Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-09-2008 Planning Commission Packet■ January 9, 2008 pAfomis and procedures speaker slips CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME 5elmil /�`I C1OX ADDRESS Pi -Wk0'I SUBJECT lzl2szl V U v Ore, l m- AGENDA ITEM NO. 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 proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. pAfomis and procedures speaker slips CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME Hem6+ ADDRESS 13C1 55 ✓1 V1 s`+CL SUBJECT Q / 15 2 9 �9 �-o �y R� AGENDA ITEM NO. �_ DATE d Y TELEPHONE NO TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: / 12- ® M (Please read instructions on reverse side) -2cSS - /os ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA .REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME %1ry 'p— eR[l� ADDRESS 4 l� CST/ SUBJECT /Vh?i 1 pr RZ c,J 14144-10z, AGENDA ITEM N07,P4 `d7 jATE TELEPHONE NO. 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 proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. p:\fomis and procedures speaker slips CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION 115 6e ti 0 ADDRESS SUBJECT Iy U LaH AGENDA ITEM NO. Ac� DATE TELEPHONE N006 8(C,(9- fAq V TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: (Please read instructions on reverse side) pAfoms and procedureslspeaker slips ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME ADDRESS 1 � -(7 SUBJECT /YO/'O D O `% - -T� AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 DATE ® 7 TELEPHONE NO. 46e 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 proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. pAfomis and procedures speaker slips CITY OF SARATOGA T TO ADIIRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME SUBJECT 14 it AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE V ��1 y 2� TELEPHONE NO. & 7 028 TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: 0' / S P�j9 (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out.- You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. p: \fomis and procedures \speaker slips CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION co ADDRESS ! J'g ! rI SoQE Y �17 , �f4,L�64 Tt�C�J4-, SUBJECT /qpj� C/ C q 77 b N /"'1Q D O AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 DATE /- '/- O `J TELEPHONE NO.NOg -SV- 62 1,32 TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: Z'30 to pm (Please read instructions on reverse side) p:\fomis and procedures\speaker slips ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. p: \forms and procedures\speaker slips REQUEST N CITY OF SARATOGA ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION- ADDRESS_ dO-A q SUBJECT AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 DATE TELEPHONE NO. 10 Y tg — Z Z4C9 TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: 7 (Please read instructions on reverse side) p:\fonns and procedures\speaker slips ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION:. Please approach. the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and .proceed to comment upon the agenda. item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME C J/ C S L\ V u- ADDRESS 1 (-J 2 3 0 ,".� A y f s A U SUBJECT A P -# M 0 0 (D7 — 0 C:) CD AGENDA ITEM NO. — DATE TELEPHONE NO. !Y 93' -713 TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: 7"00 P/-A (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. pAfon s and procedures\speaker slips CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION N ADDRESS SUBJECT ,5- A AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE L O TELEPHONE NO. TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: 110 (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Followipg the discussion, _and, prior_ to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. pAllomis and procedures speaker slips CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME e./ ADDRESS ZO S L C SUBJECT AGENDA ITEM NO. 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 proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish'to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the ' audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. pAfomis and procedures�speaker slips CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME / ADDRESS SUBJECT C���d / ✓�� —��C�� AGENDA ITEM NO. I J5— DATE — 0 Sl- E TELEPHO UNO. IC7 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 proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish, to discuss. No member of. the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion., and.prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, January 8, 2008 — Approximately 3:30 p.m. — 5:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Site Visit Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. APPLICATION 4MOD07 -0002 15219 Sobey Road Shadman 2. APPLICATION #PDR07 -0.001 15211 Hume Drive Khouja/Ramirez 3. APPLICATION #PDR07 -0001 18935 Hayfield Court Pichetti /Cahoon 4. APPLICATION 407 -029 13921 River Ranch Circle Maesumi 5. APPLICATION # PDR07 -0017 14098 Palomino Way Miller 6. APPLICATION# PDR07 -0011 19278 Bellwood Drive Yongjian Wang 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. P:\PC SITE VISITS \TEMPLATE.doe CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION 0 AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, January 9, 2008 - 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 December 12, 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: 40 REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 3, 2008 REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS: If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15- 90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants /Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant /Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. ,kZAPPLICATION #07 -366 (503 -69 -012) Keyashian; 21818 Via Regina (Continued to the January 23, 2008 meeting)- The applicant requests Design Review approval to add 1,977 square feet to the existing upper floor and/convert 1,707 square feet to the existing basement creating a lower floor. The total floor area of the new house will be 5,677 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed building will not exceed the 26 -foot height limit. The maximum impervious coverage will not exceed the allowable 25% of the net site area. The lot size is approximately 53,562 square feet, and the site is located in the HR zoning district. Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060. (Heather Bradley) 2. APPLICATION# PDR07- 0011(386 -43 -006) Yongjian Wang; 19278 Bellwood Drive (Continued from the December 12, 2007 meeting): - The applicant request Design Review approval to remove an existing P:\PC Agendas\2008 \010908.doc 859 square foot second story of an existing two -story single - family residence and replace it with a new 859 square foot second story addition in approximately the same location. The residence will not exceed. 26 feet in height. The net lot size is 14,712 square feet. The site is zoned R -1- 12,500. (Chris Riordan) APPLICATION # PDR07 -0017 (503 -68 -007) Miller; 14098 Palomino Way — The applicant request Design Review approval to remove an existing 1,320 square foot second story of an existing two -story single - family residence and replace it with a new 1,690 square foot second story addition in approximately the same location. The project also includes demolition of an existing garage and carport, construction of a new 466 square foot detached garage and a 370 square foot addition to the existing lower floor. The residence will not exceed 26 feet in height. The net lot size is 54,075 square feet. The site is zoned R -1- 40,000. Design Review approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060. (Chris Riordan) 4. APPLICATION #07 -029 (397 -25 -009) Maesumi, 13921 River Ranch Circle: - The applicant requests Design Review approval to demolish the existing home and shed and construct a new two -story home. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage will be approximately 4,355 square feet. The net lot size is approximately 18,839 square feet and the site is zoned R -1- 10,000. (Suzanne Thomas) APPLICATION #MOD07 -0002 (397 -08 -091) Shadman, 15219 Sobey Road — The applicant requests a Modification of Design Review Approval to modify an application approved by the Planning Commission at the October 13, 2004 hearing. The original approval was for a new single -story dwelling consisting of 5,677 square feet of floor area and a partial basement. Proposed changes include, but are not limited to: eliminating shutters, eliminating divided lites on some windows, relocating chimneys, relocated fireplaces, and modifying a trellis on the rear fagade. The gross lot size is approximately 46,082 square feet and the site is located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (Shweta Bhatt) V,6. APPLICATION #MOD 07 -0001 (397 -27 -010) Pichetti/Cahoon,18935 Hayfield Court: - 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) 7. APPLICATION #PDR07 -0001 (510 -01 -016) Khouja/Ramirez, 15211 Hume Drive — The applicant requests Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to demolish the existing home and construct a new two -story home. The proposed structure will be two -story with a full basement and require a height exception to allow for adherence to the Queen Anne architectural style. A detached pool house is also proposed at a height of approximately 18 -feet 9- inches. The gross lot size is 55,503 square feet, and the site is zoned R -1- 20,000. (Shweta Bhatt) 8. APPLICATION# ZOA -07 -0003 (City Wide) Neglected Properties Ordinance (Continued from the December 12, 2007 meeting): The Planning Commission will consider a draft ordinance to set standards for the minimum level of maintenance of private property in Saratoga. The ordinance would establish standards for (1) general property maintenance (e.g., overgrown vegetation,. unsecured structures, or conditions of deterioration or disrepair that creates a substantial adverse impact on neighboring properties), (2) single family residential use landscaping, (3) multifamily residential use landscaping, and (3) parkstrips between sidewalks and City streets. The ordinance would also specify enforcement and appeals procedures. (John Livingstone) DIRECTORS ITEM: - None COMMISSION ITEMS: None PAPC Agendas\2008\0 I 0908.doc • • COMMUNICATIONS 0- None • ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, January 23, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers /Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868 -1269 or ctclerk @saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102- 35.104 ADA Title II). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Abby Ayende, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on January 3, 2008 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 planning(dssaratoea.ca.us NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us PAPC Agendas\2008 \010908.doc . � O MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Hlava called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: Commissioner Kundtz Staff: Director John Livingstone, Senior Planner Chris Riordan and Contract Planner Heather Bradley PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of November 14, 2007. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Kumar, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of November 14, 2007, were adopted as submitted. (5- 0 -1 -1; Commissioner Kundtz was absent and Chair Hlava abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no oral communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 6, 2007. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Hlava announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15- 90.050(b). With the holiday schedule, the appeal deadline will be extended to January 2, 2008. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 12, 2007 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR APPLICATION #EXT07 -0001 (503 -13 -067) Brunetti /Ho, Mt. Eden Road, south of Villa Oaks Lane: The applicant requests a 24 -month extension of Tentative Map and Use Permit approvals granted by the Planning Commission on October 27, 2004. The Tentative Map and Use Permit approvals expired 24- months from this date. The applicant was granted a one - year extension of the Tentative Map and Use Permit approvals on October 25, 2006. The one -year extension has expired. The 24 -month extension will expire on October 27, 2009. The applicant was granted Tentative Map and Use Permit approvals to subdivide a 29.28 -acre property into five clustered lots with an average lot size of 1.73 acres. The remaining 19.49 - acre portion of the property is to remain an open space with a pedestrian /equestrian trail winding through the open space. Access to the property is to be via a cul -de -sac, which egresses onto Mt. Eden Road. An emergency access road is proposed from Vista Regina Road to the cul -de -sac. The property has a General Plan designation of RHC (Hillside Conservation) and is zoned HR (Hillside Residential District). (Chris Riordan) Chair Hlava opened the Public Hearing for the Consent Calendar item. Commissioner Zhao asked staff to explain any differences between the original and new resolutions. Senior Planner Chris Riordan explained that there were no new items /conditions added. They remain the same as originally approved with some minor edits to clarify some conditions. 0 Chair Hlava closed the Public Hearing for the Consent Calendar item. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission . approved a 24 -month extension of approval for a Tentative Map and Use Permit for property located at Mt. Eden Road, south of Villa Oaks Lane, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: Kundtz ABSTAIN: None Chair Hlava explained that since Public Hearing Items 5 and 6 would be continued this evening, she would take those two items out of order to the beginning of the agenda as a courtesy in case people are present this evening waiting for those two items to be heard. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 12, 2007 0 PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 5 • r� Page 3 APPLICATION PDR07 -001 (386 -43 -006) Yongiian Wang, 19278 Bellwood Drive (Continued to the January 9, 2008, meeting): The applicant requests Design Review approval to remove an existing 859 square foot second story of an existing two -story single - family residence and replace it with a new 859 square foot second story addition in approximately the same location. The residence will not exceed 26 feet in height. The net lot size is 14,712 square feet. The site is zoned R -1- 12,500. (Chris Riordan) Chair Hlava opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. There were no parties present wishing to speak on this item. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission CONTINUED CONSIDERATION TO ITS MEETING OF JANUARY 9, 2008, a Design Review application to allow a second -story addition on property located at 19278 Bellwood Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: Kundtz ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 6 APPLICATION ZOA -07 -0003 (City Wide) Neglected Properties Ordinance (Continued to the January 9, 2008, meeting): 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) multi - family residential use landscaping, and 4) parkstrips between sidewalks and City streets. The ordinance would also specify enforcement and appeals procedures. (John Livingstone) Chair Hlava opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 6. There were no parties present wishing to speak on this item. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission CONTINUED CONSIDERATION TO ITS MEETING OF JANUARY 9, 2008, the draft Neglected Properties Ordinance, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 12, 2007 Page 4 ABSENT: Kundtz ABSTAIN: None .10 PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #06 -118 (503 -28 -008) Hashemich /Sarnevesh, 20951 Canyon View (continued from the October 24, 2007, Planning Commission meeting): Applications. for Design Review and Variance to construct an approximately 3,635 square foot two -story house with .a daylight basement on a vacant lot at 20951 Canyon View Drive. The average slope of the lot is 39.7 percent sloping downward toward Canyon View Drive. Pursuant to City Code Section 15- 12.061, the average slope beneath a structure shall not exceed 30 percent 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) Contract Planner Heather Bradley presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking a Variance approval to allow a 500 square foot pool to be constructed adjacent to a recently approved house on a property with an approximate 37 percent slope. • Reminded that at its meeting of October 24, 2007, the Planning Commission directed staff to conduct a review of any previously granted Variances for pools. • Reported that such a. search was conducted and no such Variances were issued. • Stated that the applicant has provided photographs of pools in the area but no permits were found. • Said that as staff is unable to make the necessary findings to approve this Variance request, its recommendation is for denial. Chair Hlava opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Hlava expressed surprise and concern that no one representing the applicant is present this evening given the amount of material they have provided to make their case. Planner Heather Bradley said that she had not heard from her applicant that they would not be here this evening. Chair Hlava suggested waiting to complete action on this item to see if they arrive shortly. Director John Livingstone suggested a continuance. He added that the applicant might have opted not to come after reading the recommendation on the staff report. Commissioner Cappello agreed. Chair Hlava asked if there is anyone in the audience for this item. There was no response Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 12, 2007 Page 5 • Chair Hlava suggested moving this item to the end of the agenda and asked Planner Heather Bradley to attempt to contact the applicant. Commissioner Kumar said that this applicant could appeal any decision made. Chair Hlava reiterated that since they have submitted a lot of material they likely want to be heard. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Kumar, the Planning Commission continued to the end of this evening's agenda the consideration of a request for a Variance to allow a pool to be constructed on a slope in excess of 30 percent on property located at 20951 Canyon View Drive. (6 -0 -1; Commissioner Kundtz was absent) PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #CUP07 -003 (397 -05 -086) Boger, 18681 Vessing Court (Continued from the November 14, 2007, Planning Commission meeting): The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to install an emergency generator for his residence. The 0 generator would be located in a detached enclosed accessory structure. (Chris Riordan) Senior Planner Chris Riordan resented the staff report as follows: P p. • Stated that the applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of an emergency back up generator for a single - family residence. It would be located to the south of the residence, which is currently under construction. • Explained that the generator would be installed on a concrete foundation within a wooden enclosure that hides it from view. • Described the property as being a 54,000 square foot lot located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Recommended approval. Commissioner Rodgers asked for clarification that the maximum sound impact would not exceed 60 decibels. She asked from where this standard is measured. Planner Chris Riordan said it is measured from the property line, which is the place from where any person who would suffer noise impacts would be located. Commissioner Zhao asked how long this generator could operate. Planner Chris Riordan deferred this question to the applicant. Chair Hlava opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr . Curt Kline A pp licant's Representative: • Explained that the house's smart systems would suffer with energy cut off of any duration. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 12, 2007 Page 6 • Advised that they have worked with an acoustician, who has designed a specialized most restrictive encasement to house this generator to limit any impacts. • Reminded that this generator would only be used in emergencies although there will be monthly test runs. Commissioner Zhao asked Mr. Curt Kline how long this generator could continuously operate. Planner Chris Riordan pointed out that as it "runs on natural gas, it could probably operate for days. Commissioner Nagpal asked -if there is a condition in place limiting the testing hours. She asked how noisy the testing might be. Mr. Curt Kline said that the monthly testing would occur only for 15 minutes during daytime hours. Planner Chris Riordan advised that the testing is on. a timer and would occur within the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Chair Hlava asked about the retaining wall in the area behind this generator. Mr. Curt Kline said that it would remain and an additional concrete wall would be placed to the east of it as well. Chair Hlava closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Cappello said he could make all findings and has no issue with this request. Commissioner Rodgers said that it was well located on a large lot. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Kumar, the Planning Commission granted a Conditional Use Permit approval to allow the. installation. of an emergency generator on property located at 18681 Vessing Court, by the following. roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava,. Kumar, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: Kundtz ABSTAIN: None Director John Livingstone advised that the conditions would be permanent and recorded to ensure that any future owners are made aware of them. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 3. r� Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 12, 2007 Page 7 • APPLICATION #07 -253 (393 -41 -032) Metro PCS, 20455 Herriman Avenue: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval to locate a wireless facility at the Presbyterian Church on Herriman at Saratoga Avenue. The project consists of a new cross structure with concealed antennas and a new equipment cabinet screened by existing landscaping. The lot size is 4.22 acres and the site is zoned R -1- 12,500. (Heather Bradley) Contract Planner Heather Bradley presented the staff report as follows: • Informed that the applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a wireless telecommunications facility to be located at the Presbyterian Church at Herriman and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. • Explained that the antennas would be obscured within a new cross structure and the equipment cabinet would have a screened wall and hedge to obscure it from view. • Assured that no landscaping would be removed with this installation. • Reported that the application is Categorically Exempt under CEQA. • Added that the necessary findings can be made in the affirmative to support this project. Commissioner Zhao pointed out that the license information depicted on Attachment 4 shows an expiration date of June 2007. She asked if this license has been renewed and is current. Planner Heather Bradley said that this application was filed early in the year and she is sure the licensing is current. Commissioner Zhao pointed out that there appears to be four projects in progress with three p PP p 1 p 9 already approved. Planner Heather Bradley said that there is another application pending in January for the Village and she would defer to the applicant on the others. Commissioner Nagpal asked how much larger this cross would be as compared to the one it will replace. Planner Heather Bradley said that while it will be bulkier it would only be a couple of inches taller. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there has been any comment from the high school. Planner Heather Bradley replied no. Chair Hlava opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Ms. Kelly Pepper, Representative for Metro PCS: • Clarified the locations pending in Saratoga. Site 1816 is the proposed site under discussion this evening. Site 1817 is approved but not yet built. Site 1920 will be coming . before this Commission in January for placement in the Village. Commissioner Zhao asked how many total sites are in Saratoga. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 12, 2007 Page 8 Ms. Kelly Pepper said that there are four proposed but she is not sure how many exist. Planner Heather Bradley said that there are two existing in Saratoga ( #131 and #710). Commissioner Cappello asked Ms. Kelly Pepper if there are any other planned projects not yet proposed. Ms. Kelly Pepper said no, only those shown on the exhibit. Commissioner Kumar asked about batteries and if a noise study was conducted. Ms. Kelly Pepper said that the battery is generally a small one that is rarely used. There would. be no resultant increase in noise as it is not a generator. Commissioner Rodgers reminded that this Commission couldn't consider health effects from cell sites in its deliberations. Chair Hlava closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Chair Hlava said that this is an innovative and interesting installation as compared to previous attempts including flagpoles and funny trees. Commissioner Cappello said he agrees. He said that this would still look like a cross without .looking strange. This is a good implementation. Motion: Upon motion of.' Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission granted _ Conditional Use Permit approval to locate a wireless facility within a cross at the Presbyterian Church located at 20455 Herriman Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: Kundtz . ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 4 APPLICATION #PDR07 -003 (397 -05 -042) Pitzen, 14416 Oldwood Road: The applicant requests Design Review approval to add a second floor to the existing single -story residence. The addition includes approximately 298 square feet to the existing first floor and a new approximately 1,157 square foot second story to the existing 4,633 square foot single -story residence. The total proposed floor area would be approximately 6,088 square feet.. The maximum height of the proposed building will not exceed the 26 -foot height limit. The maximum impervious coverage will not exceed the allowable 35 percent of the net site area. The lot size is approximately 45,564 square feet and the site is located in the R -1- 40,000 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 12, 2007 Page 9 •zoning district. Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060. (Heather Bradley) Contract Planner Heather Bradley presented the staff report as follows: • Informed that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to allow a second story, 1,105 square foot addition to an existing single -story residence. Additionally, 500 square feet will be added to the first floor. • Described the parcel as being approximately one acre at the corner of Oldwood Road. It is a Tudor architectural style that is compatible with this neighborhood. • Explained that one Ordinance - protected tree would be removed and replaced at full value. • Added that the front walk would be reconfigured to accommodate existing Magnolias. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the roof railing and whether there is a terrace at that location. Planner Heather Bradley explained that this is just a decorative railing. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is access to this area. Planner Heather Bradley replied no there is no access to this area. This house represents a blend of Chateaux and Tudor styles. Commissioner Kumar asked for clarification about the left side setbacks. Planner Heather Bradley explained that the first floor setback is 20 feet and the second floor 83 feet from that side Commissioner Rodgers asked if the neighbor notification was limited only to adjacent neighbors. Planner Heather Bradley said that the 500 -foot notification process was utilized. Commissioner Rodgers asked if it was advertised as a new house or an addition. Planner Heather Bradley replied as an addition. Commissioner Rodgers asked if it is typical to have 13 -foot high interior garage walls. Planner Heather Bradley said that it is not common but is also not uncommon for a house of this size. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the decorative rail would be above the allowed 26 -foot height. Planner Heather Bradley deferred this question to the architect. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 12, 2007 Page 10 Commissioner Rodgers asked what is more common paving for a house such as this, stamped concrete or pavers. Planner Heather Bradley replied pavers. Commissioner Rodgers questioned the inclusion of four interior fireplaces and one exterior fireplace in this home. Chair Hlava opened the Public. Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Irving Haas, Project Architect. • . Said that he has nothing to add to Planner Heather Bradley's report.but is available for any questions from the Commission. • Explained that the decorative iron railing is an ornamental device. • Assured that there is no access, pedestrian or otherwise, to the roof. Commissioner Nagpal asked the height of that railing. Mr. Irving Haas replied 16 inches. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this railing feature is critical to the architectural style. Mr. Irving Haas said that while it does protrude just a bit into the overall maximum height allowance it is an important feature of the architectural design. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff to clarify if decorative features such as this one are allowed to exceed maximum height limitations. Director John Livingstone said that there are provisions to allow features such as flagpoles, spirals, etc., which can be looked at as decorative items. This is at the discretion of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Rodgers asked for the garage door materials. Planner Heather Bradley replied wood, as noted on the elevation drawing. Commissioner Rodgers asked if requiring pavers would be possible. Mr. Irving Haas reported that his client has indicated a willingness to use pavers instead of stamped concrete. Commissioner Rodgers: • Expressed concern over the number.of fireplaces and asked why so many wood burning fireplaces are necessary. • Pointed out that as part of green building concepts, it is important to reduce the number of wood burning fireplaces in a residence. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 12, 2007 Page 11 • Mr. Irving Haas said that his client just likes fireplaces. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that a fireplace could look as if it were wood burning but operate as gas. Mr. Dave Pitzen, Applicant and Property Owner: • Said that he wants to retain the existing wood - burning fireplace located in his library and have one wood - burning fireplace outside. • Added that while he would also prefer the fireplace in the master bedroom to also be wood burning, he would be fine with gas there as well as for all others in the house. Chair Hlava asked for clarification that there are currently two interior wood burning fireplaces in the house. Mr. Dave Pitzen replied yes. Chair Hlava asked staff if these are allowed to remain if they are existing. Planner Heather Bradley said that she is not sure the City can require them to convert existing wood burning to gas. Commissioner Rodgers said that it appears there will be three new gas fireplaces. Mr. Dave Pitzen said the existing wood - burning fireplace would remain in the library. While the fireplace in the family room is currently wood burning, he does not plan to keep that one and is-willing to switch it out with a gas fireplace. However, he wants the outdoor fireplace to be wood burning. Commissioner Kumar asked staff to clarify what regulations allow. Director John Livingstone: • Said that the ordinance only allow one wood burning per structure. • Added that it does not discuss outdoor fire pits. • Advised that this owner should be able to maintain his existing wood. burning fireplace. • Reported that if an existing fireplace is removed, it must be replaced with gas. • Said that a condition of approval can be added that mandates that if over 50 percent of the existing structure is to be demolished, that house would no longer be considered a remodel but rather a new structure. That new structure would have to be brought back before this Commission for Design Review approval following new noticing. Chair Hlava asked if an outdoor fireplace is considered attached to the house. Is it a fire pit or a fireplace? Director John Livingstone said this is at the discretion of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Na al asked how critical this rail element is to the architectural design. She 9p g said that she is struggling with that feature and has never seen it utilized in this way. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 12, 2007 Page 12 Mr. Irving Haas said it is important that it remain. Mr. Dave Pitzen reminded that his property is four feet below grade on Sobey Road. This rail feature would be perceived as lower from the street. Commissioner Nagpal asked if it would be possible to keep it within the 26 -foot maximum allowed height level. Mr. Irving Haas said that he prefers not to reduce the roof height. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Irving Haas if he would prefer to lose the element versus reducing the roof height? Mr. Irving Haas said that this railing brings attention to the entrance and main mass of this home. Chair Hlava asked if it is just a line of wrought iron. Planner Heather Bradley said that it also wraps around that wing. Commissioner Kumar asked if this rail element is used elsewhere in Saratoga. Mr. Irving Haas said he has seen it used in Saratoga and has used it himself in Los Gatos. S Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that there is a lot of empty space in the attic so it might be possible to lower the two wings on the outside. Mr. Irving Haas said he would rather not bother the roof. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the rail could be elsewhere than at the very top. Mr. Irving Haas said that -would defeat the purpose of the detail. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said it appears Mr. Haas does not want to alter his design. • Pointed out that these days green issues are being carefully considered. • Added that this home utilizes a number of fireplaces and incorporates 13.5 -foot tall ceilings in the garage, master bedroom, shower /bath and closet. This .requires a lot of energy to heat and cool the house. Mr. Dave Pinzen: . • Explained that he likes this style of home, for which the use of a lot of steep pitch roof features is an important element. • Said that they have undergone many design attempts to make this work. • Advised that he likes to retain out of season clothing in the same year -round closet and a second level of storage space is possible in this higher closet. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 12, 2007 Page 13 • Reminded that they need to keep the space in the attic at less than five feet in height, which resulted in the need to have the closet space interior ceiling height itself be 13.5 feet tall. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Dave Pinzen if he had considered using zero -scape that would require less irrigation in the summer months. Mr. Dave Pinzen said that they would not use a tremendous amount of irrigation but rather a drip system for a majority of plantings. Commissioner Rodgers asked if there is any way to isolate the central portion of the house into a third heat zone to be able to. control heating and cooling. Mr. Dave Pinzen replied yes. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Dave Pinzen while he chose a remodel over a new build Mr. Dave Pinzen replied cost. He added that what is there is. good and so they are using as much of it as they can use. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Dave Pinzen if they had notified their neighbors of the extent of this remodel. 0 Mr. Dave Pinzen said that they, think of this as a new house. He added that he gave neighbors a packet with all details. He assured that the neighbors know what he is doing here. Commissioner Rodgers thanked Mr. Dave Pinzen for installing story poles. Mr. Dave Pinzen said that neighbor outreach included going door to door as well as mail notification. He added that his neighbors want this upgrade done soon. Commissioner Cappello asked about two access points for the carport. Planner Heather Bradley said that the carport is open on two sides. Commissioner Nagpal asked for clarification that as such it does not count against total square footage. Planner Heather Bradley replied correct. Commissioner Zhao asked Mr: Dave Pinzen why he insists in a wood - burning fireplace outside in addition to retaining the existing one in the library. Mr. Dave Pinzen replied aesthetics. He pointed out that fire pits are allowed. Commissioner Zhao asked if he could live with gas outside. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 12, 2007 Page 14 Mr. Dave Pinzen said he would rather have nothing if he can't have wood burning there. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that there is movement toward banning wood burning for environmental reasons. Planner Heather Bradley: • Stated that one more wall of the carport would have to be left opened so as not to have that carport area be counted as floor area. • Clarified that upon further reflection, she has just misspoken. The design of this carport is already acceptable and would. not need to be counted against FAR. The standard to not be counted is that there are no more than three walls and a roof. This has two walls and a roof so it meets that standard. Chair Hlava clarified that the key issues are the realignment of the front walk to preserve the magnolias and .the condition that if it turns out that more than 50 percent of the original structure must be demolished, this house would revert from a remodel to a new structure and must be brought back to the Planning Commission for Design Review approval. Mr. Dave Pinzen asked how one determines if 50 ,percent is removed. Does it include removal of interior walls? Director John Livingstone replied that it counts removal of exterior stud walls. Chair Hlava closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Commissioner Nagpal: • Expressed appreciation for the applicant's efforts and unique design. • Agreed that the conditions regarding the front walk and limit of demolition to less than 50 percent are important ones. More than 50 percent demolition brings this house back to the Planning Commission to be considered as an entirely new structure. • Stated that she is okay with fireplaces as long as they meet Code limitations. • Advised that her biggest concern was the cresting detail. • Opined that the architectural design would be fine without that detail. • Added that her biggest concern is having that feature rise above the maximum height of 26 feet. Chair Hlava said that she agrees with staff that this feature does help minimize the perception of bulk. She added that she likes this detail and that it should not count against maximum height, as it is not a solid piece. Commissioner Nagpal said that it is included on such a significant portion of the roofline. Commissioner Rodgers said that she does not want to see this detail go above the 26 -foot maximum height. She added that without this detail, this house has a significant appearance of bulk so she cannot approve it based on bulk findings. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 12, 2007 Page 15 Chair Hlava said that compared to the previous turret that was denied, this railing is just 16 inches and is not solid. It is easy for her to say that this decorative feature is incidental. Commissioner Cappello: • Stated that he likes the railing detail. • Said that it does a good job of adding articulation to minimize bulk and helps soften the look of the. roofline. • Agreed that this is a lot that is lower than the roadway. It can stand to have this added 16- inch wrought iron detail. • Said that he has no issue with that railing as it adds a nice touch. • Expressed support for pavers over stamped concrete. • Said he can support fireplaces that meet Code limitations. • Agreed that outdoor fire pits are allowed. • Stated he is able to make the findings to support this application. Commissioner Kumar: • Said that he too can make all findings. Stated that he likes the design element on the roof. It is a beautiful addition that looks great. • Said that the outside fireplace is detached from the house.. • Pointed out that some people in Saratoga use portable fire pit units that burn wood. • Said that burning wood outside is fine by him. • Expressed agreement with the added conditions. Commissioner Zhao said that she likes the design and is okay with the decorative railing if Code allows it but she wants to make sure that is the case here. She added that it would be her preference to have the applicant change the fireplaces to gas. Commissioner Rodgers reiterated the conditions to reconfigure the front walk, the use of pavers over stamped concrete and the provision to bring the house back to the Commission in the event that more than 50 percent of the original structure must be demolished. If he does come back, he may have to remove some of the fireplaces. Commissioner Kumar asked staff if there are a maximum number of allowed fireplaces. Director John Livingstone replied no. Commissioner Rodgers expressed regret for the 13.5 -foot high ceilings, inclusion of five fireplaces and use of irrigation over zeroscape, as being less than green features. Chair Hlava cautioned that nothing in the Code prevents these features. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Kumar, the Planning Commission granted Design Review approval for the second story addition to a resident located at 14416 Oldwood Court, with the following additions: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 12, 2007 Page 16 • If more than 50 percent of the exterior walls must be demolished, this residence must be brought back to the Planning Commission as a new structure and therefore meet all requirements for new construction; • Pavers will replace the proposed stamped concrete, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar and Zhao NOES: Nagpal and Rodgers ABSENT: Kundtz ABSTAIN: None Chair Hlava returned to Agenda Item No. 1 PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #06 -118 (503 -28 -008) Hashemich /Sarnevesh, 20951 Canyon View (continued from the October 24, 2007, Planning Commission meeting): Applications for Design Review and Variance to construct an approximately 3,635 square foot two -story house with a daylight basement on a vacant lot at 20951 Canyon View Drive. The average slope of the lot is 39.7 percent sloping downward toward Canyon View Drive. Pursuant to City Code, Section 15- 12.061, the average slope beneath a structure shall not exceed 30 percent 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) Contract Planner Heather Bradley repeated, her staff report from earlier in the evening as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking a Variance approval. to allow a 500 square'foot pool to be' constructed adjacent to a recently approved house on a property with an approximate 37 percent slope. • Reminded that at its meeting of October 24, 2007, the Planning Commission directed staff to conduct a review of any previously granted Variances for pools. • Reported that such a search was conducted and no such Variances were issued. • Stated that the applicant has provided photographs of pools in the area but no permits Were found. • Said that as staff is unable to make the necessary findings to approve this Variance request, its recommendation is for denial. Chair Hlava opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Ms. Julie Hashemich, Applicant and Property Owner: • Said that she has. done research. • Pointed out that there- is another newer house with a pool that is on a slope that is over 30 percent. • Assured that she would not be making an unsafe condition with this proposed pool. Mr. Al Exivan, Engineer: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 12, 2007 Page 17 • Said that it would require a surveyor to get to an absolute slope of these properties with existing pools as well as access to each property. Commissioner Kumar asked if any slope calculations and /or measurements were done. Mr. Al Exivan said no. The review was done without measuring equipment and relied on trained eye and expertise. Planner Heather Bradley said that one example given has a pool located in the front yard at street level. That house is 47 years old. The property was leveled from the street to the edge of the foundation in order to accommodate the house. Commissioner Nagpal asked how many needed a Variance. Planner Heather Bradley replied none. Commissioner Nagpal said that these pools probably predated the requirement for a Variance. Chair Hlava .said that most of these homes are 30 to 50 or more years old. Clearly people have pools that. pre -date today's rules. Chair Hlava closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Kumar said he agrees with the staff recommendation to den this Com g y p ool Variance especially upon research that no previous such Variances have been issued. Commissioner Cappello said that he too agrees with the staff findings for denial. Commissioner Nagpal said she agrees. She added that the critical issue is when those pools went in and what regulations were in place at the time. She said she would support the staff's findings. Commissioner Cappello said he could actually make Finding C as he does not believe that the pool would be unsafe if built per the engineer's opinion. Commissioner Zhao reminded that she originally had wanted to support this pool Variance at the last hearing and had hoped for more concrete data at this meeting. She said that she must agree with the staff recommendation based upon Findings A and B. Commissioner Rodgers said that she couldn't support Finding C either. This Variance would represent a special privilege to allow a pool on a slope that is almost 40 percent. She added that she did not agree that such a pool would be safe here. Therefore she is voting to deny this Variance. • Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission denied a Variance request to allow a Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 12, 2007 Page 18 pool to be constructed on a slope in excess of 30 percent on property located at 20951 Canyon View Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: Kundtz ABSTAIN: None Chair Hlava reminded that in light of the holiday closure of City Hall, appeals of any action this evening can be filed by January 2, 2008. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Chair Hlava advised that upon looking at the 2008 PC meeting schedule she is proposing the cancellation of two meetings, the second November meeting (day before Thanksgiving) and the second December meeting (falls on Christmas Eve). COMMUNICATIONS Chair Hlava announced that the RFP for the Housing Element Update has been approved for distribution. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, Chair Hlava adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:10 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk L] • Item 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Heather Bradley 45 Contract Planner MEETING DATE: January 9, 2008 SUBJECT: Request for a Continuance Application No. 07 -366; Design Review Approval 21818 Via Regina, Saratoga, California The applicant requests Design Review approval to demolish the existing 1,993 square foot residence and construct a new 5,677 square foot house in approximately the same location as the existing footprint. The existing garage will remain (and is included in these square footage figures) and the existing lower floor will be converted into habitable area. The maximum height of the proposed building will not exceed the 26 -foot height limit. The maximum impervious coverage will not exceed the allowable 25% of the net site area. The lot size is approximately 53,562 square feet, and the site is located in the HR zoning district. Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060. This application was re- noticed for the meeting of January 23, 2008 to correct an inaccuracy in the original notice that was mailed out for the meeting of January 9`h, 2008. • • E Item 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION I Application No./Location: PDR07-0011 —19278 Bellwood Drive IType of Application: Design Review for a second story addition to an existing two story single-family residence I Owner: Yongjian Wang & Zuhong Qu Staff Planner: Christopher A. Riordan, Senior Planner Meeting Date: January 9, 2008 APN: 386L43-006 Department Head: John Livingstone, AICP Subject: _;Z1VE 19278 Bellwood Dr ---------- APN: 386-43-006 z 500' Radius "T Le ----------- 23 ---- ------------ C� V A5 13 E L LVVo0 r.) X EL�L-90D 7 )TUS CT. 12 ---------- U iz� C01 44 V A -IT - m IZ- -LANE ex, 19278 Bellwood Drive PROJECT HISTORY: Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10/15/07 11/20/07 11/24/07 11/24/07 01/03/08 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: On July 19, 2006, the applicant received and "over the counter" planning department approval of a building permit for a 1,084 square foot single -story addition to an existing 2,795 square foot two -story single - family home. The building permit was issued on November 28, 2006. The project qualified for an "over the counter" planning approval because 1) the structure was not being enlarged by more than 50% (1,397 square feet) 2) 50% of the exterior walls were not being removed, and 3) less than 100 square feet was being added to the second story (the existing second was not being enlarged). The project included the remodel of the interior of the second story. During a site inspection, a building inspector observed that 100 percent (859 square feet) of the existing second story exterior walls had been removed and replaced with new walls. The new walls had been constructed in the same location and at the same height as the walls that were removed. During demolition and construction, according to the applicant, it became apparent that all of the exterior walls of the second story were damaged by termites and water damage and had to be replaced The complete reconstruction of the 859 square foot existing second story reclassified the project from an "over the counter" review processed by staff to a Design Review requiring Planning Commission review. On October 17, 2007 the applicant filed an application for Planning Commission Design Review. The design and square footage of the project has not been modified from the original approval. The only change is that the second story walls that had been shown to remain are now• depicted on the plans as being removed. The project had already been framed when it first became apparent that the second story had been removed. To prevent potential water damage caused by winter rains, the applicant has signed an agreement allowing construction to proceed with the understanding that the design will be changed to reflect any modifications required by the Planning Commission. Page 2 of 8 • • Application No. PDR07 -0011; 19278 Bellwood Drive The project does not include the removal of any trees. