE 14351 ELVA AVE 14361 ELVA AVE IARATOGA CA 95070 -5813 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5813 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5813 iO3 -27 -013 503 -27 -016 503 -27 -017 CAI ZHANG MARIA E GARCIA TERRANCE BROWN )R CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 1 ELVA AVE 20845 4TH ST 14390 ELVA AVE TOGA CA 95070 -5813 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5838 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5814 iO3 -27 -018 503 -27 -020 503 -27 -021 MICHAEL G & SHEILA PENUEN LLOYD G STEPHENS PRISCILLA F & DONALD POOLE )R CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER .4380 ELVA AVE 14350 ELVA AVE 14340 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5814 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5814 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5814 ;03 -27 -022 503 -27 -023 503 -27 -024 ;HUN W QUON CHESTER STANARO JAMES L HESTER )R CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER .4330 ELVA AVE 14320 ELVA AVE 14310 ELVA AVE > ARATOGA CA 95070 -5814 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5814 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5814 ")03 -27 -047 503 -27 -048 503 -27 -082 CAE & KUMMI KIM ROSS & SUSAN HANNIBAL JAMES R & KATHLEEN ARENA )R CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER .4365 PAUL AVE 14375 PAUL AVE 14294 ELVA AVE ; ARATOGA CA 95070 -5820 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5820 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5812 >03 -27 -085 503 -27 -086 503 -27 -090 FINA AMIRKIAI MICHAEL J & SUSAN MC CHESNEY KI H YOON )R CURRENT OWNER 20620 LOMITA AVE OR CURRENT OWNER .4303 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6024 14291 ELVA AVE > ARATOGA CA 95070 -5813 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5811 *7 -091 503 -27 -093 )AVID A & YVONNE FORCIER JOSEPH &JANET BOURDET JOSEPH SAMUEL U & SUSAN KIM )R CURRENT OWNER 1151 OR CURRENT OWNER .4401 ELVA AVE SUNNYYVALE VALE CA A 944 087 -7918 14370 ELVA AVE ; ARATOGA CA 95070 -5813 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5814 ')03 -27 -094 503 -27 -096 503 -27 -097 UDITH E POUTRE JAMES D & JUDITH HILLMAN YOUSSEF & MALIHEH AMIRKIAI )R CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER .4360 ELVA AVE 14387 PAUL AVE 14399 PAUL AVE > ARATOGA CA 95070 -5814 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5820 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5820 ')03 -27 -098 503 -27 -099 503 -27 -110 HSIAO WILLIAM M & JOCELYN MERZ JONATHAN & SUNNY CHO CUANG N 'O BOX HSI OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER ;AN JOSE CA 95161 -0544 14391 ELVA AVE 14361 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5813 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5820 ift8-005 503 -28 -006, 139 503 -28 -007 E F SCHAEFER KENNETH S & SWARAN BAHL LOC TRAN ) CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14645 BIG BASIN WAY '0905 SULLIVAN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6081 20931 CANYON VIEW DR ; ARATOGA CA 95070 -5738 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5809 503 -28 -003 503 -28 -004 03-27 -111 RAYASAM S & SITA PRASAD ANN M WOROBEY K VENKATESAN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 10 BOX 2755 9 'O BOX 20881 CANYON VIEW DR 20895 CANYON VIEW DR > ARATOGA CA 95070 -0759 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5888 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5763 ift8-005 503 -28 -006, 139 503 -28 -007 E F SCHAEFER KENNETH S & SWARAN BAHL LOC TRAN ) CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14645 BIG BASIN WAY '0905 SULLIVAN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6081 20931 CANYON VIEW DR ; ARATOGA CA 95070 -5738 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5809 103 -28 -017 503 -28 -018 503 -28 -019 'IETRO & TAMARA COSTA RAMESH RADHAKRISHNAN PATRICIA A BERGE X NEVADA AVE OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 134 34 JOSE CA .95125 -2434 21100 SULLIVAN WAY 21110 SULLIVAN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5723 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5723 103 -28 -020 503 -28 -021 503 -28 -010 ')03-28-008 503 -28 -009 EUGENE HELLAR ULIA HASHEMIEH N LA TAM OR CURRENT OWNER 06 HEINTZ CT PO BOX 2174 CANYON VIEW DR .OS GATOS CA 95032 -5036 SARATOGA CA 95070 -0174 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5809 SARATOGA ;03 -28 -011 503 -28 -012 503 -28 -013 31JAN ABACHIZADEH JAY S & NEENA SHARMA JERRY J BANKS )R CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER '0981 CANYON VIEW DR 20995 CANYON VIEW DR 21011 CANYON VIEW DR ; ARATOGA CA 95070 -5809 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5809 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5717 103 -28 -014 503 -28 -015 503 -28 -016 'RED & RENATE FENSTER SWENSON SHU -YU & CATHERINE SUN )R CURRENT OWNER. OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER .1027 CANYON VIEW. DR 21043 CANYON VIEW DR 21053 CANYON VIEW DR ; ARATOGA CA 95070 -5717 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5717 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5717 103 -28 -017 503 -28 -018 503 -28 -019 'IETRO & TAMARA COSTA RAMESH RADHAKRISHNAN PATRICIA A BERGE X NEVADA AVE OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 134 34 JOSE CA .95125 -2434 21100 SULLIVAN WAY 21110 SULLIVAN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5723 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5723 103 -28 -020 503 -28 -021 3ENJAMIN S & DORA TING NIKO & JASNA GLUMAC )R CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 1120 SULLIVAN WAY 21130 SULLIVAN WAY ; ARATOGA-CA- 95076 -5723 - --SARATOGA CA 95070 -5723 ;03 -28 -023 503 -28 -030 AMES D & ELENA SOLOMON NORMAN S & MARIA HAROON )R CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER :1142 SULLIVAN WAY 21201 SULLIVAN WAY ; ARATOGA CA 95070 -5723 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5746 '.03 -28 -032 �BBAS & ASHRAF HOSSEINIAN )R CURRENT OWNER 1107 CANYON VIEW DR ; ARATOGA CA 95070- 57-19 ;03 =28 -064 'AUL W & WALLAY GARDANIER )R CURRENT OWNER .1110 CANYON VIEW DR ; ARATOGA CA 95070 -5724 ;03 -28 -074 ORETTA J & RONALD MILLER )R CURRENT OWNER 5000 SPRINGER AVE ;ARATOGA CA 95070 -5874 �03 -28 -101 'HYLLIS A & JOHN BELL )R CURRENT OWNER 1204 SULLIVAN WAY �ARATOGA CA 95070 -5723 503 -28 -033 JEN WENG OR CURRENT OWNER 21121 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5719 503 -28 -065 QUAN & SHUMAY SHANG OR CURRENT OWNER 21090 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5718 503 -28 -089 EDWIN S & VICKY LAW OR CURRENT OWNER 20867 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5888 503 -28 -134 SARATOGA OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC 1935 DRY CREEK RD 203 CAMPBELL CA 95008 -3631 503 -28 -022 BRIAN H BERKELEY 3655 N 1 ST ST SAN JOSE CA 95134 -1707 • 503 -28 -031 JOSEPH & SANDRA CICHANOWICZ OR CURRENT OWNER 21131 SULLIVAN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5741 503 -28 -034 MICHAEL A & ANNIE TITUS OR CURRENT OWNER 21131 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5719 503 -28 -069 GLENNA J & JOHN COLISTRA 1565 THE ALAMEDA SAN JOSE CA 95126 -2326 503 -28 -100 RICHARD A WOTIZ OR CURRENT OWNER 21170 SULLIVAN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5723 503 -28 -135, 137 STEPHEN E & FRANCESCA RUFF OR CURRENT OWNER 21040 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5718 iO3 -28 -136 NILLIAM & PATRICIA ABBOTT )R CURRENT OWNER '.1030 CANYON VIEW DR 0 TOGA CA 95070 -5718 -ITY OF SARATOGA kTTN: Heather Bradley .3777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CA 95070 • • 503 -28 -138 BALDEV & SASHI MALIK 4583 CHELSEA LN BLOOMFIELD HILLS MI 48301 -3617 Advanced Listing Services P.O. Box 2593 Dana Point CA 92624 503 -28 -140 JAMES N & LOUISE WHOLEY OR CURRENT OWNER 21020 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5718 ATTACHMENT 8 • Can on V1CW New Residence can yon view Jr. @ fourth st. assesor's parcel number: Mtaicom Ave ........ Harriman Ave 'lb�` G'piy ... Fuc c f .......... .......................... .. ..... existing use: vacant zonning district: R -1- 40,000 P � ¢g 6o% reduction size of structure(including garage): 3805 sq ft : f�l. f f. 388o sq ft impervious site coverage: ...s.... m house footprint wri�naets or op"Q!t m o : rfn�e�W r G O walkways 410 sq ft pool ....... s ..9 .: ,.. .t .: �` c5 3 total impervious site coverage: 4 tS .... ._. 4% pb�' Ott 01 rt5tdsvc v Fief tone bam„ r` i °e7 i ;X04��. .ca{ .. . o � r. +' Big 132 in way .... u 3r„e a VN ,. .... 209 M Aff �1� OOft. s nw Hut Ave o ................ assesor's parcel number: 503-28-oo8 address of project: no current address owner name: Bobby Sarnevesht + Julia Hashemiel existing use: vacant zonning district: R -1- 40,000 size of lot: 32,670 sq ft allowable floor area with reductions for slope: 6o% reduction size of structure(including garage): 3805 sq ft max allowed sq ft: 388o sq ft impervious site coverage: house footprint 2466 sq ft drive way 2990 sq ft patios on grade 1611 sq ft walkways 410 sq ft pool 270 sq ft lightwell . 200 sq ft total impervious site coverage: 7947 sq ft slope at building's site: 39.7% average site slope: 39.7% age of residence: no existing residence lowest natural grade pt at building's edge: 572' highest natural grade pt at building's edge: 592' average elevation pt south: 16' -4" average elevation pt north: 9' -10" top most elevation pt of the structure: 607' • Cover Sheet • General Development Plan Set PARAGON DESIGN GRQUp, INC. OCT 11 2007 DATE PRINTED Ta6 I c- of Contents OCT 1 e nui CITY OF SARATOGA CS Cover Sheet COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT G &D '' Grading ang Drainage Plan Al Site Plan AZ Floor Plans A3 Exterior Elevations Plan A4 Sections /S9. Pt. Keel Plan Ll I Pro osed Landsca e Site P P L2 Proposed Landscape Plan F HT A ,XH� mtcp, ■■ ■m %' imam ■ ■aoT V RImmm— CHOO ■ ■am■aam ■m or 1r -Immu fl r477[Frly- ;X-17,M7 7 ■ m■mmmm ■■ ■i :12 -►�L► 11 mom EMISSION ■ mama ■ ■ ■a ■1 • impervious site coverage: M house footprint 2466 sq ft 2990 sq ft 1611 sq ft 410 sq ft 270 sq ft 200 sq ft 7947 sq ft drive way Herriman Ave i patios on grade walkways pool E2 lightwells total impervious site coverage: 2466 sq ft 2990 sq ft 1611 sq ft 410 sq ft 270 sq ft 200 sq ft 7947 sq ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NF:W HOUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . %.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. CAWON new . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . •. •. . . . .. — . Rj 9 A Q R I 009149),Nk • I I I I I IIIIIII HIM I I I I I I I I I Ell JO 1 1 01MM26— FL 1 10 N I *SAItert)V Ph Z- ay SLIte C 6-1 L-L7 An 3 a ia� UC - E� 40f -3-E W" — — — — — — A-L-I ■■�i■ - — — — — — — T Herriman Ave i T14 in Ify Ave a 84 DORey * V . ......... ... . V)-Y, ............... "'. if 's, 4 fs: %k Big Basin Way ...: o ' ?s �ifa ° �anr.. : '. a :. ?r VA: 1000 ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NF:W HOUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . %.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. CAWON new . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . •. •. . . . .. — . Rj 9 A Q R I 009149),Nk • I I I I I IIIIIII HIM I I I I I I I I I Ell JO 1 1 01MM26— FL 1 10 N I *SAItert)V Ph Z- ay SLIte C 6-1 L-L7 An 3 a ia� UC - E� 40f -3-E W" — — — — — — A-L-I ■■�i■ - — — — — — — T • • OTO] A 9 WMA ► n LOWFR ffLOOR PLAN BASEMENT 16205Q FT FOYER 130 SQ FT GARAGE 407 SQ FT M M MEMMUMMMEMMEMME ■c� ■rz±rr■!ir: ■i: r:�r rnaa■ ::_:lommommawl :::C:'■ � s1 i ! i i i • • : %ilk I X. r i i i i i t � Vx R. ... I./........ ■... ■............... ■.......... �— - - „1--- - - - - -- -------- 1 - - - -- " ............... ........./................... ol r: ......................- - _lllll!IIIIV 10_ -- - - _ ` - -- ........................... ............. .........I..................... --' -. L III, ------------s-- -------.---- --- --------- r� -- ............. a........../.^ i' in......... .. ............................ ■r r x ■■■[rn�r. rrTTfi7w'Tmn iii4 mmr ELI Rml, I f l..: /■■ ■ ■ ■■ ruflilli�'G�Q MME ■■Ii► -- • ► � alSOmeli UPPER FLOOR PLAN 1518 SQ FT MIDDLE FLOOR PLAN 15805Q FT LOWER FLOOR PLAN FOYER 150 SQ FT GARAGE 407 SQ FT FbW AIM t}Id Pm posed Fo er Floor 300.0 Middle Floor 1580.0 Upper Floor 1518.0 Total 3398.0 UrrHeated Gara 407.0 Total 3805.0 30' S8L 550 1 0 SECTION A -A 550 0 SECTION B -B 'ANYON VIEW DR. E)QSTIM ROLL CURB 160 SCALE: 1/8' =I'•0` V}7 ■■■■■■■■■ ■■rmmr■■■ EROSION CONTROL NOTES I.:�qRE "� °pNO LeNTADMLNRANH\nOxC«DWL.EARAU CnPRq.6RNCp. T„f RIWLJNRf MD gN1R.anr m ioaw0p«"�owlNerozo )�oxnO3iol ww9.Re5 �N REq.%[w� fl nIMM1R4V3 eY ixtRW[wn^rkf lH3rEC[n nRNgfOLiWMAD"9Rq wARw frWi GNC«wATa< 1eAR[aNnzH wuwR[fieTna�ia was w�`a.K 'Y �a FL��OEtnt � ax)++c*al »a nl[..4[R[ cw sRi lNru )w t�N•�[IDxNiwn�nux��riNixoi[o. u�nrtomuaL Uaw rxt quad aF[ w�won!i [<a[ Fx.rt3awAr.0 ov[nm N TF.3 Ya Al: aR9PE3.i uwNxxseerunilN[gewN� 11 n NxARq Arq uiOl«L9 R RACLN RMrlprM ON FRlrtuJU (I•M9 uro \s%RLMI m r. u[pm ARV�vAt N uuull[p.lryylp'o Alm NLa:O R cuAUdD GRADING CONSTRUCTION NOTES (II AEE FnRTNYORK SHALL NPFRORMEO THE.OANCE .. THE SglS REPMT A[N INOfA INE SURgWgONOF THE SOBS fNTlNEER IZ) ALL M ERALS AW WOR( MAHSHP SHALL COXFORM TO THE STANDARDS OCI SPECRIGTIONS OF THE CITY OF SMATOOA NALORTHE STANOMD SPFCRNAIWNS 1. TR STATE OF CALFORNA (S)RT F. FRL3NTE RIAL1 9TOBEFLACF.DONNATIRAI.GRO[JND, TN UF. ASHALLBESTR @PF.DOFALLVEOETATONLXCBFT LARGE TRF2S ­E TO FIIL.NO, TIE SURFACT. OPT OR[H1:DSH.lL1. BE SCARDIPD TOA DEPTH OF 6•. WIERE N:ULTAL GROUND IS STEEPER TLW 5:1 IT SHAY, BE OE \'CFRD AND KEYED TO ACHIEVE STABILITY. (4) ALL[MTHSWAILSSHHLHAVFAN4N SIOPEOF T %AWAYFROMALL IML@GS AND THE ODMRACTOR SHNL %VMAN A NNNOM OF 1 % THRODGxOUT I. SITE IRAESS OTHI -SE I—ITED 15 ) HIT. 11 f'.RI:V, SHALL BE PLACED IN WIFU0.0 LIFTS NOT TOEXf[!:DR'IE IFI, U ACROUOIGITOA BEFORECW.TFACTON nLATki.TIO:DLL SHALLBF.BRO ,%CTTOA ETERCONIXTT TREAT .. . RERSRT PROPER CUfQ: \CTION BY Fa'DER AERATNO T1E GIl.IF IT IS T(NJ 0.'ET, OR f101SIElRW Tff. FT1 E R IS TAS DRY. EAfH LET SHALL B8 TTO0.0UGlRY ALLYED BEFORE C[NIPAATERI LSNSIIRF.L'NIFOR1DISTR ®UIION OF SIREIATIL FILL MAT:RIAL NON BF.COAEACIEDTO AfBN .1311.1 VE CMEAI'TTUNOF .1 AS DETTLL�ONED BY , 4IR1 DISS]JS (6) TIE. LTPER 6' OF SUBORADF. BELOW DRIVEP':lY ANDTURN- .UtOL:'D.AREAS STIALL BE (OARACfEDTO A W V0.BJAT OF 95% REI. VE0O%P ON. 11) NOOROAMC MATERIAL STEW. BE PLACED IN ANY FILL (R) MACDfI. \I CUT SLOPE SFW.L BE YI AND.—I F815LOFE SILVl BE R«T ninr war leaden u b 6a dd<N[ fed 9eN u,np ah.Ipaw(.q..n N «Rx aN<ha.6.dR�ca Te,«<r om Ib rdn wa «.w au1 i1 m%n IfR IaMMap<d mR .Rea D«R. R«NREam un d%MWdd e«ER wRyca oa pipR <y<MeE<aNm9RM4 and J'nchq<d downabpv. mxN oReiw ddn.Fa Oewiq on�otlk.H<dmB.dy. No imprwenNeN d%0 of<N «I «di<e[I rvnoR l9INe aea«<.R oT, W .(y<ca awe arva. «aO.e [bp. p[9pe[y. R «iim:R rd4 ebb Lravde pwieio« f« a.de%R. BASIS OF ELEVATION USCRGS 8388 AT SARATOGA, AT THE NTERSELEXMI 6 STATE HIGHWAY 9 AND 4TH STREET. N THE TOP R TE SOIIT EAST END OF A CONCRETE RETAINING WALL 44A FHT NORilHWEST OF THE CENTER LINE OF THE HF:NWAY, 15 11 FEET NORTHEAST OF CENTER UNE OF THE STREET. ELEVATKXL 502.08 �o PL.ACF.II TESEORAItY CYCLONE FENCING AT DRIPLINT. OF EXISTING TREES ADJACENT TO ANY PROPOSED CONSTRUCGONTBFBGHMIN) FENC'NO SHALL ENCONWAS4 APROX HALF OF TREE CIRCE'IAEERFNCE PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING LEGEND CONTOURS BE TABBING WALL f— DIRECTION OF FLOW EARTHWORK SUMMARY___ NOTE - EARTH QUANTITIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE BASED ON THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO US AT THIS TIME. IT IS ADVISABLE THAT THE GRADING CONTRACTOR VERIFY QUANTITIES PRIOR TO BIDDING. FINAL QUANTITIES WILL VARY GREATLY DEPENDING ON CONTRACTOR, METHOD OF EXCAVATION, AND THE EQUIPMENT USED. NOTE: I -FOR LAYOUT REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN 2- FOR TREES REMOVAL AND PLANTATION REFER TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PLANS. l� NATURAL TO 90% CRUSHED ROCK AND FABRR: •• y f • TYFICAL 4• PERFORATED PIPE TO 8E DISGIARGE IN THE STREET PIERS OYP.) �� TO BE :PORT AND V -DITCH CUT (CY) FILL (CY) IMPORT/EXPORT HOUSE 1050.0 BASEMENT 750.0 GARAGE 180.0 FOOLAREA 450.0 POOL 107.0 ROAD &LAND CAPE 1,409.0 TOTAL 3,946.0 0/3,946 CY NOTE - EARTH QUANTITIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE BASED ON THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO US AT THIS TIME. IT IS ADVISABLE THAT THE GRADING CONTRACTOR VERIFY QUANTITIES PRIOR TO BIDDING. FINAL QUANTITIES WILL VARY GREATLY DEPENDING ON CONTRACTOR, METHOD OF EXCAVATION, AND THE EQUIPMENT USED. NOTE: I -FOR LAYOUT REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN 2- FOR TREES REMOVAL AND PLANTATION REFER TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PLANS. l� NATURAL TO 90% CRUSHED ROCK AND FABRR: •• y f • TYFICAL 4• PERFORATED PIPE TO 8E DISGIARGE IN THE STREET PIERS OYP.) �� TO BE :PORT AND V -DITCH HIM >� = SHEET TITLE: m I� p Landscape Site Plan PDF created with pdfFactory trial version ww& atiftaaorv.rnm i / U 1 ' 640 a en ' 630 ' R• / 2 x 1 610 tne' =1' ch Prolact 1: ChacMdby: th Nadar Residence owc, oats: 8 Canyon View Drive L -TREE Sept 2007 Saratoga, California °� i l �• j 610 / 500? u \ 5 e g 1 � 580 N H 3 °ovv°ns °° qqe o °v_S' 4;; °g °O -oog o0 -1 HPrIIHI -iR �rr��a�rre xn�ae 9� a m Z 33 8 33�svgeq go8ggo 0 8 n f m m y d=°IN�pWbl bl '4 a4 �RNN ?w "i4 R19 °41R btR 99 9 � N m m TmTdTVa S 0 z A A A A A A A A A A e e o A A A A s A A A A A A A A A v A 0 U) 1 0 z REVISIONS: DATE � Lt� 640 s a 5' HoLeD Group Landscape Architecture 555 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Caws, CA 95030 (408) 3549509, Fax # (408) 354.9040 i :7 • 630 � 620---- 610 .. sax.cu Swimmi Spa g n sim Pod H seaso sw.00l ease POW 620 ! - 610 6 high fence, typ. 570 Specietty tedured paving, typ. Planting area, typ. ` iwrozo Bw mwzo .. sax.cu Swimmi Spa g n sim Pod H seaso sw.00l ease PRELIMINARY PLANTING LEGEND TREES BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE LABQE3LREENJBE Ouercus agNdls I Coast Live Oak 24" box Ouercue douglasil Blue Oak 24" box Acer rubrum Red Maple 24" box V EN! Arbulus'Madne Madrone Hybrid 24" box Tristanla conferta Brisbane Box 24" box Sequoia sempervirena Coat Redwood 24" box Carols canademis Eastern Redbud 24" box, Lagerstroeinia Indica Crape Myrtle 24" box Magnolia stellate Star Magnolia 24" box MEDIUM SCREEN RIES Ceanolhus'Julia Phelps' Wild Ulac 15 gal Myriw callfomics Pacific Wax Myrtle 15 gal Heteromeles'Davis Gold' Toy- 15 gat SMALLACCENTTREES O Ace, Japanese Maple 24" box Tristania laurina Water Gum 24" box Olea europe'Smn Hig Oliva 24" box j 1 O 570 (E) Ro4cu. Site retaining wag, typ. �1 (E) Utility Pale 4 ON N P a U xa a U� z N aa- owl T-8�7 Z O w U N =E � o y 0 U 0 L T " M U m Z c co EL- CIS U rN J — v F L w � J x U) SHEET Na L -2 U LL O a POW 570 560 1 • PRELIMINARY PLANTING LEGEND TREES BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE LABQE3LREENJBE Ouercus agNdls I Coast Live Oak 24" box Ouercue douglasil Blue Oak 24" box Acer rubrum Red Maple 24" box V EN! Arbulus'Madne Madrone Hybrid 24" box Tristanla conferta Brisbane Box 24" box Sequoia sempervirena Coat Redwood 24" box Carols canademis Eastern Redbud 24" box, Lagerstroeinia Indica Crape Myrtle 24" box Magnolia stellate Star Magnolia 24" box MEDIUM SCREEN RIES Ceanolhus'Julia Phelps' Wild Ulac 15 gal Myriw callfomics Pacific Wax Myrtle 15 gal Heteromeles'Davis Gold' Toy- 15 gat SMALLACCENTTREES O Ace, Japanese Maple 24" box Tristania laurina Water Gum 24" box Olea europe'Smn Hig Oliva 24" box j 1 O 570 (E) Ro4cu. Site retaining wag, typ. �1 (E) Utility Pale 4 ON N P a U xa a U� z N aa- owl T-8�7 Z O w U N =E � o y 0 U 0 L T " M U m Z c co EL- CIS U rN J — v F L w � J x U) SHEET Na L -2 U LL O a � REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • Item 4 Application No./Location: 07- 307/19819 Colby Court Type of Application: Design Review for a Second Story Addition to an Existing One Story Single - Family Residence Applicant/Owner: Praveen Narayan (Owner /Applicant) nn Staff Planner: Christopher A. Riordan, AICP, Senior PlannelepvO Date: October 24, 2007 APN: 386 -37 -005 Department Head: jqz John Livingstone, AICP, Director 19819 COLBY COURT Application No. 07- 307119819 Colby Court EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 03/27/07 Application complete: 10/02/07 Notice published: 10/10/07 Mailing completed: 10/05/07 Posting completed: 10/18/07 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a 1,041 square foot second story addition to an existing one -story 3,087 square foot single - family residence. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not exceed 26 -feet. The gross lot size is approximately 15,681 square feet and the site is zoned R -1- 10,000. Zoning Code Section 15- 45.060 states any new multi -story structure or whenever, as a result of proposed construction, reconstruction' or expansion, the gross floor area of all structures on a site will exceed 6,000 square -feet Design Review approval is required by the Planning Commission., The proposal consists of a new multi -story structure; therefore, Planning Commission review is required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Design Review Application with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution (Attachment 1). Staff is not recommending any permanent conditions of approval. 2 • • • C7 • • Application No. 07- 307119819 Colby Court STAFF ANALYSIS Zoning: R -1- 10,000 General Plan Designation: M -10 (Medium Density Residential) Measure G: Not applicable Parcel Size: 15,681 sq. ft. (gross) Average Site Slope: Level site Grading Required: None Materials and Colors: The second story addition will include a stucco exterior finish and composition shingle roofing to match the existing house. All windows on the second story will be white colored wood windows to match the existing house. Wrought iron railing will be installed on the second story front and rear balconies. The front door will be flanked by two pre - manufactured columns. The colors and materials board on file with the Community Development Department will be present at the public hearing. PrniPrt nntn- 3 Pro osal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable = 60% Building 3,087 sq. ft. Patios/Walkways/Pool 1,375 sq. ft. 9,409 sq ft. Driveway 1,728 sq. ft. TOTAL PROPOSED 6,190 sq. ft. (39.5 Floor Area: Maximum Allowable — First Floor 3,087 sq. ft. 4,128 sq. ft. Second Story Addition floor 1,041 sq. ft. TOTAL PROPOSED 4,128 sq.. ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirement 1 -story 2 -story 1 -story 2 -story Front (south) 53 ft. 89 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. Rear (north) 31 ft. 35 ft. 25 ft. 35 ft. Left Side (west) 11 ft. 17 ft. 10 ft. 15 ft. Right Side (east) 11 ft. 22ft. 10 ft. 15 ft. Height: Maximum Height = 23' -5" 26 Feet 3 Application No. 07- 307119819 Colby Court Environmental Determination: The proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures ", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single - family residences. Project Discussion Project Description The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a 1,041 square foot second story addition to an existing one - story 3,087 square foot single - family residence. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not exceed 26 -feet. The gross lot size is approximately 15,681 square feet and the site is zoned R- 1- 10,000. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has shown the revised project plans to neighbors as indicated in the attached Neighbor Notification Forms (Attachment 2). No negative comments have been received at the time of the writing of this Staff Report. Geotechnical Clearance Not required. Trees - There are 12 trees on the property. These consist of three elm trees on the right side of the driveway, one elm tree pear the front left corner of the house, and two groupings of both palm and juniper trees in the rear yard. None of these trees are proposed for removal. The elm trees and the pahn trees could potentially be impacted by the construction. To protect these .trees, tree protective fencing will be installed following the line of the tree canopy and established prior to any grading or the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. Energy Efficiency The applicant's proposed energy efficiency techniques will include energy conserving measures such upgraded floor, wall, and ceiling insulation. General Plan Findings The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan Policies. Land Use Element Goal 13 -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 Approval. The height of the house will be compatible with adjacent homes as Colby -Court includes both one -story and two -story homes. The second story will be constructed on the rear half of the existing house thereby reducing the visual mass as viewed from the street. The design will not adversely impact the privacy of the adjacent neighbors. 0 Application No. 07- 307119819 Colby Court 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 following Findings required for Design Approval. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed home will not unreasonably interfere with neighboring views or privacy in that the second story addition has been placed on the rear half of the site and building footprint. The side windows of the second story addition will be made of obscure glass thereby reducing the privacy loss of both adjacent neighbors. The views from the rear second story balcony will be primarily of Prospect Avenue. The rear balcony is "inset" thereby reducing casual views into the rear yards of both adjacent neighbors. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the applicant is not proposing to remove the existing front and rear yard landscaping. All existing trees will be protected during construction. I* (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that there are no heritage or native trees located on the site. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. To reduce the perception of excessive bulk, the second story addition will be placed to the rear of the site and building footprint. The project will be articulated with front and rear balconies, bay windows, projecting architectural elements, and varying rooflines. (e) Compatible bulk and height. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed home would be approximately 24 feet tall, would be compatible in both bulk and height as adjacent house, and the location of the second story to the rear half of both the site and building footprint would reduce the perception of bulk as viewed from offsite. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project is limited to a second story addition to an existing home and will not include any grading. (g) Design policies and techniques. 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. E Application No. 07- 307119819 Colby Court Staff Recommendation Staffs recommends the Planning Commission find this Application exempt from CEQA and approve the application for Design .Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. Attachments: 1. Resolution of Approval for Design Review 2. Neighbor review letters 3. Affidavit of mailing notices, public hearing notice, copy of mailing labels for project. notification, and newspaper public hearing notice. 4. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A" D • Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. 0 Application No. 07 -307 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Narayan;19819 Colby Court WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to construct a second story addition to an existing one -story single - family residence in the R -1- 10,000 zone district. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be taller than 26 -feet. The gross lot size is approximately 15,681 square feet. WHEREAS, Zoning Code Section 15- 45.060 states any new single -story structure or addition to a single -story structure over eighteen feet in height, new multi -story structure, or whenever, as a result of the proposed construction, reconstruction or expansion, the gross floor area of all structures on the site will exceed 6,000 square -feet Design Review approval is required by the Planning Commission. The proposal consists of a second story addition to an existing one.story single - family residence that exceeds eighteen feet in height; therefore, Planning Commission review is required prior to issuance of building permits; and WHEREAS the Plannin g 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 proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures ", Class 3 (a) of the Public. Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single- family residences. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review, and is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Land Use Element Goal 13 -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- Approval. The height of.the house will be compatible with adjacent homes as Colby Court includes both one -story and two -story homes. The second story will be constructed on the rear half of the existing house thereby reducing the visual mass as viewed from the street. The design will not adversely impact the privacy of the adjacent neighbors. • • Application No. 07- 307119819 Colby Court 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 following Findings required for Design Approval. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed home will not unreasonably interfere with neighboring views or privacy in that the second story addition has been placed on the rear half of the site and building footprint. The side windows of the second story addition will be made of obscure glass thereby reducing the privacy loss of both adjacent neighbors. The views from the rear second story balcony will be primarily of Cox Avenue. The rear balcony is "inset" thereby reducing casual views into the rear yards of both adjacent neighbors. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the applicant is not proposing to remove the existing front and rear yard landscaping. All existing trees will be protected during construction. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that there are no heritage or native trees located on the site. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. To reduce the perception of excessive bulk, the second story addition will be placed to the rear of the site and building footprint. The project will be articulated with front and rear balconies, bay windows, projecting architectural elements, and varying rooflines. (e) Compatible bulk and height. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed home would be approximately 24 feet tall, would be compatible in both bulk and height as adjacent houses, and the location of the second story to the rear half of both the site and building footprint would reduce the perception of bulk as viewed from offsite. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project is limited to a second story addition to an existing home and will not include any grading. (g) Design policies and techniques. 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. 2 Application No. 07- 307119819 Colby Court Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: - 0 Section 1. After careful. consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for Design Review approval are hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PERMANENT CONDITONS OF APPROVAL — None CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" date stamped October 2, 2007, incorporated by reference. All changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes and are subject to the Community Development Director's approval. 2. The project shall utilize materials illustrated on a materials board received October 9, 2007. 3. The following shall-be required and/or included as to the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building plan check review process: complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a a. Four (4) sets of comp p rp g - separate plan page. b., The following note shall be included: "A maximum of one wood - burning fireplace --is permitted.and it shall be equipped with a gas starter. All other fireplaces shall be gas burning." c. The ' .following note shall be included verifying building setback: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per approved plans." 4. Staff shall not approve downgrading to the exterior appearance of the approved residence. Downgrades may' include, but are not limited to, garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, or similar items. Any exterior changes to approved plans resulting in a downgrade shall require filing an additional application and fees for review by the Planning Commission as a modification to approved plans. Any other exterior changes to the approved plans, which are not deemed a downgrade by staff, shall require a Zoning Clearance issued by the Community Development Director with payment of appropriate fees. .5. 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 3 Application No. 07- 307119819 Colby Court at all times. In the event that the balance is less than $500.00, all staff work on the project shall cease until the balance is restored to a minimum $500.00. 6. To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. 7. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 8. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. 9. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape areas. CITY ARBORIST 10. Tree protective fencing shall be installed as shown on the site plan and installed at the dripline of the tree's canopy and established 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. FIRE DISTRICT 11. Applicant shall comply with all Saratoga Fire Department conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 12. Owner and Applicant agree to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other . Governmental entities must be met. M. Application No. 07- 307119819 Colby Court 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, on this 24th day of October 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. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • • • • Attachment 2 • City of Saratoga Neigbbor Notification Form PROJECT ADDRESS; I 11 C d Dear Neighbor, I arri proposing a project at the above stated add oslhne like to neighbors across the review the proposal and provide comments. A f 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. Task 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 advised each neig these or to indicate are that they have had aft opportunity to review the proposal. Please preliminary and may change. If you have fizrther 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. yl; Date: �, Neighbor Name: Signature: Neighbor-Address: %Neighbor Phone #: If f have any initial concerns with the project (please attach additional sheets if necessary): I may list them below. My concerns are the following Applicant Name: aA) i2fl y A-,) Date: Application Number:___ Revised 10/24/06 5 P: \Forms & Procedures\design review applications.doc • • • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form p C- APR 1 U 2007 PROJECT ADDRESS: I �� �r CITY OF SgRt,TOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dear Neighbor, to I am proposing a project at the above stated address the adjacent neighbors) and the nteighbor� acros � he review the proposal and provide comments. All f J 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 h preliminary plansfor the s foprward. You may contact the City of PRELIMINARY ONLYand may be changed P Saratoga's Planning Division at any time to review any changes that may occur. by The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced plans be Please signed se edlthatgth setplans indicate are that they have had an opportunity to review the prop osa and may st in the project, you may contact the City of preliminary Y change. If you have further intere 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 roject plans. Date: Neighbor Name: �vy1 � G Signature: Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone #: If f have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): A%ir" L-� ? 0—' Applicant Name: �►�l`,t ✓1 C Date: Ili Application Number: Revised 10/24/06 a7_ 3c- - P:Torms & Procedures design review applications.doc City of Saratoga D Neighbor Notification Form APR 10 2007 CITY OF SARATOGA PROJECT ADDRESS: ' CO I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dear Neighbor, to I am P roposing a project . at the above stated address and would like nei hborsi and u n h an orp rt un t review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent g in street from the property are being provided this notice as a cour tesy advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being m the project. I ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plansfor You Theseplansare contact the City of PRELIMINARY ONLY and may be changed as the project move f Saratoga's Planning Division'at any time to review any changes that may occur. ei it of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed d i ghbor these plans indicate The C y that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised ma contact the City of preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the y Y Saratoga at 408 - 868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. Mygn signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. Date: Neighbor Name: 0L SignaturT �4! � N_ eighbor Address: 19 le Neighbor Phone #: fi0e If f have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. (please attach additional sheets if necessary.):- Date: Applicant Name: Application Number: Revised 10/24/06 c-7— 3 c7 p: \Forms & Procedures\design review applications.doc My concerns are the following 5 • • • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form PROJECT ADDRESS: 09,11 6 A ✓ C� 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 e advise hneigh or t indicate ae that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please 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 roject plans. r; Neighbor Name: v� mat ICJ ,� Date:% 2 3 % r Signature: Neighbor Address: lC7 (� ( & (. la SZvi Neighbor Phone #: ;— 4c S- FS-7- 92-31 If t have any initial concerns with the project I. may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): n f U Applicant Name: 't�' N I Date: opplication Number: Revised 10/24/06 P: \Forms & Procedures\design review appiications.doc City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form D p 1 l CG' G G� . APR 10 2001 PROJECT ADDRESS: CITY OF SARATOGA . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dear Neighbor, 1 am P p to ro osing a project at the above stated address and would like top ovidndohe with an orpacros�he review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors a 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. 1 ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the orward. Youemaylcontact the City of PRELIMINARY ONLY and may be changed as the project moves forward. Saratoga 's Planning Division at any time to review any changes that may occur. by each The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed advised that h setplanslc Th Y are that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be you may contact the City of preliminary and may change. If you have further interest t the project, as Y 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. Z Date: Neighbor Name: Signature: �s " Neighbor Address: A-d�dress: _ W _ Neighbor Phone #: YlDk v' If ): ha ve an y ' initial concerns with. the project I may .list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if:necessary): i �� 1`iN Date: A Q Applicant Name: Application Nu r: Revised 10/24/06 5 P:Torms & ProceduresAesign review applications.doc City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form a f, U p APR � U 2U0� PROJECT ADDRESS: I b I �1 �� CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dear Neighbor, I am proposing a project at the above stated address the adjacent neighbors to like to the neighbors pacros�he review the proposal and provide comments. A f J street from the property are being provided this notice as courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being ma P J I ask that you familiarize yourself with the as the�rolectsmoves foprward. Youemaylaontact the City of PRELIMINARY ONLY and may be changed P J 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 signed advised that ig h or to i indcate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Pl ease ect, you j p may contact the City of preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the pr y 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 Oroject plans. Neighbor Name: 14 � b 1'7 Date: � d Signature: Neighbor Address: L� y 'Q %dNeighbor Phone #: If t have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): . - / �fj F}.✓ Date: 3 12� 10 Applicant Name: , f ' r *Application Number: 0 —7 , 3 c 7 Revised 10/24/06 5 P: \Forms & Procedures\desi.o.n review applications.doc City of Saratoga D Neighbor Notification Form D APR 10 2007 PROJECT ADDRESS: C6L 9 l y (fl 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. form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate The-City of Saratoga asks that this 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. L O-7 Neighbor Name: Date: Signature: Neighbor Address: ^� ` z� C-0 L CtrG�� Neighbor Phone #: �V I J �r " If I have any mitiaF concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Applicant Name: �kOt kh r'` ' t f1A-/ Date: Q� Application Number: Revised 10/24/06 c ? — 3c 7 PAFonns & Procedures design review applications.doc 5 • • C City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form PROJECT ADDRESS: 1 fl APR 10 2007 Dear Neighbor, pp CITY OF SARATOGA I am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide youe th a p Q�Qr P P review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and t neighbors 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 f be preliminary changed as the plansfor the project. oves forward. Youemayl PRELIMINARY ONLY an contact the City of g Saratoga's Planning Division at any time to review any changes that may occur. ate The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed advised neig h or to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be 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 Oroject plans. Neighbor Ime: 24- 1E � 71, ZZA Date: 1 'D 7 Neighbor AddreSs� CA Neighbor Phone #: / S If f have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): goti' /)A A" J �'' Date: Applicant Name: Application Number: G? -3c 7 Revised 10/24/06 P: \Forms & Procedures\design review applications.doc 5 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 24th day of October, 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 w�vNv.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION /ADDRESS: DR 07 -307 / 19819 Colby Court APPLICANT /OWNER: Praveen Narayan APN: 386 -37 -005 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a 1,041 square foot second story addition to an existing 3,057 square foot one story single - family residence. The residence will not exceed 26 feet in height. The net lot size is approximately 15,681 square feet and the site is zoned R -1- 10,000. Design Review approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060. 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 Monday, October 22, 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. Christopher Alan Riordan, AICP Senior Planner (408) 868 -1235 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 5th day of October 2007, that I deposited 95 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: 19819 COLBY CT APN: 386 -37 -005 that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. • De�iise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services • ctober 5, 2007 )0' Ownership Listing repared for: 36 -37 -_005 RUN . & PRAVEEN NARAYAN . ►819 COLBY CT kRATOGA CA 95070 -3202 '3 -12 -001 MPSON,PAIGE BOX 1406' JPERTINO CA•95015 -1406 '3 -12 -004 ;RRY P JIANG !t CURRENT OWNER. 40 CLARKSPUR LN �N JOSE CA 95129 -3804 - 373 -12 -002 KATHRYN A KAY OR CURRENT OWNER 6590 IVY LN SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3837 373 -12 -003 MICHAEL K LEE OR CURRENT OWNER 1648 CLARKSPUR LN SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3804 373 -12 -015 373 -12 -017 RYSZARD & STEPHANIE JANOWSKI KATHLEEN C HAMMOND OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 6546 BIBEL AVE 6530 BIBEL AVE SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3801 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3801 3 -12 -020 373 -12 -021 3UPINDER & CHETNA AHUJA ARTHURY Y & SUMIYE TANABE 2 CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14 BIBEL AVE". 6498 BIBEL AVE " �N JOSE CA 95129 -3801 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3801 3 -12 -031 373 -12 -032 JNG KIM SON LUU Z CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 69 IVY LN - 6491 IVY LN iN JOSE CA 95129 -3971 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3971 342 -037 373 -12 -038 MOTHY R & E PAASKE MYRON I SABES 2 CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 70 IVY LN 6448 IVY LN ►N JOSE CA 95129;.3900 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3900 3 -12 -041 373 - 12=042 (LE C FAN HANDE JIANG t CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 05 PROSPECT RD. 6427 PROSPECT RD ,N JOSE CA 95129 -3840 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3840 3 -12 -044 373 -12 -045 _ �NHUA HUANG RALPH W CHAMBERS CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 71 PROSPECT RD 6493 PROSPECT RD .N JOSE CA 95129 -3840 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3840 3 -12 -048 373 -12 -049 )RMA L BUFORD CHARLES & MARGARET TING CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 37 PROSPECT RD 6545 PROSPECT RD N JOSE CA 95129 -3841 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3841 373 -12 -022 STEPHEN A & SANDRA KOOMAS OR CURRENT OWNER 6482 B113EL AVE SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3801 373 -12 -036 GLENN G LAI OR CURRENT OWNER 6492 IVY LN SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3900 373 -12 -039 WONG,DENNIS R 21103 LAVINA CT CUPERTINO CA 95014 -1631 373 -12 -043 PUJARE - NAGAVARAPU OR CURRENT OWNER 6449 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3840 373 -12 -047 JEFF C & BRANDON LO OR CURRENT OWNER 6515 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3841 • 373 -12 -050 1* CHAN,STEPHEN S K & MALINDA K 7050 RAINBOW DR 12 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -4524 13 -12 -051 373 -12 -052 373 -12 -053 DNG LING MIN -CHUN TSAI PERAHIA OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER *URRENT Y LN 6562 IVY LN 6548 IVY LN SE CA 95129 -3837 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3837 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3837 373 -12 -056 '3 -12 -054 373 -12 -055 JIANGXU XIANG kM LIANG HAHN,MANSOP ETAL CURRENT OWNER R CURRENT OWNER 20488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD 1616 6525 IVY IN 65 38 IVY LN CUPERTINO CA 95014 -6800 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3838 kN JOSE CA 95129 -3837 '3 -12 -057 373 -12 -058 HUEICHIAN HUANG 373 -12 -059 VISVANATHAN GANAPATHY LJI -CHEN KUO R CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER ;37 IVY IN 6549 IVY LN 6563 IVY LN kN JOSE CA 95129 -3838 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3838 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3838 '3 -12 -060 373 -13 -070 373 -13 -071 -HWA C LIN LI -JEN & CHUN -JUAN TSENG HUBERT T CHEN R CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER ;75 IVY IN 6690 IVY LN 6670 IVY LN �N JOSE CA 95129 -3838 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3839 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3839 '3 -13 -072 373 -13 -073 373 -13 -074 vDREW C HSIUNG RICHARD K & HELEN BAILEY JOHN R TOLVANEN 2 CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER ,50 IVY LN 6630 IVY LN 6610 IVY LN 0 SE CA 95129 -3839 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3839 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3839 3 -13 -075 373 -13 -076 373 -13 -077 :JI K YAU DENNIS C RUST WILLIAM F & LYNN ROTHWEIN Z CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 69 CLARKSPUR LN 6631 PROSPECT RD 6645 PROSPECT RD �N JOSE CA 95129 -3805 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3842 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3842 3 -13 -078 373 -13 -079 373 -13 -080 -NU & SMITHA VARMA RANJIT & ANJU JOHN HONGBO TANG 2 CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 61 PROSPECT RD 6675 PROSPECT RD 6691 PROSPECT RD �N JOSE CA 95129 -3842 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3842 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3842 373 -14 -001 373 -14 -053 3 -13 -081 MARGARET B SCARDIGLI SIMON K CHEN IRANDA,ARTEMIO ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 7 PLAZA LA POSADA 1638 DAPHNE DR 1639 CLARKSPUR LN )S GATOS CA 95032 -1629 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3812 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3805 3 -14 -054 386 -26 -054 386 -26 -055 HAN KANG MARVIN & SUSAN COHN WING AU t CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 47 CLARKSPUR LN 19840 VIEWRIDGE DR 19830 VIEWRIDGE DR ,N JOSE CA 95129 -3805 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3205 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3205 #56 386 -26 -057 386 -26 -058 YWAN G KO GRAHAM MOSTYN LARS L MAJLOF CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 831 VIEWRIDGE DR 19845 VIEWRIDGE DR 19861 VIEWRIDGE DR RATOGA CA 95070 -3236 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3236 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3236 ;6 -26 -059 ILLIAM C & NORMA FORD R CURRENT OWNER 1905 VIEWRIDGE DR_ �RATOGA CA 95070 -3237 386 -26 -060 MARIA CONTINILLO OR CURRENT OWNER 19911 VIEWRIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3237 386 -26 -064 SAM S & MUFFIE OCHI OR CURRENT OWNER 19920 SARAGLEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3217 ;6 -2'6 -065 386 -26 -066 386 -26 -067 kM P BAPU CHANDRASEKHA & SUJATHA BODAPATI DENNIS B LYDEN R CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 1910 SARAGLEN CT 19900 SARAGLEN CT' 19911 SARAGLEN CT �RATOGA CA 95070 -3217 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3217 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3217 :6 -26 -068 386 -26 -070, 071 386 -35 -069 .RNARD E & ELIABETH SIEVERS CITY OF SARATOGA, ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SAN 2 CURRENT OWNER 13777 FRUITDALE AV JOS -921 SARAGLEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070 12072 MILLER AVE 1RATOGA CA 95070 -3217 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3322 6 -35 -070, 71 )NGREGATION BETH DAVID Z CURRENT OWNER 700 PROSPECT RD aATOGA CA 95070 -3352 6-37 -003 - ;ONG C & SEUNG KIM Z CURRENT OWNER 795 COLBY CT aATOGA CA 95070 -3202 6 -37 -006 AVID _& B WYANDT 2 CURRENT OWNER 827 COLBY CT ,RATOGA CA 95070 -3202 6 -37 -009 3EN,LILY-H & PASCAL S 21 THE ALAMEDA 130 LN JOSE CA 95126 -1126 6 -37 -012 )UIS P & BERNICE DEGIVE t CURRENT OWNER 774 COLBY CT ,RATOGA.CA 95070 -3202 386 -37 -001 YAO H CHANG OR CURRENT OWNER 19771 COLBY CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3202 386 -37 -004 SAM & PAMELA KHOO OR CURRENT OWNER 19807 COLBY CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3202 386 -37 -007 PIAZZA FAMILY TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER 19828 COLBY CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3202 386 -37 -010 NEIL A & JUDITH KEEVER OR CURRENT OWNER 19798 COLBY CT . SARATOGA CA 95070 -3202 386 -37 -013, BROWN LIVING TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER 19773 VIEWRIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3236 6 -37 -015 386 -37 -016 kVID & CHRISTINE EGGLESTON ROBERT A & BONNIE LIND I CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 797 VIEWRIDGE DR 19809 VIEWRIDGE DR :RATOGA CA 95070 -3236 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3236 386 -37 -002 JAMES H & MARSHA PATTERSON OR CURRENT OWNER 19783 COLBY CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3202 386 -37 -005 ARUN & PRAVEEN NARAYAN OR CURRENT OWNER 19819 COLBY CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3202 386 -37 -008 ALTON & CARMEN ANDERSON OR CURRENT OWNER 19816 COLBY CT . SARATOGA CA 95070 -3202 386 -37 -011 LINGXIONG SHAO OR CURRENT OWNER 19786 COLBY CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3202 386 -37 -014 KLEIN K & IUE -FANG KAO OR CURRENT OWNER 19785 VIEWRIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3236 386-37-017 CHUNG -HO & CHEN -HUII FAN OR CURRENT OWNER 19815 VIEWRIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070.3236 5- 37.018 386 -37 -019 386 -37 -020 [OMAS K & DIANNA SAARI HELEN LOTT BRIAN SHING CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 323 VIEWRIDGE DR 19824 VIEWRIDGE DR 19816 VIEWRIDGE DR .RATOGA CA 95070 -3236 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3205 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3205 17-.� 0 • ;6 -37 -021 386 -37 -022 386 -37 -023 ARREN UCHIMOTO CHUNG LUAN N MONTGOMERY -RAYL [� URRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 1 IEWRIDGE DR 19796 VIEWRIDGE DR 19784 VIEWRIDGE DR OGA CA 95070 -3205 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3205 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3205 ;6 -37 -024 386 -37 -025 386 -37 -026 UANG -YU WANG WEN LIOU ALFRED J & MARLENE KASS (t CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 1772 VIEWRIDGE DR 19775 OAKHAVEN DR 19787 OAKHAVEN DR kRATOGA CA 95070 -3205 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3213 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3213 �6 -37 -027 386 -37 -028 386 -37 -029 EAN D & LUCILLE ANTONELLI GUY M & NANCY ROBBY DURGA P & RAJ AGARWAL Z CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 1799 OAKHAVEN DR 19805 OAKHAVEN DR 19817 OAKHAVEN DR �RATOGA CA 95070 -3213 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3213 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3213 TY OF SARATOGA Advanced Listing Services TTN: SHWETA BHATT P,0 Box 2593 777 FRUITVALE AVENUE Dana Point CA 92624 JRATOGA CA 95070 • DAS, SHANTA D. LOOMER. approval, the applicant is adoption of Ibis Article, which only one opening. newsrxk. newsrxk shall be subsea- than eighteen inches nor and SHAMA PAS LOOMER' e,. -,. I g requesting approval of a imposes time, plus or man. I. Newsrack encasement e. Amendments. A newsra[k Daily equivalent to a 49.16 or more ban twentylour inches and N0.147AS LOOMER �J City legalS Vatmnce as speafied In Clly nor It which regu• means a City owned and permit may be amended tram loo style as manuhct.wcI from the edge of the curb. TO all heirs, "-161ciarles,' Code Se[Ibn 15.12.0631a) late the placement and main- maintained, modular reapta• fime to time upon application hy'Sho•Rack"). a 115011()551` The back of newsrxks pooled creditors. comingenl vedi•. Application 007488 tenance of newsracks. de letter which one m more tar an amendment [onlaining (as anulaclmed by `K- ad'la<ent to the wall of a ton, std persons who may N07XE Of HEARING (517.14403) Campagna; e. The public hearth. safety, privately owned newsncls the information described in Ixk�, a M- 301M -33 (u man• building shall be Dlaad par• otherwise he hnerested in the BEFORE PUNNING 15261 Batsman Road: • The welfare and convenience maybe placed. The mwsmch subsection (c). above, lot ufaclmed by 'National It to such wall and not ill or estate, or bath he COMRE PLAN applicant requests Design require that: enasemenl shall be large such additional newsrxk of Newsvend"), a 'atmorbond more than six inches ham the EDITH SHANTA DI15 LOOMER, pyy OF SARATOGAS Rwiew approval tpcomirxl 1. Intenereme with vehicular, enough to accommodate a location to M the subject of BO style' rack or a "Gannet" wall. No .wsrad shall be its aka E $MANTA OAS, OOM . PLANNING COMM65pN a new Iwp• rnw single ation, bicycle, w ric, with or icul newsracA which complies the permit. The Newsrack rack as determined by mil placed or maintained on a D. t00MEA and SXANiP OAS antes the fallowing Pub- residence and Variants trian traffic be avoided; with.lhe ,mMads of this Permit Administrator shall Newsrack permit sdewalk or parkway tppo• LOOMER tic hearings on Wednesday, approval for the retaining 2. Obstruction of sight, din- Article, be permanently review such applications in Administrator consistent with site no newsrxl ar a A DfTON)N has been filed by the 24th day of October at wall to exeed the fm fact taut and views of vehicular affued to the ground or tae aaodame with subsection the provisions of this section. kiosk which distributes pri• 5HANTELLE LOOMER - A 7:00 p.m. in the City Council mosimum height limitation. traffic, traffic signs and side of a wall or other sWC• Id), abm. b. Sue Requirements. No marily newspapers, periodb DAVID LOOMER the Chambers located at 13777 In, local wea at the Dro- streetcrossing pedestrians lure and It I. design which 1. Encrchow^t Permits. A newsrxk shall InT failed in call or other publications. Superior Court of California, hu'nnle Avenue. $amlega, Dosed reskeme and garage b! eliminated; is archheclurolty compalWle newsrxk permit issued put• a public rigM•ol•way that 2. Roadways one Slrces. No County of Santa Clara. U 95070. Detafs and Duns wi be approximately 6.010 3. Damage done to,kewalks ith the surrounding area. suant to this Article shall does not meet the approved persons hall inslalh stock or THE PETITION rtgwsls that am available at the Saratoga mu leer. The net lot sue or streets be minimised and 1. Pubic cighlbf•waY has the operate as an emroxhment newsrxk dimensions of not maintain any newsrxk which SHANTELIE 100MER 8 Community DweloOmenl sapproximatety LOS acres. repaired; same meaning aslMtteren permit and re separate Per- more than filly (Sa)inch• projects onto, into or aver arty DAVID LODMER be appointed D<Nrtment Mondry through The Sir a land HA INilsitle 4. The good appearame of defined in section 15 -06.570 and punuanl to Article 10-20 as high including the pad of the roadway or street as Derunal representative to Thursday, 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 Residrntia6. the public street and of the Saratoga Municipal of this Code shall be required. pedestal measured Mm the of any public dghlol-smy, or atlminiuer the estate of Or p,m. If you have questions, APPirta_bon 107A07 grounds be maintained; Code. g. Fall. X a newsrack permit pouts to the top surhace of which test. wholly or in part. . decedent ,planners are available at the , (366.37 -005) Praveen 5. Trees and Other landuap- g. Roadway has the came lee has Men eslabtished by the ntwsrack not more than upon, afang or over airy por- TH[ PETITION requas. the counter OeMeen the Narayan: 19819 Colby EOUrI: ing be allowed to grow with- meaning as that term rs the City Council . newsra[k Me (2) feet desk and not tin^ at a roatlway or sheet. decedent's WILL and codicils, hours of ]:30 a.m. a. ]2:00 The ail flkant reque.t Desian. out distur1wm deemd in section 9. 10.150 of Dermil shall take effect until more Ihan thirty (30) inches 3. Prohibited Imotions. No if any. be admitted to pm- man.. Review approval 1. construct 6. laces. he emergency and the Straws. Municipal Code. payment by the aPP &ant of woe. epos a k shall be placed, hate. The sill and any eodi• All Interested persons may a 1,041 square loot. second other public facilities be I. Sidewalk has the came said fee. Airy he or lees P Dangerous Desf {a installed, used or .,in• [its are ou'ille for ewmina- ' appear aM he heard at the story addition to an existing maintained: and meaning as that term is adopled by the City Council Prohibited. The design ofa lamed: tion in the file kept by -me above time and plan. 11 you 3,057 square foot one story 7, Ingress and egress ham defined in section 9. 