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be taller than 26 -feet. The net lot size is 14,712 square -feet and the site is zoned R- 1- 12,500. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review application for the replacement of an existing second story to an existing two -story, single family home with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. Staff is not recommending any permanent conditions of approval. Page 3 of 8 Application No. PDR07- -0011; 19278 Bellwood Drive STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 12,500 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very Low Density Residential (RVLD) MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 14,712 sq. ft. (net) SLOPE: Site is level GRADING REQUIRED: No grading is proposed ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed application is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New. Construction or Conversion of Small Structures ", Class 3 of Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 ( "CEQA Guidelines'). This exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures and no exception to that exemption applies. MATERIALS AND COLORS: Materials and colors will include off -white (Oyster) colored cement plaster exterior walls. All wood and foam trim will be painted green. The garage door will be white and the front door will be mahogany. Decorative stone will used along the base of the front elevation. The roof will be composed of cherry colored slate tiles. A colors and materials board is on file with the Community Development Department and will be present at the site visit and public hearing. Detail Colors and Material Mfg. & Specification # Windows White Colored/Vinyl Millgard Classic and Style Windows Line Series: Montecito Prefnished Mahogany Amherst Classic. Front Door w /sidelights Collection White Colored Vinyl and Therma Tech/ Garage Door Steel Williamsburg (Carriage Style) Roof Cherry Colored/Slate Tile Monier • Page 4 of 8 Application No. PDR07 -0011; 19278 Bellwood Drive 0 PROJECT DATA: • • R -1- 12,500 Zoning Proposed Required Net Site Area: 14,712 square feet Site Coverage Residence and Garage: 3,018.75 Carport 152 Maximum Allowable Driveway /Walkway (s): 932 = 8,092 SF (55 %) Pond: 200 TOTAL Site Coverage 4,302.75 SF (29 %) Floor Area Existing First Floor Area: 2,542.5 SF Maximum Allowable Existing Second Floor Area: -859.5 SF = Proposed Second Floor Area: 859.5 SF 4,050 SF Existing Garage Area: 476.25 SF Existing Carport 152.00 TOTAL Existing Floor Area 4,030.25 SF Setbacks First Second First Second Floor Floor Floor Floor Front: 30.5 FT 35.5 FT 25 FT 25 FT Rear (Corner Lot): 35.5 FT 46.5 FT 10 FT 10 FT Left Side: 11 FT 19 FT 10 FT 15 FT Right Side (Corner Lot): 25.5 FT 76 FT 25 FT 30 FT Height Lowest Elevation Point: 101 Maximum Height = Highest Elevation Point: 101 127 (26 Feet) Average Elevation Point: 101 Proposed Topmost Point: 125 PROJECT DISCUSSION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS The applicant requests Design Review approval to remove and replace an existing 859.5 square foot second story on an existing approximately 4,030 square foot two -story single - family residence. The maximum height of the residence will not exceed 26 feet tall. Trees No trees are proposed for removal. All existing trees are incorporated into the conceptual landscape plan. Trees potentially impacted by the development have been protected by chainlink fencing. Page 5 of 8 Application No. PDR07- -0011; 19278 Bellwood Drive Energy Efficiency • The applicant's proposed energy efficiency techniques are listed in Attachment #2. They include energy conserving measures such as upgraded wall and ceiling insulation for the addition as well as replacing and upgrading all the insulation in the existing portion of the structure. All existing single pane windows are to be. removed and all replacement windows will be doubled glazed. A skylight will bring in natural light to the second story hallway. The gas furnace and all appliances are to be high efficiency "energy star" rated. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has shown the revised project plans to neighbors as indicated in the attached Neighbor Notification Forms (Attachment #3). The neighbor to the left at 19256 Bellwood Drive did submit a letter noting her privacy concerns about a proposed exterior window on the left elevation providing light and venting for the master bathroom. The applicant has agreed to relocate this window to the front elevation thereby eliminating her privacy concerns. The neighbor is satisfied with this modification to the plan. General Plan Findings The proposed project is consistent with all of the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 2.0 — Conserve natural vegetation and significant topographic features which exist in Saratoga and its Sphere of Influence. The project is not proposing to remove any of the existing trees on site which include both ordinance size redwood trees and non - native ornamental trees. The project will not include any grading or fill that could would remove existing vegetation or affect significant topographic features. Conservation Element Policy 6.0 - Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga- by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The visual impact of the, development is minimized by not increasing the square footage or height of the second story thereby maintaining the primarily one story appearance of the structure. The project's site setbacks are beyond the minimums thereby increasing the opportunity for an increased amount of yard landscaping. The exterior of the building will be painted an off -white color and the trim will be green in .color. The colors will be similar to other houses in the area and would not overly detract from the rural atmosphere. In addition, the proposal is well under the impervious coverage allowed for the parcel. Land Use Element Policy S.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 Approval. The home is well designed and is not visually massive, the. architectural details and features and the use of materials are complimentary to the architectural style and does not overly detract from the sites rural natural setting or is out of scale or character with adjacent homes. The design will not adversely impact the privacy of the adjacent neighbors. Page 6 of 8 Application No. PDR07 -0011; 19278 Bellwood Drive s Design Review Findings g The proposed project is consistent with all of the following Design Review findings stated in City Code Section 15- 45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the second story is not increasing in size nor would impact existing views from offsite. Privacy is maintained for the side neighbors by the use of clerestory windows on the side elevation that are small in size and limited to two in number. The second story is set back approximately 47 feet from the rear property to minimize the privacy impacts on neighbors to the rear. Additional privacy for rear neighbors will be increased by the two existing 48" mature redwood trees. Proposed setbacks are also in excess of minimal requirements thereby providing additional privacy to abutting parcels. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is limited to the construction of a second story addition and no grading or topographic changes will occur that could impact the existing landscaping. All trees that could potentially be affected by the project will be protected throughout the construction process with fencing. Impacts on existing landscaping will be minimal. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project is not requesting removal nor would impact Native and/or Heritage Trees. All trees on the site have, including the four protected redwood trees, will be protected with chainlink fencing. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the perception of bulk is minimized by the use of a varying roofline, projecting architectural elements, articulated facades that face the street, and the by the use of a mix of building materials. These materials will include natural stone, stucco, and natural slate. Bulk is also minimized by limiting the size and height of the second story which increases the horizontal appearance of the residence. (e) Compatible bulk and height. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with adjacent residences in the area that are predominantly two -story structures. The existing residence and proposed addition are not located in a manner that could impair light or air or reduce the applicant's or adjacent property owner's solar opportunities. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project does not include any grading. (g) Design policies and techniques. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in Page 7 of 8 Application No. PDR07 -0011; 19278 Bellwood Drive the Residential Design Handbook. The projects size and design is related to its surroundings. The natural landscape and environment of the site will be maintained. The project will not impact neighbors existing privacy, views and access to views is to be maintained. The design of the project will not reduce the :applicant or the adjacent property owner's solar opportunities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that 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. 2. Project's Energy Conservation Measures (prepared by applicant) 3. Neighbor Notification templates. 4. Affidavit .of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A ". • Page 8 of 8 • Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. Application No. PDR07 -0011 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Wang 19278 Bellwood Drive WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to construct a new second story addition to an existing two -story single - family residence in the R -1- 12,500 zone district. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be taller than 26 -feet. The gross lot size is approximately 14,712 square feet; and 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 the complete removal, reconstruction, and addition to the second story of an existing two story single - family home; 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. 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 2.0 — Conserve natural vegetation and significant topographic features which exist in Saratoga and its Sphere of Influence.. The project is not proposing to remove any of the existing trees on. site which include both ordinance size redwood trees and non - native ornamental trees. The project will not include any grading or fill that could would remove existing vegetation or affect significant topographic features. Conservation Element Policy 6.0 - Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering . the visual impact of new development. The visual impact of the development is minimized by not increasing the square footage or height of the second story thereby maintaining the primarily one story appearance of the structure. The project's site Application No. PDR07- -0011; 19278 Bellwood Drive setbacks are beyond the minimums thereby increasing the opportunity for an increased amount of yard landscaping. The exterior of the building will be painted an off -white color and the trim will be green in color. The colors will be similar to other houses in the area and would not overly detract from the rural atmosphere. In addition, the proposal is well under the impervious coverage allowed for the parcel. 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 Approval. The home is well designed and is not visually massive, the architectural details and features and the use of materials are complimentary to the architectural style and does not overly detract from the sites rural natural setting or is out of scale or character with adjacent homes. The design will not adversely impact the privacy of the adjacent neighbors. 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 may be made in the affirmative in that the second story is not increasing in size nor would impact existing views from offsite. Privacy is maintained for the side neighbors by the use of clerestory windows on the side elevation that are small in size and limited to two in number. The second story is set back approximately 47 feet from the rear property to minimize the privacy impacts on neighbors to the rear. Additional privacy for rear neighbors will be increased by the two existing 48" mature redwood trees. Proposed setbacks are also in excess of minimal requirements thereby providing additional privacy to abutting parcels. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is limited to the construction of a second story addition and no grading or topographic changes will occur that could impact the existing landscaping. All trees that could potentially be affected by the project will be protected throughout the construction process with fencing. Impacts on existing landscaping will be minimal. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project is not requesting removal nor would impact Native and/or Heritage Trees. All trees on the site have, including the four protected redwood trees, have been.protected with chainlink fencing. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the perception of bulk is minimized by the use of a varying roofline, projecting architectural elements, articulated facades that face the street, and the by the use of a mix of building materials. These materials will include natural stone, stucco, and natural slate. Bulk is also minimized by limiting the size and height of the second story which increases the horizontal appearance of the residence. 2 Application No. PDR07 -0011; 19278 Bellwood Drive (e) Compatible bulk and height. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with adjacent residences . in the area that are predominantly. two -story structures. The existing residence and proposed addition are not located in a manner that could impair light or air or reduce the applicant's or adjacent property owner's solar opportunities. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed second story addition does not include any grading. (g) Design policies and techniques. This finding may be made in the affirmative in .that the project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook. The projects size and design is related to its surroundings. The natural landscape and environment of the site will be maintained. The project will not impact neighbors existing privacy, views and access to views is to be maintained. The design of the project will not reduce the applicant or the adjacent property owner's solar opportunities. 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 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 December 19, 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 per the materials sample received October 17, 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." 3 Application No. PDR07 -0011; 19278 Bellwood Drive 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. 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. 6. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 7. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. 8. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape areas. FIRE DISTRICT 9. Applicant shall comply with all Saratoga Fire Department conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 10. 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. PDR07- -0011; 19278 Bellwood Drive 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 9th day of December 2008 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 5 • • t Attachment 2 • Energy Conservation Re: 19278 Bellwood Dr., Saratoga, California. Application No. PDR07 -011 /Design Review Application Statement of energy conserving measures for the project listed below: 1. Extra Insulation above minimum requirement 2. Skylight for energy saving 3. Double -Pane window 4. High efficiency furnace and appliances 5. Dimming switch at bedrooms 6. Occupancy sensor at bath 7. Fluorescent Lighting per latest Title -24 Requirement 8. 2X6 exterior walls for better insulated proof • • Attachme 'nt 3 • .F\ , City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form M PROJECT ADDRESS: 1 q 2 g IJ G�C�,rvvaQ �r. cS� YC� �° G� �U �� Dear Neighbor, I am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this notice ..as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. I ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the project. These plans are PRELIMINARY ONLY and may be changed as the project moves forward. You may contact the City of Saratoga 's Planning Division at any time to review any changes that may occur. The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga at 408--868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. ti My signature below certifies that I.am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name: ' S,` (� Date: l 4'/' t, Signature: :. -:. i =t.- .. i.i :ti Neiehbor Address: OCT LUDi CiTy Neighbor Phone #: t�'; ! If I have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Applicant Name: l t "el 041' - Date:, ( o/16 Application Number: Revised 10/24/06 P:\Forms & Procedures\design review applications.doc 5 • • 0 11/28/07 To whom it may concern: On November 26, 2007 we received and reviewed the revised plans of 19278 Bellwood Drive. We appreciate our neighbor taking action to address our concerns. However, we are still uncomfortable with a portion of these new suggestions. The most significant issue is the proposed additional window that faces our property. Our requests are simple. When we first moved in, there was a large perfectly placed tree that afforded us the privacy we both enjoyed. The Wangs removed that tree fully exposing us to their house. Now, without the tree and with the suggested addition of these windows we are even more exposed and feel completely uncomfortable in our own yard. In regard to Mr. Wang's letter of 10/22/07; We respectfully request the removal of the "New Small Window" as stated in the letter. The other items are acceptable. Also, it would be appreciated to return appropriate landscaping to restore us the privacy we once had. With no other changes, these simple modifications to their plans could allow us to remove our objection. 0 Sincerely, Mr. and Ms. Ming Hsieh 19256 Bellwood Drive Saratoga, CA95070 (408) 252 -7788 PROJECT ADDRESS: Dear Neighbor, • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form • qZ 6eff 6- ovcQI r. Earc.%� � G A � To �-o 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. 1 ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the project. These plans are PRELIMINARYONLYand may be changed as the project moves forward. You may contact the City of Saratoga 's Planning Division at anytime to review any changes that may occur. The ,City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed. by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal: Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga at 408 - 868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that. I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name: . .� Date: , 4 IV Signature: Neighbor Address: _ a- >-� rT Neighbor Phone #: -7 - If I have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Applicant Name: Application Number: Revised 10124/06 Date: PAForrns & Procedures design review applications.doc 5 • • • 1] PROJECT ADDRESS Dear Neighbor, City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form 1 am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this notice-as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will 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 PRELIMINARYONLYand may be changed as the project moves forward. You may contact the City of Saratoga's Planning Division at any time to review any changes that may occur. The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to. review the proposal. Please. be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga at 408 - 868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. y signature below certifies that I am a are of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary 1project plans. } Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: ac— &��1,4, Neighbor Phone #: If I have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Applicant Name: opplication Number: Revised 10/24/06 Date: P:\Fomu & Procedures design review applications.doc 5 PROJECT ADDRESS: Dear Neighbor, • • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form 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 ,Gity of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these. plans are preliminary and may change.. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga at 408 - 868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name: t' ?71 v .11 Cj 71 fC 1, i1.1 J7, �; �`17i ate: Si gnature _ L1 Neighbor Addr�s: 0114/ ,Sct) et P "'(! C ,� -C, Neighbor Phone #: If I have any initial concerns with the project . I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Applicant Name: Date: Application Number: Revised 10/24/06 P:\Forms & Proceduresldesign review applications.doc 5 • 9 City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form PROJECT ADDRESS: f (q g IJ of �a I r - cSc, Y6...' b "�j Q 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. 1 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 Gity of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to. indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga at 408 - 868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary roject plans. Neighbor Name: d r i 1., hP_L r Date: Signature: Neighbor Address: -7— v ,r r,, 7 eL, 0 ,• Neighbor Phone #: " f C' If I have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Applicant Name: application Number: Revised 10/24/06 P:1Forms & ProceduresWesign review applications.doc Date: Attachment 4 • CITY OF SARATOGA Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868 -1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of.Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 12th day of December, 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: PDR07 -0011 / 19278 Bellwood Drive APPLICANT /OWNER: Yongjian Wang APN: 386 -43 -006 DESCRIPTION: The applicant request Design Review approval to remove an existing 859 square foot second story of an existing two -story single - family residence and replace it with a new 859 square foot second story addition in approximately the same location. The residence will not exceed 26 feet in height. The net lot size is 14,712 square feet. The site is zoned R -1- 12,500. 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, December 10, 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 24th day of November 2007, that I deposited 86 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: 19278 Bellwood AP N : 386 -43 -006 that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. • r , F Delllse Kaspar Advanced Listing Services • • November 24, 2007 500' Ownership Listing Prepared for: 386-43 -006 YONG WANG 19278 BELLWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 386 -06 -001 386 -06 -002 386 -06 -003 SIMON YANG HYOK J YOON STEPHEN J & JOELLEN STOLARIK OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19361 BELLWOOD DR 12552 TITUS AVE 12538 TITUS AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -4052 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4030 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4030 386 -06 -005 386 -06 -006 . 