10.160 of shall not acted IM ants of ewsrack shall out meals a a. WHhi. sera leeI of airy sun. challenSe s decision of the smgle•lamity rcskexe. The Drooerties adjoining the pub- the SaraloSa Municipal Code. prcessin& permit applies• danger to the persons using marked or unmarked class- sin PETITION iequests Planning Commission par- resfdeme will not weed 16 tic fiEhsct•war he protect- i. Single -slot opening means item, amendments and the seeable In n reasonabty walk as measured ham the authariry ro administer the swnl ro a public hearing io lest in hefghl. TM cel loll site ed an individual opening within renewals, as well as the cos foreseeable manner curb return; :other the Independent court you may beaimired tt 15 aDOloximately 15.661 S. The regulation of the distri. a .oulx newsrack or maintaining ni .rack d. His Standards. All b. Within five feel er arry Ore :otherslratfon of Estates Act raising only those issues you square leer. The site u Lo.d button. of newspapers and t. Street has the same mem• ncasemenls aM enlmcing newsrxk. shall M pedestal hydrant, Fate callbox, police (This rush oit will allow the or someone else need at the R- 710.000. elha Dubl'uations dispensed ing as that term B defined in this Article. The Newsreels mounted and shall be Derma- cailMs, or other emertemy personal r......nratha !o public Mxing(s) d raised at t in (Pub ' 10/10) in newsruks as set forth In section 9.10.180 of the Permit Administrator may nenlly aR ed to the ground, toWity; lake many anions with this notice, e m written ,,Ib d in this Article provides the least Saratoga Municipal Code. also require a bond or other except as permitted under c Within fns Fart of any chi- take many court apOrwal' respondents Oelheredlo the ORDINANCE 254 intrusive and burdensome k. Village has the same mean• farm or security in an amount the Article. Newsrack. shall way. Before taking court app very ed to n AN ORDINANCE- ADDING means for ensurind the our• ing as that term s defined in reasonably necessary to .1 be chained o1 otherwise d. Within Ave feet of any bus im oItam taking Mwmy taloga S ARTICLE 10.40 TO THE poses stated in this section section iS -06.710 of the ensure removal of each news. attached to a bus shelter, Mmh; P CS.' mmission al, or prior to,. SARATOGA CITY CODE AEUT• are carried out while still pro- 5araloga Municipal Code. and authorized by the news. Mmh, street R {AI, utility e. Within fns feel or any red the Personal repw- 1.tire the pubI hearing. In ado ING M NEWSRACKS viding Dle oppon."Hi" 1040.030 Newsrack Permit rack permit in the manner pale or sign pole, to any other orb el a bus stop cam; wdl be required le she Mike to be Included in the Planning THE CITY COUNCA OF 1HE Im the distdbutbn of news Required inquired by this Article. single or modular newsracA, 1. Within foe feel of any blue to interested persons canons Commission's inbith atars CITY Of SARATOW DOES and other printed matter in No person shall piece or h. Permll not a Bar to or to arty tree, shrub or other orb or a disabled parking they have wawed notice or poetics, written in muoim- ORDAIN A5 FOLLOWS: she residents of IM Gty. This Ouse to M blazed a newt- Enforcement. The lsswnce of plant. rom; consented to the proposed liom shook be fried on or Seclbn 1 Adoption Ankle applies Doty to rwws- rack on public righl•af-waayy rmwsrxk permit under this e. Height Requirements. TM a. In such a manner g to action.) The nndependen! before lbe Tuesday, a. week article 10 -40 h added to the racks pct public properly and unless such person (1) Ankle shall not Dment the highest operable pan of the obstruct pedestrian or drkrtr administration aulMrity will before the meeting. Sara ago City Code to read: does not apply on private obtains a newsrack permit Ciry from subsequently coin slot 11 provided for the views of tlalfic signs or be granted unless an inleres4 A site visit will be trek a^ the gp,A0.010 Purpose and pmperry. Irom tae Newsrack P:Z; fi drag this Article, U a vio- newsrack. and all controls, omins traffic; ed person files an objection day D eding the hearing.. Finding 1030.020 Definitions Administrator and (2) corn• fallen N tiler found to exsL tlbpensers and other opm- h. Al any location where the io the petition and shows dale listed shave as part of Th e purpose of these redufa• far the purposes of this plies witA all requirements of 10. 40. 050 Indemnification bit components of c -Sacks near space is the passage of good cause by the court the standard Site Visit lions u to mknuwledst and Ankle, the following arts this Article, and Insurance Requirements shall not be greater Ihan pedestrians is reduced to less shook .l pant the amhori• Commune agenda. Site vis- achieve the following: and phrases shall have 10-40.040 P e r m i t A. Indemnlli alion. Every lorty<ight (48) inches above than sic feet; tr its occur between 3:30 and a. There s e substantial gw• the meanings respectively Requirements and Standards newsrxk permit Miter saall the level of the ariment i. In such a manner as to A HARING on the ppeetition 5vW P The see visit is emmennl Interest in pmmol• ascribed to them by this sea a. GeoenI.A newsrack permit apse, prim to tae effective• pavement or skewalk tar impede l interfere with the ill beheld on OCI08ER 7L open to the public. The Site ins the public health. safety, lion. unless IM context m the h epplicahle onty for the ness oI1M rrcwsrxk permit fewer than fifteen (15) inches easpnabk use of arty wm• 1007, 9:00 a.m. in Dept 15 Ysi1 Commerce poll come"° welfare and commokme y quit h baled :0 a.m. in Dept, 15 a' provision dead requires orb newsnckls) aM faotion(s) to indemni and hold harm• above the Iwel of the adja• meeclal window display; San pre, 2 95ll1 of Ihe Gry Hall parkins bl at ensurind Thal persons may erwise: described in its permit. less the Ciry. its affe... and cent pavement or sidewalk. j. Within fifteen feel of its IF VDU OBIECTw the,.mImy 3:30 p. on the day premed- reasonably use the public a. Abandoned newsrack b. Duration. A newsrack per- Obyees Irom arty less, Ga• f. Compliance with the curb return of IM wherkhair Of its petition. you should ' ^S the beating and visit the Areeu, sidewalks. righls•ol• means arty newsrack which mil shall De valid for om year bility, damage or cost sus• Americans with Disabilities orb amp not in a marked appear at the hearing and rile Listed above antl may way, and other public proper- Contains no, printed matnub and shall be removable annu• rained b1' any person or prop• Act. D j intended Nat the crosswalk; ante your hears or file visit other sees as well -For ty with .1 interference with supplied by the newsrack ally. only. a rising from the lnstaha- pnwA of Us 7utkit shall k. Wilhina fanduaDed area: . written ur objections with IM mom fefonnaMn please con-. such use antl by ensuring Pennitlee for lourleen con. c. Permit Application. The into. aperatun or tau of such be interpreted and applied L Ia Such a man-1 as to nun belom the hearing. tact the Community That the streets are maim secuthe calendar days, news permit application mwsrxk; P" read. howwe6 insistent wUh auessibildy umeaunably obshud m Your appearance may be in Dwebpment Department at tained in an aesthetically exepI that a newsracA shall stale the name, address that such obligation to standsds of the Americans inledere with access to or person or Dy yam attorney. 408 869-1222 or review IM - pleasing . mannet that mils kmainmg empty due to a and telephone number of ,Memnfty std Mk harmless with Disabilities Act 011990. tau and enjoyment of abm- IFYOU ARE A CREDI10Ror a Silt VniI Amen" on the City ingestion and clutter of labor strike or any temporary those responsible larinstalla• the Ciry. its oNrcm and P.1.101.336, as amended. ring property. [onlingenl clCREDr of the WeDSite +f structures on sidewalks and and lraortlinary inlenuD• lion use and mainlerunce al employees shall .l extend g: Color Requirements. The A. Other prohibited Locations. dectased, you must ftle yam saralo6a.i.w. other public riSMS Of way. ti on of dslribulion or publc.: the slacks, and shall to any toss. liability damage color of all nawsracksshall be No person shaU install sack claim with the court and moil APPLICATION aMOD 074001 h. Newsrack. placed and tiara by lAt newspaper -or deuriM, with paniculasuy, or roll msulting Mm the acts tones of Orown. or maintain any newsrack a copy to the pentnai rcDre- (397- I74fOj PNMllil mainlai.it on the suees. other publication dstribdeit the model old design of the or pmperry of a.tAer. h Advertising. A newsrack whoa m whole or in part a copy to ppainted by the Cahoon, .18935 Harold sidewalks or other public ham Nat newsrack shall not rte ,rack(,) and the loco- b. Liability Insmarce. Exb may dsplay the logo or name ress npon. In c over any court within tom months Court: - The app icanl rightsrol•Way, absent some be deemed abandoned. .lion(,) proposed hr imtalla• mwexk Derma Miter shall, of the publrcation it often for sidewalk when such insla0a• from the due al first issuance requests modifications to an r n onable regulation, an h. Newsrack Permit lion. Contact information prior 10 the effectiveness or distribution. A newsrack Ian, use or maintenance of Inters :as Droritled in approved Design Review - under [.,tam wisnolmroul Administrator means an must M updated byy the the newsrxk Dermil, famish must also dspfaythe keno& either p)erdarlgenpthe rah• E. section 9S of the Calihmla 'rniWdq 1. a ortolc limned lheeuse and eno ere.L.ru Sxatoyaewor.ft within'Ihe of of change. tin ten (101 days !n�rhatutthe permit indoor has Ion 10.40.09o(d).e NO O"her kits bcalron uxit kr publ� Probate Code. The time la the addition of slam h sch stress. skew ,antis and Community Develop- d yAev "re of Permit then in lone public liability advertising or ext".., am utility puryoses, public Inns• Im filing -naims will not lM hom bade, the alter• public ri hl_I and r, Department and deli noted A bation. The Newsrack and property damage Insur allowed on the exteswr ofa portalian puryoset or -an _Fire before four months 0 g aY. P P S DP "..,be heatInS do, alien of proposed homey sent haaads to persons or by the Community Permit Administrator shall ante nammg the City u an newsrxk government in erfa a (3)umm• ate, placement on the sae, the property. Development Direclal to review each application to addili ... I insured In an t Newsrack Encasement sonahly interferes With or YOU MAY EXAMINE the file rotation al the {aroge, and' [. The slrets. sidewalks and mane{. and process the determine whether each pro• amount of not less Ihan Desists. The City may estab- impedes the Dow or pe0e,tri• kept by its [sun. If you area addirio.l wintlows on the pubic righsnfway art his- _implementation and enforce- posed newsrack implies 5250,000 minimum liability fish newsnch ervasements in an or vehicular enffrc, IncIuO• person interested m the right elevation. The Property larkar y associated with the men! of a v'tolalipa under this with the requimments of the combined single Gmi1 (Mdily various pars of the City le. {., ing aand'cappetl access, IM estak. you may ed with IM s zoned R- 1-0,000. eistribation of newspapers Article. Article. The Newsrack Permit injury aM property r mcu,- the Ydtage areait on Ciry will ingress into or egress from coon a formal Request he APPLICATIDN 106.111 and other publications, aid c. Newsnck Appeal Offrce7 Administrator shall, within per person and per occur- consult wUAaM [amidst arty any residents. place of busi- Speclal Notice of the flirty . (503.28.008) I fwmfck /' access to and use of These meets the Director of the thirty days of receipt of the rence. Thepermfl hokershall apPl "rcable design guketims ness. or the use of poles. ofec al Notary and aDpniul' Sarnevesh, 10951. Canyon -areas lot sxh purposes s Community Development permit application, either ptovke and keeyyfn forte that regarding the design. Ica• Posts, traffl signs ar signals, of estate anus or of any View: Appre lions for 'nor to be denied except Department authorized to issue A newsrxk perms or paltry of puDC liaDilily Insur- lion, and sue ollhe newsrack hydrants, postal the, service col- or "m ition , account , provid• Design Review and Variance when. such use unreasonably Mar appeal of decisions of deny ,the application. In ante dwing such Low as a emasement. lesion bones or Other objects ed in section 1250 of the to censwnan aDprarimatety intenems with the use of the Newsrack Permit hole or in Dan, and .t IN conainues to own. 1PIcam, 10-40.D70 bation yermilled at or neat such California Probate CoOe. A 3.635 square bat Mo•story these areas M Pedestrians of Administrator. -the applicant in writing of the tau. or, maintain airy rows- Standards Ia, Newt ucks Ppcalbn. Request for special Nolke Mme with a daylight but traffic, where such one pre. d. Newsrack means arty box, deciswn. Ir the applications rack on a public rigAr•ofwray a. location Standards. b. Limitations on Proximity, of form s arxilabk from the ment ono vacant bl at 10951 lens a ta:ad to pemns m container, slorager unit, or denied. this notifntion shall k the City. TM wideme al Neinmcks shall comply with Newsrack.. Newsrxks shall ceun dkrk. - Grryon Yew Drive. -The my- property. or where such use s other dispenser installed, include an explanation of the insurance filed with the Cfly the folbwfng stand nd1: M placed nW to each other Atlamey for petititmr. age slope of IM lot s 39.7% carried out In a mans that used or maintained for the reasons for denial. A denial shall imlude a statement by 1. Permissible locations. whenmr feasible. Howm4 DOUGUS BARNES' sloping downward toward neaten congestion and dolt• dsplay and diatribulian of nay De appealed In acir- IM insurance tinier that 30 Newsracks shall Doty M no 1peup of newsrxk. placed DOUGUS R.BRRNES: Carryon Vmw Drive. Pursuant �en or tlelncis from the n .papers. periodicals or dame with this Article. TM days' notice will be given to placed near a curb or adja• along a cmb shall =led A PRDfESSIONAI UW CORP. to Ciry Code Section 15• design. of thr'surrounding other printed molten. authorization news• its City before arty cam unless the aaCol aabu roved elmo (17) IeeL P newsneti 210ALMENDRAAVE. 12.061; the -mrage slope slreelscape. Newsrack includes fro mod• rack included in billions, newsrack aion. ^Y DD LOS GATOS. CA 95030 ' beneath a structure stall net d. Reasonable accommorm ular newuacks, which hm perms shalt be of no further 10-40.060 Design encasement. The bad of may not De faceted on the 408 - 395 -6800 exeed 30%sbpe:Therelore, tan el Th...... peting inter• mar than one opening, and force and eftecl it that rrew•s- Standards far Me Rocks newstacks placed near Ihv same black witlim fifty (SO) (Pub SN 9126,10 ?3,10110) In addi!'ron to Design Awiew ens can be achiwed by single newsrack., which have mck becomes an abandoned a. Newsrack Madrs. Each curb shall be placed . less feet of a group of newsrxks • I1 • 1] Attachment 4 • H `,:OPE OF WORK: 1. ADDING A SECOND STORY OF 1041 SQUARE FEET OF LIIJING AREA AND TWO UNCOVERED BALCONIES. • 2. ADDING DRIVEWAY AREA OF 205 SQUARE FEET. 3. MATERIALS AND COLORS SHALL MATCH EXISTING STRUCTURE. • • tl PROJECT DATA: A. APN 386 37 005 B. ADDRESS OF PROJECT: 19819 COLBY COURT SARATOGA, CA 95070 C. OWNER'S NAME: ARUN & PRAVEEN NARAYAN D. EXISTING USE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE E. ZONING DISTRICT R -1 -10 F. SIZE OF LOT. ' 15,681 SO-FT G. AGE OF STRUCTURE 40 YEARS H. ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA 4128 SOFT I. FLOOR AREASOF STRUCTURES FIRST FLOOR EXISTING ( BLOCK A) 2531 SQ-FT FIRST FLOOR ADDITION 0 SOFT. GARAGE EXISTING ( BLOCK B) 556 SQ-FT SECOND FLOOR ADDITION ( BLOCK C) 1041 SQ-FT TOTAL NEW LIVING AREA ( BLOCKS A +C) 3572 SO-FT J. PERCENT OF IMPREVIOUS SURFACE (ISC) DRIVEWAY ( BLOCK D) 1728 SOFT WALKWAY ( BLOCK E) 210 SQ-FT STRUCTURE (GROUND FLOOR ONLY) 3087 SOFT EXISTING PATIO ( BLOCK F) 320 SQ-FT EXISTING POOL ( BLOCK G) 640 SQ-FT PROPOSED ADDING DRIVEWAY (BLOCK H) 205 SQ-FT TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ( BLOCK A, BLOCK B, BLOCK D, BLOCK E, BLOCK F, BLOCK G & BLOCK H) 6190 SOFT PERCENTAGE OF ISC (6190/15681) 39.47% Y. TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 6190 SO-FT K. SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE 0% L. AVERAGE SLOPE 0% M. HEIGHT INFORMATION UNKNOWN - LAND SURVEY NOT REQUIRED N. LINER FEET OF TOTAL EXISTING WALLS 200' -9" LINEAR FEET OF EXISTING WALLS TO DEMOLISH -ZERO 0. PROPOSE TO ADD A SECOND STORY OF 1041 SQUARE FEET / ADDING NEW FURNACE IN ATTIC OF SECOND STORY / ADDING DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT OF 205 SQ-FT P. INFORMATION PROVIDED ON RIGHT HAND SIDE Q. SETBACKS LIVING FIRST STORY SECOND STORY FRONT 52' -6" 8V-6" SIDE (RIGHT) 10' -6" 21' -10" SIDE (LEFT) I1' -0" 17' -3" REAR 3 P -0" 35' -0" TOTAL LOT COVERAGE . 6,190 SQ-FT SECOND STOIR rADDITIONA7 19819 COLBY COURT SARATOGA, CA 95070 OWNER ARUN & PRAVEEN NARAYAN 189K IF @HE IM,@ @10211898011 =11101) 18302 SOIANO COURT MORGAN HULL, _CA 95037, El l -M D s -n (D®D ®D 5 0 (E) POOL 0�2 ( BLOCK G = 624 SQ -FT ) TRµ 11. TEMPO P re� N rr w "n.�ro o g "I P_ T"ee TO "Ev c. _..3' O 6' PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION BY THE CITY, THE LLS OF RECORD SHALL'-PROVIDE A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION THAT ALL BUILDING SETBACKS ARE PER THE APPROVED PLANS. 4 PROPOSED LIVING 2ND FLOOR c`'r REAR FLOOR BALCONY WFRONT EXISTING PATIO CKE) 1 Nrpt,KWAY �8� �T L TPw 1Eg NEW WOODEN FENCING TO PROTECT TREES FROM POSSIBLE DAMAGE BY MATERIAL TRANSPORTING y0 EXISTING ^� DRIVEWAY 2n ( BLOCK D) oZ PROPOSED DRIVEWAY �2 \ ADDITION (BLOCK R 205 SQ-FT) \ . pL =4.g1, i SITE 'PLAN SCALE 111 = 101 -011 i \ \ Sheet #A -1: Si(e Plan & Notes Sheet 4A -2: Existing / Demo First Floor Plan Sheet #A -3: Proposed First Floor Plan Sheet #A -4: Blocked Areas of Proposed First Floor Plan Sheet #A -5: Proposed Second Floor Plan & Blocked Area Sheet 4A -6: Existing & Proposed Front & Rear Elevations Sheet #A -7: Ex sting & Proposed Left & Right Elevations Sheet #A -g: Proposed Sections Sheet #A -9: R6of Plan 2. ComPosltlon Shingle Roofing 19819 COLBY COURT VICINITY MAP NO SCALE 11 W N wiuw TuE ro "es R aecumr. _ cv� _ cl cuw. 1' O � T ,� rn rn,0 Mw 'sl !ii 5 0� - 1 1 V OrT z tuul CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT !I- 02 it I\ ice+ tSl Z LO �IV0)o 14 0 V o r-1 ' 0 � 0 l� Ln O EP 00 ECO Off, �ri-4 or- z a C 0 CrJ z C � Q �J � p V aWQ� O i'5CALE I, " =2 P -2" DZL&WN By ALL RI LIVING AREA IST FLOOR WFRONT YARD EXISTING LIVING GARAGE AREA 1ST 6' high concrete FLOOR fences' . CKE) 1 Nrpt,KWAY �8� �T L TPw 1Eg NEW WOODEN FENCING TO PROTECT TREES FROM POSSIBLE DAMAGE BY MATERIAL TRANSPORTING y0 EXISTING ^� DRIVEWAY 2n ( BLOCK D) oZ PROPOSED DRIVEWAY �2 \ ADDITION (BLOCK R 205 SQ-FT) \ . pL =4.g1, i SITE 'PLAN SCALE 111 = 101 -011 i \ \ Sheet #A -1: Si(e Plan & Notes Sheet 4A -2: Existing / Demo First Floor Plan Sheet #A -3: Proposed First Floor Plan Sheet #A -4: Blocked Areas of Proposed First Floor Plan Sheet #A -5: Proposed Second Floor Plan & Blocked Area Sheet 4A -6: Existing & Proposed Front & Rear Elevations Sheet #A -7: Ex sting & Proposed Left & Right Elevations Sheet #A -g: Proposed Sections Sheet #A -9: R6of Plan 2. ComPosltlon Shingle Roofing 19819 COLBY COURT VICINITY MAP NO SCALE 11 W N wiuw TuE ro "es R aecumr. _ cv� _ cl cuw. 1' O � T ,� rn rn,0 Mw 'sl !ii 5 0� - 1 1 V OrT z tuul CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT !I- 02 it I\ ice+ tSl Z LO �IV0)o 14 0 V o r-1 ' 0 � 0 l� Ln O EP 00 ECO Off, �ri-4 or- z a C 0 CrJ z C � Q �J � p V aWQ� O i'5CALE I, " =2 P -2" DZL&WN By ALL RI • is 0 65' -4" 1©' -3" 23' -0" I 24' -1 EXISTING / DEMO FIRST FLOOR PLAN O1 02 R I-. M Z � C� < O 00� N c Ln O �O 5 � 00 ,, z a z a z a 0. 00 o `0 oti wa�+Voo 0� O w Lo r-i t/1 P-4 SCALE I' =7' -8' 1 vitAvm 3117 ALL Aims iZD • • C 65' -4" TRANSOM TRANSOM 23'•0" PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN 24' -1" O1 03/27/07 02 08/27/07 Z LO V0)o V rn 0 ~ o) � N `r) o rn00 r= cc) ° V. C) z � a z �' o Lo at O t' gp�02 W. v 4L o Cie 0.�6-�V)a SCALE I " =7' -8" 1 DaAw q BY ALL RIFTS R V D A -3 REVISION DATE 65'-4" 01 03/27/07 02 08/27/07 (E) PATIO BLOCK F = 320 SQ -FT • �v(E) 2650 SLr ti6�O 2�0 (E) 8068 SLDG 41 J( (E) 40 (E) 068 DG ol Y F W a V IVI RO LA ER ED 0 gran (E AM RO O Ln &U<0 ol O V 0) rn UP ANT �i ol ( )26 E L AY $_ {M/ co W S "_ O 'V �y c u XDA o CL T N w (E) 19 FIX. (E) 6068 (E) 968 FIX — E R IN G –I ol R M F x /\7 W K HE oo lo wq Z va z 0. o (N) 6 "x6" POSTS w w & PILLAR ) — — (E ED OM COVERINGS RE I oo oo w / ?� V D W W Q C,2 lo 0 O O CQ � (E) DR M oo oo O Q C w ! }+ O U (E) GARAGE w Q v H E R RO BLOCK B= 556 SQ -FT o O SCALE 1 " =7' -8" A�®PIQ �Ti • (N) 2068 SL W/ (N) 2068 SL W/ TRANSOM TRANSOM ALL P,M5 23' -0„ 24,_1„ R D BLOCKED AREAS OF PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR :P-L-AN A_4. (E) FIRST FLOC R S -FT LIVING AREA BLOCK A = 253 10 0 N 10 0 N 10 (N) 20 0 +5L O Q wg U 0 �0 0 _ Q T z Z � O (N)CLOSET on w °a o,D o� Z �iO (N) 42" HI H HANDRAIL5 (N) BALCONY (N) 2468 N NTATHER STRIP T��-(N) 5L (N) 4040 5L (N) BEDROOM uw v\ c \V/ ( ) 2668 (N) 5068 FRENCH 0.'UR5 W/ wc+meR STwrs (N) BALCONY (N) 42" HIGH HANDRAILS (N) 6040 5L 6 TRANSOM 32' -0' FIRST FLOOR FOOTINGS (U I d' (N) 6040 SL (N) 3020 5L O Q can 0 m (N) MASTER BEDROOM (N) 6040 5L d TRANSOM L+ v N (N)CLOSET (N) 6040 5L TRANSOM PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN 32' -0' (N) 20 0 5L (N) 42" HI H HANDRAILS I FIRST FLOOR_ FOOT =IN ON N w N o � (N) BALCONY � (N) 6040 5L (N) 5020 5L O ov Z� (N) 3040 5L (N) 4040 5L WE4 nCRSTRP co •u. .!!T _ I" zl of 0 x s �I �I FIRST FLOOR J FOOTINGS FIRST FLOOR J —T —r7 BLOCKED AREA OF PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN 'ISION DATE 01 03/27/07 02 08/27/07 n Z to aU <O p 0) N M to O pp r= co O 0 CQ h wz a Q Z 0,0 O O 0 p ti Q 02 w�o h p U oz0 SCALE 1 " =T -8" RD A -5 ❑ NT ELEVATION I EXISTING REAR ELF-VATIC T7�71■�-i�■7�_J■1►ri>�A�► %rrl■ nnua.ma. -- EXISTING RESIDENCE In 011111 T 71 ■�-�� ■7:J�� \:a�l��► %rMl■ a C a C C a C a s ,A: i COMP. SHINGLE ROOFING STUCCO -(E) DOWNSPOUT EXISTING L 25' -0' EXISTING EXISTING RIGHT ELEVATION COMP. SHINGLE ROOFING CLASS C MIN. TO MATCH EXISTING RESIDENCE EXISTING L 25' -0' NEW PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION COMP. SHINGLE ROOFING CLASS C MIN. TO MATCH EXISTING RESIDENCE Vol oawmm. a STUCCO TO MATCH EXISTING RESIDENCE 25' -0' NEW EXISTING r PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATION (E) DOWNSPOUT -, COMPOSITION SHINGLE (N) FURNACE ROOF CLA55 C MINIMUM (N) COLLAR TIES RA 12 12 4 (NI R -13 P INSULATION CEILING JClSTS (N)R- 301NSULATION NS-1- STUDS® NEW SECOND FLOOR CEILING I0LST5 ,,— N S�U—ROVER EXISTING FIRST FLOOR' 25' -0' NEW SECTION A -A COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF CLASS C MINIMUM P'FT 4 4 OF CEILING GUARDRAIL ousTRLC IoNEll- ECCAPABLE OP RP5515TING 20 PLf HC—AL LOAD PERPENDICU R TO THE TOP RAIL AND 25 PSP CeILINGJOI5T5 �/ NIR- BoMSUwT1ON P OF CEILING HORIZOI— OADPERPENDICUwRTOTHE BALUSTERS/ ILLERELEMENTE.UBC5GEANDTABK :G -8. MINIMU UARDRAIL HEIGHT 15 S W NTERMEDIA 5""D SUCH THAT A S M 4' STUDS ® I C O.c. IN D-11 N NOT —5 THROUGH (N) R -13 �INSUwraN • O I NEW BALCONY NEW SECOND FLOOR NEW BALCONY 0� • N I R-13 INEu BUwrlou � celuNG.loISTS IHED FLOOR N NISHED FLOOR TOP OF CEILING OF CEILING wafMr-* t4WbaleanY, ulC co �- - - - -� CD EXISTING FIRST FLOOR HED FLOOR FINISHED FLOOR COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF CLA55 C MINIMUM RAFTS 4 (NI R -13 NSUwT oN CEILING JOEiTS MI R301N5ULATION (N)R -13 INSUUrroN sruos @ I a o.c. NEW SECOND FLOOR 'Jn' 9UBPLOOROVER r�CtILING.IOLSTS /— ILLSUTATKJN EXISTING FIRST FLOOR 20' -10' NEW SECTION C -C 25' -0' NEW SECTION B -B (N) FURNACE (N) COLLAR TIES -'�\ O I G+ F ISHED FLOOR OP OF CEILING 0 I CD ISION DATE O1 03/27/07 02 08/27/07 o 0 U o o U o .� O •~ 0) N Lr) . o 00 s co 00 0 z a o r� 02 M 0 y Q o0 U at W 0. to SCALE I DitAllm my ALL RI M5 R T I) 0 l 0 'a 0 In m v 0 0 (E) SLOPE 4:12 36' -0' 0 t, M r 0 ro m T N N � 0 �0 0 m �D z G) 61' -0' 12' -0' (N) S PE 4:12 (N) S E 4:12 O v m SLOPE 4:12 (N) SLOPE 4:12 (N) SLOPE 4:12 (E) SLOPE 4:12 p- 1�M N to t, r 0 ro M t, II O Itj A EX /STING / PROPOSED ROOF PLAN > i7u U SECOND STORY ADDITION FOR ARUN 0 PRAVEEN NARAYAN �immp �Bittfj'g �e�ignittg group 19819 COLBY COURT 18302 Solano Court N Morgan Hill, CA 95037 (.0 SARATOGA, CA 95070 -3202 PHONE: (408) 206 -4575 (408) 509 -1900 (E) W N NO, I°IS 1c, I� � REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • Item 5 Application No./Location: 07- 288/15261 Bohlman Road Type of Application: Design Review for a New Single- Family Residence and a Variance Request for Retaining Walls to Exceed the Five Foot Maximum Allowable Height Applicant/Owner: James Campagna nn Staff Planner: Christopher A. Riordan, AICP, Senior Planne4 Date: October 24, 2007 APN: 517 -14 -003 Department Head: ?� John Livingstone, AdCP, Director 1JlrVl LV11L1�1!"'�l\ 1 \Vl"1L Application No. 07- 288 11526IBohlman Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT HISTORY: Application filed: 03/15/07 Application complete: 10/09/07 Notice published: 10/10/07 Mailing completed: 10/04/07 Posting completed: 10/18/07 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a proposed 6,010 square foot two -story single - family residence on a vacant lot that will not exceed the maximum 26 foot height limit. The applicant is also requesting Variance approval to construct retaining walls exceeding the five foot maximum height (The Project). The net lot size is approximately 1.05 -acres and the site is zoned HR (Hillside Residential). Zoning Code Section 15- 45.060 states any new multi -story structure or whenever, as a result of proposed construction, reconstruction or expansion, the gross floor area of all structures on a site will exceed 6,000 square -feet Design Review approval is required by the Planning Commission. The proposal consists of a new multi -story structure and exceeds 6,000 square -feet; therefore, Planning Commission review is required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Design Review and Variance Application with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. Staff is not recommending any permanent conditions of approval. K 1] • is • Application No. 07- 288 115261Bohlman Road STAFF ANALYSIS Zoning: HR (Hillside Residential) General Plan Designation: RHC (Residential Hillside Conservation) Measure G: Not applicable Parcel Size: 114,084 sq. ft. (gross) and 45,634 sq. ft. (net - 60% reduction in lot area for slope adjustment) Average Site Slope: 49.2% Average Slope Under 23% Building Footprint: Grading Required: 60 CY of cut and 130 CY of fill for driveway 570 CY of cut and 0 CY of fill for house and garage Combined Cut and Fill = 760 CY /Total export = 500 CY PrniPrt Dnta- 3 Pro osal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable = 25% Building 3,884 sq. ft. or 15,000 square feet Driveway 6,696sq. ft. TOTAL PROPOSED 5,783 sq. ft. 10,580 sq. ft. 10% Floor Area: Maximum Allowable — Garage 512 sq. ft. 6,120 sq. ft. Main Floor 3,221 sq. ft. Upper Floor 2,277 sq. ft. TOTAL PROPOSED 6,010 sq. ft. Minimum Requirement Setbacks: Front 243 fl. 104 ft. (20% of lot depth) Rear 155 ft. 130 ft. (25% of lot depth) Left Side 26.4 ft. 15 ft. (10% of lot width) Right Side 57.6 ft. 15 ft. (10% of lot width Height: Lowest Elev. Pt. 901.89 ft. Maximum Height = Highest Elev. Pt. 917.84 ft. 935.87 (26 Feet) Average Elev. Pt. 909.87 ft. Topmost Pt. 933.75 ft. (23.9 ft. 3 Application: No. 0 7- 2 8 8 /1 52 61Bohlman Road Materials and Colors: Stucco and stone will be used for the exterior of the building. Windows shutters and garage doors will be brown stained wood. Decorative wrought iron railings will be installed on the terraces that are accessible from the first floor office and the hallway adjacent to the dining room. Rough sawn, heavy timber columns and beams will provide the structural support for the terrace on the west elevation. Roofing materials will be composed of recycled clay roof tiles that have been removed from buildings located in South America. A colors and materials board is available on file with the Community Development Department and will be present at the site visit and public hearing. Environmental Determination: The proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures ", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQ.A). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single - family residences. Project Discussion Project Description The project site is an approximately 1.05 -net acre vacant lot in the HR (Hillside Residential) zone district. The site is characterized by an existing approximately 275' long narrow unpaved access driveway off 'of Bohlman Road that leads to a relatively level building pad located towards the center of the site with steep slopes both above and below. The site is covered in native grasses and both native and non - native trees including Oaks and California Bay Laurel's. The applicant has described the architectural style of the residence as "Tucson ". This particular architectural style can trace its origins to the rural Italian countryside where each region had. its own unique, colloquial style. Normally not grand in scale or materials, Tucson homes would reflect their surroundings in terms of what materials were available locally, such as stone, slate, and clay and would have minimal superfluous ornamentation and decoration. Also indicative of this style would be homes with harmonious proportions and a sense of formality, with symmetrical arrangements of windows and doors. Tucson design elements of the proposed structure include a low pitched front gabled roof with rounded clay tiles and exposed rafters, stucco exterior, metal railings, battered chimneys, wood lintels; window muntins, arched entrance doors, and the use of rough sawn, heavy timber beams for the balcony, Proposed exterior building materials for the residence include dark tan colored stucco with stone accents. All wooden entrance doors, shutters, and the sectional garage door will be brown in color. The windows will be made of wood with exterior metal cladding that is brown in color. Decorative wrought iron railings will be installed on the terraces that are accessed from the office as well as the hallway adjacent to the kitchen and as details on two of the front windows. The terrace on the north elevation will be supported by rough sawn, heavy timber columns and beams. Clay roof tiles recycled from haciendas, churches, and estates in South America will be used as the roofing material. • a Application No. 07- 288 115261Bohlman Road Variance for Retaining Wall Height To provide emergency access to the site, the Saratoga Fire Department requires a 14 -foot wide access driveway and a large level 40'x 48'paved area near the proposed home with sufficient space for a fire truck to turn around and exit the site. The existing unpaved driveway will be widened and retaining walls constructed to accommodate the Fire Department access requirements. Due to both steep slopes above and below the driveway (greater than 1:1 in some areas), an approximately 250' long retaining wall will be constructed on the upslope side of the driveway and an approximately 212' long wall on the downslope side. Section 15- 29.010(g) of the Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC) limits the maximum height of retaining walls to five feet and a maximum height of three feet when located in a front setback. The height of both walls will exceed the maximum height of five feet and they will exceed the three foot height limit for walls constructed within a front setback. The height of both retaining walls will vary. The upslope retaining wall ranges in height from approximately four feet near the driveway entrance to a maximum height of approximately 14'. The downslope retaining wall ranges in height from approximately six feet near the driveway entrance to a maximum height of approximately 10'. The area where the walls are at their maximum height is in the area that has been widened and leveled to construct the "turnaround" area. An additional approximately 7' tall and 10' wide retaining wall will be constructed at the rear of the building to provide a small level area for additional fire department access. To conform to the five foot retaining wall height limitation, it is sometimes necessary to construct additional retaining walls that are parallel and in close proximity to each other. Section 15- 29.020(b) of the SMC states that parallel retaining walls shall be separated by a horizontal distance of not less than five feet and are limited to a combined height of 10' when the wall are separated by a distance less than 30'. Based on information provided by the applicant (Attachment 4), the steep slope of the site and the fire department access requirements make it not possible to construct walls that would conform to the SMC. The applicant is proposing an "interlocking pre -cast concrete" retaining wall for the left side or "upslope" side of the driveway. Each brick is to have a cobblestone appearance to give the wall an uneven exterior rustic finish to complement the architectural style of the house. The retaining wall for the right side or "downslope" side of the driveway will be a "criblock" style retaining wall in lieu of a concrete wall. The benefit of this wall style is that it does not have a flat solid surface. The applicant is proposing to install vegetation on the wall to screen and soften its appearance. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has shown the proposed plans to neighbors as indicated in the attached letters (Attachment 8). No negative comments have been received at the time of the writing of this Staff Report. 5' Application No. 07- 288 115261Bohlman Road Geotechnical Clearance The City Geotechnical Consultant has peer reviewed the October 1, 2006 Geologic Investigation prepared by Baker -CEG and Geotechnical Plan Review letters prepared by Pollack Engineering dated February 12 and August 20, 2007. As conditioned, the project has received geotechnical clearance to proceed. Trees There are 10 trees on the site potentially impacted by the project. These trees include eight coast. live oaks and two California bay trees. Of these trees, only one 12" California bay located at the rear of the house and in conflict with the proposed building footprint would be removed and will be required to be replaced by one 36" box tree. Most of the tree impacts would be caused by the construction of the driveway retaining walls. The City Arborist report includes retaining wall construction recommendations to' minimize these impacts. Other: trees not directly impacted by the construction of the retaining wall would be protected by tree fencing. These have been made conditions of project approval. A tree protection bond of $102,630 is required prior to building permit issuance. Energy Efficiency As stated in the applicant's letter (Attachment #2), solar energy opportunities are diminished by the ' proximity of the building site to the steep hillside slope to the south- southwest as well as shading effect from the large canopies of existing trees. Due to these limitations, the house has been designed to maximize the amount of natural light that falls on the western and northwest elevations. Stone or tile flooring will be used in these areas to capture the heat of available sunlight and to offset the minimal amount of morning and mid- day direct sunlight. Further solar heat gain has been optimized to the greatest extent possible by orienting "living spaces" to the West and Northwest. Heat loss would be minimized by the large ,canopies of existing trees that will provide natural wind protection. Further energy savings will be achieved by the use of dual pane windows, high efficiency heating/cooling, and maximizing the amount of insulation used in the floors, walls, and ceiling. - General Plan - Findings The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 - Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Proposed building materials would include natural .materials such as clay tile roofing, genuine stone, and wood windows, doors and -trim. All exterior building colors, will be muted to blend into the natural surroundings of the site. The rural atmosphere of the area will be increased and the visual. impacts as viewed from the street will be reduced by both the existing vegetation that screens the _project as well as the approximately 243' front setback from Bohhnan Road. Other than for the construction of the house and driveway; the steep slopes of the site preclude the installation -of formal I landscaping that could detract from the sites rural atmosphere and appearance. T Application No. 07- 288 115261Bohlman Road • Land Use Element Goal 13 -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 Approval. The home is well designed and is not visually massive. The architectural details and features and the use of natural materials compliment the Tucson architectural style. The footprint of the building will be constructed on an existing graded area and has been designed to follow the slope contours of the site thereby reducing the. need for excessive grading. The particular location of the site and the design of the project will not adversely impact the privacy of the adjacent neighbors. 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 following Findings required for Design Approval. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.080: - (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed home will not unreasonably interfere with neighboring views or privacy in that it will be located on an approximately 2.6 gross acre site with surrounding parcels also in excess of an acre. Topography and existing vegetation would screen the proposed residence from Bohhnan Road and from views both on and off site. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the site contains many native and non - native trees and the selected building location will result in the removal of one California bay tree thereby preserving the remainder of the trees on the site. Existing vegetation such as shrubs and grasses will be removed for the construction of the driveway and house. The remainder of the natural vegetation on the site will be left in its existing state and no formal landscaping is proposed to detract from the sites rural character. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that existing trees in vicinity of the project include 10 trees protected by City Ordinance and the project would result in the removal of only one native tree. One California bay tree in conflict with the location of the residence will be removed and replaced by one 36" box tree of a native variety. All of the remaining native trees are being preserved. There are no heritage trees located on site. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the applicant is proposing exterior materials including both stucco and natural stone. A neutral earth -tone color pallet will be used for the 7 Application No. 07- 288 115261Bohlman Road stucco, window trim, doors, and roofing materials. To further reduce the perception of bulk the proposed project would be well articulated and detailed and will include varying rooflines, projecting architectural elements, and balconies, (e) Compatible bulk and height. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the varying rooflines, architectural detailing, and the mix of exterior materials would minimize the visual perception of bulk. The project would not have a negative impact on neighboring lots given the sites topography, large setbacks, and existing vegetative screening would screen the project as viewed from offsite. (1) Current grading and erosion control. methods. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the applicant has submitted a grading and drainage plan, which incorporates appropriate grading and erosion control methods; and the proposal shall conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. (g) Design policies and techniques. 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. Variance Findings The proposed project is consistent with the following findings stated in SMC Section 15- 70.060 necessary to grant Variance approval to exceed the maximum 5 foot height limit for retaining walls (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 This finding maybe made in the affirmative in that staff finds that the project site is on. a steep. slope with a small existing building pad. The. construction of a 14' access driveway and 40'x 48' fire truck "turnaround" ara as required by the Saratoga Fire Department necessitate the construction of retaining walls in excess of the three foot height limit for walls within a front yard setback and five foot height limitation outside of a front setback. Without the variance the applicant would not be able to construct the proposed house thus depriving the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. (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. . This finding may be made. in the affirmative in that staff finds that the dimensions, shape, and slope of the site creates construction challenges not usually encountered on larger; regularly shaped parcels in the Hillside Residential zone district. Most HR" lots do not have the topographic restraints of the subject parcel 8 is • • • I Application No. 07- 288 115261Bohlman Road and have larger buildable areas thereby making it less. difficult to provide the Fire Department access requirements. (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. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that allowing the retaining wall to exceed the five foot maximum height will not be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare since the project will be required to obtain a building permit and grading permit and conform to all requirements of the Building Department as well as receive approval of the Public Works Department and the City's consulting geologist. Conclusion Staff finds that all of the Design Review findings and Variance findings can be made in the affirmative and the proposal is consistent with the General Plan. Staff Recommendation Staffs recommends the Planning Commission find this Application exempt from CEQA and approve the application for Design Review and Variance with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. Attachments: 1. Resolution of Approval for Design Review and Variance.. 2. Project Description Letters (2), dated 8/9/07 (prepared by applicant). 3. Variance Request Letters (2), dated 7/31/07 and 9/4/07 (prepared by applicant). 4. Retaining Wall Diagram, dated 9/28/07 (prepared by applicant). 5. Retaining Wall Cut Sheets (submitted by applicant) 6. Design Review Findings, dated 8/9/07 (prepared by applicant). 7. City Arborist Report, dated 6/15/07. 8. Neighbor review letters. 9. Affidavit of mailing notices, public hearing notice, and copy of mailing labels for project notification, newspaper public hearing notice. 10. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." 9 ent 1 • C� RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 07 -288 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Campagna;15261 Bohlman Road APN 517 -14 -003 WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review and a Variance to construct a single - family residence on a vacant lot and retaining wall in excess of five feet in the Hillside Residential zone district. The net lot size is approximately 1.05- acres; and WHEREAS, Zoning Code Section 15- 45.060 states any new multi -story structure or whenever, as a result of the proposed construction, reconstruction or expansion, the gross floor area of all structures on the site will exceed 6,000 square -feet Design Review approval is required by the Planning Commission. The proposal consists of a new multi -story structure and exceeds 6,000 square -feet; therefore, Planning Commission review is required. prior to issuance of building permits; 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 proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures ", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single - family residences in an urbanized area and; WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review, and is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 60 - Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Proposed building materials would include natural materials such as clay tile roofing, genuine stone, and wood windows, doors and trim. All exterior building colors will be muted to blend into the natural surroundings of the site. The rural atmosphere of the area will be increased and the visual impacts as viewed from the street will be reduced by both the existing vegetation that screens the project as well as the approximately 243' front setback from Bohlman Road. Other than for the construction of the house and driveway, the steep slopes of the site preclude the installation of formal landscaping that could detract from the sites rural atmosphere and appearance. Application No. 07- 288115261Bohlman Road Land Use Element Goal 13 -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 Approval. The home is well designed and is not visually massive. The architectural details and features and the use of natural materials compliment the Tucson architectural style. The footprint of the building will be constructed on an existing graded area and has been designed to follow the slope contours of the site thereby, reducing the need for excessive grading. The particular location of the site and the design of the project will not adversely impact the privacy of the adjacent neighbors. 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 following Findings required for Design Approval. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the, burden of proof required to support said application for a Variance pursuant to SMC Section 15- 70.060 and the following findings have been made in the affirmative: (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. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that staff finds that the project site is on a steep slope with a small existing building pad. The construction of a 14' access driveway and 40'x 48' fire truck "turnaround" area as required by the Saratoga Fire Department necessitate the construction of retaining walls in excess of the three foot height limit for walls within a front yard setback and five foot height limitation outside of a front setback. Without the variance the applicant would not be able to construct the proposed house thus depriving the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. (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. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that staff finds that the dimensions, shape, and slope of the site creates construction challenges not usually encountered on larger, regularly shaped parcels in the Hillside Residential zone district. Most HR lots do not have the.topographic restraints of the subject parcel and have larger buildable areas thereby making it less difficult to provide the Fire Department access requirements. (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. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that allowing the retaining wall to exceed the five .foot maximum height will not be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare since the project will be required to obtain a building permit and K Application No. 07- 288 115261Bohlman Road grading permit and conform to all requirements of the Building Department as well as receive approval of the Public Works Department and the City's consulting geologist. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required-to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed home will not unreasonably interfere with neighboring views or privacy in that it will be located on an approximately 2.6 gross acre site with surrounding parcels also in excess of an acre. Topography an existing vegetation would screen the proposed residence from Bohlman Road and from views both on and off site. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the site contains many native and non - native trees and the selected building location will result in the removal of one California bay tree thereby preserving the remainder of the trees on the site. Existing vegetation such as shrubs and grasses will be removed for the construction of the driveway and house. The remainder of the natural vegetation on the site will be left in its existing state and no formal landscaping is proposed to detract from the sites rural character. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that existing trees in vicinity of the project include 10 trees protected by City Ordinance and the project would result in the removal of only one native tree. One California bay tree in conflict with the location of the residence will be removed and replaced by one 36" box tree of a native variety. All of the remaining native trees are being preserved. There are no heritage trees located on site. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. This finding may be made in the affirmative. in that the applicant is proposing exterior materials including both -stucco and natural stone. A neutral earth -tone color pallet will be used for the stucco, window trim, doors, and roofing materials. To further reduce the perception of bulk the proposed project would be well articulated and detailed and will include varying rooflines, projecting architectural elements, and balconies, (e) Compatible bulk and height. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the varying rooflines, architectural detailing, and the mix of exterior materials would minimize the visual perception of bulk. The project would not have a negative impact on neighboring lots given the sites topography, large setbacks, and existing vegetative screening would screen the project as viewed from offsite. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. This finding may be made .in the affirmative in that the applicant has submitted a grading and drainage plan, which - incorporates appropriate grading and erosion control methods; and the proposal shall conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. 3 Application No. 07- 288 115261Bohlman Road (g) Design policies and techniques. 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. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the .application for Design Review approval and Variance is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PERMANENT CONDITONS OF APPROVAL — None CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL CONDITIONS — COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A date stamped October 16, 2007, incorporated by reference. All changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes and are subject to the Community Development Director's approval. 2. The project shall utilize materials illustrated on a materials board dated October 9, 2007. 3. The following shall be required and/or included as to the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building plan check review process: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. b. The following note shall be included: "A maximum of one wood - burning fireplace is permitted and it shall be equipped with a gas starter. All other fireplaces shall be gas burning." c. The following note shall be included verifying building setback: "Prior. to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per approved plans." 4. A storm water 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. If all storm water cannot be retained on -site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 5. Landscape plan shall be designed with -efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution. 0 Application No. 07- 288 115261Bohlman Road 6. To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and. operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. 7. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape areas. 8. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. 9. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover, if applicable, shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum. extent possible. 10. Staff shall not approve downgrading to the exterior appearance of the approved residence. Downgrades may include, but are not limited to, garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, or similar items. Any exterior changes to approved plans resulting in a downgrade shall require filing an additional application and fees for review by the Planning Commission as a modification to approved plans. Any other exterior changes to the approved plans, which are not deemed a downgrade by staff, shall require a Zoning Clearance issued by the Community Development Director with payment of appropriate fees. 11. 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 at all times. In the event that the balance is less than $500.00, all staff work on the project shall cease until the balance is restored to a minimum $500.00. 12. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection. CITY ARBORIST 13. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Report dated August 15, 2007, shall be followed 14. Tree protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist, shall be installed and inspected by Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. . 15. Prior to issuance of City Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security equivalent to $102,630 to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees. 16. The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after the planting of required replacement trees, a 5 Application No. 07- 288 115261Bohlman Road favorable'site inspection by the City Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. FIRE DISTRICT 17. Applicant shall comply with all Saratoga Fire Department conditions. PUBLIC WORKS 18, The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical' aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of permits for project construction. 19. The . Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, retaining wall. excavation, and foundation construction, prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final (as built) Project Approval. 20. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 21. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 22. Owner and Applicant agree to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section. 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Application No. 07- 288 115261Bohlman Road 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 24th day of October 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. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • 7 • August 9, 2007 Chris Riordan City of Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Design Concept Statement Campagna Residence / Bohlman Road - Plan Check: 07 -288 Dear Chris, The Campagna Residence design concept evolution began with the site setting. Because of its steep topography on all four sides and the dense foliage, we conceived of a "Tuscan Style" home that would nestle the very small and irregular shape building area. With a very steep slope behind, the design orients the house views toward the West and North. Due to the proximity of the building site to the steep hillside to the South - Southwest, as well as the existing large tree canopies, it is impossible to have employed any appreciable solar gain with the given site orientation. Given that, we tried our best to capture as much natural light (sunlight) on the West and Northwest exposures which will provide afternoon solar gain. To augment this passive solar technique, the Owner will provide "stone" or "tile" flooring at these areas to act as a "heat sink" to offset the lack off morning to mid -day direct sun. Keeping with the Tuscan Style, the exterior shall be a combination of the traditional Tuscan materials such as Stucco, Heavy Wood Lintels and Rafters as well as tile at the front and upper porches and balconies. The design shall be accented with other details such as `rustic' wood shutters and ornamental ironwork that will complement the overall architecture. Lastly, due to the minimal buildable pad area and substantial driveway requirements (fire), defined landscape areas are at a minimum. In lieu of the very typical Landscape Planting one would expect to see on a prototypical level property, the Owner, again working with very steep topography, has chosen to provide a retaining wall system that shall be planted with native plant materials so that in 2 -3 years, the site will return to a more natural vegetative state. Please feel free to contact me directly should you have any questions regarding this project. Sincerely, Jeffrey E. Eaton, AIA JE Architects cc: James Campagna / Owner JE ARCHITECTS 1155 MERIDIAN AVENUE, SUITE 208 SAN JOSE, CA 95125 -4331 408.285.5255 / 408.265.6155 FAX WWW.JEARCHITECTS.COM August 9, 2007 Chris Riordan City of Saratoga Planning Department 13777 - Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Residential Design Handbook Policy Requirements Campagna Residence / Bohlman Road - Plan Check: 07 -288 Dear Chris, The. following are.the written descriptions of our consideration and incorporation of the City of Saratoga Residential Design Handbook Policies: Policy 1: Technique 1 was employed as we.used a building pad that was "averaged" between the natural grade, thus avoiding a large underfloor area as depicted as a "don't ". Technique 3 was also used with the introduction of a "stone base" to give the structure a more natural base and to break up the verticality of the two -story exterior planes. Technique 4 was incorporated by "stepping" sections of the home such as the Garage /Entry which is split between the first level and second level. While we did not directly employ Technique 5, "the remote visibility of the structure and the lack of any neighboring structures give no opportunity to `fit -in'. Technique 6 was achieved through the articulation of multiple planes and off -set geometry as also described in Technique 4. The front elevation was stepped multiple times to add relief and character and the front entry, which is a double- height space indoors, was broken up -on the outside with a stepped roof feature.. Policy 2 The projects` extensive use.of a natural stone and heavy, rusticated wood elements to compliment the stucco and window treatments is axesponse to Technique 1. Technique 2 was achieved primarily by averaging the site and therefore respecting the sites natural topography to the greatest extent as described.in Policy 1- Technique 1. Due to the steep topography, the project required extensive retaining wall design and in an effort to comply with Technique 3, the Owner has opted for a stepped retaining wall system that allows for planting of natural vegetation . The concept is that the site will return to a more `natural state' within 2 -3 years of completion. Technique 4 has been applied (no additional structure). The projects roof shall be a clay tile roof system with natural earth -tone colors that will further 'integrate the home. into the natural environment. Similarly, earth -tone colored pavers shall be used at the drive area to both give a more attractive paved surface, as well as provide for a `pervious' surface to assist with water run -off and natural filtration. As referenced above, the Owner has integrated a cribwall system that gives both horizontal articulation as well as the opportunity for the growth of natural vegetation.. These walls shall be minimized at all opportunities and vertical relief (stepping) will occur as often as possible to achieve Technique 6. JE ARCHITECTS 1155 MERIDIAN AVENUE, SUITE 208 SAN JOSE, CA 95125 -4331 408.265.5255 / 408.265.6155 FAX WWW.JEARCHITECTS.COM • 0 • • Policy 3: Techniques 1 & 2 : As previously mentioned in the Design Statement, this building site is situated so closely to the upside hill (south) and setback so far from Bohlman Road that it will be nearly impossible to see or be seen by adjacent neighbors. There is a property approximately 500 yds. to the West (uphill) that will be able to see this project if they look downhill and back into the canyon. Due to the distance, privacy by direct visual line of site will not be an issue. Techniques 3 & 4 & 5 are achieved due to the extensive existing foliage to remain that will mask sight, noise & lights from adjacent properties. Policy 4: Techniques 1& 2 have been achieved as there are no structures with the projects view nor does the project block any adjacent property views. Technique 3 was achieved as described in Policy 3/Techniques 1 &2. Policy 5: Technique 1: With a very steep slope behind (south), the design orients the house views toward the West and North. Due to the proximity of the building site to the steep hillside to the South - Southwest, as well as the existing large tree canopies, it is impossible to have employed any appreciable solar gain with the given site orientation. Given that, we tried our best to capture as much natural light (sunlight) on the West and Northwest exposures which will provide good afternoon solar gain. To augment this passive solar technique, the Owner will provide "stone" or "tile" flooring at these areas to act as a "heat sink" to offset the lack off morning to mid -day direct sun. Technique 2: The site is covered with large oak and other trees with large canopies that will give `natural' wind protection. The solar gain has been optimized by orienting `living' spaces to the West and Northwest exposures to the greatest extent. Due to the absence of adjacent structures, Technique 3 is not applicable. The use of earthen material such as clay tile, stone flooring and pavers shall assist in achieving Technique 4. The project shall also . incorporate dual pane windows, high efficiency heating /cooling, maximum insulation and "cross ventilation" capability to assist with energy savings. Please feel free to contact me directly should you have any questions regarding this project. Sincerely, Jeffrey E. Eaton, AIA JE Architects cc: James Campagna / Owner 0 0 JE ARCHITECTS 1155 MERIDIAN AVENUE, SUITE 208 SAN JOSE, CA 95125 -4331 408.265.5255 / 408.265.8155 fAX WWW.JEARCHITECTS.COM 0 0 James Campagna 1155 Meridian Ave #100 San Jose, CA 95125 408 - 978 -2064 July 31, 2007 Chris Riordan Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Plan Check 07 -288 Variance Request for Retaining Wall Height Dear Chris Riordan: This letter is a request for a variance in order to construct two driveway retaining walls that would exceed five feet in height. Permission is sought to build two retaining walls as per plan that will not exceed 13 feet at their highest point. . A variance is necessary due to several hardships facing the development of this parcel. Although the parcel is 2.6 acres in total size, the actual building site is very restricted leaving a finite area upon which to build. Furthermore, the Saratoga Fire District has requested a equipment staging area in front of the proposed residence. This demand has created a situation where the retaining walls have become unavoidable. The City of Saratoga prefers stepping the retaining walls five feet back at five foot height increments but due to the slope density of the property being at a 1:1 slope this method has been deemed ineffective and would result in chasing walls the entire slope. The overall effect of approving a variance in this case would be mitigated by several attributes. Inherent to the property, the subject building site has limited offsite visibility, meaning, it is not visible from the valley floor and it is only remotely visible from Bohlman Road. Furthermore, this request would have no impact on surrounding neighbors as adjoining neighbors are not visible from the site. The retaining wall proposed down slope of the driveway would be built using a material called CribLock. CribLock is a product that can be planted. Over several years the wall will disappear into the natural hillside vegetation. Photos have been enclosed to demonstrate extended appearance. The retaining wall proposed up slope of the driveway would be constructed with a. "cobble like" block. This product has an old world appearance that suitably complements • the Tuscan architectural style of the proposed residence. • When determining whether or not a variance is to be granted, precedent is often given consideration. A similar situation was proposed by a neighbor in 2002 relating to parcel 517 -14 -080 and a variance was granted for a retaining wall in excess of my request. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this variance request. Sincerely, pagna • • 7 CHI 'ARCHITEE CTS- September 4, 2007 Chris Riordan City of Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Retaining Wall Variance Campagna Residence / Bohlman Road - Plan Check: 07 -288 Dear Chris, At the request of our client, this letter is being written to further clarify the necessity of proposing retaining walls greater than 5' in height for the above referenced project. As illustrated in both the Slope Density Calculation (49.2 %) and the previously submitted Civil Plans (topographic plan), the subject site is quite steep (at or greater than 1:1) in the areas where the higher retaining walls are being proposed and thus complying with the City Ordinance to maintain a maximum height of 5' retaining walls on this site is not possible. We wish to make clear that due to the Santa Clara County Fire Department vehicular apparatus requirements, the 14' wide driveway necessitates the greater than 5' high retaining walls on either side, again, due to the natural slope in this area of greater than 1:1. Even if we were able to provide the City approved 5' high, 5' setback "stepped" wall configuration, doing so would greatly expand the construction area, expand grading, increase erosion and create a significant environmental impact including disruption to the natural flora/fauna. Please keep in mind that the Owner is proposing to use a plantable "crib- lock" wall system that will significantly reduce the visual impact of the walls. We ask that you please consider this true hardship in your review and recommendation of our clients request for variance of this very difficult site. Please feel free to contact me directly should you have any questions regarding this project. Sincerely, Jeffrey E. Eaton, AIA i _ S JE Architects cc: James Campagna / Owner r JE ARCHITECTS ........ 1155 MERIDIAN AVENUE, SUITE 208 SAN JOSE. CA 95125 -4331 408.265.5255 / 408.265.6155 FAX WWW.JEARCHITECTS.CON ent 4 �l • 0 0 1.023 CAMPAGNA RESIDENCE JE ARCHITECTS architecture - planning - interiors 1155 Meridian Anenue, Sub 208, San Jose, Caffer"Ia 95125 RETAINING WALL DIAGRAM 1/8' = 110 09 -28 -07 I • • • McNear Brick and Block - Retaining Walls :king Pavers aining Walls d Fireplaces V ' Weathered Mosaic Mosaic in Mojave Width 12" Height 3 5/8" Length 14" LBS A Cap: 42.5 B Cap: 48.3 Coverage Pcs /Ft2 0.86 Accent httn: / /www.mcnear.com/retainingwalls /index detail.cfin ?RefId =86 Pagel of 3 NEA BRICK & BL( Manufacturers Since 1868 Attractive and durable, the Mosaic system util the same four -unit panel (10" x 24" )—consistin one Standard, one Cobble and two Accent un giving each wall a vintage look and feel. Althc its pattern may seem complex, the simplistic i unit Mosaic panels are just as easy to install our Standard, Cobble or Accent Retaining We Systems. Color Selections Mojave Shasta Color Selections Sierra Merlot 10/16/2007 McNear Brick and Block - Retaining Walls i I Width 12" Height 4 ". Length 12" LBS 35.6 Coverage Pcs /F? 3 Cobble € width 12" i Height 6 Length 8" LBS 36.8 Coverage Pcs /Ftz 3 htti): / /www.mcnear.com/retainingwalls /index detail.cfm ?Refld =86 Mojave Shasta Color Selections Mojave Shasta Page 2 of 3 f 31 Y?; ,}�:z� v Sierra Merlot Sierra Merlot 10/16/2007 • • F J Xi� 4 'i /r •� 1 W qL AT Al AW `\ i. ��"•, .r r y 4':1 tta K �t ;41 r , 4 z oil _ Attachment 6 �9- • • • March 14, 2007 r� E C EF U U E 0 5 2007 fT- Y Oi 5>?a't ATOGA 0ou" RNMEOP101m City of Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Campagna Residence (Proposed) / Bohlman Road Dear Staff, As the Architect for the above referenced project, we have considered and incorporated the following Design Criteria within the attached Design Review Submittal: 15- 45.080(a) Avoidance of Unreasonable Interference with Views and Privacy The proposed residence is sited as to minimize visibility, from all adjacent properties as well as from Bohlman Road. The building pad is set well back of the visible property lines and adjacent to a steep slope at the South property making it virtually impossible to see from the road or from adjacent properties. 15- 45.080(b) Preserve Natural Landscape Both the building and site'design have,blended the existing topography with the most minimal of disturbance from the natural topography. The driveway follows the natural contours and attempts to minimize both its cross section and visibility with the use of a crib -lock retaining wall system that will allow for natural vegetation to "overgrow" the walls. 15- 45.080(c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees There are no Native or, Heritage Trees within the proposed Site or Building Development area. 15- 45.080(d) Minimize Perception of Excess Bulk We have attempted to reduce the structures bulk by incorporating multiple, staggered rooflines as well as by articulating the structures geometry to match the natural contours of the site. This will reduce the structures visual mass by effectively shorting the length of the overall structure. JE ARCHITECTS 1155 MERIDIAN AVENUE, SUITE 208 SAN JOSE, CA 95125 -4331 .. . 4D8.265.5255 / 406.265.6155 FAX il'WIY.JEARCHITECTS.COM 01 0 .15- 45.080(e) Avoidance of Unreasonable Interference with Views and Privacy As discussed in 15- 45.080(d) above, the design has sought to minimize its visual and actual bulk and height. Due to the unique site geometry, set back within a valley, the proposed structure will only be visible to adjacent property owners who. are "looking" for the structure. The structure is completely non - visible from the East, South, Southeast and Southwest and only partially visible from the Northwest and Northwest and even then, adjacent property owners would truly need to be looking for a structure as there are tall trees. surrounding the North, and Northwest property. 15- 45:0800 Current Grading and Erosion Control Methods The proposed project shall incorporate the City of Saratoga's current grading and erosion control standards as part of this development. 15- 45.080(g) Design Policies and Techniques This project incorporates the Residential Design Handbook policies. . Please feel free to contact me directly should you have any questions regarding this project. Sincerely, Jeffrey E. Eaton, AIA JE Architects cc: James Campagna / Owner JE ARCNITfCTS 1155 MERIDIAN AVENUE. SUITE 208 SAN JOSE. EA 95125 -4331 408.265.5255 / 408.265:6155 fAX WWW.JEARCHIT[ETS.COM 4 • • is Attachment 7 • • i Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Bohlman-Road 'Application #: DR07 -288 ARBORIST REPORT August 15, 2007 APN 517 -14 -003 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Owner: James Campagna Phone (408) 868 -1276 INTRODUCTION The property owner of Bohlman Road has submitted plans to the city to build a new single family residence on a vacant lot. No address has been assigned yet. Ten trees protected by City ordinance and potentially impacted by construction were inventoried for this I eport. Data for each tree is included in a Tree Inventory Table at the end of this report. Tree locations are marked on the attached copy of the Site Plan. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheet A -0.0; Cover Sheet, Sheet A1.0, Site Plan, dated February 2007 by J.E. Architects, Sheets 1 - 3, Sewer Connection, dated December 2006, Sheets 1 and 3, Grading Plans, dated February 2007 and Sheet 2, Grading Plan dated July 2007 by Nelson.Engineering. SITE OBSERVATIONS, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION Ten trees are potentially impacted by construction. They include eight coast live oak trees ( #1 — 6, 9 and 10) and two California bay trees ( #7 and 8). Tree #7 is in conflict with the proposed design and it is acceptable to remove it to construct the house. The design shows the house eleven feet from tree #8 and the retaining wall only four feet from the tree. Any excavation this -close to the tree will compromise its stability. No excavation for the retaining wall, house, drain lines or other utilities should occur within ten feet of tree #8. The retaining wall should be constructed with piers or footings rather than a continuous trench for its foundation. Footings should be hand dug for the first two feet. Anyxoots measuring two inches or larger must be retained and the footing adjusted -to avoid them. Roots measuring less than two inches may be cut using a sharp pruning instrument. Grading will occur that may impact trees #6, 7 and .8. No fill or excavation should occur within 10 feet of tree #8 or within 20 feet of tree #6. Tree #7 is considered to be a loss and may be removed and replaced. Replacement trees equal in value to the value of tree #7 will be required. The revised plans should clearly show any trees that require removal.. This would be equal to one 36 inch box tree or three 24 inch box trees. The retaining wall to support the driveway impacts tree #3, a beautiful oak tree right next to the driveway. The oak is -about two feet from the edge of the current driveway and the design shows the retaining wall two feet from the tree trunk. This places the retaining wall at the edge of the current driveway and is Page 1 of 3 • • Bohlman Road • • acceptable. The retaining wall has been designed so that I -beams and concrete lagging will be used under the canopy of the oak tree to minimize impacts to the root system of this tree and is acceptable. Holes for the piers should be spaced at ten foot intervals if possible to minimize the impact to the root system. The width of the holes for the piers has not been specified and needs to be. Holes for piers should be as small as possible (six inches is preferred, if possible) and hand dug for the first two feet. They should be relocated to avoid roots measuring two inches or larger. Roots measuring smaller than two inches may be cut using a sharp pruning instrument. A revised Grading and Drainage plan was submitted that includes sanitary sewer lines and energy dissipaters. The locations of the energy dissipaters are acceptable. The sanitary sewer line may impact several oak trees that are not shown on the plans. This location is acceptable if the sewer line will be bored under the trees rather than trenched. Otherwise, the sewer line will require relocation to avoid trees. A water line and a concrete drainage ditch are proposed on the uphill side of the driveway..The water line runs through oak tree #1 and should be relocated to avoid the tree. If it cannot be relocated, the tree will be considered a loss. Given that this is the only large oak at the entrance to the property the loss would be significant. The drainage ditch will also negatively impact this tree as it is located about two feet from the trunk of the tree and will be excavated I %2 feet deep. Because most of the roots of a tree are within the top two feet of soil, cutting this many roots will compromise the tree's stability. The water line and drainage for the driveway should be redesigned so that this tree can be preserved. No excavation should occur within eight feet of the tree's trunk for the water line, drainage or the driveway. Per City Ordinance 15- 50.080, a bond amount of $102,630, which is equal to 100% of the total appraised value of trees #1 — 6 and 8 — 10, is required. Appraisal values are calculated according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`h Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. REQUIREMENTS 1. This entire report, including the tree inventory table and map showing locations of trees and protective fencing shall be incorporated into the set of final building plans. 2. Tree protective fencing shall be installed as shown on the attached map and established 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. 3. Owner shall provide a tree protection bond, in the amount of $102,630, prior to obtaining building division permits. 4. Tree #7 is approved for removal and shall be replaced with one 36 inch box tree following construction. 5. No excavation or fill shall occur within eight feet of tree #1, ten feet of tree #8 or within 20 feet of tree #6. Page 2 of 3 Bohlman Road • • 6. Installation of the retaining wall around tree #3 requires the following: a. Retaining wall shall be a minimum of 2 feet from tree trunk. b. Holes for piers shall be clarified prior to approval. c. Dig holes for piers by hand for first two feet. Relocate holes if roots measuring two inches or more are encountered. d. Space holes for piers ten feet apart within 10 feet of trunk. e. No fill or excavation (except for piers) is permitted under canopy of the tree. 7. Sanitary sewer line shall be bored under trees at a minimum depth of three feet. 8. The water line and drainage ditch adjacent to tree #1 shall be redesigned so that no excavation occurs within 8 feet of the tree trunk. 9. City Arborist shall approve any grading or trenching under a tree's canopy prior to performing work. If approved,. it shall be done manually using shovels. Any roots measuring two inches or larger shall be retained and tunneled under; roots measuring less than two inches may be cut with a sharp pruning instrument. 10. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the designated fenced area (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to,.the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials :(including soil fill), and equipment /vehicle operation and parking. 11. Plans shall show locations for all utilities that require trenching for this project, including electrical, drainage, water, sewer and gas lines and trenching associated with their installation. 12. Any pruning of trees on site must be performed by a licensed tree contractor under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. 13. The disposal of harmful products, including but not limited to chemicals, paint rinse water, fuel, cement rinse water, herbicides, or other materials, is prohibited beneath tree canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath tree canopies. 14. If landscaping will be done, the plans should be designed as follows: a. : Design irrigation so that valve boxes, controllers and main and lateral lines remain outside of tree canopies. b. Select plants with similar water requirements to the trees under which they will be placed. C. Trenching for irrigation lines shall remain,outside of tree canopies. Only drip irrigation on top of grade (underneath mulch) shall be used under oak trees. Attachments: Tree Bond Form Tree Inventory Table Map Showing Tree Protective Fencing Locations Page 3 of 3 • i 0 • TREE INVENTORY TABLE Total Appraised Value 5102,630 Replacement Tree Values 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1;500 48 inch box = $5,000 52 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 Should any tree listed above become damaged owner will be required to repair the damage. Should any tree listed above be removed owner will be required to replace that tree with trees equal in value to its assessed value. 0 Address: August 15, 2007 Bohlman Road Coast live oak o 1 Quercus agriUfohia iz 55 o ° 70 Good > o w o $18,700 Coast live oak = U 2 Quercus a ri olia 12.8 25 70 80 Good High 3 $3,260 Coast live oak 11, � o o v 3 Quercus a ri olia o O� 50 U 80 U > 2 w En TREE Coast live oak � o � o a x c C M NO. TREE NAME H C7 W x n vO 'n O 1 ti 2 Q 1 $1,800 Total Appraised Value 5102,630 Replacement Tree Values 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1;500 48 inch box = $5,000 52 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 Should any tree listed above become damaged owner will be required to repair the damage. Should any tree listed above be removed owner will be required to replace that tree with trees equal in value to its assessed value. 0 Address: August 15, 2007 Bohlman Road Coast live oak 1 Quercus agriUfohia 34.6 55 80 70 Good High 2 $18,700 Coast live oak 2 Quercus a ri olia 12.8 25 70 80 Good High 3 $3,260 Coast live oak 11, 3 Quercus a ri olia 24 50 90 80 1 Good High 2 $19,100 Coast live oak 4 Quercus a ri olia 10 20 90 70 Good High 2 1 $1,800 Coast live oak 5 Quercus a ri olia 14 30 90 70 Good High 2 $3,790 Coast live oak 6 Quercus a ri olia 22 40 80 90 1 Good High 3 1 $10,900 California bay 7 Umbellularia call ornica 12.1 20 90 80 Good Moderate 1 X $1,520 California bay 17.8, 15.8, 15.7, 8 Umbellularia call ornica 15.2, 13, 11.8 40 90 80 Good I Moderate 2 X $41;400 Coast live oak 9 Quercus a ri olia 7.7 10 70 60 Good High 4 $1,140 Coast live oak 10 Quercus a ri olia 8.4 15 70 .70 Good Hieh 4 $1,020 Total Appraised Value 5102,630 Replacement Tree Values 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1;500 48 inch box = $5,000 52 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 Should any tree listed above become damaged owner will be required to repair the damage. Should any tree listed above be removed owner will be required to replace that tree with trees equal in value to its assessed value. 0 Address: August 15, 2007 Bohlman Road rI I—Oct 05 2007 1:36PM LRW OFFICES OF IMRM 4Ua�Ilaaab ■ 1■ 1� 1� I 0 August 10, 2007 Bohlman Road (APN: 517 -14 -003) Applicant Name: James A. Campagna Application Number: 07 -288 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. K y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the sc pe of work: and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be addressed 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: Mana Nahavandian Neighbor Address: 15281 Bohlman Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Neighbor Phone Number: Signature: • Printed : i_.�A_. 1_AM�L_ P.1 August 10, 2007 Bohlman Road (APN: 517 -14 -003) Applicant Name: James A. Campagna Application Number: 07 -288 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. /My signature.below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be addressed 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: Robert P. Lensch & Quyen Lam Le Neighbor Address: 15245 Bohlman Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Neighbor Phone. Number: Signature: / Printed: • • • • August 10, 2007 Bohlman Road (APN: 517 -14 -003) Applicant Name: James A. Campagna Application Number: 07 -288 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 an 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. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans;'] understand the scone of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be addressed 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: Monty Smith & Jenni Y. Smith Neighbor Address: 15210 Bohlman Road Saratoga,.CA 95070 Neighbor Phone Number: (415) 720 -2769 Signature: Printed: w • 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 24th day of October, 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 NNnv-\v.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION /ADDRESS: DR 07 -288/ 15261 Bohlman Road APPLICANT /OWNER: Jim and Rachael Campagna APN: 517 -14 -003 DESCRIPTION: The .applicant requests Design Review to construct a new two -story single- family dwelling and a Variance for the retaining walls to exceed the five foot maximum height limit. The dwelling will consist of approximately 6,010 square feet of floor area. The height of the structure will not exceed the 26 -foot height limitation. The net lot size is approximately 1.04 acres and the site is located in the HR (Hillside Residential) zoning district. Design Review approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060. 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 Monday, October 22, 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. Christopher Alan Riordan, AICP Senior Planner (408) 868 -1235 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 41h day of October 2007, that I deposited 25 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: 15261 BOHLMAN RD APN: 517 -14 -003 that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. Denise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services P� r� DAS, SHANTA D. LOOMER, — approval. the applicant is adoption al this Artic le, which Only one Opening. nwsrack. n sra[k shall be substan• that. eighteen inches r and SHANIA DAS LOOMER c,� requrslin, approval of a imposes time, place or man. I. Newsrack encasement e. Amendments. A newsrack Bally, equivalent to a 49 -16 of more than Iwentylour inches CASE NO.1 -07- PR•161B72 �;< City legals Variame as specified in City nrr restrictions which regu. means a City owned and permit may be amended from 100 style (as manufactured from the edge of the curb. To all heir, beneficiaries, Code Section 15.32.061(a) late the placement and main• maintained, modular recepta- time to lime upon application by'Sho•Rack'), a KI50fKI55F The bad of newsracks placed credilon. contingent cred)• Application $07-288 recall,, al newsracks. de inside which one or more tai an amendment cmaining (as manufactured by "K• adjacent to the wall of - fars. and peso. who may - NOTICE OF HEARING (517 - 14.003) Campagna; e. The public health. safely. Privately owned newscacks the information described in lack'), a M- 30fM -33 fors man • IF g shall It placed par - orherwise be MI led in the BEFORE PLANNING 15261 B.hbaan Road: - The welfare and Convenience may be Placed. The newsrack subsection (c). above, for utactuted by 'National .11.1 to such wall and col will or elate. or both f (pMMg510N applicant requests Design require that: encasement shall be large each additional newsrack ar. Newsvend'), a - armorhund more than six imines from the EDOM SHANTA 'DAS 100MER, Co" 5510H Review app,_l to Construct I. Interference wish vehicular, enough to auommotlat' a Itarbn to be the subject of 80 style' sack, or a'Gamet" wall. No newsrack shall be aka L SHANTA DAS, SHANTA IF COMMISSION a new t. -tchy single fatuity bicycle, wheelchair Ds pedes. newsrack which Complies the permit. The Newsrack rack as determined by the pacetl a maintained on a 0. WOMEN and SHANTA DAS anaumes the [allowing pub. residence and Variance Ilion 1. , be avoided; with the standards of this Permit Administrator shall Newsrack Permit sidewalk or parkway oppo• LOOMER lit hearings on Wednesday. approval lot the retaining 2. Obswcl'mn of sight, dis. Article, be permanently review such applications in AdminisUalor consistent with site another newsrack at a A PET17ION has been riled by the 241h day of October at wall to —,ad the Five feet tance and views of vehicular affwed a the grouts or the acCodan,, with subsection the provisions of this xctlon. MCA which distributes pri. S HANTELLE LOOMER a 7;00 P.m. In the City Council naximum height limitalian. Traffic, trafl,C signs and side of a wall or other sI.c- (d), above. b. Site Requirements. No rity newspapers. periodb DAVID LOOMER in the (namb... lasted at 13777' The total Root area of pro- tuffic. tFang pedestrans. tore and beef a design which E Encroachment Permits. P newsrack shall be installed in rats. other publications. Superior Court of California, ppmab Avenue, 5araloga, Posed residence add garage be efchinal.d; V xIchaecluraly Compatible . newsrack permit issued puce o public .right- of-way That 1. Roadways and green. No Ceunry of Santa Clara. CA 95070. DalaiH and plans will be appruimany 6.010 3. Damage lone le sidewalks ill, the surrounding area. s hint 10 this Article shall does not meet the approved person shall install stock, or THE PETITNan requests that arc mi 0. 1 al the 5araloga square feel. The net Ill $4, or streets Im ..,mind and I. Public righl•ol -way has the ,pollee as an e,mxl,e,t newsrack dimensions of not mainain any newxrxl which SHANTELIE LOOMER 6 COmmunhy Develd ritual is applemimatety 1.05 acres. repaired; same MI. b5as that lermH Permit snil no separate par' more than fifty-lour inch- projects onto. into or wee any DAND LOOMER be appolmad Departmrnl. Mondry through The ado u toned NR li iluide 4. The good appearance of defined in section 15 -06.S70 will pursuant to Ankle 10.20 es high including the part of the ..away or stmt as Desonal reDtesemativem Thursday: 7:3D a.m. - 5:00 Residenlia(I. the public streets and f the Saratoga Municipal of this Cade shall be required. pedestal measured. Irons lire of any public nghlol� y, or administer the estate Of the p.m• p you have que3tipm, Application 007 -307 grounds be maintained: , Code.. g. Fees. If .newsrack permit ground to the top sulfate of which rests• wholly or in part, . deredent Plannns are ..liable al the (366 - 17.005) Pmern S. lees and other fandscap. g. Roadway has the same lee has been established by the newsrack not more than upon. along or over any Por. THE PETITION reque6U the public .tenter between the Narayan: 19819Colby COU I: • ing be allowed to grow with- meaning as that term is the City Council giro newsrack two (2) legit deep .and not lion of a roadway of street. decedent's WILL and FFdi,W. Horns .f 00 1 a.m. antl 11 the The applicant request Design out distuno..,; defined m section 9. 10.150 of permit shall lake effect until more than thirty (30) inches 3. Prohibited laal'rons. No '1 arty, be admitted top - _an. Review, approval to construct 6. Access to emerg ncy and the Saratoga Municipal Cade. payment by the applicant of wide. news A shall be pfaced, bale. The will and any tadF All intertsted persons may a 1.041 square loot second other public Facilities be h. Sidewalk has the same said fee. My ice or lees c. Dan {emus Design .stalled, used or main. ci1, Ore m1.Dle for eumina- appear and be heard al the story adds ion to an existing mainlaimd; and morning as that term is adopted by the City Council Prohibited. The design of a ainetl: lion in the file kept by the above lime and place. II you 3.057 square lout one story" 7. Ingress antl egress from defined in section A70.160 0l shall cat exceed the costs SI . rrewsfxk shall net <rale a a. Within ten leer of arty court. - ' chahenle a decision of the single•lamiy midete. The properties adjoining lfw Pub- the Saratoga Munkipal Code. processing permit applies• danger to the persons suing marked or unmarked noss• THE PETITION requests planning Commission our- resldexe will col exceed 26 lic rightsbf•way be protect. i. Single•slol opening means tiom, amendments and flit newsrack in a reasonaby walk u measured from the authonry to admirdster she scantin apublichewingto toil in he The net Ill sere ed. an indIn al opening within renewals, u well as the tests foreseeable mannet. curb r,Win; sale under the Independent court you maybe limked to is approximately 15.681 g The regulation SI the disci a -it.[. newsrack. of maintaining ne sack d. Installation Standards. MI b. Within five fort of any fire M inutralion of Estates Act raising any those usues You squam leer The site u coned button f IF win is and j. Street has the same mean• casements and enforcing mounted macks shall be pedestal hydrant fire cafibox Mike (This authority will allow the a someone else hued at the A•7.70.000. ofbet publications dispensed mg as that term u defined in this Article. The News2ck and shall be Derma• arum or other emergency personal repmsenlalwe to public hearings) tlexribed in IPub SN 10)10) - in newsraW as set forth in section 9.10.180 of the Permit Adminstrator may nenlly alfued to the !.tend, facDHy: lake many anions without Ibis is It a b written ter- this Ankle pmides the least Saratoga Municipal Code. also requite a bond or other except as permitted under 's. Within five feel of any Chi. obtaining court. approve cat, Ills ondemedenheredlo the ORDINANCE 754 intrusive and burdensome k. Village has the same mean• fanaafsec rIhyaanam0unt this Article. Newsmcks shall wilmy. Before g Fr certain very D AN ORDINANCE ADDING means Ins ensuring the our• mg as That term u defined in reasomby necessary to not be chained or otherwise d. Within five leer of any bus important anion, however, 5araloga banning ARTICLE 10.40 Tb THE poses stated M this ..k. anion 15 -06.710 of the emum removal of each news- attached to a has shelter, bench; thI personal reprtsenlalrn Commission In O tor, SARATOGA CRY CODE REIAT- are carried out whik still p.