386 -06 -004 JOSEPH G & NORMA CASTELLANO TAK -MING & PEI -LI LAM ELLIOTT R HOLLIS OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 381 12510 TITUS AVE 12496 TITUS AVE MENLO PARK CA 94026 -0381 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4030 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4030 386 -06 -043 386 -06 -044 386 -06 -045 MAURICE &.MIN PLUNKETT DAVID & ELLEN DE SIMONE J FINN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER .12509 WOODSIDE DR 12517 WOODSIDE DR 12529 WOODSIDE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -4050 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4050 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4050 386 -06 -046 386 -06 -047 386 -06 -048 MATHIOS JAMES & D WILLIAM & LISA ENQUIST THOMAS R & MICHELE ASHLAND ' OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 12541 WOODSIDE DR 12553 WOODSIDE DR 12565 WOODSIDE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -4050 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4050 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4000 386 -07 -001 386 -07 -002 386 -07 -003 BHUPINDARPAL SINGH EDWARD D & JOYCE GROSS MEI -HWA HSIEH DR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19185 BELLWOOD DR 12556 WOODSIDE DR 12542 WOODSIDE DR 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -4053 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4061 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4061 386 -07 -004 386 -07 -005 386 -07 -031 LI -CHUNG & IRENE LEE TSANG MAN W & CINDY SHOU S & WEI LIN DR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 12528 WOODSIDE DR 12514 WOODSIDE DR 12533 PALMTAG DR 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -4061 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4061 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3433 386 -07 -032 386 -07 -033 386 -07 -034 VIEHUL A & NUPUR SHAH GARY W & TANYA KRALL WEN & WINNIE WANG JR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 2356 OR CURRENT OWNER 12543 PALMTAG DR- SARATOGA CA 95070 -0356 19175 BELLWOOD DR 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -3433 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4053 386 -32 -015 386 -32 -022 386 -32 -023 3ING Y & LILLIAN WONG TOM KANG GUOQING J JIANG )R CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 12590 MILLER AVE 12545 NORTHAMPTON CT 12567 NORTHAMPTON CT ; ARATOGA CA 95070 -4025 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4004 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4004 386 -32 =024 386 -32 -026 386 -32 -025 VICTOR Y & EVELYN CHU KUANG -LU & PING -PING LEE ROBERT T & LAM TRASK OR CURRENT OWNER 14900 MONTALVO RD OR CURRENT OWNER NORTHAMPTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -6328 12590 NORTHAMPTON CT OGA CA 95070 -4004 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4004 386 -32 -027 386 -32 -028 386 -32 -029 CORNELIUS M & ROSANNA GEORGE E MEYER CHENG H & MAN YEN KENNEDY OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 12546 NORTHAMPTON CT 12528 NORTHAMPTON CT 12568 NORTHAMPTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -4004 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4004 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4004 386 -32 -031 386 -32 -032 386 -32 -033 FRANK T & CONSUELO LINNEY JUN YANG R WEESNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 12501 TITUS AVE 12523 TITUS AVE 12545 TITUS AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -4034 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4034 SARATOGA CA 950704034 386 -32 -034 386 -32 =035 386 -32 -037 TAMIO T & MARTHA ONISHI ISAO & YUKIKO KATO KRETSCHMAR OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 12567 TITUS AVE 12589 TITUS AVE 12599 TITUS AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -4034 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4034 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4034 386 -40 -001 386 -40 -002 386 -40 -003 PHILIP R & LEANNE HULME CLEVENGER MICHAEL T REBMANN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19315 TITUS CT 19337 TITUS CT 19359 TITUS CT S�TOGA CA 95070 -4036 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4036 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4036 386 -40 -004 386 -40 -005 386 -40 -006 LUCETTE MANGELSDORF HONG TEOH LOVELADY 2007 DR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19371 TITUS CT 19384 TITUS CT 19372 TITUS CT 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -4036 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4036 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4036 386 -40 -007 386 -40 -008 386 -40 -009 HOWARD & PATRICIA LUM JUDITH W LAI PAUL M &SANDRA CLICK DR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19354 TITUS CT 19332 TITUS CT 19310 TITUS CT 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -4036 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4036 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4036 386 -40 -017 386 -40 -032 386 -40 -033 IACKSON & JENNIFER NORRIS JOHN SUM SHANKAR & SUPRIYA DR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER KRISHNAMOORTHY 12612 MILLER AVE 19305 VENDURA CT OR CURRENT OWNER 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -4027 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4037 19327 VENDURA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -4037 386 -40 -034 386 -40 -035 386 -40 -036 ?UGUANG SHI ROZLYNN S ARNOLD JANET L PARKHURST :)R CURRENT OWNER. OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19349 VENDURA CT 19361 VENDURA CT 19383 VENDURA CT 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -4037 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4037 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4037 037 386 -40 -038 386 -40 -039 A & SANDRA LEWIS WILLIAM Z & JOANNE MASTERS SHOGO & CHIYO HIKIDO )R CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 2097 .9386 VENDURA CT 19364 VENDURA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -0097 > ARATOGA CA 95070 -4037 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4037 386 -40 -040 CHARLES E & JANET TOTMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 19320 VENDURA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -4037 386 -40 -043 ANTHONY T & JUDITH HENDRICKSON OR CURRENT OWNER 19329 BROCKTON LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4007 386 -43 -002 MARKS DAY OR CURRENT OWNER 12680 TITUS AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -4035 386 -43 -005 JUDITH LEFF OR CURRENT OWNER 12624 TITUS AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -4035 386 -43 -008 JOHN P & JENNIFER TERO OR CURRENT OWNER 19234 BELLWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -4060 386 -43 -011 VICTOR N & BEATRICE DESTIN OR CURRENT OWNER 19178 BELLWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -4003 386-43 -016 VATHAN T & JOYCE MITAKIDES :)R CURRENT OWNER 19205 GUNTHER CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -4015 386 -43 -019 .kNNIE ZEE JR CURRENT OWNER [9263 GUNTHER CT 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -4015 386 -43 -022 VEAL A & TERESA CABRINHA :)R CURRENT OWNER 19220 GUNTHER CT > ARATOGA CA 95070 -4015 586 -43 -028 'ETER INFANTINO )R CURRENT OWNER 9229 BROCKTON LN ; ARATOGA CA 95070 -4005 386 -40 -041 386 -40 -042 HO Y & CHI YU MATTHEW A & NURIT JACOBS OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19308 VENDURA CT 19307 BROCKTON LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4037 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4007 • 386 -40 -044 386 -43 -001 RICHARD S & ELAINE BURGESS DAVID N & KRISTIN GRAGNOLA OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19341 BROCKTON LN 19285 BROCKTON LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4007 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4005 386 -43 -003 386 -43 -004 RONALD P & ANNE LISICK SUNG I & ESTHER PARK OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 12668 TITUS AVE 12646 TITUS AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -4035 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4035 386 -43 -006 386 -43 -007 ONG WANG MING C & SHU HSIEH Y ON WAN DR OR CURRENT OWNER 19256 BELLWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5113 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4060 386 -43 -009 .386 -43 -010 XILONG & LIANG JIN ANDY & JENNY YU OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19212 BELLWOOD DR 19190 BELLWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -4060 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4003 386 -43 -012 386 -43 -015 JAMES H & MARCIA KERINS MICHAEL .I & E MELTZER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19156 BELLWOOD DR 19183 GUNTHER CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -4003 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4058 386 -43 -017 386 -43 -018 GUO -DONG LU JOHNNY E & PATRICIA DAWSON OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19227 GUNTHER CT 19249 GUNTHER CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -4015 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4015 386 -43 -020 386 -43 -021 REV TABOH JEFFREY A & LYNDA GRUNDY OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19264 GUNTHER CT 19242 GUNTHER CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -4015 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4015 386 -43 -023 386 -43 -024 JOHN A YELINEK TY S & CHRIS CURRY OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19218 GUNTHER CT 19186 GUNTHER CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -4015 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4057 386 -43 -029 386 -43 -030 JIN -YOUNG & Y LEE KUN -HSU SHEN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19241 BROCKTON LN 19263 BROCKTON LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4005 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4005 CITY OF SARATOGA ATTN: Christopher Riordan 1 S �RUITVALE AVENUE OGA CA 95070 • • Advanced Listing Services P.O. Box 2593 Dana Point CA 92624 Attachment 5 • • • Item 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. /Location: PDR07 -0017 —14098 Palomino Way Type of Application: Design Review for a second story addition to an existing two story single - family residence Owner: G. Kirby & Carmen Miller Staff Planner: Christopher A. Riordan, Senior Planner 69 Meeting Date: January 9, 2008 ��77 APN: 503 -68 -007 Department Head�L John Livingstone, AICP 14098 Palomino Way EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT HISTORY: Application filed: 11/08/07 Application complete: 12/12/07 Notice published: 12/26/07 Mailing completed: 12/20/07 Posting completed: 01/03/08 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: On June 21, 2006, the applicant received Administrative Design Review approval to add additional floor area to an existing 3,900 square foot two -story single family home. The project included demolition of an existing garage and carport, construction of a new 466 square foot detached garage, addition of 370 square feet to an existing lower floor, and a 446 square feet addition to an existing second story for a total floor area of 4,576 square feet. The project originally received Administrative Design Review because more than 100 square feet was being added to the second story and less than 50 percent of the existing exterior walls were to be removed. During a site inspection, a building inspector observed that 100 percent of the existing second story exterior walls had been removed and replaced with new walls. The new walls had been constructed in the same location and at the same height as the walls that were removed. During demolition and construction, according to the applicant, it became apparent that all of the exterior walls of the second story had been damaged by termites. Instead of covering up the damaged walls with new sheetrock, the applicant made the decision to replace the damaged wood framing with new wood. The complete reconstruction of the 1,320 square foot existing second story reclassified the project from an Administrative Design Review processed by staff to a Design Review requiring Planning Commission review. On November 8, 2007 the applicant filed an application for Planning Commission Design Review. The design and square footage of the project has not been modified from the previous approval. The only change is that the second story walls that had been shown to remain are now depicted on the plans as being removed. The applicant has signed an agreement allowing construction to proceed with the understanding that the design will be changed to reflect any modifications required by the Planning Commission. The project does not include the removal of any trees. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be taller than 26 -feet. The net lot size is 54,075 square -feet and the site is zoned R -1- 40,000. Page 2 of 9 • • Application No. PDR07 -0017; 14098 Palomino Way STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review application for a new two -story, single family home with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. Staff is not recommending any permanent conditions of approval. Page 3 of 9 Application No. PDR07- -0017; 14098 Palomino Way STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very Low Density Residential (RVLD) MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 54,075 sq. ft. (gross) and 21,630 sq. ft. (net - 60% reduction in lot area for slope adjustment) SLOPE: Approximately 50 % average site slope and 2.0 % at building site GRADING REQUIRED: No grading is proposed ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed application is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures ", Class 3 of Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 ( "CEQA Guidelines "). This exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures and no exception to that exemption applies. MATERIALS AND COLORS: Materials and colors will include off -white (Bone) colored vinyl -clad wood windows, trim, and doors. Exterior siding will be dark gray colored horizontal "tongue & groove" lap siding. Wood railings will be installed on both the first and second story terraces. The roof will be composed of dark colored asphalt shingles.' A colors and materials board is on file with the Community Development Department and will be present at the site visit and public hearing. Detail Colors and Material Mfg. & Specification # Windows Off White Colored/Vinyl Anderson 400 Series Coated Wood Windows Front Door Natural Oak Finished Wood 1WP 381W /Sidelight Garage Door Off White Colored/Wood Sousa's / Model #101 Carriage Door Roof Cobble Stone Gray /Asphalt Certainteed TL Ultimate Shingle Page 4 of 9 • t Application No. PDR07 -0017; 14098 Palomino Way PROJECT DATA: R -1- 40,000 Zoning Proposed Required Net Site Area: 54,075 Site Coverage Residence and Garage 2,941.2 Driveway: 5,941.1 Maximum Allowable Walkway(s): 11139.7 = 18,926 SF (35 %) Pool: 15.9 TOTAL Site Coverage 10,039 SF (18.5 %) Floor Area Existing First Floor Area: 1,974 SF Existing Second Floor Area: 1,320 SF Existing Garage Area: 250 SF Existing Carport: 228 SF Maximum Allowable Other Existing Areas (Shed): 128 SF = TOTAL Existing Floor Area 3,900 SF 4,596 SF (After slope reduction of 60 %) Proposed First Floor Area: 2,420 SF Proposed Second Floor Area: 1,690 SF Proposed Garage Area: 466 SF TOTAL Proposed Floor Area 4,576 SF Setbacks First Second First Second Floor Floor Floor Floor Front: 66 Feet 66 Feet 30 Feet 30 Feet 0Inches 0Inches Rear: 195 Feet 195 Feet 50 Feet 60 Feet 0 Inches 0 Inches Left Side: 56 Feet 56 Feet .20 Feet 25 Feet 5Inches 5Inches Right Side: 21 Feet 21 Feet 20 Feet 25 Feet lInches lInches Height Lowest Elevation Point: 118.60 Maximum Height = Highest Elevation Point: 127.10 148.85 (26 Feet) Average Elevation Point: 122.85 Proposed Topmost Point: 144.50 Page 5 of 9 Application No. PDR07 -0017; 14098 Palomino Way PROJECT DISCUSSION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS The applicant requests Design Review approval to remodel and enlarge and existing 3,900 square foot two -story home. The existing 1,974 square foot first -story will be enlarged by 446 square feet. The 1,320 square foot second -story will be removed, rebuilt, and enlarged and the resultant square footage of the second story will be 1,690 square feet. The existing 250 square foot garage and 228 square foot carport will be removed to be replaced by a 466 square foot garage. The maximum height of the residence will not exceed 26.0 feet tall. The applicant has identified the architectural style of the proposed residence as "Country". Exterior materials will include horizontal "V" grooved lap siding, wood posts and railings on all exterior decks and patios, wood trim around all doors and windows, square shaped vinyl- clad double glazed wood windows, wood doors, and asphalt shingles. Trees No trees are proposed for removal. Two existing protected redwood trees are located to the right of the driveway and are approximately 20 feet away from the left side of the structure. These trees did not.require tree protection fencing or arborist review prior to the previous approval due to their distance from the edge of the building. During construction one of the .Redwood trees was inadvertently damaged. The applicant has encircled the Redwood trees with chainlink fencing to prevent further damage and has submitted an application for arborist review. A condition of approval has been added that any tree protection measures required by the arborist must be complied with prior to issuance of a building permit for the new construction. Geotechnical Clearance GeoQuest, Incorporated prepared a Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed project, dated April 10, 2006, which was reviewed by the City's Geotechnical Consultant. As conditioned, the project has received geotechnical clearance to proceed. Energy Efficiency The applicant's proposed energy efficiency. techniques (listed on page AO of the project plan) will include energy I conserving measures such as upgraded wall and ceiling insulation for the addition as well as replacing and upgrading all the insulation in the existing portion of the structure. All existing single pane windows are to be removed and all replacement windows will be doubled glazed. Skylights will bring in natural light to the master bedroom closet, the shower in the master bath, and will illuminate the stairway. All appliances are to be "energy star" rated. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has shown the revised project plans to neighbors as indicated in the attached Neighbor Notification Forms (Attachment 5). No negative comments have been received at the time of the writing of this Staff Report. Page 6 of 9 Application No. PDR07 -0017, 14098 Palomino Way • General Plan Findings The proposed project is consistent with all of the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 20 — Conserve natural vegetation and significant topographic features which exist in Saratoga and its Sphere of Influence. The project is not proposing to remove any of the existing natural vegetation on the site. The area above the project is steeply sloped with dense brush and tree cover. The area below the project site slopes down to the street and is characterized by natural grasses and non - native trees. The project will not include any grading that would remove existing vegetation or affect significant topographic features. Conservation Element Policy 6.0 - Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Proposed building materials that face the street would be natural materials such as wood like siding, wood trim,. and wood doors. The rear fagade that faces the street will be painted in muted colors to reduce its visual impact and not detract from the rural atmosphere of the area. In addition, the proposal is well under the impervious coverage allowed for the parcel. Land Use Element Policy S.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 Approval. The home is well designed and is not visually massive, the architectural details and features and the use of natural materials compliment the "Country" architectural style which is an architectural that does not overly detract from the sites rural natural setting or is out of scale or character with adjacent homes. The design will not adversely impact the privacy of the adjacent neighbors. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all of the following Design Review findings stated in City Code Section 15- 45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed garage will not exceed 18 -feet in height and the proposed second story addition will not increase the height of the existing structure nor expand the structure in such a way as to create a visual obstruction to a neighboring parcel. Proposed setbacks are in excess of minimal requirements thereby providing additional privacy to abutting parcels. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project will not impact any of the site's existing natural landscape. The existing landscaping is composed of native grasses and both native and non - native trees including many fruit trees in the front yard. The applicant's stated intent is to leave the landscaping in its most natural state so as to blend in with the hillside surroundings. No formal landscaping is proposed. Page 7 of 9 Application No. PDR07 -0017; 14098 Palomino Way (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project is not requesting removal of Native and/or Heritage Trees. In addition, the project, as conditioned, would not impact Native and/or Heritage Trees. Two protected redwood trees are located approximately 20 feet away from the left side of the structure. These trees did not require tree protection fencing or arborist review prior to the previous approval due to their distance from the edge of the building. During construction one of the Redwood trees was inadvertently damaged. The applicant has encircled the Redwood trees with chainlink fencing to prevent further damage to the trees and has submitted an application for arborist review. A condition of approval has been added that any tree protection measures required by the arborist must be complied with prior to issuance of a building permit for the new construction. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed garage will be located inclose proximity to the existing garage and carport and will be screened from Palomino Way by the existing residence. The proposed addition to the residence is architecturally sympathetic to the existing structure, has a proposed front -yard setback in excess of the required setback, will not change the existing height, and will utilize compatible materials, thus minimizing the perception of excessive bulk. The applicant is also proposing a neutral color pallet for the exterior building, window trim and roofing materials as well as incorporating varying rooflines and exteri or building materials to reduce the perception of excessive bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with adjacent residences in the area that are predominantly two -story structures. The existing residence and proposed addition are not located in a manner that could impair light or air or reduce the applicant's or adjacent property owner's solar opportunities. (1) Current grading and erosion control methods. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed addition is in the general area of the existing residence so no grading is proposed. The project is conditioned to conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. The project is also conditioned to detain stormwater onsite to the maximum extent reasonably possible (g) Design policies and techniques. This finding may be made in the affirmative .in that the project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook. The projects size and design is related to its surroundings. The natural landscape and environment of the site will be maintained. The project will not impact neighbors existing privacy, views and access to views is to be maintained. The design of the project will not reduce the applicant or the adjacent property owner's solar opportunities. Page 8 of 9 • • Application No. PDR07 -0017; 14098 Palomino Way STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that 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. 2. Project description letter (prepared by applicant) 3. Neighbor Notification templates. 4. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A ". Page 9 of 9 Atta.ci-iment....1 7 • RESOLUTION NO. Application No. PDR07 -0017 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Kirby & Miller 14098 Palomino Way WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to construct a new garage and second story addition to an existing two - story single - family residence in the R -1- 40,000 zone district. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be taller than 26 -feet. The gross lot size is approximately 54,075 square feet; and 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 the complete removal, reconstruction, and addition to the second story of an existing two story single - family home; 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. 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. 2 0 — Conserve natural vegetation and significant topographic features which exist in Saratoga and its Sphere of Influence. The project is not proposing to remove any of the existing natural vegetation on the site. The area above the project is steeply sloped with dense brush and tree cover. The area below the project site slopes down to the street and is characterized by natural grasses and non - native trees. The project will not include any grading that would remove existing vegetation or affect significant topographic features. • Application No. PDR07 -0017; 14098 Palomino Way Conservation Element Policy &0 - Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Proposed building materials that face the street would be natural materials such as wood siding, wood trim, and wood doors and will be painted in muted colors to reduce the visual impact and not detract from the rural atmosphere of the area. In addition, the proposal is well under the impervious coverage allowed for the parcel. Land Use Element Policy S.