- Saratoga Municipal Code. rack authorised by the news- bench. street light, utility e. y7 fain five feet of any rad the public beariM• In oiler ING 70 NEWS[UCKS idin ample SPDortunilias 10x0.030 Newefxk Permit rack Permit in The manner pole m sign pole • le any other curb eta busstopaone; will be required lv gwe notice to be included'. the Planning g lO i needed persons unless THE CITY COUNM OF THE lei the diseribulwn of news Required requiretl W Ihu Mkle. single ar modular newsak, I. Within live het of airy blue iney have wowed notice m Commission's information CITY OF SARATOW DOES and other printed mane, to No person shall puce of e. Permit col a Bar to or Ice any tree, shrub or other cu b or a disabled Darling tonsenled. to the Proposed ��yrs should be tfiled anrta, OSRecDllAton WAduopOOoir, Arlkk rarnlssfonr tvyawa ra k oo bubU placed rightafray a newsrack permit undo to s a Height Requirements. The ii M such a maims as b lion-) The lg orient belare Ibe Tasd+Y. •week DP w y P r administ,snon authofily will before the meet'.! Ankle 10 -40 b added to Ibe racks an public p.p,,Iy and unless such person •(1) Arikle shall nor prevent the highest operable pan of the cost,., prdestran .r drive begrantetl unless an interest- Asfte visit will be beW On the Saratoga City Code to re ad: does nor apply on Prwate obtains a newsrack Polish City from subsequently tom slot. if provided for the views of traffic signs Of ad person files anrobjeclbn day preceding the hearin 10x0.010 Purpose and property. Imm the Newsrack Permit enforcing this Mkle, ilawio- newsraQ, and all mnnoH, otaming lroffN: 1p the petition and shows g Fit 10.40.020 . Definitions Admi^islaor and (2) cam- alron u later found to exist. dispensers and other opera. h. At any location where the good rouse ws the coon bell listed above as part of p(w purpose of In— regula• lot the purposes of Ibis plies with all requirements of 10.40.050 Indemnification ble components of nmsmc s clear space far the passage of should riot .:.I. be CCU" .the standard Site Visit lions n to acknvwbdge and Ankle, the followinF words this Article. and Insurance Requirements shall not be Smalef Ihan pedestrians H reduced to ass Committee agenda. Site vii• achieve the I flowing: d phrases shall have 10.40.040 P e r i 1 Indemnification. Every, forlya•tghl (48) inches above than su feet; AHEARING an the petition ns ocwr beMeen 3:30 and a. There H a substantial a— Ihv nm nin15' respectively Rrqunemenb and Standard, mwssxk perm b holder shall the level of the adjacent M such a manna as to will be Aeb on OCTOBER U, 5:00 P... The she wilt Is minimal arte..I in premol- Scribed them by Ihu set- .. General.A newsrack permit apse, prim to the effective- Pavement or sldewalA, nor impede m intederq with the 200, 9:OD a.m. in Dept. IS open to the public. The Site i^3 the public health safety, Lion. unbss the content m the "n. applicable Doty for the mis of the newsrack Permit lower than fiheen (15) inches reasonable use of airy wm- brand at I North Post 54 V,MI Commute@ will camera wellam and Comeol@me by prwuion Flash requires ath- newsfxkls) and kcation(s) to ndemmy and hold harm• above the level of the adja menial window display; San lose. CA 95113. at the Gry Hall parking lot al ensuring Thal persons may ..is.: dascdbed in the permit. less the Cily. its offwns and cent pwemem m sidewalk. 6 Within fiheen bet of the IF YOU OBIECT fe rbe'grantm8 3:30 D.m. on the day AMCe; reasonably use the publk a. Abandoned n wscack b. Duration. A newstxk per• employees from any loss, ice- L Compliance with the Cultural urn of and wheekhair of the petton, you should mg the healing and visit Ike streeu, sbewabs, right cf- means airy ne crack which l shall Ell valid for one year bil1". damage *,'toil P sus- Americans will, Disabilities Curb ramp not in a marked appear al.lhe bearing and site fisted above and may way. and other public proper- [onair no Pirmed material and shall be renewable an rained by eery Person. prop- Alt. It H Mantled that the crasswalA; slats your objections or fde' visit other sits as well For ty without fnledemnit wish supplied by the newsrack ally. erly. arising from the Ins1ala- provisions of this Article shall k. Within a landxapetl am: wrteI ll *,*" with the - mom information please ton- such use and by rmuring peanlef for fawom^ can- t. Permit Application. The lien, operation or use of such be interpreted and applied L In such . manner as to wurl be [are the hexing. fail The Community that the streets are main- sewtbe' calendar days, nmmick permit applkalbn nrwsixk;Orovided,howwel, Consistent with accessibility unreasonably ebSt,uct or V. appeamme may be in Development Department at laird, in an aesthelkaly except that a new... k. -shall slate the flame, address that such obligation to sandnds of Ibe Americans interject with access to aUhe person or by your may be 408 868.1222 or .few the pleasmg manner that avoids 'remaining empty due to a and telephone number of indemnify and hold harmless with Disabilities Act of 1990. use and enioymem of abuv IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR ar a Sire ViH Agenda o^ the City congestion and clutter f labor strike or any temporary those nesponi le lerimtala- the City. Hs oK en and P.L. 101 -336, u amended. ling property. contingent ,,dh., 01 the Website It structures on sidewalks and. and eatraeltlemry Intenup- Ibis. use and maintemme of employes shall not extend L Color Requirements. The A. Other Prohibised Locations. deceased. YOU must fife yew caw sarato5a.a.us. oth¢pu.1,1k, glds al way. lion el dunibulian or puDliw• the newsrads, and shall to any loss. liability damage color al all newsrads shall be No person shall insalL stock th ill ,it. the must and mail APPLICATION OMOD 074001 b. Newsra[ks pared and lion by the newspaper or desarill. with parli[uauty, ortosl resulting from Ice xis tones of brown. or maintain arty newsrack a copy to IM personal reprt- (397.27 -030) Pkhetti/ maintained 'On. the streets, other publication distributed the model old design 072h Or D.pery of another. h. Advenning A mwsmd which in .hob or m earl sentalMe :pposnted I the Cahoon, 18935 Hayfield sidewalks or other Public from that newsrack shall riot newsfack(s) and the lora• b. Liability Imwate. Each msy display the Ingo a name min upon. br of eve, airy sun within lour months Court: The apPlkanl iightx ft a , absent some be deemed abandoned. Cwn(s) proposed i of mealla• newsrack pe,mie holder shall. Club public ation it often for sidewalk, when such Insala- homthedaceeffnlHswace requests modificaliom to an 'reasonable regulation, can D. Newsrack Permit Lion. Contact information prier to the eflec11vrr of distribution. P ewlllk riun. se maintenance of letters as pmided in approved Design Review under certain timumsl3mes Administrator means an must be updated by the the twwsrack pm ail. lumuh muss also display the identify either (1) eadangen the Mite. secei0n 91W of the California ?PpF.':I Medifia -fans unnasom by broader, with employee of the Ch of appikarn within tan (10) days to the City a,,rtifeate shay cation Abel requited by sec• ry of persons or property. (2) Probate -Code. The time include• bul are ewe limned the use sad- enjoyment of Saratoga working within the of airy mange. ing that the permit holder has lion 1040.0900. No other rsInabcatron used for public Ior filing claims will col lo. the addition of slope to such streets. sidewalks and Community Development d. Revew of Permit Then in lone public IlaOilily adrerlising or displays are utility Purposes, public tmns- xpiry before lour months Ibe from facade, the alter publk right,.f -,y. and pro- Department and designated Application. The Newsrack and Dr ^Perry damage insur- alowed on the ateirof of a Collation Duryoss m other from the hearing date noticed ation of proposed home's sent hands to Persons or by the Community Permit Administrator shall a naming the City as an newsrack. government use. or(3)unrea- ab_ placement on the sire. the property. Dweipmens Director eo miew each application to additional insured in as Newsrack Encasement sonably the flferes wile e YOU MAY EXAMINE the Ole roalwn el the gauge. and c The streets, sidewalks antl manage and process -the dereaior whether each p.• amount of erol less than Designs. The Ciry.may esah• impetles the Bow of petleslri• ke01 by It* Court. IF you are a - additonal windows on Ile pubic nghncl way ace his- implementation and enforce. posed newsad Complies 5250,000 minimum liability lish newsrack encasements in an of vehicular IF WK. m[Wd• person ineeresled in the : light elevation. The property tonically usai mcl with Ihr menr of a violation under this wile the requirements of this combined sin{b unit (badi1y various parts al the City (e.g., ing handicapped x.is. the .slate. VFu may fb with the n coined P-1.40,000. di >Iribaion of newspaper Artkk. - Ankle. The Newsrack Permit injury and Croperry damage) the viage area). The CHy wry ingress lma or egress from <oun a formal Request lot APPLICATION 006.118 and other publications• and t. Newsrack Appeal Offaer Administrator shall. within per person and per occur. ConsulrwHA and topsider airy am residence, pea of push Spatial Notice of tbe filing (503.28 -008) HashrmichJ access to and use al these means the Director of the thirty days SI receipt of the recce. The permh holder shall applicabb design gu)delwwl noss, ar the use of pots, Span Inventory and ill' Gisal Sam 20951 20951 Canyon areas for -rah purposes is Community Development permit application. either provide and keep IV that re{ardmil The design. Iota• Poser. lra8xsi{ns or si{mn, nl giro,, aseH or of airy View: • Applications lot not to be denied seep[ Department auehari7ed' IF issue a newsrack permit or polky of public BaDil)Iy insur- lion, and sue of the newsrack hydrants, postal sewke coo petition or account as prwid- Design Renew and Variance where saAuse unreasonably hear appall of decuions of deny till application, in ante during such time as N emasem.05. Ieclion oozes er other ob)ecls ad in snlian 1150 of the 10 Construct an appm.irmley interferes with the use of the Newsrack . Permit whole or in part, and notify continues to own, operate, 1040.070 Location permitted It of near such .Cafilomi. Probate Cede. A 3.635 square bat rw-We, Ih.e area by pml.w ns or Administrator. the applicant in writing of the use• or maintain arty news- Standards lot Newssa[ks location. form Request aaifaDlr from the meet on a raan�blgalZ0957 rents a Aaiafdsta DereSCm pre. oe container, c storage any unit, E or pried, lA it otifip[afronishan in thenCiy.uTh. ervideaf a of Newsracks shall comply with Newsraeks..n Newsra� shall rack ,arm rkrk. Carq•an Wow brie. The even propery, or where rah use u other dispense installed, include an explamfinn of the insurance filed with the City the following standards: be placed nil to each other Attorney lot petilioner. ago slope of, bt H 39.77. allied out in a manner Thal used of maintained Ins. the reasons br penal A denial shall include a statement by 1. permissible locations. wberrwer feasible. However. DOUGLAS BARNES sloping downward toward creates congestion and dub display and distribution of may be appealed m acme• the insurance carrier That 30 Newsucks seal) only be no group of newsracks paced DOUGLAS P. BARNE5. Canyon View Drive. Pursuant ter of detracts from the newspapers, periodicals OF dance with this Article. The days' notice will be given to placed nee, a cur., or adja• along . curb she emend to, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP. to City Code .Section 15- design of the surrounding Fiber printed .0mr. amhoiaation for any news. the Cary baler@ any tancella. cent la the wall op a building. a distaae of muse Iran 210ALMFNDRAAVE. 12.061, the average slope stmelscipe. Newsrack includes both mod• lark included in a newstxk lien. unless in a City approved eleven (11) feet A ewwsrack LOS GATOS. CA 95030 - beneath a structure shall not d. Rasenall adCommoda. uar newsracAs, which have permit shall be al no further 1040.060 Design encasement. The back .1 they cat be located on the 4OEd95 -000 steed 30& slope. Thenlne, Ibis of these competing inter- mme than one opening, and Ions and effect if that news. Standards far Newsfacks — Slacks placed near the same block within Fifty (50) (Pub SN 912e. 10,.'3, 10110) in addision m Design Review ISIS can be achieved by single mw ,,W. which have rack becomes an abandoned a. Newsrack Models, Each web shall be plaid no less leer of a group vl newsrxks u • • Attachment ...10 • CAMPAGNA RESIDENCE BOHLMAN ROAD • ������ �Illlltllilll► -0 ; "'- :N7011q, I rrod, . 7 CONTACTS OWNER cNa m AMSAIMCAIOAM Nw (404 Y7 am s 12 21001 (404 f7$MW FAX C" efA4kiodm S m" 104 #"I ARCH"ECT MANCHRUS I ISS �AVBAE. S MA2SEGI 951254UI ANNE GUMAN pw (404 =41SS FAX e0m GENERAL INFORMATION F4VQOAM47= 2001421G,=a A/It 6171 -1- a fREA�1(OSAiiJk 114M saEMe IIIEMB1REik 4&M f01EV1E AIEa4XUlFacoXA 6.12o SOMAE ArRY1 StM 499 A14l RMOaaaFlE XM Sale m NEWISOVAUM topwaraummw. •olAs IBESr aEwjm F0w.. 117.N AV BWaf4U=F0W- SoLm forowaEwimFOS4F: "Us LEGEND AO.O nllf SHEET AI.O PDOFOSEDSI RAN A2.1 PROPONDGARAWVIM A2.2 PROPOSED RRST ROOK BOOR A2.3 FROPOSEDSECOIDROORFIAN A2.4 PROPOSED ROOF FUN A3.1 PROPOSED WEST i EAST BMTK NS A3.2 PROPOSED SOUTH t NORTH SWAIM Al2i BU LOM SECTIONS ®U MVICUE RAN CwKWIL n I MAONORRAWW OMX0 M14 minim "014m Ig2wwi4r�12MAOo wewas�mr FAX eirat csrq,� c now m ,.ss�a �. S.IAWL30 am A I OF 3 SEWER CONNECWN PUN 2 OF 3 SEWER OONNEMON PUN 3 OF 3 SEWER CONNECTION FIAN IOF4 GRADMFUN 20F4 GRWWANDUFKWPUN 3 OF 4 FROM AND SECTIONS 40F4 FODUWNPREVENTION V W 0 0C Z ~ CL AmrroMA oAneM�owASw Mons ®AM0/A20'07MM0L Arens ®OeM01S�MeR 0/1�421e ®Oe07�d0211e1e UPo,naw TRLE SIGET DATE. NRVMXR ROWT DO.. IA S DRAWN IF, rj;4 A0.0 ® 2007 n "ca 7.17 sc cf11E00Y�A0E R R« X s LEGEND AO.O nllf SHEET AI.O PDOFOSEDSI RAN A2.1 PROPONDGARAWVIM A2.2 PROPOSED RRST ROOK BOOR A2.3 FROPOSEDSECOIDROORFIAN A2.4 PROPOSED ROOF FUN A3.1 PROPOSED WEST i EAST BMTK NS A3.2 PROPOSED SOUTH t NORTH SWAIM Al2i BU LOM SECTIONS ®U MVICUE RAN CwKWIL n I MAONORRAWW OMX0 M14 minim "014m Ig2wwi4r�12MAOo wewas�mr FAX eirat csrq,� c now m ,.ss�a �. S.IAWL30 am A I OF 3 SEWER CONNECWN PUN 2 OF 3 SEWER OONNEMON PUN 3 OF 3 SEWER CONNECTION FIAN IOF4 GRADMFUN 20F4 GRWWANDUFKWPUN 3 OF 4 FROM AND SECTIONS 40F4 FODUWNPREVENTION V W 0 0C Z ~ CL AmrroMA oAneM�owASw Mons ®AM0/A20'07MM0L Arens ®OeM01S�MeR 0/1�421e ®Oe07�d0211e1e UPo,naw TRLE SIGET DATE. NRVMXR ROWT DO.. IA S DRAWN IF, rj;4 A0.0 ® 2007 n "ca 7.17 CwKWIL n I MAONORRAWW OMX0 M14 minim "014m Ig2wwi4r�12MAOo wewas�mr FAX eirat csrq,� c now m ,.ss�a �. S.IAWL30 am A I OF 3 SEWER CONNECWN PUN 2 OF 3 SEWER OONNEMON PUN 3 OF 3 SEWER CONNECTION FIAN IOF4 GRADMFUN 20F4 GRWWANDUFKWPUN 3 OF 4 FROM AND SECTIONS 40F4 FODUWNPREVENTION V W 0 0C Z ~ CL AmrroMA oAneM�owASw Mons ®AM0/A20'07MM0L Arens ®OeM01S�MeR 0/1�421e ®Oe07�d0211e1e UPo,naw TRLE SIGET DATE. NRVMXR ROWT DO.. IA S DRAWN IF, rj;4 A0.0 ® 2007 n "ca 7.17 V W 0 0C Z ~ CL AmrroMA oAneM�owASw Mons ®AM0/A20'07MM0L Arens ®OeM01S�MeR 0/1�421e ®Oe07�d0211e1e UPo,naw TRLE SIGET DATE. NRVMXR ROWT DO.. IA S DRAWN IF, rj;4 A0.0 ® 2007 n "ca 7.17 • ,� • 1 \ 1 — � i� /r �,�� �i � ��'� I I\ \ I 1 I \; III II I I � I��l 0\•6 1 � I �/ �i����i�i�� � � \\ \ \II\ 1111 1 III�I i l % 1 11" ✓I 1 I ior =ip_�K 1 fl l 11 Il, /1/1/ l� � /l l 1 //� / � ' I II►� � I I I i 1 I {41111 � \ N 110 \ '�II1111111 111 I I �1 LI i III I I II�I iI \\ GO �m 70•_0. I \ \\ \, \ ��� \� � \ ` \\ \ � \��' \\ \�� \ \� �\ �, �� ��� N /B1DE D \89 O 890 00 \\ \ A l i \ 1 \ \° Z oho C: CAM PAGNA RESIDENCE z c a` * i BOHLMAN ROAD SARATOGA, CA 9�I , �> _ > __ 00 F� • s R," AREA - URAGE F -. -- p san 60WM FEtr \ TOTAL N7an kU FEET \ FFEEEmFNAraEe RR1E)DI \ RWJOEOk 017E.4411 \ H01►76afE /�EO�76ElEE►AT \ 9wifi KHOIC7RmY 0 ARCy E J, t OF C�Uf FLOOR AREA DIAGRAM 9 3 3 PROPOSED GARAGE PLAN 3/32° 1 4 V z W 0 U.1 - - - - - - - - - - II z <� Vo� m 4. i Vi 9 REYIEIONE RRRRODDIO0sN1°1lW INROIIL7007 QDRRRItLLWO1DO/N An 1%MR ®OBIWIMORRBIW Rl16N96700/ ® ®It1lW R7 ®_ IA 7007 \ � 1 \ \ I� `— — — — — — — — — — L------- - - - - -J 3 3 PROPOSED GARAGE PLAN PROPOSED GWGE rW, DATE: Famm.2E07 PROJECT NO.: 1.071 DRAWN IT, JEEDT 1140 i © 7007 /E ARCNITECTE 3/32° 1 4 V z W 0 U.1 - - - - - - - - - - 4 O z <� Vo� m 4. i Vi 9 REYIEIONE RRRRODDIO0sN1°1lW INROIIL7007 QDRRRItLLWO1DO/N An 1%MR ®OBIWIMORRBIW Rl16N96700/ ® ®It1lW R7 ®_ IA 7007 PROPOSED GWGE rW, DATE: Famm.2E07 PROJECT NO.: 1.071 DRAWN IT, JEEDT 1140 i © 7007 /E ARCNITECTE olst) I*-NO b, 1 F mob. TFOYER Bq a wro HALL .KING ROOM 18-8• x 15-10• lnmw / e r I y t1 n n n FLOOR AREA DIAGRAM 511 -0' o EQUIP. RM. F1/2 BATH FAU r '7 -3 x ' -8 1 PANTRY 1 9' -0• x 3'-8• moor— I 1 DN UP I FAMILY ROOM -10• x 25-'2• MR I L----- - -____ KITCHEN r - - -- - -- DINING ROOM I 13' -8• x w->o• 1 16'-81 x 15 -T WINEI I IFP, FP CLRJ I 4 -01 xl O 25 -5' 1 i O Eli I I 1 i l I 1 r�N HALL PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN Ili -2• FLOOR AREA • FEFOT MOOR QI 6,311 SQUARE.' FAT O1 30 60IHA6'. FM ' O NO to FEET Q4 2510 6fMMFEET O 6090 60&W FEET © 960.1 6C1WkFEET. 0 6910 W WB FEET ARCHITE CTS QO 60 6OIAJE Fg1 Q 232 60WE FEEL IJUMBWMAVMUM20 ® 023 60" FW owxx 01nln/wl .2SiSLt/ In9 fIM UM1U TAT TOTAL 32710 SCUM FEET WMEN 001BCItmY -0 AR�� V� fRE1 E r J, 26NR JZ + 3/32° 4 ULU z W o� LU z Q � F- 03 Masi Q m H Z � I I � v REVISIONS W PCO61 W" N1R011S13M QOSIDIROIOmYB1D ASRI 212027 m6®/IRAaWO2rleln FiNiRS4200F ®O�i /NA0]YIB/O H19RE 116 700! m PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PUN DAM momml2007 PROJECT 010.e IJDE DRAWN ■RDT '::� A2.2 D .r I/4° I © 2007 JE ARCHITECTS y / • / / :7 > ° s / O / C x J b I , PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN RAM I 13131-1 4 i 3 1/4" 1 1 IINIIll"me EREI m Rw/Dlca elnwl R7F►�ssusiNalOELEIEI M71 WWJFAoffmns=1 ED ARCjy ��EOr c�II`f�e W V z W 0 LL J cc Q QQO z� Amy ate. L REYIEIONE R�NO:A - MCM K.00R RaR11p1RR ®1 fR8 p Is,o EOYJB FEET AIE11NW O 5750 wwa FEET m D®IBAOOIYBI6 ® N.1 Sawa ME 04 Mb 62WM F W ® ub &UAFE FEET © 50 6 L#M FEET O bo OOIUfE FEET O 590 SGtw FEET na SMAFE FEET N40 WLL"FEET O D73 5d1AlE FEET — — _ ! TOTAL 9170 eFawr& FEET RAM I 13131-1 4 i 3 1/4" 1 1 IINIIll"me EREI m Rw/Dlca elnwl R7F►�ssusiNalOELEIEI M71 WWJFAoffmns=1 ED ARCjy ��EOr c�II`f�e W V z W 0 LL J cc Q QQO z� Amy ate. L REYIEIONE RaR11p1RR ®1 fR8 AARON I10077 QOFIN�S AIE11NW ©OHiElMI07EBID !19[847077 m D®IBAOOIYBI6 /I9ts147F0/ PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PM DATE: R�9d.70DI ►ROIEC7 NO.: Sim DRAWN R7: iROF & A2.3 © 2007 if ARCNIUCTE /i T / 71 as �� PERIF¢TER STOR KEY NOTES 9 ti - - - - -- T I I h d r-- I I \\ L — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- — — — - - - -- II II II a �- I I I 9 3 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN IINN WWAMM=M]EE WI101Em all$- fI (10+]KiLf�Nlt)EW Iff TAT nrrrARaRIa�RC+afl - ALL ROOF DRAMS TP BE CORMCTED TO TPICAL) E fCy /T ��;54 c ae.eo��o�Ea #�• NS 4 U W 0 Q W O ;5 �a to Main F1 QOcQn m U 't, l INOINNBIIT wwmJt.= PROPOSE) ROOF FLOOR PLAN DAM FENAW.7007 PROJECT NO, 1.011 DRAW14M iRDT 6 A2.4 L /Al ' © 7007 )E ARCNITECTf tlYIf10N! 1�11TRO N =O�It1ll WROI IL>ZA QDBRIIMII'OOA1BIIf All I1loD7 't, l INOINNBIIT wwmJt.= PROPOSE) ROOF FLOOR PLAN DAM FENAW.7007 PROJECT NO, 1.011 DRAW14M iRDT 6 A2.4 L /Al ' © 7007 )E ARCNITECTf F EIE I ; I ----"---L. 1i FLOOR III ________ ___________- _ -O -S' - ;__ _ ___ _________ I I I 1 L. LOWER FIt Li FLOOR 9m4 SKEWZD VIEW II S Im PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION j G4RAGE FLOOR I TILE ROOF SYSTEM ® LIE OF FINISNED FLOOR ❑T PLASTER SYSTEM rn-1 TOP OF RETAtHtHG WALL O9 DUAL PANE WMDOW SYSTEM ® RQ1C+N SI• NEAVT TIMBER OOLIA'NS O DOOR © ROUGH &AUK HEAVY TIMBER BEAMS STONE VENEER SYSTEM ® TILE © GUTTER SYSTEM ROOF SYSTEM ® Imo+ r ❑1 / W WOOD WMDOW TRIM SYSTEM �S IBCOM OM OF IffTAMMG WALL a :C Lw DEBRIS FENOE KEY NOTES NS 1 4 IimN A%WMNMM TA JMC%Is 214ul il0+laiME /iIOS 7ualu EAR Ww.mAROEIRcmam ED ARCM E O� i n� �l'lF OFC�FSe? W V z W 0 LEW 0 z O /Q m H CL V REYIEIONE RRER71m AMRDER mw NNG1117101 QORYI@l10mmm A14111=7 QR9mRAAa>111 o SPRI1647m7 DRRi1RI CoNlBDR REEINIR AN r ROPMFV EAST 8 WEST ELEVATIONS DATE: famaw..3m7 PROJECT NO.: I'm DRAWN RT: NEW All 1 /4N 1 © 2007 .lE ARCHITECTS Q_� " >ti- >.'i'.'i' ��i �i'i 7i Vii, �i�i i i iii' �i� i!� N ?i!��i'� �`_ �i iii ♦P dpi J_�!J.�!J.d� tes' .di ���ii!�!�Ss.�., ' _ r_ _._._ _ _ _ ...� _. .. UK ARCHITECTS "v" - -------- --- --- ------ ---------------- assn" 201.0• MAX "slaw ABOVE AVERAba (J- )2 "••Y (Wsl") GRADE f0. R�Oa Ir•tr raio) a -e• raeae) rtl rLOOR Y -O• (sP/.V dARAOC rLOOR as � m 41 0 ----------- - - - - -- ----------------- � �ss"i♦" » -o IIAX�anrlrY fa RIDOa w'.e• n27e) is n.An sns. rlmlasr m) HALL 11 BEDROOM n e�ev� 11 1 lr sd r"L Rio= a•s (sae) rra R oDR HALL -__ DNM ROOM BUILDING SECTION HALL 1311 6" I I I ®p@E1='WWWw BUILDING SECTION 13116-1 M0.M0.2M 3 sosa♦" 0 Iw1lwtlwtlataa = awata onion (�2t{AL: /1421tNttMlt 0 ARCS c si.a g � ♦ a� m rio ;s C►```d. V W WAMMM L w oc � OC Z ~ Qs CL tms)oas BUILDING SECTION •00.211/ 1311 6" I I I ®p@E1='WWWw BUILDING SECTION 13116-1 M0.M0.2M 3 ----------------------- ------------------------ -------- ---------- -___ _ 7 `I AO'MAX AOOVa AVpRA6a is wa)aa - i i (vie) I"'4 0 7a IRAs - -� � VU-M., r •d ro7t0) FOYER / STAIRWELL BEDROOM 03 MAST. BEDROOM 02 MAB1ER BEDROOM BATH OFFICE IQ•dr ftMe) 'Ip t.a rra rLOae ) (sl7e Y C is I.LAre • 7. a (sues 1V1, rLOOR LEVEL Ilk, LNNO ROOM DO' M ROOM IQTCHEN FAMLY b a leas" „ Avawaoa aweoe -?3 O'•P• (seen) l Iril (s073s) •01 -" PIK rLOOR a1r1CaW rLOpt CARAW MOOR BUILDING SECTION Iw1lwtlwtlataa = awata onion (�2t{AL: /1421tNttMlt 0 ARCS c si.a g � ♦ a� m rio ;s C►```d. V W WAMMM L w oc � OC Z ~ Qs CL tms)oas �RtOlwl� •00.211/ moialwatlrtl nags ®p@E1='WWWw W 43M ®0101laI0)a100. M0.M0.2M "M �a67m7 /t0ltCT aO.) � DRAWN Ot) &on A3.3 ® 2007 )t ARCIIITfCTt hose naked to slake I KEY 81ZE ou X rs eP,aGIIJCs MOMIL2= ' dkL Lodge Palo or equWmt - 18' mote will encourage new roots at the cuts. Install Enough bockg under root tall so tap of 4) Remove rootball carefully from container by tapping out, not pulling out by the stem. eletw sdld ground placed outside rootball arI lRJ007 rootball ends up 2' above grade of eurraundhg sal when it sat6es. Install sane of fertilizer Scarify rootball walls in 3 vertical cuts and bottom to 1/2' deep, or cutting roots of d plumb IrldicR Muke9w' Gees Myrtles packets under root ball. 5) FD around rootball with badlill m4 to 1/2 its height and pad sop as you full with shovel 1/2' or larger with shears. Do not pull roots apart. LI U 28X12 rRubber 14 RWD brace, naked to stakes but Le�elranle handle or feet being careful not to disturb root fall 5) Install fertilizer packets under rootball of plant. Set rootball on prepared surface and BFpalBe ot touching tree trunk 6) Put Agrtform Plant Tablet fertilizer at this level adjacent to raatbdl and at bottom of hake fill hole to 1/2 the depth, tamping soil around rootball. Fill hole with water. EP a 4x4 4' Euryops pactlrotw Euryof7s Daisy ulch (2' deep) pulled 3 inches away 6) Fill the remainder of the hole with backfill and pack it but do not tamp rootball. cl�wD co�.Efe with badfM and pad It 7) Water tree thoroughly by filling the basil and allowing the water to percolate in, doing this 3 times a more until root bap and badNl b wet rom trunk He '1 2H2 y /lanlsroeelns Llttls Ml" euneMns cur 84611e do Go Tallow Dayllly 4' high berm far water boom at edge of root but 2 - 4' dia. perforated drain pipes Mulch (2' deep) pulled 2 inches away from stems as deep as hake with tap t' to Y r high berm for water basin at edge of root ball above grade with remowble grate Slow release Agriform plant tablets Agdfarm Plant Tddets 21 gram IIII Iff 1 gal plant - 2 tablets per plant IN - notive sal 5 gal plant - 3 tablets per plant Plant pit to be 6 times wider than the plant 15 gal plant - 6 tablets per plant container -it's not shown to scale an dwq IIII — = Sump lY -12' di. by 2 -1/2 feet deep — — Backfill - native soil _ FOR. - hot- bottom of planting hake. F61 , °IIII ETIR with gaud and cover with filter fduic T . Native soil dug out 2 times depth of container III = II IIII= OK to omit this in sandy, wall drained sops IIII= I �I plant pit at least 3 times diameter of container t) 9 - 12 hour before Installation, wars all pants while still in containers cuffk:bnay to 1) 8 - 12 hours before installation, water all plants while still in containers sufficiently thoroughly wet root baps 2) Dig hole at least Y deeper than the container and 6 tines wider than the to thoroughly wet root balls 2) Dig the plant hole at least 3 times the dia. and 2 times the depth of the plant container. diameter of the container the plants were delivered in. 3) Replace this mixture in bottom half of hole and walk on it. The level of it should be 3 Gouge holes in the side of the plant pit - 2 hobs per sq. fl of wall surface 4; Ranove too" carefull from container with support from below. Sever my cirding g existing Plant Legend such that when the plant is installed and settled it will be slightly above grade of y roots (3/16'dla or greater) with shop knife. Do not pup roots opal The severing or large soil. Fill hole with water . KEY 81ZE ou X rs eP,aGIIJCs MOMIL2= B0TC7diC:AL IJJJ"� r -a'1M� NAME mote will encourage new roots at the cuts. Install Enough bockg under root tall so tap of 4) Remove rootball carefully from container by tapping out, not pulling out by the stem. eletw ,& d a AmMIN10E arI lRJ007 rootball ends up 2' above grade of eurraundhg sal when it sat6es. Install sane of fertilizer Scarify rootball walls in 3 vertical cuts and bottom to 1/2' deep, or cutting roots of TREEe IrldicR Muke9w' Gees Myrtles packets under root ball. 5) FD around rootball with badlill m4 to 1/2 its height and pad sop as you full with shovel 1/2' or larger with shears. Do not pull roots apart. LI U 28X12 Le�elranle handle or feet being careful not to disturb root fall 5) Install fertilizer packets under rootball of plant. Set rootball on prepared surface and BFpalBe 6) Put Agrtform Plant Tablet fertilizer at this level adjacent to raatbdl and at bottom of hake fill hole to 1/2 the depth, tamping soil around rootball. Fill hole with water. EP a 4x4 4' Euryops pactlrotw Euryof7s Daisy (5 tablets per 15 gel a 5 tablets per 1 Inds of caliper width. Fit the remainder of the hole 6) Fill the remainder of the hole with backfill and pack it but do not tamp rootball. cl�wD co�.Efe with badfM and pad It 7) Water tree thoroughly by filling the basil and allowing the water to percolate in, doing this 3 times a more until root bap and badNl b wet 7) Make the water basin. 8) Water shrub thoroughly within 1 hour of planting by filing the basin and allowing the He '1 2H2 y /lanlsroeelns Llttls Ml" euneMns cur 84611e do Go Tallow Dayllly 8) Instal slakes anon that this stakes and the tree tie won't damage the tree and the water to percolate in, doing this 3 times or more until root ball and backfill is wet etakae wont lean toward each other. Out off tops of stakes if necessary to lower balm —' branches that could be rubbed by stiles Install stakes so they cue straight up and don't g ) Install mulch rem in to each other TREE PLANTING DETAIL NS 16 SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL NS 12 PLANT LEGEND NS 1 3 11RMI A%SMNMM RWXMC%"inU I Na92tedMf /fID4 MERIN rAx WM.EAR7RIELmm y" "0 AR�h e�S cu %04 ♦'rF OF CK"i�? W z tews Mess LR REY1610N8 ---940 MOMIL2= QOSMIRRAiWmmon A MIJ,J007 ,&D M mllWCMMM W MMl LX07 ,& d a AmMIN10E arI lRJ007 I\ \ \\6V \\ O\ \ \ we \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \\ "'/ ' / / \ \ \ \ \ \ - (5�0 \\ Fie Il�illl '�•' Ll // LANDSCAPE PLAN I/8° I 11RMI A%SMNMM RWXMC%"inU I Na92tedMf /fID4 MERIN rAx WM.EAR7RIELmm y" "0 AR�h e�S cu %04 ♦'rF OF CK"i�? W z tews Mess LR REY1610N8 OAWMFVD maw MOMIL2= QOSMIRRAiWmmon A MIJ,J007 ,&D M mllWCMMM W MMl LX07 ,& d a AmMIN10E arI lRJ007 M✓SC L PM DATE: IOA&W.3 07 PROJECT NO.. Imi DRAWN MY, iROr LNORTN © 2007 JE ARCHITECTS I O Ma VICINITY MAP GRIND 6' BEYOND SEAL SURFACE BY SPRAY APPLICATION SAWCUT UNE OF SS -1 EMULSION AFTER FINISH ROLLING. EXISTING ROADWAY SURFACE AC. AT 98% COMPACTION. 1' TYPE 'EF 1/2' MEDIUM CU55 B' TYPE 'B' 3/4' MEDIu CUSS AC. EEL 00 ffGREk7[ETR ROLLED AND TAMPED TO 98R COMPAC110N. �- 6 TYP CLEAN & TACK SIDES OF 12' MIN. EXCAVATION AND TYPE 'A' BEDDING ONLY - '-`' BETWEEN COURSES. _�'`=__`- SPRAY AN APPLICATION OF BEDDING Tlt e 55 -1 ENUL50N BEFORE A o _ PLACING A.C. O r CLASS M AGGREGATE B EXISTING OR PROPOSED PIPE Tg5OM� PCTION �O0� %'Q' (4' MIN.) T�X BACKFILL C EXISTING STREET TRENCH RESTORATION NOTE: HOMEOWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPACTION TESTING LIMITS m BACKFILL WITH LIMITS OF TYPE 'A' NIMUM NATIVE MATERIAL X'"— X PIPE BEDDING PER CITY STANDARD 4' SPECIFICATION 1301. 72MIN 0.0. UNITS OF TYPE "B" 'Tl PIPE BEDDING CATEGORY OF PIPE O O.D. VITRIFIED CLAY PIPE UNITS OF TYPE "C" AND PVC SOB 26 O.D. PIPE BEDDING CONCRETE PIPE 24' M 8 BEDDING 0_11(4" MIN.) AND LESS MATERIAL 8 BEDDING DUCTILE IRON PIPE (CRUSHED STONIE N ACCORDANCESWITH THE 1992 CITY STANDARD SPECIFICATION 1301 -2. NEW STREET PIPE BEDDING DETAIL FOR ALL PUBLIC STORM AND SANITARY SEWER PIPE 1. ALL MATERIAL AND METHODS OF NSTRUCTTON FOR SANITARY SEWERS TO CONFORM WITH THE STANDARD SPEOFlCATIONS Of WEST VALLEY TATION DISTRICT. INSPECTION OF SANITARY SE'MFA WORK TO BE CARRIED OUT BY SAID OFFICE 48 HOURS�BEFORE REDUI T 1 IINNSPECCTION. TELEPHONE ONU(�) 378 -2407. NIA NOTIFY DISTRICT 2. UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THE IMPROVEMENT PLANS, SEWER PIPE OPTIONS ARE VITRIFIED CLAY PIPE OR PVC SDR 26 OR BETTER. 1 3/4' CRUSHED AGGREGATE (PEA SECTION 200 -1.2) SHALL BE USED FOR PIPE BEDDING AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 306 -1.2.1 OF WEST VAL.EY SANITATION DISTRICT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.. 4. BUILDING LATERAL SHALL BE (CONSTRUCTED AT A MINIMUM SLOPE OF 27L 5. ENGWEER SHALL SUBMIT A SET OF CUT SHEETS IN A FORM APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT AT LEAST ONE WORKING DAY PRIOR TO THE'STA T OF CONSTRUCTION. APPROVED PLAN REVISIONS REQUIRING CHANGES IN GRADE ON ALIGNMENT WILL REWIR SUBMITTAL OF NEW 9GNED CUT SHEETS PRIOR .0 START OF C04TflUCT10N. 6. UNDERCRGUN0 CONTRACTOR SHAJ BE APPROPRIATELY UGENSED AND COMPLY WITH THE DISTRICTS INSURANCE COVERAGE AND PERFORMANCE 8 REQUIREMENTS 7. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, UNDERGR ND CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN PERMIT FROM THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS. 