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 Approval. The home is well designed and not visually massive. The architectural details and features and the use of natural materials compliment the "Country" architectural style which is an architectural that does not overly detract from the sites rural natural setting or is out of scale or character with adjacent homes. The design will not adversely impact the privacy of the adjacent neighbors. 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. may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed garage will not exceed 18 -feet in height and the proposed second story addition will not increase the height of the existing structure nor .expand the structure in such a way as to create a visual obstruction to a neighboring parcel.. Proposed setbacks are in excess of minimal requirements thereby providing additional privacy to abutting parcels. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project will not impact any of the site's existing natural landscape. The existing landscaping is composed of native grasses and both native and non - native . trees including many fruit trees in the front yard. The intent of the applicant is to leave the landscaping in its most natural state to blend in with the hillside surroundings.- No formal landscaping is proposed. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project is not requesting removal of Native, and/or Heritage Trees. The project, as conditioned, would not impact Native and/or Heritage Trees. Two protected redwood trees are located approximately 20 feet away from the left side of the structure. These trees did not require tree protection fencing or arborist review prior to the previous approval due to their distance from the edge of the building. During construction one of the Redwood trees was inadvertently damaged. The applicant has encircled the Redwood trees with chainlink fencing to prevent further damage to the trees and has submitted an application for arborist review. A condition of approval has been added that any tree protection measures required by the arborist must be complied with prior to issuance of a building permit for the new construction. 2 C Application No. PDR07 -0017; 14098 Palomino Way (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed garage will be located in close proximity to the existing garage and carport and will be screened from Palomino Way by the existing residence. The proposed addition to the residence is architecturally sympathetic to the existing .structure. The proposed front -yard setback is in excess of the required setback: The project will not alter the existing height of the house. To reduce the perception of bulk the project will utilize compatible materials and have a neutral exterior color pallet for the window trim and roofing materials. Varying roof lines will be incorporated as an additional measure to reduce the perception of excessive bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project will be compatible in terms of. bulk and height with adjacent residences in the area that are predominantly two -story structures. The existing residence and proposed addition are not located in a manner that could impair light or air or reduce the opportunities of adjacent property owners to utilize solar opportunities. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed addition is in the general area of the existing residence so no grading is proposed. The project is conditioned to conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. The project is also conditioned to require detention of stormwater on site, to the maximum extent reasonably feasible. (g) Design policies and techniques. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook by relating the projects size and design to its surroundings. The natural landscape and environment of the site will be maintained. The project will not impact neighbors existing privacy, views and access to views- is to be maintained. The design of the project will not reduce the applicants' or the adjacent property owner's solar opportunities. 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 are hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PERMANENT CONDITONS OF APPROVAL — None 3 Application No. PDR07- -0017; 14098 Palomino Way CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" date stamped December 18, 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 per the materials sample received December 13, 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. 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. 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. . 6. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 7. 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. rd Application No. PDR07 -0017; 14098 Palomino Way 0 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. The tree protective fencing installed by the applicant around the two redwood trees to the left of the building shall remain in place and must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. The applicant has submitted an application for arborist review to access the damage to a redwood tree to the left of the structure and adjacent to the driveway. Any tree protection measures required by the arborist must be complied with prior to issuance of a building permit for the new construction. 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. 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 9th day of January 2008 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Application No. PDR07 -0017; 14098 Palomino Way 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 • • R Attachment 2 C7 CITY of SARATOGA Attention: Christopher A. Riordan, Senior Planner 0EQ 0 0007 RE: Application No. PDR0700017 /Design Review Application CITY OF SARATOGA DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEW The two -story house at 14098 Palomino Way in Saratoga, CA was built in 1963 on the west side of a hill located on the east side of Palomino Way. It was built into the hill so that the garage located above (east of) the main house was at the level of the upper floor where the main entrance was located (the east side). The lower floor did not extend under the entire upper floor, but only under the western portion (because of the hill). However, the lower floor could be accessed from outside through doors on the west side. A covered deck was located on the west ( "view ") side at the level of the floor of the upper floor, and a walkway deck to the main deck was located on the north side of the house to allow access to the deck from outside. The design of the house was such that the western edge of the house "footprint" was quite irregular. The plan for the remodeling of this residence, initiated in the summer of 2005, adheres to the above general description of the original house. Basically, all the exterior walls (for both floors) but the west wall are to remain in the existing locations. A more detailed description of the action follows: External: 1. Move the garage southward so that its southern wall is in line with the south wall of the existing (and remodeled) house. Widen the garage to include the former carport (the space formerly_ between the house and the garage) i.e., make it a two -car garage. 2. Add to the west. (downhill) side of the existing irregular "footprint" of the house so as to make that boundary a straight line the length of the house passing through the existing westernmost portion of the house (the fireplace chimney). In other words, the westward extension of the house will not be increased, but will be evened out (except for the nook, see, item 4.). 3. Widen the covered deck on the west side. 4. On the upper floor near the kitchen, add a semicircular breakfast nook that extends to the west beyond the main house line (but not as far as the deck). Internal: 5. Replace the shop, family room/bar, two small bedrooms and a bathroom of the existing lower floor with a larger shop, a family room/bar, two larger bedrooms with baths, and a storage room. 6. Replace the master bedroom and bath, kitchen, living /dining room, small utility room, three bedrooms and 2 -1/2 baths of the existing upper floor with a larger master bedroom and bath, a larger kitchen, a larger living room, a larger dining room, a larger utility room, and a large office. 7. Keep the stairway between floors in the same place but use a halfway landing. 8. Place the main entrance on the east side of the upper floor as before, but move it closer to the north end so that it obviously the main entrance. (Before there were several entrances that could easily be mistaken for the main entrance.) Sincerely, Kirby Miller & Ca en Miller • • • • • CITY of SARATOGA Attention: Christopher A. Riordan, Senior Planner RE: Application No. PDR0700017 /Design Review Application PROJECT MOTIVATION After my first wife and I lived and raised a family in the house at 14098 Palomino Way for 31. years, she died of cancer (after 44 years of marriage). A few years later, I married Carmen, and she sold her house so that we could afford to remodel my house. The idea was to make it more suitable as a retirement home for an elderly couple (us) who hoped to have visits from friends and family. Toward that end we decided to put all of the rooms we would use daily on the upper floor where the main entrances are located and to use the lower floor mainly for grandchildren and guests, storage, and a shop. We wanted to: update the plumbing and electrical (especially automation), move the kitchen to the sunny south side of the house and enlarge it, enlarge and reduce the number of rooms, provide a larger, more private master bedroom, enlarge the covered deck, provide independent HVAC in the upstairs and downstairs for energy saving, and make a large playroom between the two guest bedrooms downstairs. We hoped to do all of these things while preserving the excellent view on the west side of the house and while achieving a simple but elegant country style for the house in general. These were the goals that are being met by the architectural plans drawn up by Craftsmen's Guild. Sincerely, Kirby Miller & Carmen Miller t Kirby and Carmen Miller 14098 Palomino Way. Saratoga, CA 95070 December 5, 2007 To Whom It May Concern: After 33.5 years at the above address, we decided to give it a facelift in the spring of 2005. Accordingly, we hired an architect/builder, developed plans, and submitted our remodeling application July 2005. Expecting the imminent need to vacate the premises, we rented and moved to a small home in Saratoga. We attempted to expedite our original application by collecting approval signatures from 7 of our nearest neighbors. While our neighbors were supportive, even with our best efforts, it took until June 2007 to obtain city approval for the remodeling to actually begin. This was partly due to the fact that we had to make three soil studies before we could get approval for an affordable foundation for the small additional footprint on one side of the house. In October 2007, during the subsequent process of remodeling our home, our builder was forced to remove more than 50% of the original studs from the upper floor due to termite infestation. According to the city, this changes the scope of our project and requires (among other things, such as paying an additional $6500 application fee) that we obtain the approval of our neighbors living within 500 feet of our home. We have now collected (or recollected) 15 approval signatures from our neighbors and believe we have satisfied all the additional requirements for our reapplication. Sincerely, Kirby and Carme iller is • Attachment 3 • NEIGHBOR NOTIFICATION for DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS D U October 27, 2007 DEC 0. R 2007 . CITY pF SARATOGA PROJECT ADDRESS: 14098 Palomino Way COMMUN11YDEVELOPMENT. APPLICANT: Kirby and Carmen Miller APPLICATION NUMBER: 06 -041 The Saratoga Planning commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concems regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concems and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concems or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. �fGMy 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 0% Al / G� Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone #: Sign ure Printed: NA L-A &c- z'0z • • NEIGHBOR NOTIFICATION for DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS October 27, 2007 PROJECT ADDRESS: 14098 Palomino Way APPLICANT: Kirby and Carmen Miller APPLICATION NUMBER: 06 -041 0 E C E � V E 0 DEC Ofi20ui CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The Saratoga Planning commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be 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 Neighbor Address: S wr Neighbor Phone #: — ((N Signature: Printed: 0 ` NEIGHBOR NOTIFICATION for DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS ,P j' i }, I October 27, 2007 lit ! h e Uu/ a PROJECT ADDRESS: 14098 Palomino Way GDUa' APPLICANT. Kirby and Carmen Miller APPLICATION NUMBER: 06 -041 The Saratoga Planning commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concems regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concems and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concems or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be 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): 1 31 3 Neighbor Name N ighbor dress: �" Neighbor Phone #: Signature: Printed: )AV • NEIGHBOR NOTIFICATION for DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS October 27, 2007 PROJECT ADDRESS: 14098 Palomino Way APPLICANT: Kirby and Carmen Miller APPLICATION NUMBER: 06 -041 DEC 6,_. CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The Saratoga Planning commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concems regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. —� signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project pans; 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 -9m /I Neighbor Address: i � l or 0 �c Rcwl Signature: Neighbor Phone #: Printed: 1146/?< L u/ Cl,evr/J NEIGHBOR NOTIFICATION for DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS October 27, 2007 PROJECT ADDRESS: 14098 Palomino Way APPLICANT: Kirby and Carmen Miller APPLICATION NUMBER: 06 -041 pECEE v DEC F.) c 77007 CITY Ur UUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The Saratoga Planning commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concems or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. X 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 Ftct- Ap- L 4. k L--- E1v912&- Neighbor Address: S I (40 t 4 ?I Gyzc.(5 '2o Neighbor Phone #: �'� • DS-ET Printed: 'Pi crft,P-4 7c� eft,,- V✓6c'72Cs • • • • NEIGHBOR NOTIFICATION for DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS October 27, 2007 PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT: APPLICATION NUMBER 14098 Palomino Way Kirby and Carmen Miller 06 -041 a E C E I V E DEC OR 2001 D CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The Saratoga Planning commission requires applicants to work with their . neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. /`My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project p ns; 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_ Neighbor Address' . Sig Neighbor Phone #: VP I 3 gr/ 'rinted- Neighbor' Notification Template for Development Applications Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: 4�0 9S P'4'LOM 1 N0 WAY. Applicant Name: �%Q /1?,EJ /Y /L•L GAP Application Number: --og o4 " o'f( The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications. prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga_ signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I. understand the scone of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be- address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. I have been notified that the scope of this project has changed ONLY in that over 50% of the framing had to be replaced due to termite infestation of the original framing. I understand that with that exception the finished project is the same as I approved previously. I have had the opportunity to review the project and have no objections. Neighbor Name: `W i z-s e�, e V' 26,,r4, 4 P. ZrAJ'i<As7A_� Neighbor Address: 13 s 4 S'AeA -7-L, c7h' c4 9sWo Signature: c 1Ls e - City of Saratoga Neighbor Phone #: DF I` ;X S3 Printed: Planning Department • • ,° 1 Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: / ��L4MlNO WA }l• PROJECT ADDRESS: Applicant Name: OR mxj /Y/1- L. CiP • Application Number: 40e The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing.. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to exress any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga` y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. I have been notified that the scope of this project has changed ONLY in that over 50% of the framing had to be replaced due to termite infestation of the original framing. I understand that with that exception the finished project is the same as I approved previously. I have had the opportunity to review Pe project and have no objections. OL Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: i i i Z ! 'r #r {; ;r?ft Neighbor Phone #: Signature: Printed: i City of Saratoga Planning Department 0 Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: /' PROJECT ADDRESS: �7� 9S P�#LOivl 1 N0 w' Y• Applicant Name: 1%Q 4IWzf /YIL.L.CAP • Application Number:. Oe Cc 0`f " The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing.. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to exress any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve. the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saralo9q. 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. I have been notified that the scope of this project has changed ONLY in that over 50% of the framing had to be replaced due to termite infestation of the original framing. I understand that with that exception the finished project is the same as I approved previously. I have had the opportunity to review the project and have no objections. MZ 7 S cc-4--J-11- �.Oo Neighbor Name: 5,7� Neighbor Address: Signature: Neighbor Phone 4: ` 7��1— � 30 T� Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department • • • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: / 0 PAL.OM1N0 WA�. PROJECT ADDRESS: 9S Applicant Name: lyxf /Y /LL C • Application Number: --W-4e C 6 ^ <51 The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by . applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga- L!!IMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. I have been notified that the scope of this project has changed ONLY in that over 50% of the framing had to be replaced due to termite infestation of the original framing. I understand that with that exception the finished project is the same as I approved previously. I have had the opportunity to review the project and have no objections. D� Neighbor Name: ( h ^ I 2 f •� �Li / Q lq .-V Neighbor Address: t j �j ✓�' Cift- Neighbor Phone #: r Signature: Printed: IN City of Saratoga Planning Department Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications /lfogg PALOMINO WA!'• Applicant Name: �%Q � INXI /)I//— C tP • Application Number: --#'* � C 6 01 1 The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public . hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take.this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I do NOT have any.concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. I have been notified that the scope of this project has changed ONLY in that over 50% of the framing had to be replaced due to termite infestation of the original framing. I understand that with that exception the finished project is the same as I approved previously. I have had the opportunity to review the project and have no objections. J Neighbor Name: h > Neighbor Address: Ll ��j� Neighbor Phone'�'� City of Saratoga M Printed: Planning Department 0 NEIGHBOR NOTIFICATION for DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS October 27, 2007 PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT: APPLICATION NUMBER 14098 Palomino Way Kirby and Carmen Miller 06 -041 The Saratoga Planning commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. r---� YL My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work, 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 (� ll, D iahah; Neighbor Address: 14,p y n &Lo m;Ao L.,,&y &r04Y,- c 4t g5oTo ,.s(. Neighbor Phone #: Signature: Printed: �����A • NEIGHBOR NOTIFICATION for DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS October 27, 2007 PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT: APPLICATION NUMBER 14098 Palomino Way Kirby and Carmen Miller 06 -041 The Saratoga Planning commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project.. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property: Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. _My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be 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 Neighbor Address: Sign Neighbor Phone #: Printed: ry/ f • • • 0 . • NEIGHBOR NOTIFICATION for DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS October 27, 2007 PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT: APPLICATION NUMBER 14098 Palomino Way Kirby and Carmen Miller 06 -041 The Saratoga Planning commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be 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 ✓T/ , //G Ze� Neighbor Address: / r � pp/ q2 Neighbor Phone #:,,//,7�- Printed: 'JS�� // � NEIGHBOR NOTIFICATION for DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS October 27, 2007 PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT: APPLICATION NUMBER: 14098 Palomino Way Kirby and Carmen Miller 06 -041 The Saratoga Planning commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project.. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be 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 Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone #: )79 Signature: _ Printed: /}- A • 0 • • 0 I] NEIGHBOR NOTIFICATION for DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS October 27, 2007 PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT: APPLICATION NUMBER: 14098 Palomino Way Kirby and Carmen Miller 06 -041 The Saratoga Planning commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concems regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project pans; 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 1 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 �u %e('� �os Neighbor Address: I ql` l PSI Z> Day 5a�g�g� 1 Neighbor Phone #: (q 6�) T6) ? `S 7 7Z Signature: Printed: Q Q 1 • 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 9th day of January, 2008, 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: PDR07 -0017 /14098 Palomino Way APPLICANT /OWNER: Kirby and Carmen Miller APN: 503 -68 -007 DESCRIPTION: The applicant request Design Review approval to remove an existing 1,320 square foot second story of an existing two -story single - family residence and replace it with a new 1,690 square foot second story addition in approximately the same location. The project also includes demolition of an existing garage and carport, construction of a new 466 square foot detached garage and a 370 square foot addition to the existing lower floor. The residence will not exceed 26 feet in height. The net lot size is 54,075 square feet. The site is zoned R -1- 40,000. 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, January 7, 2008. 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 201h day of December , 2007, that I deposited - 35 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 add- resses 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: 14098 Palomino. Way AP N : 503 -68 =007 that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. 0 t Deziise Kaspar ✓ r Advanced Listing Services • December 20, 2007 500' Ownership Listing Prepared For: 503 -68 -007 CARMEN F TAM 14098 PALOMINO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5301 503 -30 -011 SAMUEL & CAROLYN QUEZADA 15 SAUSAL DR PORTOLA VALLEY CA 94028 -7919 503 -30 -033 WILSON K & VIRGINIA KINKEAD OR CURRENT OWNER 13987 PIKE RD 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -5361 503 -30- 053,078 MARK P LENCIONI DR CURRENT OWNER 14105 PIKE RD 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -5364 503 -30 -074 CHOMAS V & ANN COPENHAGEN DR CURRENT OWNER 14430 PIKE RD >ARATOGA CA 95070 -5358 503 -30 -078 . vIARK P LENCIONI 4105 PIKE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5364 iO3 -68 -003 ZINA PIETERS )R CURRENT OWNER .4178 PALOMINO WAY >ARATOGA CA 95070 -5378 iO3 -68 -006 ZEMY & LILIANE CROMER )R CURRENT OWNER .4120 PALOMINO WAY �ARATOGA CA 95070 -5378 503 -30 -012 JOHN J & YVONNE ZAVOSITY OR CURRENT OWNER 14081 PIKE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5362 503 -30 -035 HOWARD M BAILEY OR CURRENT OWNER 14093 PIKE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5362 503 -30 -057 MARGARET L & PETER NOONAN 1270 S WINCHESTER BLVD 120 SAN JOSE CA 95128 -3911 503 -30 -076 ANURADHA L MAITRA OR CURRENT OWNER 14492 PIKE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5358 503 -31 -054 SHERMAN S & LILY FAN OR CURRENT OWNER 14150 DORENE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -9727 503 -68 -004 MARIA J ILNICKA OR CURRENT OWNER 14174 PALOMINO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5378 503 -68 -007 CARMEN F TAM OR CURRENT OWNER 14098 PALOMINO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5301 ;03 -68 -009 503 -68 -010 :HRIS & ZAINAB VLAHOPOULIOTIS EUN BRETTNER )R CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 4034 PALOMINO WAY 14012 PALOMINO WAY ;ARATOGA CA 95070 -5301 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5301 503 -30 -032 MARTIN C & A BERG OR CURRENT OWNER 13985 PIKE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5361 503 -30 -052 OROSZ L P & JUDITH E OR CURRENT OWNER 14113 PIKE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5364 503 -30 -071 RIAZUL & YASMEEN HAQ . OR CURRENT OWNER 13981 PIKE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5361 503 -30 -077 KAR K TAN OR CURRENT OWNER 13983 PIKE RD SARATOGA CA.95070 -5361 503 -68 -002 DEEPAK H & GEETA CHANDANI 14960 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6236 503 -68 -005 VINCENT N MORALES OR CURRENT OWNER 14152 PALOMINO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5378 503 -68 -008 FELIX J & KATHERINE SCHUDA OR CURRENT OWNER 14066 PALOMINO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5301 503 -68 -011 ALI & OMOLBANIN DJABBARI OR CURRENT OWNER 14011 PALOMINO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5301 is • 503 -68 -012 503 -68 -013 503 -68 -014 JAMES A & KATHLEEN CHRISTENSEN RONALD R & DAWNE ROSSI ROBERT POSADAS DR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER PALOMINO WAY 14111 PALOMINO WAY 14141 PALOMINO WAY TOGA CA 95070 -5301 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5379 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5379 503 -68 -015 503 -68 -016 503 -68 -022 M &. SHANLI MIKE RICHARD H & SHARON KELKENBERG PRADEEP FERNANDES DR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14168 PIERCE RD 14014 PIERCE RD 13962 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5391 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5347 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4875 503 -68 -023 FWURONG M & JUDY PAN PO BOX 2386 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -0386 :' ITY OF SARATOGA ATTN: Christopher Riordan 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE 3ARATOGA CA 95070 • • 503 -68 -026 CURTIS K & YVONNE CHING OR CURRENT OWNER 21500 MOUNT EDEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5302 Advanced Listing Services P.O Box 2593 Dana Point CA 92624 503 -68 -028 MANJULA & PREM TALREJA OR CURRENT OWNER 21475 MOUNT EDEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5302 I • N �o LEGEND AC ASPHALT CONCRETE V m CHIP CORRUGATED METAL PIPE �W'� OVERHEAD WIRE }•• - - CONIC CONCRETE SS -- SANITARY SEWER LINE SITE n g 2' MIN - GM GAS METER MT EDEN m WY GUY POLE W— wATER UNE jDPALOMINO — HB HOSE BIB o ,P JOINT POLE — — BOUNDARY LINE GA < S OH W OVERHEAD WIRE — CENTER LINE SARpTO - PVC POLY NNYL CHLORIDE PIPE , m lWA WATER METER -- . FENCE LINE �9,P 2R^ IN PLACE AS NOTED ON ARCHITECT'S' PLANS - - TREE TRUNK DNM/ETER 9 DIRECT WATER AWAY FROM THE FOUNDATION . W/DRIP UNE DRAWN O SPLASH BLOCK sc9T �m NO SCALE 0 P U 7+ N o VICINITY MAP C1 a z U A NTS � � STANDARD NOTES: I. PRIOR TO FOUNDATION NSPECTON BY THE CITY, THE LLS 6 RECORD SHAM PROVIDE A XSITY N COHIDCATION NAT ALL BWLDINO S T9AUS PRE PER THE MPROVED PUNS. U z X •..,�. _ II i I z ATrxA¢ 9.aPE cALaunaN q W w In I 6 � e.00z I L = OmznlzNU644) _ � Z I0 20 40 WHERE 5 = AVEitAGE SLOPE241 N O I I I - CONTOUR INTERVAL (NOT MORE THAN 5) = 2' V = ACGR TE GDNTCUR tENGIHS IN SCALE FEET - 17644' W E- M 1"'z - L - A = NET SITE AREA EXPRESSED W ACRES = 1.241 AC 7 SCALE:. 1 " =20' I N 3. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUYBEII 503 - 68-007 4. ADDRESS OF PROECT: 14098 PALOMINO WAY O O 36" OAH - \ •� C 1� S OYMER£ gRBY HITTER 2• d -1� c� ca m 6. EXISTING USE RE90ENnAL EE ] ICUµ ikEE 1' "a d pti E t - N69 O'00"W 7. ZONING DISTRICT: RI -10 l ' _ _ n a - GU %/ �GE.i_ B' LGM TREE. / x �� ' �• ] _ / 8. SIZE OF LOT. 54075 SF [ROSS. 51075 SF NET MORE OR TEA - /'ry / r� 9. ALLOWAaE FLOOR AREA MIN CALOJLATON FOR REDUCTIONS FOR SLOPE AND HDGNL I V _ SLOPE Ut60i mLiJM STAND ALLOWABIE FLOOR AREh1 4596 SF �,. EEC .. .} ��CI:179'ER r25 pn M / O N ALLOWABLE FOR >i5' CEBNG 0 SF i�X Mi. I, I ` ;1RUhKy ♦ ._ T\. 6 •iREG ) :CP � � ALLOWABLE RDOR AREA: 4596 SF /.T x s - IO SIZE OF STRUCTURE FIRST FLOOR EXISTING 1,974 SE, PROPOSED ;420 SF SECOND FLOOR EXISTING 1.320 SF. PROPOSED 1.690 S Ws IP C _ � I rzs�z z sA 3 " ,.3 9Att, TREE: GARAGE EXISTING 250 SF, PROPOSED /6fi SF RI CO CN80NT USING 228 SF, PROPOSED 0 SF ol - SHED EXHSnNG 128 SE, PROP09D 0 3 SJQ� EDD A]4,a 2 /TREE ' %'� � ` It. WPERV101TS SITE COVERAGE TDTAL MOAB SF. 18.SS 6 91E u /l 0 Otj POND ORDEWAY 5ZI S SE, % OF SITE HOLIK J' - WALKWAYS YS 1,1 SE, 5.45 6 SITE ,:\ SHMS YS ST. S. 11% 691E 1 4(r ,r '� 91E05 0 S. 0 S 6 91E V i ! >: '• .7a 4 4 - ` �.i\ Atlr _;�� °� i \ �-� r� C) uST ALL OTHER ITEMS OS 6 9TE es. 125 • a P ' G� \ / /. ,/ _60 zsJ.gp .� l' :� 12 SLOPE AT MWWG SITE: 2f `f 1 y� i4' >FI;UM THE Ek15TN M� 0 1 e. DE E BRUSH A D TREE .0 R / / 11 A6 6 RESIDENCE 41 YEARS OR N/A /Pi49 0 Fr 1 1�2 : F / -, I _ 4. LOWEST DEVATON AT BUILDING CORNETS IIB 60 FT a iS. HIGHEST DEVAnON Ai BNLIXNC CORNERS 12j. 10 FF Z I6. AVERAGE 6 Hl3 AND LOV ST UVA110N AT BUILDING GONERS, 121,65 FT ¢ O n J 'QI w3 I.�� NB 4 PLUM,'l, Na.3$ 17. 7TW MOST DFVACW OF THE STRUCTURE A4.+dV+EDROYR�sE�. Iq4 OFT I=- p V }t 5 TR Er ! t y 18. LINEAR FEET 6 ME TOTAL EXISTING EXTERIOR WADS 279.5 FT _ I PLUA1 /1RQ a t / NOTE GREATER G THAN 50S DEMO IS 1OMSIDDU A NEW RESIDENCE. 1 P 1 !oo t 1' i� O;� Y • - 19. BRIEF WRITTEN MSCRIPnON 6 PROJECT p M %.s 12iTTE4 - 2"rIRE ,-a O !. I ML Am1nm TO araE Fxlsnxc RESIDENCE AND ¢ ,O I 6 TREE L'�A --= •4 O N t { RDAOVAL 6 THE EXISTING GARA6 AND SHED. Q. U W� CONC PATIO r t 1J BEES 20. FLOOD ZONE NOT A MAPP D FLOOD HAZARD AREA. PANEL NUM80 06035100038. a \rt OU Alb 2" PR COT,W" ^ \ W BOUNDARY NOTE a I1.gd ` R TR5EIt. / 7 K�L - H1G+^` -- �" _ "� 727.6 i 5 EE 1 N °a.pm` THE BOUNDARY SHOWN WAS DETERMINED I 1' FROM RECORD INFORMATION AS SHOWN ON o . - Z RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED AT BOOK 144 \ I OF MAPS AT PAGE 1, SANTA CLARA REEE�N">BAPPLEry ^� E ON .8 TDT.(iE7/p�Nyj V /AL Bs 1 COUNTY RECORDS. / •y ��. TREE . /R _E C iPt 5 i 18 PWM TR' ! TR .�I �'� _ BOUNDARY SURVEY PERFORMED UNDER THE SUPERVISION !� EE N6 '59 37 W ' OF TIMOTHY JOHN REDO, LS 7527. .Ye• WI' PVC �. AC DP,IVEWAY Bt 32686 - 11 PINE CL STERD 2� TB` 0 s9 1 \f I \ \9JF\ 07 C0.1 ATE: 0 BENCHMARK Q FOUND IRON PIPE IN MONUMENT WELL IN PALOMINO WAY ADJACENT TO SOUTHERLY PROPERTY LINE. ASSUMED ELEVATION = 100.00 FT - BASIS OF BEARINGS p� fy THE BEARING, N 11'53'45"E BETWEEN TWO FOUND MONUMENTS ON PALOMINO WAY O SHOWN 1Lr5 Ill:! 'lIS7 U ON RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDER AT BOOK W ' 144 OF MAPS AT PAGE 1 IN SANTA CLARA E_ COUNTY RECORDS WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY. DEC 2 0 2007 .,� DATE DS -21_07 CITY OF SARATOGA pDF aS,O q SCA(E r =20' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ?�� N, ✓ v DRAWN BY: ST/PW 5� m v 9mTr:r DALE 05-20 -2005 79 SURVEY CREW: ZJ/VB . - Nr9r CIVIL Ap V'4 SHEET .FOR CALT40P Yzi3�0,7 . - C OF t SHEETS . - p PROJ N0. 05 -0330 . DWG NO. 5033GP PLANS TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWIN& Al 2001 Uniform Building Code as amended by the 2001 California Building Code, ,44 2004 National Electric Code as amended by the 2004 California Electricl Code, NEW ROOF PLAN AND FIRE DISTRICT 2001 Uniform Mechanical Code as amended by the 2001 California Mechanical Code, TITLE 24 2001 Uniform Plumbing Code as amended by the 2001 California Plumbing Code, 2005 Enregy Efficiency Standards 2001 California Fire Code, All other applicable state and local code and ordinances, SHEETINDEX AO GENERALNOTES Al SITE PLAN A2 (E) BASEMENT & FLOOR PLAN A5 (N) BASEMENT & ELECT. PLAN ,44 (N) FLOOR & ELECTRICAL PLAN A5 NEW ELEVATION PLAN A6 NEW ROOF PLAN AND FIRE DISTRICT A7 SECTION AS NOTICE OF APPROVAL T24 TITLE 24 51 FOUNDATION PLAN 52 FLOOR FRAMING PLAN 53 ROOF FRAMING PLAN SDI GENERAL NOTES & TYPICAL DETAILS 902 TYPICAL DETAILS SD3,4,5 I GENERAL DETAILS HI, 142, N TYPICAL INSTALLATION DETAILS 1 SITE &GRADING PLAN 2 DRAINAGE CURTAIN SOIL REPORT TITLE 1 Prepared By: Ali M. Oskoorouchi, PhD, P.E., G.E. State of California Licensed Civil and Geotechnical Engineer P.O. Box 66245 Scotts Valley, CA, 95067 Ph: (408) 835 -2215 FAX: (866)716 -4785 www,aliosk.coin Project KM -01 -06 ENERGY CONSERVATION NOTES: Lou M. Gilpin, CEG, PhD Engineering Geologist GILPIN GEOSCIENCES, INC. 3228 Silverado Trail St. Helena, CA 94574 Ph: (707)251 -8543 Fax: (707) 257 -8543 (Appendix "B ") THE EXISTING HOUSE DOES NOT HAVE PROPER INSULATION TO INSTALL NEW THERMAL INSULATION (BATT INSULATION) ALL AROUND THE HOUSE (ADDITION AND EXISTING) . ALL WINDOWS (EXISTING AND NEW) SHALL BE DOUBLE GLAZED REMODELED HOUSE TO THREE SUN TUNNEL AND TWO SKYLIGHT. SEE ROOF PLAN. TO USE ENERGY EFFICIENT APPLIANCE ONLY. INCLUDING LIGHTS. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: CONSTRUCTION SITE SHALL BE ENCLOSED BY G OPAQUE FENCE AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION. NO CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT, PORTABLE TOILETS, TRASH CONTAINERS, OR DEBRIS SHALL BE PLACED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY. A TRASH CONTAINER SHALL BE MAINTAINED,ON SITE AT ALL TIMES AND DEBRIS ON SITE WHICH COULD OTHERWISE BLOW AWAY SHALL BE REGULARLY COLLECTED AND PLACED IN CONTAINER. ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS (WOOD SCRAPS AND OTHER DEBRIS, WHICH CANNOT BLOW AWAY) SHALL BE PILED WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINES OF THE PROJECT IN A NEAT AND SAFE MANNER. THE PROJECT SHALL HAVE A SIGNAGE VIEWABLE FROM THE PUBLIC STREET THAT INDICATES THE HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION AS: MON -FRI FROM 7:30 am TO 6 pm SATURDAYS FROM 9 am TO 5 pm. PRIOR TO REQUESTING A FOUNDATION INSPECTION BY THE CITY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OR CIVIC ENGINEER WHO PREPARED THE SOIL INVESTIGATION SHALL PROVIDE A FIELD REPORT (IN WRITING) WHICH SHALL STATE THE FOLLOWING: 1- THE BUILDING PAD WAS PREPARED AND COMPACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SOIL REPORT AND SPECIFICATION. 2- THE FOUNDATION AND / OR PIER EXCAVATION DEPTH AND BACKFILL MATERIALS AND DRAINAGE (IF APPLICABLE) SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORM TO THE SOIL REPORT AND APPROVED PLANS. PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION FOR ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OR CIVIL ENGINEER WHO PREPARED THE SOIL INVESTIGATION SHALL ISSUE A FINAL REPORT STATING THE COMPLETED PAD, FOUNDATION FINISH GRADING AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORM TO THE APPROVED PLANS SPECIFICATIONS AND INVESTIGATION. SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT NOTES: PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN DESIGNATED HAZARDOUS FIRE AREA. - ROOF COVERING SHALL BE FIRE RETARDANT AND COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED FOR CLASS A ROOFING REPLACEMENT LESS THAN 10 % TOTAL ROOF AREA SHALL BE EXEMPT ( CITY OF SARATOGA CODE 16- 15.080) - AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS SHALL BE INSTALLED FOR THE ENTIRE 4,576 sq. ft. DWELLING INCLUDING ANY GARAGE WORKSHOP STORAGE AREA AND BASEMENT. AN NFPA 13D SPRINKLER SYSTEM IS REQUIRED (SEE S & R SP -1 FOR REQUIREMENTS) THE DESIGNER / ARCHITECT IS TO CONTACT THE APPROPRIATE WATER COMPANY TO DETERMINE THE SIZE OF SERVICE AND METER NEEDED TO MEET FIRE SUPPRESSION AND DOMESTIC REQUIREMENTS. DOCUMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED INSTALLATION AND ALL CALCULATIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT FOR APPROVAL. THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AND UNDERGROUND WATER SUPPLY MUST BE INSTALLED BY A LICENSED CONTRACTOR. ( CITY OF SARATOGA CODE 16- 20.165 FOR DESIGNATED HAZARDOUS FIRE AREA ALL EXISTING REMODELED BUILDINGS WITH ADDITIONS > 500 sq ft) PREMISES IDENTIFICATION: APPROVED NUMBERS OR ADDRESSES SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL NEW AND EXISTING BUILDINGS IN SUCH A POSITION AS TO BE PLAINLY VISIBLE AND LEGIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY. (CFC 901.4.4 ) MOM Ri1i W U W v W g� a U b rFy S V � oil, 5 111 4 d C� U II 1 , rte'; r�E s fell 1.1 sae W U W ''Q C^J MMj iNiti � U � 8 a U b n joi EXIST. LOWER FLOOR PLAN 114" = V -0" LIVING AREA 2008 sq ft M EXIST. L_ EXIST. DOWNSPOUT LIVING AREA 1974 sq It FEV151(X�h By 08/10/ 7 og W U z W Q o .� .5U o a � U a uljl A' EXIST. i J DOWNSPOUT r«Rs EXIST. mw DOWNSPOUT EXISTING FLOOR PLAN now 114" = V-0" A2 Nt:VV LVVVCK t'LVVK t'LAN 114" = V -0" NOTE: *IN FIXED PANELS MUST BE SAFETY GLAZING MATERIAL (PER CBC 2406.4) ARC -FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTER FOR ALL 125 -VOLT SINGLE PHASE, 15 AND 20 AMPHERE OUTLETS IN RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT BEDROOM (CEC 210-12) 900 S.F. / 150 = 6 S.F. OF VENT REQ. 6 S.F. / 0.444 ='13.5 = 14 VENT REQ. SIZE 4" X16" (TYP) ADDED 3 VENT MORE ELECTRICAL LEGEND SINGLE FOLF SNTGH -�} CAN LIGHT. 3 5-1W115NT04 FWORtSG NT FIXTL'FE G 4 -rtAY 5NT04 ------- EIt.GTRJGAL LINO p SNTOH 1W DIt•ImUz o UNOM OABINET j FW0Rt51ZNT Fl:<TJFE GFl GROUND FAI.IT ® AG'{x INTER-GONHEGTJJ IRllPiER NTJR SNIcl�E DET°iOTOR NTH v FI NATaSc-PRODr /GRd.1Np BATTERY B •K UP. F•Y1LT INTE nF MR Er, BOLL FuN, BUTTON sw 1/2 HOT DUPLEX OJTLCT GHIMC TO SNITCH 220 220 VOLT OJTLET ® EXHAUST FAN R DUPLJx OM (FLOOR) FAN /FLOUR LIGHT 0- DUFL tX CVTLtT —�Fxs HCG-C BIBS 7� C.JLING OJTLET TMrFU0NE OJTLI T CAT5 CABLZ / TV CUTLPT 3?UB -GUT FGft Fi1NRL FIXNRC g`s CATCGOR'r 5 GUTLET. ( CJLING FAN NV UGHT OT THM- :)STAT H V A C. VENT k4ALL NI% TED RXTI et I y TCE'I-- I5TLFt (f� fFJUI CJLING RCTURN AIR GRILL O GAS SUPRY GRAND CNANDPI -TEFL 18 "x18" Gp.D AIR RENRN S`•IALL GHANDELICR ALMM VOLUE SWITCH ® 200 Amp MAIN PANS N.S NIMPATIC JOTMN SETH (.J,1 WN TUNNtL w /SJ.F \ / LIGHT i" LL MOINTtD LIGHT EF FIXTURJ (i�9� ems. qy --L W FPN ' GAN LIGHT p.GUR REP_r 5 GAN LIGHT E —] --T ® VANTILATAIN FAIT 10 EMMIOR LIGHT WITH NOTM ® SPEAKER SENSOR W/P 1 0510& 2007 03110 2007 ELECTRI .aI g�l E fit, 0 W U z W a" vs o �w o� p". b0 � O W H R r� EA cd U111 `i ry I I ��I I k' ELEGTRIGAL LEGEND S!NGLE POLL slITO, Y SAN LIGHT, J 3-WAY9WTGH -F -_ FLO32 CENT MX.TJF= 4 9 -WAY 9WTG4 - - - - - -- ELEGTR:GAL LN2 ¢j D SW TGN Y!' 011—rR ® UNDER GA9INcT FLUGRESCcN T FI,'<TUi c GM GRGLND =AVLr IN ?ERIv'T'TtR ®5D AG /DG INTER:GNNEGTtD' I "�, GFl 1W .JNG 9MOKe DerECTOR r+iu 3ATTE -9.KA: [Jr. FAULT INTERF1:PirR �1B SELL FV9H 9VTTGTI 1/2 HOT DUPLEX GU ^! ET TO SWTC.H GH!ME 2iV 220 VCA' r0.'1ET EIHAUS. FAN L.G. DUPLEX OUTLET,' i OOF; FAN /ROJR LIGHT l DUPLEX OJTLrT I� "P . HoEE 3199 _ _ ^ -___ ^ -� •� ` Gtl_ING OUTLET TLL- EPHONC ouTI -er CAT5 GAOLS n rJ OV LtT 5'N3 -✓lf FOR MJTUR[ plx,jRE /UVAND FILTER GATEGOZY 5 OUTLET. GtILINV FAN r1' LIGHT QT THE41IIOiTAT PLR H V A C. VEMT 1'WLL MO.1+TtD FLXTLRE '7 I h> TGt KIGK RYI�ISTER CEILING MGVNT NX WIE GEIL!NG RDI11fZN AIR GRILL C QI�.O _ jJIGj _ GRAND GHANDEJ -1 F © GA9 9L'PPLY N 30611 I fill 30F11 IB "x�1B1"COI -D WR RErJRN fp SMALL -AN--,— IGAN &FA'EE, AU= Vm I SWITCH ® 200 .Amp MAN rAN:l NS AUTOMATIC MOTICIN SENSOR ( §, %N TUNNEL w/ 2 F / LIGHT jay WALL MOUNT?D LICE T FIX VRE GPN LIGHT FLGVR f.\ / 9JN TUNNEL w/ FAry �1 REGE_99 CAN LIGHT I�� 10] aKYLIGHT ® VANnILATION FAN L. ® SPEAKER EXTERMR UGHT WITH MOrM SENSOR V/P LEGEND: EJQ5TING WALL TO REMAIN NEW WALL5 68' -3" B -B 21,_0" ATTIC FAN ON MOTION ATTIC WALL — — SENSOR J 2046„ \ I P NEW _ ' CCESi N' GARAGE N N 5' -0" B' -8" 7' -5" 10'_9" 6' -8" 2'- 4' -11" 12' N W COVERED ENTRANCE T MAX. THRESHOLD N ' (SEE ELEVATION) TO TO �F LANDIGI /'1 SONOW TI T I ONE- HOURPRE ING,SELF- LO WG RESISTIVE PROTE TION O 20 MINUTE, D R - I TO R.OGF SHEAT — � SOUND INSU fZ7E0 - b b - (E) AI PANEL _________ ______ I �f T MPEhEO V. `'f ,TEMPS D WALL E - 11.1PE3_ _._ _I\SU ER - �6 SIP P- L, +' T N A (M U I 1 Erz�Q ;' j I ,l•CLE- JND RECIRCU T G 2, -9° I WATER P M SLNTUfyy ftiTi +90' -6" P a - ' '` \ -' -- F A+LL L SE f TUB RYKYL T—1 WINDOW ' �� SUN 'TICS, \ _- bIFTING__ SASM4F 191 At IL; � I 6' BEDROCpM 7 i1 I < t'111 �!IaC iw' . I C48INETWITH ' EL "ks 1i - -- - �.. s: 1 WINDO� MASTWK ` INULATED`1 WAILL PLF -F -_ -- - : 4 'i -- $S - y ! n I! 1 - - -- _ IGHT - ^^ I ( / ( SUNO(iTICS i IiZ _ _ ^ -___ ^ -� •� ` PRISMA C M /UVAND FILTER PLR 111 30611 60611 30611 ) 90511 3 N 30611 I fill 30F11 / / / fp 1 &FA'EE, TEM�ERED —EDR �' &SLP RD �/ 6F7 , FIXED 0 TEMPEF�D / &FIxEC /�`\\ / \ 1 15'.T BALCONY _ P - --- - -- \ - I2' -3• 2' 8 -0• -d� 3' -O' !c 3' 3' -O' 4' I4' EVE z4 1' -!• �L_a Flx D tr +a S2' - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2 0" y WINDOWS ON CIRCULAR WALL NEW WALL LIVING AREA (2x6 EXTERIOR NEW FLOOR PLAN 2419egft FRAMING) L — — — — — — -- — -J 1/4" = V -0" _ 16'_1" 10' -9" B -B 41'5" REVISIC /IN 08111 06 i TY - . !24/0 9 .08 /I /200 .10! 1200 .10 /1 /20U S $ qmax }18t$ l_ .2a�� I Mbi U V1 O nJ p U Wcn IIaa o� u C� n� ®mom A4 REV610N5 BY I OS /10 07 NEW DECK (SEE. PLAN) LEFT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4 "= 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"= I'-0" NEW WOOD SIDING ALL NEW FIRE RETARDANT (TYPICAL) ASPHALT ROOF COVERING (TYP.) NOTE: ALL NEW DOORS & WINDOWS CLASS 'A' ROOF INSTALLATION REO'D ALL (N) ROOFING 4" WOOD TRIM WHITE COLOR AROUND ALL THE DOORS AND WINDOWS (TYP) ri- r jJEWCARRIAGE RIGHT ELEVATION \W CARRIAGE DOOR .- W/ AUTO + SCALE: 1/4"= V -0" DOOR OPENING TUB WINDOW W.C. WINDOW NEW DBL. ENTRY DOOR W/ ALL NEW FIRE RETARDANT M. BEDROOM NEW SKYLIGHT /raeticnna ASPHALT ROOF COVERING (TYP.) WINDOW REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1' -0" WINDOWS ON CIRCULAR ' WALL s W Q 3 � a qqq� U to rn 1--1 h�l F7 b m 1. Y I REVISIONS 7 f Ia e� �6�sg w U W Mu Lai) Q � 00 oU �s w M A7 • Item 4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. /Location: 07 -029 —13921 River Ranch Circle Type of Application: Demolition of Existing Single -Story Residence and Construction of New Two -Story Residence Owner: Maesumi Staff Planner: Suzanne Thomas, Assistant Planne�r Meeting Date: January 9, 2008 APN: 397 -25 -009 Department Head: John Livingstone, AICP ♦ \Y\ -..° •f +�' f' ,...,. i : • nom„ t \. r .o` fit^ S ,( t�_Y\•�G1 � �'x'� 1s +" ' .. `: • .,414 � rr L y G� e� % ,r ..I• _NrnwaaN s __, m. 0.62 �o�e 3 �, • � ` op' x':.• d ', .. ,, •s.v,�• S °. F � � spa. 0..58 AG iIAN. ;. " __ �,nx 7p^I .•'R .� _q,,fV ., �I,c`� •'' 0.8Z'�C. iIAM. a \ _`° °.' AVM .. •�' �' 2 Subject: 13921 River Ranch Circle APN: 397 -25 -009 500' Radius. 13921 River Ranch Circle CASE HISTORY: Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 07/21/06 12/17/07 12/26/07 12/21/07 01/03/08 The applicant requests Design Review Approval to demolish an existing single -story ranch -style residence and construct a new two -story home using Craftsman -style materials. An existing shed will also be removed. The total floor area of the proposed residence will be 4,355 square feet including an attached garage. The proposal includes the removal of one Ordinance size tree, a 22 -inch diameter Siberian elm. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not exceed 26 -feet. The net lot size is 18,839 square -feet and the site is zoned R -1- 10,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review application with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. Staff is not recommending any permanent conditions of approval. Page 2 of 9 • • • Application No. 07 -029, 13921 River Ranch Circle • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R- 1- 10,000 r� GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential (M -10) MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: Gross: 18,839 square feet; Net: 18,839 square feet SLOPE: Approximately 3.00 % average site slope and 2.00% slope at building site GRADING REQUIRED: Minimal grading required for increased footprint. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed new single - family residence is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures ", Class 3 of Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 ( "CEQA Guidelines "). This exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures and no exception to that exemption applies. MATERIALS AND COLORS: Materials include stone veneer accents, a slate tile roof, wood carriage -style garage doors, and a wood and wrought -iron front door. The siding, windows, and trim will be painted in shades of brown, tan, and bronze. The colors and materials boards are available on file with the Community Development Department and will be presented at the site visit and public hearing. Detail Colors and Material Mfg. & S eciBcation # Windows Bronze Finish Marvin Windows Front Door Wood and Wrought Iron Cantera Lerida Garage Door Stained wood Carriage Door Amarr Runion Roof Slate Rustic Brown Blend Tile Monier Lifetile Other Stucco Stone Veneer Desert Blend Cobblefield Bldg. Color Kelly -Moore Spanish Sand Accent Color Kelly -Moore Cargo Brown Fireplaces All gas- burning Page 3 of 9 Application No. 07 -029; 13921 River Ranch Circle PROJECT DATA: R -1- 10,000 Zoning Proposed Required Net Site Area: 18,839 SF Site Coverage Residence and Garage: 2,868 SF Driveway: 650 SF Maximum Walkways and Paved Areas: 515 SF Allowable = 11,303 TOTAL Site Coverage 4,033 SF (21.4 %) SF (60 %) Floor Area Existing First Floor Area, inc. Garage: 2,185 SF Existing Accessory Structure (to be removed): 180 SF TOTAL Existing Floor Area 2,365 SF Maximum Allowable = Proposed First Floor Area: 2,393 SF 4,362 SF Proposed Second Floor Area: 1,317 SF Proposed Garage Area: 400 SF Proposed Enclosed Porch: 75 SF Proposed Double - Counted Area: 170 SF TOTAL Proposed Floor Area 4,355 SF Setbacks First Second First Second Floor Floor Floor Floor Front: 32.0 Feet 63.5 Feet 25 Feet 25 Feet Rear: 30.6 Feet 38.5 Feet 25 Feet 35 Feet Left Side: 16.6 Feet 34.8 Feet 10 Feet 15 Feet Right Side: 11.0 Feet 18.0 Feet 10 Feet 15 Feet Height Lowest Elevation Point: 395.79 Highest Elevation Point: 396.37 Maximum Height Average Elevation Point: 396.08 422.08 (26 Feet) Proposed Topmost Point: 421.92 (25.84 Feet) Page 4 of 9 • • • • Application No. 07 -029; 13921 River Ranch Circle PROJECT DISCUSSION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS The applicant requests Design Review Approval to demolish an existing single -story ranch -style residence and a shed and construct a new two -story home. The total floor area of the proposed residence will be 4,355 square feet including an attached garage. The proposal includes the removal of one Ordinance size tree, a 22 -inch diameter Siberian elm. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not exceed 26 -feet. The net lot size is 18,839 square -feet and the site is zoned R -1- 10,000. The average slope of the site is 3 %. Study Session A Study Session was held on February 13, 2007 to provide input to the applicant and staff on neighborhood compatibility, bulk, height, and design. The Planning Commission stated that two -story houses were not prohibited in this neighborhood but suggested that larger second floor setbacks and the use of wood and other softer materials would be more compatible with the other homes on the street. The Commission preferred to protect neighbor privacy and reduce the perception of bulk by incorporating high windows and locating windows away from lot lines rather than constructing bare walls with no windows. Angling the first floor relative to the lot and stepping back the second floor were suggested to reduce the perception of mass (Attachment 2). Modifications to Design Since the Study Session, Staff has held numerous meetings with the applicant and with some of the neighbors. The applicant has made several modifications and submitted subsequent revisions in an effort to accommodate the desires of Staff, the Commission, and the neighbors. The size of the second floor has been reduced by almost 200 square feet.. With the current design, approximately two- thirds of the floor area will be on the first floor. The house will be angled away from the street so that the first floor living area will be approximately 33 feet farther back than the front of the garage. The peak of the roof is set back approximately 58 feet from the front of the garage. To enhance privacy for the neighbors, the only upstairs windows on the left side of the house will be a single bathroom window that will be located approximately six feet above the floor. As shown in the chart below, most of the second story setbacks have been increased since the Study Session (the increased setbacks are bolded). The second story setback on the left side of the house has been increased by more than 14 feet so that it is now exceeds the required setback by almost 20 feet. Setbacks Feb.2007 Nov.2007 Feb.2007 Nov.2007 First Floor First Floor Second Floor Second Floor Front: 44.5 Feet 32.0 Feet 67.8 Feet 63.5 Feet Rear: 32.6 Feet 30.6 Feet 37.0 Feet 38.5 Feet Left Side: 17.8 Feet 16.6 Feet 20.4 Feet 34.8 Feet Right Side: 10.0 Feet 11.0 Feet 15.0 Feet 18.0 Feet Page 5 of 9 Application No. 07 -029; 13921 River Ranch Circle Architectural Style The original design, which was reviewed at the Study Session, used stucco with stone veneer. The front elevation included a porch entry that.was higher than the adjoining first floor roofline and numerous hip roofs and prominent windows on both floors. These factors emphasized the perception of bulk and contrasted with the surrounding single - story ranch -style homes on the block (Attachment 3). The revised design incorporates elements of the Craftsman style that include gabled dormers, corbels, exposed roof beams, and a stone - covered chimney. A low- pitched gable roof at the entry way and horizontal features, such as siding and stone facing along the base of the "home, help to reduce the perception of mass. The design strives for a single - story appearance across the front by locating the second floor within the roof. The front of the house steps back approximately 31 feet from the first floor to the second floor. The second floor on the left side of the home is set back approximately 18 feet from the first floor, locating it almost 35 feet from the left property line and enhancing the privacy of the neighbors to the left. The simplification of design and the horizontal features make this project more sympathetic to the surrounding ranch -style homes (Attachment 3). Trees Fifteen ordinance -sized trees, which are located on or adjacent to the subject property, could potentially be impacted by demolition and construction. These non - native species include American sweetgum, Western chokecherry, Black walnut, Ash, Willow, California sycamore, and Siberian elm. The Siberian elm is located within the footprint of the proposed home and will be removed and replaced with trees of equal value. Compliance with all Arborists' recommendations shall be included as a condition of approval to ensure that all ordinance -sized trees will be protected during construction (Attachment 4). Geotechnical Clearance Geotechnical Clearance with conditions was granted for this project based on the review letter prepared by the City Geotechnical Consultant (City Geologist), dated January 23, 2007. Santa Clara County Water District The Santa Clara County Water District (SCCWD) issued a permit, dated December 20, 2006, for the construction of a single family residence. This included supporting infrastructure, such as a storm drainage system adjacent to SCCWD easement and the west bank of Saratoga Creek. Energy Efficiency The house has been designed to protect Saratoga Creek and the ordinance -sized trees on or near the site. The amount of site coverage will be reduced to 21.4 percent in contrast with the allowed 60 percent for this zoning district. Placing minimal coverage in this natural setting will help to preserve natural cooling and shading and reduce the energy needs for the home. Additional house shading will be provided by the covered porch and loggia. The Page 6 of 9 • Application No. 07 -029; 13921 River Ranch Circle carpet, carpet pad, and floor covering adhesives will be certified to the "Green Label" standard by the Carpet and Rug Institutes. The energy needed for heating will be reduced through the use of on -demand water heaters. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has provided neighbor notification forms from several nearby properties. Concerns about privacy and the compatibility of a two -story home in this neighborhood have been raised by some of the neighbors (Attachment 5). All parcels within 500 feet of the subject parcel have been notified by Staff, both for the Study Session and for the Public Hearing (Attachment 6). 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. The stone trim, wood doors, and neutral shades of tan and brown will blend with the surrounding rural environment. Fourteen of the fifteen ordinance -sized trees near the project will be protected and preserved, and the elm that is to be removed will be replaced with trees of equal value. Saratoga Creek will be protected in that no construction will take place within 25 feet of the top of the creek bank and a current permit will be obtained from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. 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 Approval. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all of the following Design Review findings stated in City Code Section 15- 45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the maximum height of the proposed two -story dwelling is 26 feet. The project has been designed in a manner that minimizes interference with views and privacy to adjacent properties, including setbacks that meet or exceed the minimum setbacks required by Code. The proposed second floor is located more than 34 feet from the left side property line. Saratoga Creek and several adjacent trees are located to the rear of the house, providing additional screening and distance between this site and the homes on Jerries Drive. The proposed home has been designed so that the second floor steps in from the first floor along the sides of the house, thereby reducing potential interference with views and privacy. Page 7 of 9 Application No. 07 -029; 13921 River Ranch Circle (b) Preserve natural landscape. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that one (1) protected tree is proposed for removal and fourteen (14) other protected size trees could potentially be affected by the project; however, as conditioned and mitigated the project will preserve the existing natural landscape. The elm that is to be removed will be replaced, with trees of equal value, and no construction will be allowed within 25 feet of the top of the bank of Saratoga Creek. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed, project, is not requesting removal of Native and/or Heritage Trees. In addition, the project, as conditioned, would not impact Native and/or Heritage Trees. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the, second story, as viewed from the front of the house, is located within the roof. The applicant is proposing a neutral color pallet for the exterior building, window trim, and roofing materials. Furthermore, incorporating varying rooflines, large setbacks between the first and second floor, and horizontal exterior building materials, such. as siding and stone trim, will reduce the perception of excessive bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that there is a mix of one and two -story residences on adjacent streets; however, the homes on River Ranch Circle are predominately single story. Several of these homes have, - gabled roofs and horizontal elements, such as siding or brick trim. The proposed project is sympathetic to the design of nearby homes in that it incorporates siding, stone trim, neutral colors, and natural materials and strives for a single -story appearance as viewed from the front. The proposal is compatible in bulk and height with the neighborhood. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that -since the building site is relatively flat and the proposed addition is in the general area .of the existing residence, minimal grading is proposed. In addition, the project is conditioned to conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. The project is also conditioned to require detention of stormwater on site, to the maximum extent reasonably feasible. (g) Design policies and techniques. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed -project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in that, for example: The use of stone along the lower portion of the house and the siding creates horizontal proportions that reduce the perception of bulk. The second floor and peak roof heights are all set back from the footprint of the house and these varying rooflines break up massing. The wood, stone, and neutral colors will blend with the natural environment. Page 8 of 9 • • Application No. 07 -029; 13921 River Ranch Circle STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that 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. 2. Study Session Report, February 13, 2007. 3. Front elevations of project as reviewed at Study Session and as currently proposed. 4. Arborist Reports and tree fencing by City Arborist Kate Bear, dated August 4, 2006. 5. Neighbor Notification templates. 6. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 7. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A ". Page 9 of 9 Attachment 1 • t is RESOLUTION NO Application No. 07 -029. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Maesumi; 13921 River Ranch Circle WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to demolish an existing single -story ranch -style residence and a shed and construct a new two -story home at 13921 River Ranch, which is located in the R -1 -40 district; and WHEREAS, the project, which includes an addition to an existing residence is categorically exempt from the California 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; 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 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 6.0 — Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The stone trim, wood doors, and neutral shades of tan and brown will blend with the surrounding rural environment. Fourteen of the fifteen ordinance -sized trees near the project will be protected and preserved, and the elm that is to be removed will be replaced with trees of equal value. Saratoga Creek will be protected in that no construction will take place within 25 feet of the top of the creek bank and a current permit will be obtained from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. 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 tl :e adjacent surroundings. As conditioned, the application meets the Findings required for Design Approval. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to meet the following criteria for Design Review specified in Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. This fording may be made in the affirmative in that the maximum height of the proposed two -story dwelling is 26 feet. The project has been designed in a manner that minimizes interference with views and privacy to adjacent properties, including setbacks that 07 -029; 13921 River Ranch Circle meet or exceed. the minimum setbacks required by Code. The proposed second floor is located more than 34 feet from the left side property line. Saratoga Creek and several adjacent trees are located to the rear of the house, providing additional screening and distance. between this site and the homes on Jerries Drive. The proposed home has been designed so that the second floor steps in from the first floor along the sides of the house, thereby reducing potential interference with views and privacy. (b) Preserve natural landscape. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that one (1) protected tree is proposed. for removal and fourteen (14) other protected size trees could potentially be affected by the project; however, as conditioned and mitigated the project will preserve the existing natural landscape. The elm that is to be removed will be replaced with trees of equal value, and no construction will be allowed, within 25 feet of the top of the bank of Saratoga Creek. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project is not requesting removal of Native and/or Heritage Trees. In addition, the project, as conditioned, would not impact Native and/or Heritage Trees. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the second story, as viewed from the front of the house, is located within the roof. The applicant is proposing a neutral color pallet for the exterior building, Window trim, and roofing materials. Furthermore, incorporating varying rooflines, large setbacks between the' first and second floor, and horizontal exterior building materials, such as siding and stone trim, will reduce the perception of excessive bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that there is a mix of one and two -story residences on adjacent streets; however, the homes on River Ranch Circle are predominately single story. Several of these homes have gabled roofs and horizontal elements, such as siding or brick trim. The proposed project is sympathetic to the design of nearby homes in that it incorporates siding, stone trim, neutral colors, and natural materials and strives for a single -story appearance as viewed from the front. The proposal is compatible in bulk and height with the neighborhood. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. This finding may be made in the affirmative in.that since the building site is relatively flat and the proposed addition is in the general area of the existing residence, minimal grading is proposed. In. addition, the project is conditioned to conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. The project is also conditioned to require detention of stormwater on site, to the maximum extent reasonably feasible. (g) Design policies and techniques. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in that, for example: The use of • Page 2 of 7 07 -029; 13921 River Ranch Circle stone along the lower portion of the house and the siding creates horizontal proportions that reduce the perception of bulk. The second floor and peak roof heights are all set back from the footprint of the house and these varying rooflines break up massing. The wood, stone, and neutral colors will blend with the natural environment; and 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 number 07 -029 for Design Review approval 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 January 2, 2008, 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 September 15, 2006 and December 4, 2007. The chimney shall be covered with stone. 3. The following shall be required and/or included in 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. Page 3 of 7 07 -029; 13921 River Ranch Circle 5. The 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. 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. CITY ARBORIST 12: All recommendations con_ tained in the City Arborist Report dated August 4, 2006, shall be followed. 13. Tree protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist, shall be installed and inspected by Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. 14. 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 $26,820:00 to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees. 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. Page 4 of 7 07 -029; 13921 River Ranch Circle 0 15. The Siberian elm (Tree #4) will be removed and replaced with trees of equal value ($860.00) that are subject to the approval of the City Arborist. SANTA CLARA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 16. The Santa Clara County Water District construction permit expired on December 20, 2007. The applicant shall obtain a new or renewed permit, which must be submitted to the Planning Department prior to Zone Clearance. GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW 17. The applicant shall comply with all geotechnical conditions as described in the January 30, 2007 memorandum from the Public Works Department. A copy of this memorandum shall be included in the final Building Department set. 18. The results of the plan review, as described in Item #1 of the January 30, 2007 memorandum, shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of permits. 19. The results of the inspections and the as -built conditions, as described in Item #2 of the January 30, 2007 memorandum, shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to Final (as- built) Project Approval. 20. The applicant shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geologist's review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. FIRE DISTRICT 21. The applicant shall comply with all Saratoga Fire Department conditions. PUBLIC WORKS 22. The applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the City Public Works Department for any work in the public right -of -way. CITY ATTORNEY 23. 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. Page 5 of 7 07 -029; 13921 River Ranch Circle 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. . Page 6 of 7 • • • • 07 -029; 13921 River Ranch Circle PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 9th day of January 2008 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 Page 7 of 7 17 • 01 r= r f� /(Ii1Pi11(1 oil7iliissioil twill- .Scssio11 Meniorand . m Desi,n Rcl ie +' J' - (i 29, 11329 / River Ranch Circle PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Suzanne Thomas, Assistant Planner MEETING DATE: February 13, 2007 SUBJECT: Two -story Residence Application #07 -029 (APN 397 -25 -009) STUDY SESSION REQUIREMENTS: 1 The Study Session is a fact - finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item and ask questions from or hear statements from members of the public attending the meeting. During the Study Session, the Planning Commission may only discuss items related to the project. The agenda does not allow any formal votes or motions on the proposed project or other matters. No comments made during the Study Session by the Planning Commission are binding or required to be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on the proposed project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the proposed architectural design and project plans on a preliminary basis and provide input to the applicant and staff on the following categories: o Neighborhood compatibility o Bulk o Height o Design. PROPOSED PROJECT: Background The applicant filed Design Review Application #07 -029 on July 21, 2006. The project includes the proposed demolition of an existing single -story residence and the construction of a two -story home in a predominantly single -story neighborhood, which is zoned R -1 -10. The existing structures include a 2,185 square foot residence and a small shed. The proposed two -story residence is 4,27' ) square feet. Planning COlill)Ii.5.S101) StIldl- Session UeMorandum 2, Design Review 07 -029, 1329I River Ranch Circle The Van De Vens and the Clarkes live next door to the project site, to the left and to the right; respectively. In July 2006, when the initial neighbor notification forms were submitted, they showed that Jie Chen (13801 River Ranch Circle) an d Jan and Ken Clarke (13911 River Ranch Circle) had no concerns. However, Michael and Jamie Van De Ven (13930 River Ranch Circle) expressed concern about some of the windows on the proposed home. The plans were revised, and on September 15, 2006, a revised neighbor notification form was submitted with the Van De yen's signature and the following statement, "Ok per revised dwg on Sept. 13, 2006. With all windows facing our yard are gone. And recessed window in front." On October 4, 2006, a letter from the Van De Vens expressing concerns about the project was submitted to Staff. The letter was dated September 28, 2006 and signed by residents from eight of the households on the block. The applicant attempted to contact -all of the neighbors who had signed the letter. He spoke to five of the; eight neighbors and made multiple attempts to contact the other three. Staff sent out notices to each of neighbors who had signed the letter explaining that the project had been reassigned to a new planner and inviting them to contact the planner if they wished. _ Staff was, contacted by residences in three of the neighboring homes. The Van De Vens and Margaret Smith (13881 River Ranch Circle) expressed concerns about the. compatibility of a two -story , home in the neighborhood. The other next door neighbors, Jan and Ken Clarke (13911 River Ranch Circle), recognized their neighbors' concerns regarding 'privacy but stated that they "have no problem with a 2 story structure on the street." Public Noticing Notices for the February 13,1 2007 Study Session were mailed to property owners within 500 feet. Correspondence has been received from property owners both before and after, notification of the Study Session, and the letters /emails are attached. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Correspondence: Neighbor Notification Templates, emails, and memos 2. Applicant Correspondence 3.- Affidavit of mailing, mailing list and Notice of Study Session 4. Reduced Plans . 0 • • • • • Attachment 3 • nm 1 Fsn 7 F. o - /I MEN ■t■ • 1 ■t■ 1 ■■■ p� =awe, Erma ONE Van :■ owl ;j mom li'M �. ali: will's .o =z= via a is ■■■ ll�e�� ®71t�e�l■ ■■■ a �1 r� ONE !:�! 1 -1 ■■■ 1 Idea IBsee ■li�lllllil I n If e soft ;j OIL 1, pi ro i�i�►�� "` �' p: ?�. �r�" w�" x�� 'a���w�C3.'i'ms�,.,r��fa,'�,�` '�`r`�',' "-x.°. • ® Y A y'�V M.wuww � . sir . ear �rerst � m� r Also � �! • �1� ��'� IF, VIA fm :kn rx"� w aWp�� ® � r ' ��, ,. wmo I,W. awl! 1�. ow Ik"Ji WA A � . sir . ear �rerst � m� r Also � �! • �1� ��'� IF, VIA fm :kn rx"� w aWp�� ® � r Attachment 4 • • o{ SAR9 �O t 9 LjF0 • Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Calffomia 95070 13921 River Ranch Circle ARBORIST REPORT APN 397 -25 -009 Owner: Mr. John Maesumi INTRODUCTION • Application #: 07 -029 August 4, 2006 Prepared by Kate Bear ISA Certified Arborist WE 2250A The property owner of 13921 River Ranch Circle has submitted plans to demolish the existing house and build a new house on the property. A total of 15 trees protected by city ordinance are potentially impacted by demolition and construction of the new house. One ( #15) is located on the neighbor's property. They include three American sweetgums ( #1 -3), one Siberian elm (#4), two ash ( #5 and 12), two flowering plums ( #5 and 6), five black walnuts (#8-10,13 and 14), one willow ( #11), and one California sycamore ( #15). Specific data for each tree can be found s in the Tree Inventory Table attached to the end of this report. The plans reviewed for this report include Sheets A -1, Site Plan, and L -1, Landscape Plan, dated May 20, 2006, by CB Bassal Planning and Design, and Sheet C -1, Preliminary Grading and Drainage, dated June 1, 200 by SMP Civil Engineers. SITE OBSERVATIONS, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION Two trees are proposed for removal on the plans. The birch tree in the front yard is not protected by city ordinance and was not inventoried. It may be removed without a permit or plan approval. The ehn tree in the back yard (#4) is in good condition, but is within the footprint of the new house and it is appropriate to remove it as proposed. I recommend that it be replaced with new trees equal in value to its appraised value of $860. Replacement values for trees may be found at the bottom of the Tree Inventory Table attached to-this report. The sycamore tree ( #15) in, the neighbor's yard was not included in the survey. It has been shown in its approximate location, but needs to be surveyed and included in the plans. Tree protective fencing can adequately protect this tree through demolition and construction. The preliminary grading and drainage appears acceptable. No excavation should occur underneath the canopies of any of the existing trees on site for drainage, irrigation trenching or other utilities. The remaining trees on the property are proposed for retention and can be adequately protected with protective fencing. Per City Ordinance 15- 50.080, a bond amount of $26,820, which is equal to 100% of the total appraised value of trees #1-3, and 13 — 15, 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. Page 1 of 2 13921 River Ranch Circle RECOMMENDATIONS 1. This entire report shall be incorporated into the set of final building plans. Show the location of protective fencing, as identified on the attached map, on the Site Plan and number the trees on the Site Plan. 2. Owner shall obtain a tree protection bond in the amount of $26,820, which is equal to 100% of the total appraised value trees #1 -3 and 13- 15. Bond shall be put in place prior to obtaining building division permits. 3. Owner shall replace tree #4 with trees of equal value to the removed tree. Tree replacement values may be found at the bottom of the Tree Inventory attached to the end of this report. 4. Design the project so that trenching for irrigation, lighting, drainage or any other aspect of the project remains outside of the drip lines of tree canopies. 5. Tree protective fencing shall be installed as shown on the attached map and established prior to 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. 6. 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. 7. Any approved grading or trenching beneath the trees' canopies shall be manually performed using shovels. g.. Any pruning of trees on site must be performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. 9. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath tree canopies or anywhere on site that allows, drainage beneath tree canopies. Additionally, fuel shall not be stored nor shall any refueling or maintenance of equipment occur within 20 feet of the tree's trunks. 