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN IN RY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER FROM UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (U.S.A.) (800) 227 -2600. 9. THE UNDERGROUND CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL A 4' CLEANOUT AT THE END OF EACH BUILDING SEWER. 10. WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT, ORDINANCE CODE SEC. 6.069, REQUIRES THE INSTALLATION OF A BACKFLOW PROTECTIVE DEVICE IN THE SUIUlING PLUMBING SYSTEM WHEN THE LOWEST FIXTURE OVERFLOW LEVEL IS BELOW THE NEXT UPSTREAM M OE OR VERTICAL RISER RIM. 11. R IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONS To POTHOLE' ANY UTILITY TOSSING' OR OTHER UNDERGROUND OBSTRUCTIONS BEFORE PROCEEDING "1H CONSIRUQ110N. THE CONTRACTOR SHWID COORDINATE "IN THE DESIGN ENGINEER TO VERIFY THE ELEVATION AND AUOWENT OG ANY UNOERFROMHO APPURTENANCES FAILURE m YRR9Y LOCATIONS W ADVANCE MAY RESULT IN CONSTRUCTION DELAYS PENDING DESIGN REVISIONS AND RE- SUBMITTALS FOR APPROVAL- TV INSPECTION 12. ALL SANITARY SEWER UNE& INC USING 4 ENCH BURRING SEWERS, SHALL BE TV- INSPECTED BY CREWS OF WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRI T. 13. THE TINES WILL BE INSPECTED E OF CHARGE FOR THE CONTRACTOR, UNLESS THEY FAIL THE INSPECTION. IN (NAT EVENT, AND SECOND LrINSPECTIONS WILL BE DONE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CONTRACTOR. 14. TO ACCOMODATE THE W- INSPECTION OF SEWER LINES 6' OR LARGER, THE CONTRACTOR WILL PROCEED AS FOLLOWS: a THE CONTRAC OR WILL AIR TEST, BALL AND FLUSH THE SYSTEM. b. WRING THE =OPERATION. THE CONTRACTOR WILL LEAVE A TAG LINE IN THE PIPE, THE LINE SHDULD BE STRONG ENOUGH TO PULL THE CABLE FOR TELEVISION INSPECTION. 1S. IT WALL BE THE RESPONSIBRITY1 OF THE CONTRACTOR TO INSURE ACCESS TO THE MANHOLE, I.4.. THE CONTRACTOR WELL INSURE THAT NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED ON TOP OF THE MANHOLE AND INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THE MANHOLES S PROVIDED. 16. IN THE EVENT THE TV- INSPECTION CREW ARRIVES TO FIND THEY ARE UNABLE TO CONDUCT THE TV- INSPECTIONS BECAUSE OF BURIED MANHOLES, E PMENT OR MATERIALS IN THE WAY, Em ON , THE DEVELOPER OR CONTRACTOR "LL BE BACK - CHARGED FOR TER TIME SPENT BY WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT. APPROVED AS TO DESIGN ONLI BASED ON INFORMATION SUBYRTED NEREON, DATE: .2006 ROBERT R. Rf3D, R.C.E. 47764 LICENSE EXPIRES OECEMBER 31, 2007 DISTRICT MANAGER AND ENGINEER WEST VALLEY SANITATION DIS RICT DATE: .2006 TOWN OF NOS GATOS ucEFISE ExPIRES: OTICE TO CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR SHALL �OTIFY U.S.A. (UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT) AT 800 - 227 -2600 k MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS BEFORE BEGINNING UNDERGROUND WORK FOR VERIFICATION OF LOCA71ON OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. � ugdE � �4 ft 2m � . Old 2059 f cAu v Z Z C Z > Z 4n Z N La U CZ C IMP, AM mi IY v CW /Z v Q^ I1 L Q U II 0 RD 1 n N g V FZ W U V J Q i. Q LLI .. Zi Z < J +; Q _ Z O ry Z M. O LL_ U O�Q I w OIU z I z d- C/ O o 0 wL0 3�: z cn w Q_' O U) Q, Sco;e: AS SHOWN Drawn: CAD Job: 115 -69 Sheet I of J \JM\Campsgna\sewrprof i W. Ong Thu Mar 08 2 04:57 2007 0 + 899.8 9 O 8 (A 8 893.5 887.9 TA _..881.1 T 9-T—A 874.9 876.8 866.7 sy 866.7 T TA.4 859.5 +45 CLEAN OU.T#1 i-10 CLEAN OUT#2 HO CLEAN OUT# )0 CLEAN OUT#4 CLEAN OUT#5 _EAN OUT# NN OUT# I OUT# 0 71 F_ FTI 0 ZTL9 0 'U #10 0 f) c FT1 FT] Ln > FTI + > z m 2-1 CIVIL ENGINEERING SEWER CONNECTION, LANDS OF CAMPAGNA nEDEn SURVEYING 003, BO+i_LMAN. ROAD -9 APN51 7 = 1-4-1 .1 -InGin-EFlinc - — CONSTRUCTION - SARATOGA, CA CUPERTINO, CA, (408) 257-6452 CIVIL ENGINEERING SEWER CONNECTION, LANDS OF CAMPAGNA nEDEn SURVEYING 003, BO+i_LMAN. ROAD -9 APN51 7 = 1-4-1 .1 -InGin-EFlinc - — CONSTRUCTION - SARATOGA, CA CUPERTINO, CA, (408) 257-6452 9w QT# 700 •• Z z O �- tp Z > N W n -i O � i v U C� 1u �•W v .j IY'�4T W W 5 Q fZ V CQ G Q Q O z Qi .. 0 Z m' O U O! W 0i< Z Z O U I � L.Li �' Q W ml Q (f) QI Date: DECEWB4R -2006 Score: 1 " =90' Drawn: CAD! Job: 11549 Sheet 3 of 3 Sheets i I UTILITY POLE o=4, � STA. =11 +25 i J IU 7 C0#11 + tiv INV.= 764.75 / 9 +0 UTILITY POLE 1 f7.00 p STA. =12 +15 CO #12 STA.=10 +34 ^' INV.= 751.75 CO #10 \8 INV.= 777.74 6 STA. =13 +00 h s \i INV - .� INV.= 743.00 POLE \ \ STA. =13 +96 d' CO #14 ' INV.= 731.00 n O � LID' F n ~ n ^I STA. =14 +75 Cop 5 INV.-721.4.4 \ 1 i 12 +00 EXISTING GAS LINE STA.=15 +67 11 +DO CO #16 i INV.= 710.22 \ UTILITY POLE \ STA. =16 +73 CO #17 ELEV. =70 00' INV.= 697.79 C(AAqSg$S77U����MED �FKR�pRIMIppGg ATER VALVE QUADRAN LE 11SGSE EXISTING WATER LINE MATH HOLREPUNCHES UTILITY POLE STA. =17 +63 CO #18 WATER VAL `f INV.= 685.00 "BRASS 3 DISK WITH PUNCH \HOLE WATER VALVE d` MONUM TA-18+ 9 SR{�DMMMHg73322 INV= 671 38' 6 . DD 7T��II 676.65; = 672.65 INRVERTN EXISTING ELECTRIC LINE DR AIN INLET 7��g &E BOX I PG&E VA 577,g '1 STREET LIGHT BO WATER METER I. .FIRE HYDRANT STA.=19 +98 CO #20 17 PG &E BOX INV.= 674.06 EXIST.SSMH PAC BELL BOX_. RIM = 673.29; IN V.= 661.75 .I PG &E BOX SDMH J�AAC BELL BOX RIM = 661. ' INV.= 65233' .78 WATER METER SSMH A 592' RIM =663.88 i INV.= 653.58' WATER VALVE DRAIN INLE GRATE = 661.44' INVERT= 655.96' SSMH RIM= 659.58' INV.= 647.13' STA 11 +00, MATCH LINE PROFILE OF ;PROPOSED SEWER MAIN 9w QT# 700 •• Z z O �- tp Z > N W n -i O � i v U C� 1u �•W v .j IY'�4T W W 5 Q fZ V CQ G Q Q O z Qi .. 0 Z m' O U O! W 0i< Z Z O U I � L.Li �' Q W ml Q (f) QI Date: DECEWB4R -2006 Score: 1 " =90' Drawn: CAD! Job: 11549 Sheet 3 of 3 Sheets J Q � J IU + I� h h s i n O � LID' F n ~ n ^I 12 +00 1 11 +DO 9w QT# 700 •• Z z O �- tp Z > N W n -i O � i v U C� 1u �•W v .j IY'�4T W W 5 Q fZ V CQ G Q Q O z Qi .. 0 Z m' O U O! W 0i< Z Z O U I � L.Li �' Q W ml Q (f) QI Date: DECEWB4R -2006 Score: 1 " =90' Drawn: CAD! Job: 11549 Sheet 3 of 3 Sheets v.1 GENERAL NOTES 1. ANY DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY CONTRACTOR IN THESE PLANS OR ANY FIELD CONDITIONS DISCOVERED BY CONTRACTOR THAT MAY DELAY OR OBSTRUCT THE PROPER COMPLETION THE WORK PER THESE PLANS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ENGINEER AND OWNER IMMEDIATELY UPON DISCOVERY. SAID NOTIFICATION SHALL BE IN WRITING. CI 2 ALL MATERIAL WORKMANSHIP AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE 2001 STATE CALIFORNIA STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARD PLANS EXCEPT NOTED ON PLANS. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL GIVE THE CITY OF SARATOGA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 48 HOURS NOTICE BEFORE STARTING WORK. CALL (408) 868 -1218 OR CONTACT AT 13777 FRUITVALEAVE, SARATOGA, CA. 95070 FOR INSPECTION SERVICES. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL AGENCIES REQUIRED PERMITS AND PAY ALL FEES PRIOR COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. S. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FROM THE CITY OF SARATOGA, BEFORE START OF WORK ON ALL PUBLIC STREETS. CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PERMIT. 6. GRADE BREAKS ON CURBS AND SIDEWALKS SHALL BE ROUNDED OFF IN FORMS AND SURFACE FINISHING. 7. SIDEWALK WARPS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO ALLOW A CLEAR 5 FOOT WALKWAY IN ALL LOCATIONS INCLUDING WHERE MAILBOXES, UTILITY POLES, FIRE HYDRANTS. AND GUY WIRES ARE TO BE INSTALLED. B. WORK HOURS ARE LIMITED TO FROM MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY 7:30 A.M. TO 6:00 PM. INSPECTION WILL BE AVAILABLE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY FROM 8:00 A.M. TO NOON. 9. A PRE - CONSTRUCTION MEETING IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF WORK. CONTACT THE TOWN ENGINEER TO SCHEDULE SUCH MEETING. 10. ALL WATER LINES SHALL INSTALL PER SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY, 1265 SOUTH BASCOM AVE. SAN JOSE, CA 95128 11. BUS STOP SHALL BE INSTALLED PER VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY. NOTIFICATION FOR INSPECTIONS APPROVAL OF ALL WORK SHALL BE NECESSARY AT THE COMPLETION OF EACH OF THE FOLLOWING STAGES OF WORK AND SUCH APPROVAL MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE SUBSEQUENT STAGES OF MAY BE COMMENCED. ADDITIONALLY, THE INSPECTOR SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST ONE WORKING DAY IN ADVANCE BEFORE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING STAGES OF WORK IS COMMENCED. ADDITIONALLY THE INSPECTOR SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST ONE WORKING DAY IN ADVANCE BEFORE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING STAGES OF WORK IS COMMENCED. ANY CONSTRUCTION OR EXCAVATION REQUIRING INSPECTION THAT IS UNDERTAKEN WITHOUT INSPECTION IS SUBJECT TO RE- CONSTRUCTION AND RE- EXCAVATION AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. INSPECTION MUST BE SCHEDULED FOR THE FOLLOWING WORK: 1. COMPACTION AND PREPARATION OF EMBANKMENTS, EXCAVATIONS, AND SUBGRADIE 2. A CONSTRUCTION OF FORMS FOR ALL CONCRETE STRUCTURES, INCLUDING CURB, GUTTERS, AND SIDEWALKS. S. EXCAVATION FOR STORM DRAINS AND CULVERTS. - 3. A. PLACING OF CONCRETE IN STRUCTURES, INCLUDING CURBS, GUTTERS AND SIDEWALKS B. PLACING OF STORM DRAINS AND CULVERT PIPES. 4. BACKFlWNG FOR STRUCTURES AND PIPES AND PUBLIC UTILITIES 5. CONSTRUCTION OF ROADSIDE DITCHES AND OTHER DRAINAGE WAYS. 6. PLACING AND COMPACTING OF BASE MATERIAL IF MORE THAN ONE COURSE OF TYPE OF BASE OR SUBBASE IS TO BE USED, APPROVAL BE NECESSARY FOR EACH COURSE AND /OR TYPE. 7. PLACING OF PAVEMENT OR SURFACING. WITHIN 48 HOURS OF PAVING. ALL WATER VALVES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO GRADE AND INSPECTED. 6. FINAL CLEAN -UP. 9. UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION, FINAL CONNECTION WILL BE MADE BY THE CONTRACTOR AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE UNDER INSPECTION BY THE TOWN INSPECTOR, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIF'IEDION THE PLANS. GRADING NOTES 1. A GRADING PERMIT, SHALL BE ISSUED BY THE CITY OF SARATOGA PRIOR TO ANY GRADING SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING HIS WORK WITH THE SOILS ENGINEER. ALL GRADING SHALL BE PERFORMED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PREUMINARY SOILS REPORT AND CHAPTER 33 APPENDIX OF THE ADOPTED U.B.C. 3. STREET SUBGRADE SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95% RELATIVE COMPACTION TO A DEPTH OF NO LESS THAN 6' IN THE ROADWAY SECTION- ASPHALT CONCRETE AND CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95% RELATIVE COMPACTION. 4. THE USE OF THE SAND CONE METHODS (SUCH AS ASTM 1557 OR CAL 216) FOR DETERMINING FIELD DENSITIES WILL NOT BE ALLOWED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR NUCLEAR GAUGE TESTING. 5. ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IN PLACE BY OCTOBER 15 OF THE CURRENT YEAR. ALL GRADED AREAS AND EXPOSED SOIL WITHIN THIS PROJECT SHALL BE SEEDED FOR EROSION CONTROL BY THE CONTRACTOR. SEED AND MULCH WILL BE APPLIED BY OCTOBER IST TO ALL CUT AND FILL SLOPES WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO PROJECT ROADS. SEED AND FERTILIZER WILL BE APPLIED HYDRAULICALLY OR BY HAND AT THE RATES SPECIFIED BELOW. ON SLOPES, STRAW WILL BE APPUED BY BLOWER OR BY HAND AND ANCHORED IN PLACE BY PUNCHING. ALL CRITICAL EARTHWORK OPERATIONS SHALL BE PERFORMED DURING THE DRY WEATHER SEASON, FROM MAY 1ST TO OCTOBER I.T OR AS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER THE CLEARING OF EXISTING VEGETATION SHALL BE CONFINED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ACTUAL EARTHWORK, INCREMENTAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO ENSURE THAT THE AMOUNT OF LAND CLEARED AT ANY TIME IS LIMITED TO THE AREA THAT CAN BE DEVELOPED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. STORM WATER SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO FLOW DIRECTLY DOWN UNPROTECTED SLOPES. ENERGY DISSIPATING STRUCTURES AND EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE PLACED AT ALL DRAINAGE OUTLETS WHICH DISCHARGE TO NATURAL CHANNELS AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. ALL SEDIMENT TRAPS SHALL BE MAINTAINED AS SHOWN ON THE IMPROVEMENT PLANS. RESPONSIBILITY. "BLANDO BROME" 30 - - BARLEY 40 FERTILIZER 16 -2G-0 & 1.5% SULPHUR) 500 APPLIED ONLY AFTER GRASS HAS STARTED AND THERE IS NO THREAT OF RAIN. STRAW MULCH 40 BALES USE ONLY RICE BALES 6. ANY EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEM AND EXISTING WELLS SHALL BE ABANDONED UNDER PERMIT FROM COUNTY OF SANTA CLERA ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT GENERAL UNDERGROUND NOTES 1. NO GUARANTEE IS INTENDED THAT UNDERGROUND OBSTRUCTIONS, NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, MAY BE ENCOUNTERED. THOSE SHOWN ARE BASED ON THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE AND THE CONTRACTOR IS CAUTIONED THAT THE OWNER, ENGINEERS, AND THE CITY OF SARATOGA ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY OBSTRUCTIONS EITHER SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES WORKING WITHIN THE UMITS OF THIS PROJECT. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT BEGIN EXCAVATION UNTIL ALL EXISTING UTILITIES HAVE BEEN MARKED IN THE FIELD BY THE APPLICABLE ENTITY RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT PARTICULAR UTILITY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY EACH APPLICABLE ENTITY AT LEAST 24 HOUR BEFORE STARTING WORK. 3. UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT: CALL TOLL FREE (800) 227 -2600 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL UNCOVER EXISTING BURIED UTILITIES WITH UTIUTY OWNER TO VERIFY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF UTILITIES. BURIED UTILITIES INCLUDE NOT LIMITED TO WATER MAINS AND LATERALS, SEWER LINES, STORM DRAINS, GAS MAINS AND LATERALS ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION LINES AND TELEPHONE LINES. ALL UTILITIES CONFLICTING WITH THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE RELOCATED PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EXISTING INVERTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION. THE PROJECT AND /OR DESIGN ENGINEER MAY ADJUST THE GRADE OF NEW SEWER CONSTRUCTION ACCORDINGLY WITH CONCURRENCE FROM THE TOWN ENGINEER. 6. DISTANCES AND INVERTS ARE TO AND AT THE CENTER OF THE MANHOLES, CLEANOUTS, DROP INLETS, CATCH BASINS, AND YARD DRAINS OR AS MARKED ON THE DRAWINGS. 7. ALL EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES ON SITE AND ALONG PROJECT BOUNDARIES SHALL BE PLACED UNDERGROUND OR APPROVED BY THE TOWN ENGINEER. 8. ALL UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE INSTALLED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO PAVING. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL STAMP THE LETTER "S" ON THE FACE OF CURB DIRECTLY ABOVE THE SEWER LATERAL, AND THE LETTER "W ON THE FACE OF CURB DIRECTLY ABOVE WATER SERVICES, AND "B" ON FACE OF CURB DIRECTLY ABOVE A BLOW OFF OR AIR RELIEF VALVE. AT A DRIVEWAY THE STAMP SHALL BE PLACED AT THE BACK OF RAMP. THE LETTERS SHALL BE 4" HIGH AND COMPLETELY LEGIBLE. 10. ALL MATERIAL WORKMANSHIP AND CONSTRUCTION DETAILS SHALL CONFORM TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA CONSTRUCTION STANDARD SPECIFICATION. SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 11. SERVICE LATERALS, OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN OR NOTED ON THE PLANS, SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO OBTAINING CITY APPROVAL ' 12. WATER AND SEWER SERVICE LATERALS SHALL BE SEPARATED HORIZONTALLY BY MINIMUM OF 5 FEET. _ SARATOGA FOR APPROVAL 13. ITEMS SPECIFIED ON THE STANDARD PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR USE BY THE CITY OF SARATOGA ALL SUBSTITUTES OR ALTERATIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF S RATIO 14. IN MULTI-UNIT COMMERCIAL COMPLEXES WHERE THERE IS A POTENTIAL IN ONE OR MORE INDIVIDUAL UNITS FOR A CITY INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT; PROVISIONS FOR SEPARATE METERING FOR WATER AND /OR SEWER MAY BE REQUIRED. 15. SURFACE MOUNTED TRANSFORMERS SHALL NOT BE USED UNLESS LOCATION OF SUCH UTILITIES ARE SHOWN ON APPROVED PLANS AND APPROVED BY THE CITY. NOTES CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM WITH 2001 CAL -TRANS AND THE 1997 UBC OR 2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE DESIGN 1. ALL AND THE 1974 CITY OF SARATOGA CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS. 2. DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTROLLING NOISE, ODORS, DUST AND DEBRIS TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND ROADWAYS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE THAT ALL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT IS EQUIPPED WITH MANUFACTURER APPROVED MUFFLERS/BAFFLES. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE ISSUEANCE OF AN ORDER TO STOP WORK. 3. IN THE EVENT THAT ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE INDICATORS (CHIPPED CHERT, OBSIDIAN TOOLS, WASTE FLAKES, GRINDING IMPLEMENTS, DARKENED SOIL CONTAINING BONE FRAGMENTS, AND SHELLFISH REMAINS, OR CERAMICS, GLASS OR METAL FRAGMENTS) ARE UNCOVERED,THE CITY OF SARATOGA AND THE NORTHWEST INFORMATION CENTER AT SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITY SHALL BE CONTACTED FOR AN EVALUATION OF THE SITE. ALL GROUND DISTURBING WORK SHALL CEASE IN THE VICINITY OF ANY DISCOVERY UNTIL ARCHEOLOGIST COMPLETES AN EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE. 0 R 5 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN TRAFFIC FLOW ON AFFECTED ROADWAYS DURING NON WORKING HOURS, AND TO MINIMIZE TRAFFIC RESTRICTION DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW TRAFFIC SAFETY MEASURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH CAL -TRANS MANUAL OF TRAFFIC SAFETY CONTROLS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE WORK ZONES." THE CITY OF SARATOGA EMERGENCY SERVICE PROVIDERS SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULED BY THE CONTRACTOR(S). THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY EMERGENCY SERVICE PROVIDERS IN WRITING AT LEAST 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF ITS PROPOSED SCHEDULED TO WORK. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN CONTINUOS TRAFFIC FLOW IN ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAYS. FLAGMEN AND SIGNAGE SHALL BE USED ACCORDING THE CAL -TRANS STANDARDS FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION. 6. NO OPEN TRENCHES SHALL BE LEFT OPEN WITHIN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAYS. ALL OPEN TRENCHES AND OTHER HAZARDS SHALL BE CLEARLY MARKED. OPEN TRENCHES SHALL BE COVERED OVERNIGHT BY A TRENCH PLATES CAPABLE OF H -20 LOADINGS. SITE COUNTY LOCATION MAP rw¢ n,A¢o Al owv ui /�- b �Oi �GARP Tlul M 11�E TYPICAL TREE PRESERVATION DETAIL NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR CONTRACTORSISHALL NOTIFY USA (UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT) AT 800 - 277 -2600 A MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS BEFORE BEGINNING UTILITIES R Fl E LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND OF TH WORK F OR VE I CATION GRADING NOTES 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL PtKMI 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION LOCATIONS IF SHOWN ON THE PLAN AS 3. EXPORTATION OR IMPORTATION OF SOIL GRADES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, SHALL SHALL BE PART OF THIS CONTRACT. 4, TYPICAL GRADIENT REQUIREMENTS PAVEMENT -1% MINIMUM UNLESS OTHER STAIR TREADS -2 X WASH MINIMUM FILL SOIL -2:1 MAXIMUM LANDSCAPE AREAS- 1.5% MINIMUM U.0 DRAIN PIPE INVERTS -5X MINIMUM SLOF 5. ALL GRADES SHOWN ARE FINISH GRADE SHALL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THICKNESS 6. ALL HIGH POINTS, OR GRADE BREAKS HAVE A SMOOTH CURVE PAVING SHAL 7. ALL GROUND SURFACES TO BE FINISHEI DRAWINGS AND IN SUCH A MANNER AS DEPRESSIONS WHICH MAY CAUSE AREA B. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EASE TOP AN TRANSITIONS BETWEEN GROUND PLANE: 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL G OF PROPOSED AND EXISTING STRUCTUF APPROXIMATE AND ALSO SHALL BE FIE SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE OWNERS WITH THE WORK. 10. FINISH GRADE IS EQUAL TO TOP OF W 11. AT ALL TIMES THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DEBRIS, AND RUBBISH FROM VATHIN TH DISPOSE OF SAID MATERIAL IN A LEGAI 12. CONTRACTOR TO GRADE SITE TO ESTAE ELEMENTS SUCH AS CATCH BASINS, RE INDICATED BY SPOT ELEVATIONS. REMA CONTOURS OR SLOPE INDICATORS, BUT BALANCE CUT AND FILL OR TO MEET E 13. OBTAIN CITY PERMITS FOR TREES OR V CONSTRUCTION. 14. A SOILS REPORT SHALL BE PROVIDED 1 STRUCTURAL, CUT AND FILL REQUIREME POOL SUB DRAIN SUB DRAIN LOCATION FOR SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS. 15, CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY FINISH FLOOR PAVEMENT AT THRESHOLDS PRIOR TO I ADJUSTED TO MEET AS BUILT CONDITIO 16. CONTRACTORS AND WORK MEN SHALL I TH MATERIAL WITHIN E LANDSCAPE PLA1 17. DOWN SPOUTS SHALL BE CONNECTED TOWARD DRAIN OUTLET AS INDICATED I 18. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE NECESSAI 19. FILL AREAS SHALL BE KEYED INTO BEC ENGINEER. 20. SWIMMING POOL/ POND/ FOUNTAIN COt CONSULTANT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 21. GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT TO REVIEW PROVIDE TEST; INSPECTIONS; AND APP CONSTRUCTION. 22. BACK DRAINS BEHIND ALL RETAINING W 12 INCHES OF SURFACE, DRAIN ROCK ROCK AND TO BE ENVELOPED WITH FIL 23. THIS PLAN IS NOT A SURVEY. IT IS Pi THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ON SI PROPERTY LINES, EASEMENTS, SETBA DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY 24. ALL ELEVATIONAL HEIGHTS ON THESE F CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIELD -THEY MAY 25. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DOCUMENTS 26. REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR 27. REFER TO STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS DRA WALLS ETC. 28. CONTRACTORS AND WORK MEN SHALL I EQUIPMENT BENEATH THE CANOPY OF ANY EFFLUENT MATERIAL BENEATH THE S NECESSARY TO COMPLETE SITE DEVELOPMENT. ALL EXISTING UTILITIES IN THE FIELD. APPROXIMATE AND FOR GENERAL INFORMATION ONLY. WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY TO MEET THE BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND NOTED. TO OUTLET. �. EARTH WORK ELEVATIONS FOR PAVED AREAS OF PAVING AND BASE MATERIALS. IN PAVED OR EARTH SURFACES SHALL NOT BE BUILT TO A POINT. TO UNIFORM GRADES AND SLOPES AS PER TO DRAIN PROPERLY AND BE FREE FROM OF STANDING WATER. TOE OF ALL SLOPES TO PROVIDE SMOOTH ADES INCLUDING LOCATION AND RIM ELEVATION :S IN THE FIELD. EXISTING GRADES SHOWN ARE ) VERIFIED. ANY DISCREPANCIES UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE PROCEEDING K MULCH FOR FINE GRADING PLANES. :LEAR AND REMOVE ALL ORGANIC MATTER, LIMIT OF WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL MANNER AS HIS PROPERTY. SH FINISHED GRADES OF CONSTRUCTED 4INING WALLS, AND PAVED AREAS AS DER OF SITE SHALL BE AS INDICATED IN THE IAY BE ADJUSTED ON SITE AS NECESSARY TO STING CONDITIONS- REFER TO CIVIL FOR SITE GRADING/DRAINAGE. ;ETATION TO BE REMOVED FOR THE PROPOSED ) DETERMINE SPECIFIC GRADING, COMPACTION, ITS. SITE SUB DRAIN LOCATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS, AND REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR TO REFER TO SOILS REPORT LEVATIONS & TRANSITION FROM HOUSE TO FINISHED DNSTRUCTION, SPOT ELEVATIONS MAY HAVE TO BE S. PROHIBITED FROM DUMPING ANY EFFLUENT RNG AREAS. D SOLID DRAIN PIPE AND SLOPE V PLAN. Y CLEAN OUTS TO DRAINAGE SYSTEMS. IOCK UNDER THE DIRECTION OF GEOTECHNICAL STRUCTION DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY GEOTECHNICAL 'OR APPROVAL. ALL GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF PROJECT AND OVAL OF ALL GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF ,LLS TO BE 18 INCHES WIDE AND EXTEND TO WITHIN FO CONSIST OF 3/4" TO 1 1/2" GRAVEL OR CRUSHED ER FABRIC SEPARATING ROCK FROM SOIL. OVIDED FOR LANDSCAPE AND SITE WORK LAYOUT ONLY. ALL GRADES, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS, :KS, UTILITIES, AND SUBSTRUCTURES. ALL DISCUSSED WITH THE LANDSCAPE DESIGNER. .ANS NEED TO BE RECTIFIED WITH ACTUAL HEIGHTS AS VARY. "OR ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION. ; EOTECHNICAL INFORMATION. WING FOR STRUCTURAL INFORMATION- RETAINING E PROHIBITED FROM TRAVELING OR PARKING XIST. TREES. CONTRACTORS SHALL AVOID DUMPING v I. s NA 20697 4 e F F CAL"" SHEET INDEX 1 GRADING COVER SHEET 2 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 3 PROFILE AND SECTIONS BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES REVISIONS � V Z Z K W � Z � V1 W v Cd NNW W Ja 1� C� W Q !Z Q j 0^ C LL Q U Q LlC G O L-J' , r ^ V J O�y� M Q W j Z g o. O Z I' I �j Z[ -� col Y J': mos., rote: OCTOBD cole: I"=2 row,. CAD ob: 115 - heet 1 d4 5 C4 a b C4 1 O v U C) Z W V Q U V O NQN V J REVISIONS BY CHAIN LINK, DEBRIS FENCE, 3' HIGH ' �7 EXISTING SURFACE Note: All gradin5 and excavation shall comply with the recorn— rdotlons in e Geotechnical Inv tlgotion prepared for this project by Pollack Engineering Co., A l \ doted 20 tctob 2006 Project No. 1032 and Baker -CEG Consulting Engineering V -DITC /f�j)j Geology dated 0 lobar 1, 2006. �— RETAINING WALL OA ` MAX. HT-5' CLUMP - ��AYS- CUT SLOPE TO BE APPROVED SCALE: 1' = 20' BY GEOTECHNICAL. ENGINEER 0. 8 6 FOUNDATION WALL TO BE 36" MIN ABOVE C EG 3/4" DRAIN ROCK PAD. PAD TO BE OVEREXCAVATED AND RECOMPACTED PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SPRINKLERS E STRUCTURES T Z = 1�N�1 FILTER FABRIC 12' INK a xg eN g a" PCC W #10- #10 m > > 1 6' SCHL 40 PVC PERIMETER TIGHT LINE — 0j 33 RST 6 "x 6" WWF O S=0.01 MIN Z C n O S =0.01 MIN. CONNECT ALL DOWNSPOUTS 10' BAY OR PLACE CONCRETE SWALE IN Z N Z N C S UCT DI (PATER PER DETAIL FIRM UNDISTURBED SOIL "T" SHAPE ENERGY TW =914.0 W U 00 6 " -12" ANGULAR DISSIPATOR BW =906.8 F CONCRETE V— DITCH DETAIL —' g 6' SCHL 40 PVC PERFORATED PIPE O 5=0.01 MIN. PLACE PERFOATIONS DOWN ROCK .H H FG- ague pOR NOT TO SCALE U v WATER PROOF EXTERIOR °p SURFACE OF BUILDING 1 WALL PER ARCHITECTURAL 6, V DITCH NG 4 I V PLANS r 0 FINISH FLOOR - GP�PAg i J1 [ IKl m 'u W 3/4" DRAIN ROCK �c•$ I 44 K, ' W 6 l �v1 0 FILTER FABRIC PAD ELEVATION 6" SCHL 40 PVC PERFORATED PIPE ` II I I I I I \ C O S =0.01 MIN. PLACE PERFOATIONS DOWN ! W V "T" SHAPE ENERGY CO PIER AND GRADE BEAM _ DISSIPATOR \ \ 5' n \ 901 I ! I t I I I SAN TARY SEWER MANHOLE EXISTING FOUNDATION. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS 4. 4. T TYPICAL BUILDING SEC710N ROCK SE7 N ANGULAR ?i u `" A 2 \ 1 g I ` SEEPSEWER PLANSUTH, ON CUVILLY WAY) f Q NOT TO SCALE CONCRETE 1 \ R 9oD I I C� EXISTING GRADE - 1 CONCRETE PAVERS 6" CONCRETE \ �- `N I I I Q V -DITCH OVER 6I 2 AB 6' BERM REBAR O RETAINING WALL 6" PVC 6' O.C. BOTH WAYS I a- 12" WIDE DRAIN PER 14 (HEIGHT VARIES) FOR EROSION PROTECTION, \J l ! I I O j SECTION H —H PLACE s" CELL DEPTH CEONEB r I I I U TYPICAL BUILDING SECTION OVER 5DOX MIRAn FABRIC 3. 12" 0 2.S.R wr ro saux j I I FILL CELL MTH Y OR GREATER RETAINING WALL ANWLAR ROCK (LEN IN TO BE VERIFIED ON SITE). 2} LL (HEIGHT VARIES) APPROVED FILL g 1 O COMPACTED TO 95% } APR OF NI �� j' SECTION GG (NO v 1 0 Q TYPICAL DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION KEY. EXCAVATE IN z O UNDISTURBED SOIL f a EDGE OF PAVEMENT I ' 8 • ` �/ ts" WN \ I A E tf�1TION FOR 1.1- A L 5 DES`AS SHOWN IN SECTION PRE RED BY Nor m nvac 1 5 B R C ,DATE OCTOBER 1, 2006 CHAIN LINK, DEBRIS - ENERGY DISSIPATER DETAIL Vrl Q FENCE, 3' HIGH xor to rru FIRST FLOOR 1 (S D `�. LEGEND V -DITCH =90 8 00 k ^^ � I� T D' P T ER DETAIL LL J T RETAINING WALL FINISH FLOOR ` D- TV TOP OF WALL EL= 908.00 1 i 1 . MAX. HT -5' \ S A EP E ERG 1 O BW BOTTOM OF .WALL SUNKEN FL GARAGE EL= 905.00 I `Lr EL =907.33 AT FRONT 1 \ r � I l "R I �" m BM BENCH MARK 12 E I IN A A LT BERM MON MONUMENT PROPERTY LINE SECTION AA (TYPICAL) STA� 0+ IAS LL \ M I ) EP EDGE OF PAVEMENT — 6 T u I PATE R D TAIL O SECTION DD °H O MC A CL CENTER LINE RATE —892.6 I D IN T= 888.0 7 / Z 2 6 LF 6 "0 H O'` �/ PAVE AREA TH \ TT L OR SUB A 3" AC OVE I CHAIN LINK, DEBRIS CHAIN LINK, DEBRIS \ DISC C \ 6 AB FOR FIRE 1� Q FENCE, 3' HIGH FENCE, 3' HIGH CHAIN FENCE. DEBRIS 1 V FENCE, 3' HIGH / DEPT. jURN OUT V -DIT / 7 r- O V -DITCH V -DITCH \ � � ^ L_ 9� t L_ 11 RETAINING WALL FINISH FLOOR RETAINING WALL I GARAGE FF EL= 905.0° 50 LF 6'0 HOPE/ f MAX. HT -5' RETAINING WALL \ MAX. HT-5' .X / EL =908.00 MAX. HT =S' SUNKEN FLOOR AT FRONT .. EL= 9°7.33 � DISSIPATER PEA ENERGY 0 o � � r�rnn a_ V 'Q^ INSTALL CHRIS _ EX. 18' CULVERT Q V SECTION BB SECTION CC SECTION EE CONNECT 6 "PVC SDR -26 WATER LINE 18 "x18" DI Date: JULY 2007 TO EXISTING WATER MAIN GRATE= 900.00 Y PROVIDE COVER ON OVER PIPE ROAD). Scale: "c20• � PROVIDE 3'MIN. COVER OVER PIPE Drawn: CAD EXISTING 15" CMP CULVERT Job: 11.. -69 Sheet) 2 of 4 Sheets 51 94( 92( 9011 Sal( DAMM 8Z 655.00 LOW POINT ELEV = 893.02 PIA STA = 0+50 LOW POINT STA 0+97.89 PVI STA = 1+50 PVI STA - 1+00 PV1 STA - 2+57 PM STA - 2+25 PVI ELEV = 904.00 PV1 ELEV = 897.75 A.D. = -15.68 910 900 890 880 870 910 goo 890 Sao 870 860 910 900 890 880 870 860 850 920 910 900 890 Sao 870 860 850 -40 -20 a 20 40 0+40 -40 -20 0 20 40 0+60 -40 -20 0 20 40 0+80 DRIVEWAY PROFILE 2+00 PROFILE SCALE, HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL 1'-20' 310 1+00 )00 920, 390 910 380 900 370 890 880 910 870 900 860 890 850 880 870 920 860 910 900 910 890 900 Sao 890 870 880 860 870 850 860 840 1120 J 850 -40 -20 1+040 20 4 930 9 920 20 910 910 9 goo 00 8 890 90 880 800 870 870 8 860 60 I I so: 0 20 40 , I I 1 1 850 850 -20 -40 -20 0 20 40 920 910 900 890 880 870 Sao 850 840 920 910 900 890 880 870 860 850 840 930 920 910 900 890 880 870 860 850 STA- 2+83 FACE OF NEW GARAGE FINISH FLOOR EL-905.00 AIMW Square Feet ;VLVJM Cubic Yards CEWM499VE VOLUAW Cubic Yards srul2yolv - CUT F= CUT FEZ CUT I FILL 0+20 5.16 5.18 4-68 901 4.68 9.01 0+40 7.46 19'1 6.87 ---- - 12.97 11.55 21.98 0+60 11.09 4.33 13.55 15.87 35.53 0+80 0.59 20.71 - 2 --�- 2.49 17.96 48.02 1 +00 5.04 13.00 .09 3.87 11018 21.83 59.19 1+20 4.88 18.51 - - 9.04 8.58 30.88 67.77 1+40 18.44 5.90 9.65 6.57 40.53 74.34 i+60 7.61 11.83 -5.63 8.68 46.15 83.02 .0 7.58 11.60 -- 559 8.07 52.04 --57.31 91.09 1 2+00 8.32 i 0.20 2+20 5.91 _ 11.89 5.27 8.18 99.27 2.57 17.48 59.88 116.75 2+40 1.03 35.31 13.41 60.24 130.17 2+60 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.24 30. 1 7 2+80 0.00 2+82.94 0.00 0.00 30.17 900 i 30.17 I 900 920 920 Ell. 890 890 910 910 880, 1880 SOO 900 1110 870� 870 8 0 860 910 900 890 880 870 910 goo 890 Sao 870 860 910 900 890 880 870 860 850 920 910 900 890 Sao 870 860 850 -40 -20 a 20 40 0+40 -40 -20 0 20 40 0+60 -40 -20 0 20 40 0+80 DRIVEWAY PROFILE 2+00 PROFILE SCALE, HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL 1'-20' 310 1+00 )00 920, 390 910 380 900 370 890 880 910 870 900 860 890 850 880 870 920 860 910 900 910 890 900 Sao 890 870 880 860 870 850 860 840 1120 J 850 -40 -20 1+040 20 4 930 9 920 20 910 910 9 goo 00 8 890 90 880 800 870 870 8 860 60 I I so: 0 20 40 , I I 1 1 850 850 -20 -40 -20 0 20 40 920 910 900 890 880 870 Sao 850 840 920 910 900 890 880 870 860 850 840 930 920 910 900 890 880 870 860 850 STA- 2+83 FACE OF NEW GARAGE FINISH FLOOR EL-905.00 2+20 940.-- T-, 940 930 920 i 920 910 900 900 890 I I 890 880 6/u 870 860 860 ESTIMATED GRADING QUANTITIES FOR THE DRIVEWAY 850 850 840 840 1+60. 40 -20 2+040 20 40 930 910 900 890 Sao 870 860 850 840 930 940 940 920 930 30 910 920 920 900 910 9"' 890 900 900 880 8901 I'D 870 880 880 ch a60 870 870 850 860 860 840 850 -40 AIMW Square Feet ;VLVJM Cubic Yards CEWM499VE VOLUAW Cubic Yards srul2yolv - CUT F= CUT FEZ CUT I FILL 0+20 5.16 5.18 4-68 901 4.68 9.01 0+40 7.46 19'1 6.87 ---- - 12.97 11.55 21.98 0+60 11.09 4.33 13.55 15.87 35.53 0+80 0.59 20.71 - 2 --�- 2.49 17.96 48.02 1 +00 5.04 13.00 .09 3.87 11018 21.83 59.19 1+20 4.88 18.51 - - 9.04 8.58 30.88 67.77 1+40 18.44 5.90 9.65 6.57 40.53 74.34 i+60 7.61 11.83 -5.63 8.68 46.15 83.02 .0 7.58 11.60 -- 559 8.07 52.04 --57.31 91.09 1 2+00 8.32 i 0.20 2+20 5.91 _ 11.89 5.27 8.18 99.27 2.57 17.48 59.88 116.75 2+40 1.03 35.31 13.41 60.24 130.17 2+60 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.24 30. 1 7 2+80 0.00 2+82.94 0.00 0.00 30.17 900 i 30.17 2+20 940.-- T-, 940 930 920 i 920 910 900 900 890 I I 890 880 6/u 870 860 860 ESTIMATED GRADING QUANTITIES FOR THE DRIVEWAY 850 850 840 840 1+60. 40 -20 2+040 20 40 930 910 900 890 Sao 870 860 850 840 930 940 940 920 930 30 910 920 920 900 910 9"' 890 900 900 880 8901 I'D 870 880 880 ch a60 870 870 850 860 860 840 850 -40 -20 1+180 20 40 850 mm 930 930 840 -40 -20 2+6 0 20 40 920 I 920 940 940 910 910 930 930 900 I 900 920 920 890 890 910 910 880, 1880 SOO 900 870� 870 8 0 860 860 880 I 880 I 850 85 870 1170 840 -40 so 840 40 .0 10 `J 860 -20 0 20 -40 -20 0 20 40 2+80 2+00 940 940 940 940 1930 930 -4 930 I 930 920 920 920 920 910 1910 i I ----- F- j 910 910 900 goo 900 I 900 890 890 I I - ----- ago 890 880 t 850 880 880 870 870 870 a 70 860 1 860 -40 -20 0 20' 4 0 860 860 I SECTION HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL: 1-=20- 850 850 �SGALE, 846 "'0 Z 0 Ld Ld C4 Wz 0 Cc C lu W 0 U ;77 a. 0 a_ C) I , 0 0 < 0 V) 0 V� Z0 0 W 0 0 1 0 14- C) < Z < Lc) 0 0 ).t.: JULY 2007 5-!.: 11"=20' )ra.w CAD Job: 115-69 Sheet 3 of 4 Sheets Blueprint for a Clean Bav Best Management Practioes for the Construction Industry Ramamber. The property owner and the contractor share ult(mata responsibility for the ac6vmes than occur on a construction sae. You may be held responsible for any arrvtronrmeat enrage nosed by your subcontractors or employees. �i . —,� y� Spill Response Agencies: Local Pollution Control Agencies: U "v 7T in the City of Sunnyvale. DIAL 9-t -1. 7 Slate Office of Emergency Service County of Santa Gam Santa Clara County Recycling Had - Warning Center (24 hours) Potation Prevention Program .............. 1 400533-0414 ... ........ 1 -600- 852.7550 .... .......... (409)441 -1195 Regional Water Quality Control ecaa Soma Clam County 6wuommemal Coumy of Santa Clara Integrated Waste ...... (510) 1= -2300 Heats Sevkes Management Program swat sam Ferran Sayw•p.a ...........(408) 2998930 .............. (408) 441 -1198 Sunnyvale Water Pollution Preventing Pollution: ft's Up to Us Doing the Job mffiht �eclmrem my Hauroons Control Punt (4os) 7s57ro In the Santa Cara Valley. storm dalm transport waterdiremy to local creaks and San Francisco Bay wlhaa Small Business Hazardous - - .. W -..... (408) 2997300 v axemW..n..w•aw...(408) aw•wr. Samyvale Recydinp Program (408) 730.7262 cedmeat. Slamwaar pollution Is a serious problem forwlidae dependent on our MGM and bays and for the people who Live new pointed steams or beyards. Common wanes of this poaulon Include spilled O4 fuel, anti gulls Imnn Waste Disposal Program County of Santa Clara DMM Attorney ....... ... or • �••+•.•�•> � • vehicles and heavy equipment; construction debris; sediment reeled by erosion: Landscaping runoff containing ❑ Schedule Wading and excavation pr.jods d Environmental Crime HatOre t;MeRT Station* pesticides or weed kaere; and rreadas such as used moor nd, anmf team. and Petro products that people Pour or 30H Sam Cam County businesses that - ........ ..... (408) 2 TIPS (GrwmTaaniZ- w or Sunnyvale) htlo a street or shwa drain. genersa less than 27 gallons or 220 Periods of hae s per rtanlh are Same Gera Valley Water, District Retying D Caner, Disposal Disposal Thirteen wailer monk "Was have joined together With Santa Clam County and lass Sant a Small elpmle a use Sams Gel .............. (408) 2852800 b Garbage (� 7528530 the sacra Gore valley Weser. a e local anahlesses Disposal Waste Dispxsd Business (al Santa Can Water . This prior rl.6'Bstd Bann Clue valley and fight semnwater poautlon. Ina TluepMC summarims'Best Management Program. Cab (405) 2110.7900 for a quote. Program. (400)s OMnict PoLiUdIon Hdaha tion ❑ Consider using Integrated Pest himagemen Urban Rune/ Practices (BMPs) for stoaiwater pollution prevention. Pollution PrewMan Program rows Information orgdtlence on disposal. .... .. ........ 1-085910.5151 Label. Ruse empty contsinem, and use rinse General Doing the Job Right management practices guide available from the Santo O Piece portable toasts away from Sion Mains. Make sue General Principles Clam Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevent- Program portable saes am flood working oiler. Ctwdr frequently Construction and California nlo-n WaterOuaay Association for leeks. and Site ❑ KeaP on onaeriy all. end enswe good honsekeepInp Stour aterBest Managemrd PradkO Hadbook: practices are used. Codion; (Li as en 2005) references. MateradsMaste Handling Sup@rvislOn practices 13 Maintain egwpmem property. Good Housekeeping Practices Who should use - _ ❑- Cow. materials when they am not b use. O Practice Source Reduction — mInhnize waste when you this Information? ❑ Keep materiels away from Guests, storm Mane and O Designate ore area of the sae for am paddtg. vehicle order maledas. Omer only the amGrnd you reed to finish the draaapa tlneruuea. refruetng, and maim equiprhern meYmnhanca. The ❑ Use mcycl" mares whenever possible. Ananga for • General Catlrectna 0 O Enure dust comrol wales daesnY bays erne ortlaMergs shorch a ell inlets, � well Maks °r pick-up of recyclable materials such as Owhueto, saplaa, . tshe Supervise a o to alomdrad. wrap metal, soherne degreasers, cleared vageater. . Inspectors Keep off std. paper. rock, and wNCb maintenance meads s such m nakoff ❑ Keep materials at dam ram–wexp exposed Build Advance Planning To Prevent Pollution cemnaetion an yin source. Cover exposed piles deny or used a0, f an wart batteries, and ads' Developers cwlsbMbn ma'mam plastic ❑ and asofaawastes Polvents WnYCwssudiad. veri� Homeawers ❑ Schedule excavation and gradInp activities t r va weather turfa.eta t rant, sweep aids, cre l , or oh n orb ands. broken , nasp hlt and oun weer nod, a d cl a, ed o other erosion cantos Deter temporary uep pWgW clan a storm dad, aeeka. edrenrtls. vepetabn can —7ded. face Sunnyvale Recycling _ Cl ❑ Keep pdtsme ore exposed wdeces. Pace each cat Storm Drain Pollution from beskan and Sediment Cor" Held Manual available and recyngng recel�es Ground the ass a mbmhbe f6w. Progammust a tGk mina above) PWO W tlhat cannot ce forth the Regional Water Quality Control Dowd San of as hazardous 0 m! be waken eon bury wart taint ordispOSnd Construction Activities Francisco Bay Region, as a reference. ❑ Clean hp leenbude sand groundaterOr Wave ao city destheal iwesa. Never burry wesa mberfsiswbawd O Control the amount of nnoff rosshp your site (especially do rot o osces. a ail argnotdaater or leave hesldhne an poem N the areal w rrear a reek or aseam sad CarrsUrnctbn saes are common some, of arm water during e..avamno fry using berry or temporary or Paved how do Pollution. Material, and wastes what blow or wash Into a Permanent dmh We ditches to overt Waler saw around the O Never lase down Ylnty Pavement or surfaces where Permits 1. storm Man, gutter. or shad haw a deed Impact on local site. Reduce stmrrwafer Mom vekxdlas by oxmbhcmg nleteriBis Iravo ✓Ngnd' croaks aid the Bay. O Use dry cleanup mBUgGe wherever POssele. If you rtu91 train your employees n berms Where s. task ate. O In addition to to festal grading are the & building pants, you will ❑ Train lot emptoyees Grd wbcoraactoa Make sum use weer. use pat enagn a (map tine dust down. mesa a oblalrh towage under the Statak Geberat As a cortlactor, Of sae WIPW isor.owrer or operator of a everyone who works at the com ucrlon site Is familiar with O Cow and maintain dumppsm Check frequently for Leaks. Coratmdbn Activity Slonraw er Pomdt if yourcowstrudiwn sae, you my be heapwtisb for any onueunmeml this th ormttn. inform wbowaadors about the semis• Pace dum{atwe under rook or cover with taps or plastic she`s disturbed was totes 1 are or more. Inf.rmlun on the damage canted by your subcontractors or employees water requirements and their own responsibilities. Ilse sheeap seemed amund the caste of the durrpstc General peme can be obtained (mm the Regional water BAASMA, Sharp" Air a Clean Bey, a .mUuMm beef New clean �a dumpsterby hosing t down on Lit Quality Control Board ! construction I Doing the Job Right clad Manuel for proper erosion and Chadf for Sednnenhf Levels Detecting Earth - Moving and Stone Drain Pollution from 9 General Business Practices ssdmm Omni measures. Qual and ❑ O the water r dew, the DrrhPenO time t less Contaminated Soil Dewatering Activities Earth - Moving Activities ❑ sdaaule excavation and Wading work Asitfoma n Stomater r Bast mm u nonrs, and the now ate is less the Who should use Soil excavation and gneft operations duMg dry weather. management tPractice Best. to padre per mooted you nay purrgh water Or Groundwater loosen toga amnts of sot that cen lbw ❑ perform major equipment mpaks away Menhstructin 2003) Hardback to the pumping gnormdrag. thin Irdormatlon? or blow Into storm drains when handled from the lob std. Cow es mid O eat gumption tint s more than 24 hours 15 a c m mom groundwater Sediments a ntnholf can O Cover cured lees and excavated soil and the tea role wastewater trr than d lain or s a common problem Is the storm air dog O when us be donequipmM with secured drys splash streeag. your Guidance. cel wastewater UeaUneM pant for same Clara Vsiby. tris � sertn and. smother aquatic lee, and mnmmnca mat be done on std. essential that all OorMamors destroy habl ds In seeks and me flay. desgma a Lowden away from storm Dewi tertlg Operations ❑ if me water is net dear, -lids nut be fitered "d � Involved Effective MoSbn cordrd practices reduce drains. Check for Toxic Potlrdanfa pew whine for la to amount of noeR a site and a or to d old tar pumping fo a sealing Lantc conamteted woo O0.ssar ❑ equipment not owe tlleesl ore le Ntbtq* diet =lea sioW the lbw with gcrerkdam a equtlprtent pans, a dean equipmm. O Check for oaons, discoloration, or an Pdmr a dfchage. Opr(om forflfierinp or groundwater, and testing tugitned ground surfaces. olly sheen on groundwater. Inge' pwded groundwater before Practices During Construction O Cat your local wastewater beabnem • pumping through a Perfume pipe sunk pimping. Wadifor any of comMneoblgroundwaterta ❑ Remove existing vegetation only when agency and ask whether the part way into aarta0Wfeed with tlrew..dW.,'i common problem In the seta Clam gavel; n Valley. Deperndrhp on son types and site aDSOndely necessary- Pam temporary gnornrhdwater m! be tested • pumping from a bucket placed below history, groundwater Pumped from vegetation for erosion contact on ❑ If oonbmbeW n is suspected, have the water level using a submersible PuM 7. Unusual soil i r Odor. Buldanw, Back Hoe. and Grading 00110rectbn saes my be contaminated slopes w whew construction s not water tested by a oeNfbd laboratory. . Pumping through a framing device mob Aba doped n er- Machlne operators with fades (such u col or solvents) or immediately planned. O Depending on the tea ravels. you my as a swWmhg pod alter or filer hint 2. Abandoned ender- - . Dump That Ddwrs bden with sediments. Any of t ese ❑ Protect dawrubpe draaape cartes, be allowed to discharge pumped wrapped around end of wcdw Pipe. Abandoned red streams. and dam drain with woMm. groundwater to the storm drain Of rte 3. Stated Wdis. pollutants can ham wlkalfe In reeks or 9 ❑ miner discharging sing a b a e afro tint, protect 4. Buried lea -ens, daps or • Sam General Camaclors the Bay, or interfere with weaewater or temporary drainage swabs. lhre sediments Present) a sanitary, sewer. me IoM using a barrier d Ourap baps fitnd tress. treelmed plant operation. Discharging check derma or caches b dived unof OR, you may be required to cored and with drain rock. w cover inlet with nner hint Hon Butlers Ground excavations. Refer a the haul pumped Wmwdwater o17ste for sedhrenFtadan wear from a devrater g anchored under lee gate. OR pump WGIBf 17 any of these am found Developers site Into any water of the state without Regional Water Quality Camrd treatment and disposal at es through a WaMswele prior to discharge. follow the pocedures below. trealmed Is prohibited. Board a Erosion and Selma Control appropriate treatment facility. P� Roadwork and Paving Who should use this Information? • Road Crews • Driwway/sidmaadPaMug Lot C —Oudbn Crews Sect Coal Contractors operators of Grading Equipment. PaWg Machines, Dump Trucks. Concrete Misers Construction lnspedM General contractors • Developers • Ham Buoders Storm Drain Pollution from Roadwork Rend paving, surfacing, and pavement removed happen right In the street where mom as wrrhGrODUS opportunities for asphat. saw-a9 sorry, or excavaed material to aeWrty amer slam dams. Ella planning a required to store Clad dspose of materials POPOdY and guard against position of sh m dad, creeks, and the Bay. Doing the Job Right General Business Practices O Develop and Imparm d emsbNsedimem metal plans for roadway embankments. ❑ Schedule excavation and grading work during dry weatm. ❑ Check for and repair leaking equipment. O Perform major equipmem repeks at designed wears In your maintenance yard, Whore daranup is easter. Avoid Performing equipment MPaks Of construction sins. ❑ when refusing or when vehkle/equpmenrt mennanence mule be done on am, deSip ate, a location away from storm drains and peeks. ❑ Do not use diesel oil to lubricate equipment Parts or assn equipment ❑ Recycle used og, concrete, brown asphalt ee- whenever posshLe, ordisptsa of property. ❑ Take broken up concrete to a local recycling hday. Call ire Sunnyvale Recycling Pro flan at (408) 7367262 for Infomelbn. During Construction ❑ Avoid paving and seal waft In wet weather, or when min is fonecasL to prevent fresh materials from comadi g stomvater.nnoff. O Cower and seat catch basins and manholes when applying seal coat, slurry seal tog seal or sMaer matenas. ❑ Protect Manage ways by using eeM dikes, send bags, or other controls to dived or tap and leer wean. O New wash excess malaria from exposed aggmgaa ewdrste or similar treatments "a a sired or store drat. Cored and recycle. or depose to dim area. O Cover atorkpms ( asphat, sand, etc.) and other constadtn material. with plastic taps. Pmled from rainfall and prevent runoff with MmpomrY roofs or plastic sheets and hems. ❑ Park paWg machines over drip pare or absorbent material (cloth, rags, etc.) to catch drips when not In use. ❑ Clean up all spfm and leaks uses -dry' meth ds (with absorbent materials andfor rags) Din up, remove. and popery d ow of comanlnated acre. ❑ Colbd and mcyda wapgoprWey dispose of excess abrasive gravel or'send. O Awe ow-application by water auicks km dust control. Asphalt/Concrete Removal ❑ Avoid creating excess dust when Making asphalt w concrete. I( O After breeidng up old pavement, be sore to remove all chunks and Places. Male wm broken pavement does not con In cantact with rainfall w renon. O when making sew curs, use as"water as posslue. Shovel a vemum sawed slurry and remove from the site. Cover or protect storm drain Inlets during sawamag. Sweep up. and Property dispose of. all mstaues. ❑ awsep, never hose down stress to clean up tracked dirt Use a street sweeper or vacuum Uurk. Do not dump wcuumd liquor In storm drains. Painting and Application of Solvents and Adhesives Who should use this Information? Painters Par angers • Graphic Ands • Dry Wall Caws • Floor Covering Installers General Contractors Home Bul den • Ho ors Stone Drain Pollution from Paints, Solvents, and Adhesives AV palrb, solvents. and adhesives contain chemicals that are henrad to wadae in ., local cracks, San Frandsce Bay, and the Padfic Ocean. Twdc demicalw may come from ikp d or solid products or from cleaning residues or rags. Paint material and wastes, adhesives and cleaning fluids should be acyclee When POSSINO, or disposed of prop" to Preventthesc materials from fioWIng Edo stomn drains and watemauses. Doing the Job Right Handling Paine Products O Keep all (quid pand products and wastes awe from the gutter, street, and storm drains. Lqd residues trom Paints, thirenrs, solvents. glues and cleaning fluids are hazardous wastes and Must be disposed of as hazardous. Contact the Sam Clam Coumy Hazardous Waste Program at (408) 299.7390. • Wash water from painted buldings cOWWcIO before 1978 can comain high amounts of lean even if paint chips are not present Sahara Y. begin wippbg Penn or cleaning Pre -1978 building Grimm with water under high tb PG for lead taking elu A ab adwym low scrapings Pages for a s de-cwfifbd laboratory. • If tea Is Bose palm on the building. or If the paled tests Positive for laid, block storm darer Check With the wastewaterbeatmem perm to data.*,. whether you may discharge wear) the sanitary sewer. or if you mast send a o8st Landecaping,Gardening, Doing the Job mffiht And Pool Maintenance General Business Practices Who should use this - ❑ Protect stockpiles (eg- asphalt, send, or sou information? under materials from wind and rat by under tarps w secured Plastic shoe". • Palm chips and dust from non-harandous dry stripping and ❑ Store pesttdes, ferifflous, and Omer demh londscepers cw pa in a shed w storage caNnfit. • Ge Swpmdng PwVSpe — ❑ Schedule Wading and excavation pr.jods d Service and Repair woriket -_ weamW. Gmend Contractors ❑ Use temporary deck dams or ditches to dtv • Home B.M.. ., away tam storm drabs. D- 11.pws ❑ Protect storm drains with sandbags or Omar HomeoWners controls. Control Plant (its 73a727�o u Sunnyvale art you caan oil am ❑ Revegehtlon is an excellent form of erosion (mop orvacaun8 budding deeming water and dispose to the amfteny, sewer. Sampling ofthe water mey be required tarry std. Replant as soon as possible with b Storm Drain Pollution vageteWn such as grass seed. from Landscaping and (408) 2957300 for details. Swimming Pool Maintenance Landscaping/Garden Maintenance Mary Landscaping adMaes expose soft and thaw the ❑ Consider using Integrated Pest himagemen laemood the eats and Warden ch chloch wean -ft GOLD the storm use pesticides sparingly. according to hat nu drains during imgalen or wpm t md. Swhmntg pool water Label. Ruse empty contsinem, and use rinse comabtrp dhbMe and copper -cased alpeecmes should fever be product. Depose or rinsed, empty container discharged to stomhdrad. These dem"Is are toxic to aquatic lee. ❑ Depose of unused pesticides as hamrdous Fresh Concrete and Mortar Application Who should use this information? Masons and Bricklayers Sidewalk Concoction Caws Paso Construction Warkers Construction inspectors General Cunbachus Home Sunders Developers DDdsery/Punphq Workers Storm Drain Pollution from Fresh Concrete And Mortar Applications Fresh concrete and cemenHelated mortars that wash_ ono lakes, streams, or estuaries are toxic to fish and the aquatic environment. Disposing of these materials to m sam drains or seeks can block storm desks, causes serious problem, and is prohiOiDed by law. Heavy Equipment Operation Who should use this Information? • Vehicle and Egdpment Operators • Sae Supervisors • General Contractors Hon Binders • Developers Stormwater Pollution from Heavy Equipment on Construction Sites Pocky maaar ed vehicles and heavy equipment that leak fast oil, anahaen or other suds an lee construction she are common sources of skmn drab Pollution. Prevent spas and Im a by totaling g egdOrmnl from andf clnemreis, and by watching forkaks and other maInhmance problerm Remove muWudion equipment ram tit she es Soon es possible. Doing the Job Rig] General Business F ❑ Wash out concrete In your yard, away I the water wa flow h Let water percolate hGrdenea concrane washout by pumps ❑ Wash out chdesin sheets or drains. ❑ Always store both r protected from rein! wwertenays. Pleb ❑ Secure bogs or can who -Ncvn cemm drains, rainfall, ana ❑ Do not use diesel b ortrsiles. Doing the Job Rlgl Site Planning and P ❑ Designate on Me orstom drab man routine vahitle and+ berm, sand tags. q O Maims all whiles repair leaks. ❑ Perform major ma Washing .17.11. who ❑ If You must Mae an on site, use drip per ell spent fluids, saw Possible. otherwise, O Do not use dlesera Use only water for e ❑ Cover exposed fifth during min evens. ❑ use as lltlb welera doesn't nave std or Paint Removal sewer. New pour paint down a slomt�drahr. Dispose of • Buildings constructed before 1978 may have lead gaud In amass i-quids and residue as hazardous waste. them. Test pain for lead by taking samples to a local ❑ For clibased paints. paint out brushes! to the extent envlronmntal testing laboratory to detemane If removed palm must be disposed of as hMICIOUs waste. possible and dean with thinner or solvanl in a proper container. Filer and reuse thinners and solvents. Dispose • Palm chips and dust from non-harandous dry stripping and of excess Liquids and residue as hamdom waste. sand Nesting may be swept up or collected In plastic drop ❑ When thoroughly dry. emptY palm cane, used brushes, cloths and disposed of as trash. reps, and drop clothe may be disposed of as garbage in a • Chemical palm stripping residue and chips and dust from sanitary LandflL Leave lids off palm can so the mluse collector cam we dial they am empty..: Empty. dry paint manure paints or pains containing lead. memurY OrtrihO tin must be disposed of W hMrdoea wastes. Lead based cans also nay be mcyded es metal. paint amovak requires a state-cerfli comactnr. ❑ Dispose of empty aerosol palm cans 4 hazardous waste ❑ When alipphnp or ceanng building exteriors With or at household h—dom waste collodion events. nlprn- pressure water, block storm mi— mired Wash ❑ Contact the Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Control Plant (its 73a727�o u Sunnyvale art you caan oil am Recycl Leftover Paints (mop orvacaun8 budding deeming water and dispose to the amfteny, sewer. Sampling ofthe water mey be required ver Possible 1/diterrevw Possible C1 Donate ..teas water -based flea.) paint for reuse. Call to ass! me wastewater tealmem authority In making its the Same Cam County Hazardous Waste Program a decision. (408) 2957300 for details. ❑ Do not use copper-based atflaecldes. CwNw ❑ Reuse letter— oil -based palm. Dsposp of non- recycable Painting Cleanup wMnners, sludge and unwanted paint, as hazardous ❑ Never clean Wishes Or rkm Pakrt wrdaaers into a saee4 waste. gutter, storm drain, French dab, Or stream ❑ Unopened cans of gaud may be able to be returned to the ❑ For water-Oased paints, paid out brushes to the exam paint condor. Check with Lire vendor regarding is possible, and rinse into a dab that goes to the sanitary 'buy -beak' POLICY. d ❑ Curbside pickup of yam waste b provided for ❑ Never discharge pool or spa water to a street or ❑ Donl mix up more fresh concrete orcamm than you will use In a two -hour pared. Sunnyvale residences. Place yard waste in approved norm drab; discharge to a sanitary sewer storm dais and waterways, whem temporary waste pit In a did area. ❑ contain. at subside for Pickup on wasa -9-Wn clamout. areas, not down the driveway or coo the sheet w atom dmin. !I CrdW entitles nay take yard waste to the days. omm ❑ If possible, when emptying a pdol or we, M red Sunnyvale SMeRT station for recycling. Contact to chbdne disstpate for a fair day$ and than recycle/ :wing them Sunnyvale Recycling program (408) 7357282 for reuse water by draining a graduaty onto a fuller Information. landscaped area. OR Is Indoors or ❑ Coked lawn and garden cUpPlrgs, prudng waste, and ❑ Contact the Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Gee idmmlrgs. Chip If necessary. and compost R Wan (408) 7357270. You may be able to dechege a the sanitary seWar,'by running the no dry Possible. hose to a tinny sink or sewer pipe dean -out O Do not blow or rake leaves, ant. into the street, or ❑ Do not use copper-based atflaecldes. CwNw t runoff pace yam waste In Writers w on dirt shoulders. eturatrves, epee With chlorine Of Other at such as Sweep up any leaves, later or residue In gutters or on wdpun, bromide. dimard sheet F)IferCleervng ntrot for wrely Pool/Fountain/Spa Maintenance Draining escapes ! ❑ Never clean a filer In the stre rt'w veer 8 storm pesos dale. Role carirkge and dieto!)neceous earn liters onto a dkl area, and spate later reekae into When R's time to drab a pool spa, or fountain, please be wit, Dispose of spem datmeraous eats in the sure to cat the Sunnyvale Water Powtlon Control Want gaNape. ! fechnques. (408) 73572M before you start fwNdhergddancs on Row rate resakaone, bacldiew prevention, and handling ❑ If there is no suitable dim area, cat the Sunnyvale LOW on the special cleaning waste (such as acid Wash). Discharge water PoarUah Control Plant ( 7367270 for instructions on discharging Pl Rtes 8) 730 backwash or leer as In We trash. Rows should be kept a the low levels typically possible thmugn a garden hose. Higher Row raes may be dnse'.vatw to the sanitary sewer. este. prohibited by local miter. i d end wet materials under cover, disposed of propeM; w (3) be vacuumed from a catchment seated by blocking a nd mmff and away from storm drains nom Main inaL If necessary, dhart canon with temporary bemL% Make sm runoff ry materials from wind. does not reach guae , m storm dad. after they are open. Be am to keep ❑ When breaking up pavemm, be sure to pick up all the places am dispose of coder away from streams, gutters, storm property. Recycle large chunks d broken concrete at a [Oral acyyiing facility. Call ff. the Sunnyvale Recycling Program at (408) 7357282 for Infor ation- r a lubricant on O Now bury waste material Dispose of small amums of excess dry concrete. grout, and mortar In the trash ❑ Never dispose of washout ire the street, atom dad, dminNe tldches, or slreanns. concrete terms. tons. Spill Cleanup ventive Vehicle Maintenance f the constmebn sib. well away from stream ❑ Clean up spin Immediately when they happen. w auto aid equipment Parking. mfuemg, Grid ❑ Never hose down dirty" pavement w Impermeable sudaces whom fluids ufpmM mintenance. Comae the area With have spiftd Use My, cleanup methods (absorbent maatats, cat Later, and/ loner barriers. or rags) wherever possible and popedy dispose of ebsoibent materiels. ind heavy equipment. Inspect frequently for and ❑ Sweep up spilled dry materials Immediately. Never ammpt to leash (ham . swaY With water, or bury prom. j nonce, repair jobs, and vehicle and equipment ❑ Clean up sWa on din amen by digging up and popery disposing of I cleanup s east- contaminated soil. i replace mar oi, radiator owam, "Wherfluds ❑ Report Significant spas b IN approprate [Ocsi spat response agencies ordmp cloths to catch drips and spin. Cooed tmmetltahly In Sunnyvale, dial $1 -1 if hazardous materials mom enter the n separate contsimrs. R.Cyde them whemver siom den. spose of them es mzadous wastes- 0lu Wcale equipment parts, or clean equipment ❑ if the split poses a sgnillwnt hazed to human heath and safety, property or y onsae deanIn9 the environment. you rest also report a to the State Off* ct Emgency SefYwG 1- 800 - 9527500. beet hfthes aid other olly or greasy equipment j possible for dust control. Ensure wan used scheme a storm drains. During Construction Ices ❑ ❑ Donl mix up more fresh concrete orcamm than you will use In a two -hour pared. m only In designated washout cress O O Set up and operate small mixers on tarps w heavy plastic drop *ha storm dais and waterways, whem temporary waste pit In a did area. ❑ ❑ Wren cleaning up after driveway or sklewalk constructer, man fines ore din igh sop and dispose of seted, a areas, not down the driveway or coo the sheet w atom dmin. !I ubege. Nmanewr possible, recycle ❑ ❑ Protect applications of fresh concrete and mortar from rainfall and aneff until the t Into rtatrs for reuse. m material has sided. n areas at site that do not now to ❑ ❑ Wash down exposed aggregate concrete only when the wash water ran (1) Wow ore a dim area; (2) dram ono a barred surface from which it cam be pumped and concrete terms. tons. Spill Cleanup ventive Vehicle Maintenance f the constmebn sib. well away from stream ❑ Clean up spin Immediately when they happen. w auto aid equipment Parking. mfuemg, Grid ❑ Never hose down dirty" pavement w Impermeable sudaces whom fluids ufpmM mintenance. Comae the area With have spiftd Use My, cleanup methods (absorbent maatats, cat Later, and/ loner barriers. or rags) wherever possible and popedy dispose of ebsoibent materiels. ind heavy equipment. Inspect frequently for and ❑ Sweep up spilled dry materials Immediately. Never ammpt to leash (ham . swaY With water, or bury prom. j nonce, repair jobs, and vehicle and equipment ❑ Clean up sWa on din amen by digging up and popery disposing of I cleanup s east- contaminated soil. i replace mar oi, radiator owam, "Wherfluds ❑ Report Significant spas b IN approprate [Ocsi spat response agencies ordmp cloths to catch drips and spin. Cooed tmmetltahly In Sunnyvale, dial $1 -1 if hazardous materials mom enter the n separate contsimrs. R.Cyde them whemver siom den. spose of them es mzadous wastes- 0lu Wcale equipment parts, or clean equipment ❑ if the split poses a sgnillwnt hazed to human heath and safety, property or y onsae deanIn9 the environment. you rest also report a to the State Off* ct Emgency