10. Herbicides shall not be applied beneath the tree canopies. Where used on site, they must be labeled for safe use near trees. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Map Showing Tree Locations and Protective Fencing Page 2 of 2 TREE INVENTORY TABLE IMF— b u O .: ° p" co :.Q a a o ►: all w Cz i U b 3 3 ° y 4, ° 3 ° > b c o c II U °.1 U ° �•� 9 q 0 4 ° o B II p U W Y cd 0 TREE NO. TREE NAME W > A c Z 0 a Q American sweetgum 1 Li uidambar sq,rqci ua 20 0 0 0 Poor Low 3 $0 American sweetgum 2 Li uidambar s raci ua 12 8 50 25 Fair Moderate 3 $950 American sweetgum 3 Li uidambar s raci ua 18 10 75 25 Fair Moderate 3 $2,780 Siberian elm 4 Ulmus umila 22 35 75 25 Good Moderate 1 X $860 Ash 12.5, 5 Fraxinus lati olia 10 30 75 25 Good Moderate 5 $1,650 Western chokecherry 9.5, 6 Prunus vir iniana 6 15 25 25 Fair Moderate 5 $400 Westem chokecherry 8, 7, 7 Prunus vir iniana 6 30 50 25 Fair Moderate 5 $440 Black walnut 8 Ju lans hindsii 15.5 20 25 25 Poor Low 5 $1,030 Black walnut 9 Ju lans hindsii 10 15 50 25 Fair Low 5 $1,300 Black walnut 10 Ju lans hindsii 22 60 50 50 Fair Moderate 5 $4,130 Willow 14.5, 11 Salix lasiandra 16.5 40 25 25 Fair Low 5 $1,170 Ash 12 Fraxinus lati olia 16.5 35 75 50 Good High 5 $3,540 Black walnut 13 Ju lans hindsii 24 40 75 50 Good High 4 $6,100 C7 Address: August 4, 2006 13921 River Ranch Circle TREE NO. TREE NA Black wal 14 Ju laps hip .California syi 15 1 Platanus rac TREE INVENTORY TABLE 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. August 4, 2006 Address: 13921 River Ranch Circle • c o o u v� 3 o o o �' a a o o b o _ �; 3 o Q > a ° I� ° ° Qw, ' V Uo i U � Al �' o 3 b ° G b . ;_ �o h Bo > on -x o W En a ME. E C7 w x D aQ 0 cn . , ►- Z .° a Q nut dsii 25 40 50 25, Fair Moderate 4 $3,990 amore 40 35 50 25 Good High 4 X X $13,000 �mosa 1 1 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. August 4, 2006 Address: 13921 River Ranch Circle • • • I AR ti 1',WAI F A " . N 4- D4A PVC • 134 SHED 198.47 13 1p 1,3921 River Ranch Circle LEGEND Tree Protective Fencing Tree Canopy 9ZI. 99 COW 14 1.*. 10 -f ir i C'. 4 12 19,44! 9'a gid ?ee V �94AE STORM DRAIN EAtMT-- 195.,60 to bank 7 top Conk 1.50 • • Attachment 5 • Page 1 of 1 Suzanne Thomas From: Jamie Van De Ven [eimajj @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 11:15 PM To: Suzanne Thomas Cc: wallynord @sbcglobal.net Subject: River Ranch project Dear Suzanne, We wanted to make you aware that we are formally opposed to having any window on the second floor of the proposed house next door to us which overlooks our pool and hot tub area. This will invade our privacy and even if it is a bathroom window, it still will have that effect. In the drawings we looked at previously, there were no windows located on the side facing our pool area, (the left side facing the proposed house to be built.) We understand the need for light and ventilation in the bathroom and we have pointed out that an operable sky light would handle that issue very nicely. The slope of the roof would not make the skylight highly visible to the front. We, as well as our neighbors, have repeatedly objected to a large two story building erected within our quiet cull -d -sac. We understand that the current set of plans is an improvement over previous ones which were truly an eye sore. 'Removing the window on the second story overlooking our pool and hot tu,b will help make having a two story structure next door sharing our front yard a little more easy to bare. We still feel that a two story structure on a small street of one story ranch style homes is still an issue and may have a negative impact on our property values as well as the esthetics of the neighborhood. Also, I wanted to make you aware that the 6 replacement trees of equal value for the one being taken out includes an oleander on the plans which is not a tree. Also, two of the replacement trees in the back, along our fence are pine trees. This is an issue since the pine needles will blow into our pool area and these trees are susceptible to disease. We would suggest an alternative type for the three replacement trees in the back. Thank you for your help. With these issues. Sincerely Mike and Jamie Van De Ven 1/2/2008 Saratoga Planning Organization February 13, 2007 Attn: Ms Thomas Subject: Proposed modification of the property at 13921 River Ranch Circle Dear Ms. Thomas; As residents living across the creek from the proposed project we strenuously object to the submitted plan. The attached photos show the existing property as viewed from our back yards. From the Shaw's backyard only the roof of the existing building is prominent with Oleanders hiding some of the lower building. From the Murphy's yard beyond their fence the building is very prominent. The existing building blends very well into the esthetics of the creek -side residences and is not objectionable, even in the winter months without foliage on most of the trees. However the planned new building would destroy the beauty and tranquility of the area with its second story. We all use our back yards as our social gathering location and do not want the beauty of the creek area ruined by the massive structure proposed, particularly with most of the windows facing those of us across the creek. The other homes on River Ranch Circle are classic Saratoga and blend in well to the country type living we all enjoy, living on or near the creek. The proposed home, in its current design, would become an ugly eyesore. It is possible to build a very nice one story structure on the property which should be acceptable to all concerned. We do not want to deny Mr. Maesumi the opportunity to. improve the quality of his residence. However we ask that maximum consideration be given to concerns of the residences impacted by the existing plans and that a compromise be submitted that will satisfy all parties. Walter pnd Linda Shaw, 14933 Jerries Drive, Saratoga /f r • Development De' artment Saratoga, Commurnty, p p Study Session -February 13, 2007 Subject: Proposed modification of the property at 13921 River Ranch Circle Tom and Denise Murphy 14939. Jerries Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 Our preliminary comments: 1. We did not learn of the project until now, even though we will be impacted as much as, if not more than, any other neighbor. Adjacent neighbor review is a requirement (see the online application for design review) and the obligation of the applicant. We've been ignored, and denied the opportunity to comment and have input into any plans that the neighbor review requirement contemplates. 2. The Saratoga Municipal Code requires the Planning Commission to make certain.. findings with respect to proposed projects, and it won't be able to make them here: 15- 45.080 Design review findings. The Planning Commission shall not grant design review approval unless it is able to make the following findings: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered wiW reference to: (1) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within.the neighborhoods; and (2) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. (b) 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 femoval; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. (c) Preserve native and heritage trees. All heritage trees (as defined in Section 15 50.020(1)) 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. (d) 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 natural environment. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and - height with, (1) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (2) the natural environment; and shall not (1) unreasonably impair the light • ! and air of adjacent properties nor (2) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. (g) 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. (Amended by Ord.. 71.99 § 27, 1991; Ord. 221 § 2 (part), 2003; Ord. 226 § 2 (part), 2003; Ord. 245 § 2 (Aft. A) (part), 2006) The project cannot meet these requirements. It would at the least unreasonably interfere with neighbor views and privacy, permanently damage the natural landscape, be incompatible in bulk and height with other residential structures in the immediate neighborhood, and create, not minimize the perception of excessive bulk. The house will look into our yard (and windows). It will be the dominant feature as we look out at our backyard. The City has been fortunate that Saratoga Creek has been preserved in its quiet, natural state. It's a community resource and one of the features that sets Saratoga apart. Once this project is built, the creek's natural, wooded appearance will be lost forever in this location. There is no other structure like it in the area in terms of its bulk —it will stand out like a sore thumb. C� Tom and Denise Murphy • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form a &,17 'd-4 PROJECT ADDRESS: Dear Neighbor, I am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review- the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. I ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the project. These plans are PRELIMINARY,ONLY and may be changed as the project moves forward. You may contact the City of Saratoga's Planning Division at any time to review any changes that may occur. The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga at 408- 868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed. the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name:. Neighbor Date: -/ Neighbor Phone M IYl If I have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary):. A�d 4 4 Applicant Name: c e s �� Date: `% .2 C �C' 7 Application Number: G 7 ' U ? C City of Saratoga Planning Department Revised 10124106 P: (Forms & ProceduresW eighbor notification. doc I • • • % I , Suzanne Thomas Michael and Jamie Van De Ven [eimajj @earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 2:09 PM To: Suzanne Thomas Cc: Jamie Van De Ven Subject: per new residence at 13921 River Ranch Circle #07 -029 January 19, 2007 Dear Ms. Thomas: Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to speak with you today about our issues concerning the proposed new home next door to us at 13921 River Ranch Circle. As we discussed, our concern is that the proposed two story structure would not blend well into the neighborhood. In fact, this large structure would stick out and be an eye -sore that we would have to see every day and may have a very negative effect on our property value. We understand that Saratoga allows for homes to be two story. However, we feel that our situation is unique since we share the front yard as part of a cul -de -sac. Because of the geometric angle of the property line, we would have this towering structure directly over us and it would be very visible to all our neighbors facing it. As we stated in our letter of 09 -28 -2006 that was signed by the 8 neighbors effected by this proposed structure, we feel it violates the Saratoga supplementary building code No. 7 6 -04 section 15- 45.080 (a) as pertains to "height, elevations and placement on the site ". It also violates section 15- 45.080 (e) "compatible bulk and height'. We want to reiterate that our issues are related toyer uniqueness r home and will ill location of the our privacy asrtwe share saf building a t he bottom of impact he curve of the structure will tower o cul -de -sac. Aftn, we want to emphasis that there is plenty of space on the lot to accommodate a one story structure of the same ed living square footage that would take into account the easements that are a part of this property. A one story Is Frucoture, although large, would not impact us or any of the other neighbors as it would not be unduly visible from the 0 street. All the other homes on the street except this one, have been re- modeled and all neighbors have kept to the one story ranch style architecture that is so much a part of Saratoga. Thank you for your time and help with this issue. Sincerely, Michael and Jamie Van De Ven 13930 River Ranch Circle Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Suzanne Thomas From: Masud Maesumi [maesumi @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 5:32 PM To: Suzanne Thomas Hi..NA.s. S-Lizant Thonias, ' 8? J River Ranch. C.ir. j at three. different t.inle (l. l UIL 3 pin, > pni) ol;. TT «e.nt to 1`'i.s. LAS ��`an�� house ! 1 , ,!?O0,7. Urnfortunately :I cou]d.n.'t get the chance to talk. to her. Sincerer Masud 1kL[aes Lllll 3 131 S.jBu.scom .- ve. Si, 1 Cu.inpbell, C4 9600,4' - rttu�srtlrtt�Ci 408- 369 -6800 Tel 408- 369 -6805 Ta" . 408- 888 -6232 Ce'l �J 0 January 10, 2007 0 Dear Ms. Thomas, This letter is in reference to letter dated September 28, 2006 from my neighbor Mr. & Mrs. Van De Ven in which signed by other neighbors. I approached the neighbors who signed above - mentioned letter to see if there is anything that I can do to the design of the house in order to get their support. Here is the result as follow, - 13851 River Ranch Cir. (Mr. & Mrs. Chen) Approach them once on 1/8/07 @ 11.00 am, and nobody answer the door, second time on 1/9/07 @ 6.00 pm while the interior lights were on yet nobody answer the doorbell. - 13860 River Ranch Cir. (Mr. & Mrs. Gotol) Approach them once on 1/8/07 @ 11.00 am, and nobody answer the door, second time on 1/9/07 @ 6.00 pm while the interior lights were on yet nobody answer the doorbell. - 13861 River Ranch Cir. (Ms. Sara Guida) I talked with Mrs. Sara Guida on 1/9/07 @ 5.30 pm. She is neutral and said, she is not even able to see the house from her location anyway and she won't attend planning commission meeting. - 13881 River Ranch Cir. (Mr. Jack Smith) talked to him on January 8, 2007 and said he has no concern about the project, his only concern is Mr. & Mrs. Van De Ven and he wants me to satisfy them. - 13890 River Ranch Cir. (Mr. & Mrs. Yu) I talked with Mrs. Yu on 1/9/07 @ 6.30 pm. She signed the letter because her neighbor approached her after I introduce myself and my family and our intention of building the house, she actually was supportive of my house, and also said that she won't attend the planning commission meeting anyway. - 13910 River Ranch Cir. (Mr. & Mrs. Nyip) I talked with Mrs. Nyip on 1/9/07 @ 6.15 pm. She signed the letter because her neighbor approached her after I introduce myself and my family and our intention of building the house, she actually was supportive of my house, and also said that she won't attend the planning commission meeting anyway. 13930 River Ranch Cir. (Mr. & Mrs. Van De Ven) I talked to him again on January 8, 2007 and I asked him if there are anything that can do to the design in order for him to support my house, he said, he only support one story house. Comments & Remarks: In paragraph 2, letter says most of properties in that street are remodels, actually are not, at least not from outside. • Page 2 January 11, 2007 In paragraph 4, letter says that my property is not compatible with the neighbors in this street. I locate two partial two -story houses in this street, one on "13901 River Ranch Cir." Second on 13841 River Ranch Cir." and many more in other streets in the neighborhood. In paragraph 6, letter says that I can build one story house instead because my lot is approx 18,000 ft2, which is not truth, as you know my lot is limited by sanitation and water district easements. Sincerely Masud Maesumi Owner of property on 13921 River Ranch Cir. • • 0 0 r c� Svv% It I 134431 s?�ver Aana CO'. C 11 -1.5090 September 28, 2006 Dear Ms. Vasudevan: This letter is in reference to the building project of Mr. John Maesumi on 13921 R� Q Ranch Circle in Saratoga. Since you are the d this toplanner hen ]anning department and the OCT 0 4 z U addressing this letter to you. Please fires r 106 building commission for their action. QTYOF 4A40NITY P,4 TOGA � ... River Ranch Circle is a cul -de -sac and the homes on our street are older one -story ranch style residents. Although, most of these homes have been re- modeled over the years, the residents of the street have kept the single story ranch style architecture. Mr. Maesumi is proposing to demolish the single story home at 13921 River Ranch Circle that is located at the end of the cul -de -sac and construct a two -story 4,346 square foot residence in its place. The architecture of this residence is in the Mediterranean. style. Our issue is that this proposed structure violates section 15- 45.080 (e) of the Saratoga. supplementary building code No.7 6 -04 entitled "Compatible bulk and height. The finding is stated. as follows: "The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures or adjacent lots....." Our cul -de -sac is small and we share a front yard with the proposed building. We have re- modeled our home and it is now a one -story 2200 square foot ranch style house. We are quite concerned that his proposed structure will be out of place on the street and tower over our home and the other adjacent homes on the cul -de -sac. This will destroy the rural natural feel of our street. Not only is it a two -story structure, it is also almost double the square footage of any other home on the street. The term "eye- sore" comes to mind. The lot at 13921 River Ranch Circle is extremely large, slightly under one -half acre (19,000 sq. fl.). Although, there are creek and storm drain easements, there is ample room for Mr. Maesumi to build a one -story structure that would be considerably larger than the current approximately 1600 square foot home on the property. We would like the planning department and building commission to reject this proposal and ask Mr. Maesumi to re- submit a building plan with a single story dwelling. Sincerel Michael and Jamie Van De Ven 13930 River Ranch Circle Saratoga kA 1-7-? 1 �n ✓1/l, � � n� G`� G C1 pp 7 i J ` U(�E� 1 OCT Q 4 20D6 i CFS. ' ±nqITYO �NITy�Ek/i 7 nGA • • • ap r City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: 7 Lam —� I f , �/� PROJECT ADDRESS: 0 5 �u ' ! y��� `mot e - ` e "4 Applicant Name: Application Number; Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. 4signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. DMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans;l 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: �tl. Neighbor Address: CIS J 14VI Neighbor Phone Number: q4 7 `i" 1 ' O o Signature: Printed: �J 5of5 • • • Ap City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: jLl--?� . � PROJECT ADDRESS: R, - Applicant 'Name: — XA Application Number: Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the sign ature 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 laier dat e during the actual public review and appeal periods. DMy signature below'certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the s cope of work;' and I do NOT have any concern s or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's Public hearing on the pro . posed project. signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the projectPlans; I understand the scope of y discussion with the applicant, have not been rk; and I have issues ' or concerns, which after attach additional sheets if necessary): addressed. My concerns are the following (please W A,14 0 12 .12 C C - Neighbor N a m e: Neighbor Address: pp 4 Neighbor Phone Number: ( 0,3) Signature: Printed: 21. LI i U!- .. .... ..... sofs I] City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: L n % PROJECT ADDRESS: Y2- KaliG' -/�► Applicant Name: Application Number: Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents: residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of. work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. []My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project'plans; I understand the scope of work; and I my con issues or concerns, which are the following after discussion ith the aplicant, have se attach additional sheettsp not been f necessary) addressed. My Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone Number: tK d'— Lt Signature: Printed: 5of5 • • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: -2 PROJECT ADDRESS: 3 / ZI ' `! ✓e%' ILac��` APPlicantName: t't'IC—S UM Application Number:. . Staff card 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. OMy 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. y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project'plans; I understand the scope of w rk; and l have issue's or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ,,e r� "Pr j-t- G,. ,v O J OF Neighbor Name: :5 ��'� O J l flo �'1s Neighbor Address: ` D t Sir P 1 5 2006 .S r CITYOFS OMIvIUNITYDEy LOAM . Neighbor Phone Number: �Li oi) 86 --t fu lJ t= JUL -U U Signature: Printed: li. J 50f5 J : • Attachment 6 • 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 December_, 2007, that I deposited 78 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: 13921 RIVER RANCH CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 AP N : 397 -25 -009 that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. I Denise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services 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 9th day of January 2008, 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: #07 -029/ 13921 River Ranch Circle APPLICANT: Maesumi APN: 397 -25 -009 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review approval to demolish the existing home and shed and construct a new two -story home. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage will be approximately 4,355 square feet. The net lot size is approximately 18,839 square feet and the site is zoned R -1- 10,000. 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 Wednesday, January 2, 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.saratoga.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. Suzanne Thomas Assistant Planner 408 - 868 -1212 December 20, 2007 500' Ownership Listgin Prepared For: 397 -25 -009 MASUD MAESUMI 13921 RIVER RANCH CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 393 -43 -010 393 -43 -011 JOSEPH & RUTH FANALI JACK & BETTY POST OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 13811 BEAUMONT AVE 20121 HERRIMAN AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -4970 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4904 393 -44 -002 393 -44 -003 JANET S SONG KENNETH L SEATON OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20025 HERRIMAN AVE 13810 BEAUMONT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -4903 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4969 393 -45 -024 393 -45 -025 GILL FAMILY 1996 RAY & CAROL GLASSTONE OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 13935 SARATOGA AVE 19935 HERRIMAN AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5435 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5405 393 -45 -027 393 -45 -028 EMILE S & JULIANA ELEFTERATOS ALLAN M &SUSAN COX OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19955 HERRIMAN AVE 19965 HERRIMAN AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5405 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5405 393 -45 -030 DANIEL E & MARILYN FOUST OR CURRENT OWNER 19985 HERRIMAN AVE SARATOGA, CA 95070 -5405 393 -45 -033 LAWRENCE D & JUDY REEVE OR CURRENT OWNER 19960 LANNOY CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5423 393 -45 -037 BRIAN J & KAREN KERR OR CURRENT OWNER 19981 LANNOY CT. SARATOGA CA 95070 -5423 393 -45 -031 SHIN-JOU & DUAN -YEE FANG 19933 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5522 393 -45 -034 GARY G POE OR CURRENT OWNER 19951 LANNOY CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5423 393 -45 -038 BARBARA HILL OR CURRENT OWNER 19991 LANNOY CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5423 393 -44 -001 MICHAEL S YANG OR CURRENT OWNER 20021 HERRIMAN AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -4903 393 -45 -021 JACK L & BETTY IRWIN OR CURRENT OWNER 19943 MORAN LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5430 393 -45 -026 LADAN ARTUSY OR CURRENT OWNER 19945 HERRIMAN AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5405 393 -45 -029 CARL & OLIVIA DCOSTA OR CURRENT OWNER 19975 HERRIMAN AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5405 393 -45 -032 RICHARD & EDITA YAGOL OR CURRENT OWNER 19970 LANNOY CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5423 393 -45 -036 ABHIJEET & PRITI DUGAR OR CURRENT OWNER 19971 LANNOY CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5423 393 -45 -039 SCVWD 5750 ALMADEN EX SAN JOSE CA 95118 397 -25 -001 397 -25 -002 397 -25 -003 DAVID C &- ROXANNE SHAO -HSIU WEN GEORGE D & SARA GUIDO PETERSCHMIDT OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14510 BIG BASIN WAY PMB 289 13851 RIVER RANCH CIR 13861 RIVER RANCH CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5424 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5424 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5424 r� L • 397 -25 -004 397 -25 -006 397 -25 -007 HE CHEN RAY WANG MARISA TAM OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 13891 RIVER RANCH CIR 13901 RIVER RANCH CIR 1 RIVER RANCH CIR SjTOGA CA 95070 -5424 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5424 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5424 397 -25 -010 397 -25 -008 397 -25 -009 VAN DE VEN MICHAEL E &JAMIE S T KENNETH F &JAN CLARKE MASUD MAESUMI OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 7336 GLENVIEW DR 13930 RIVER RANCH CIR 13911 RIVER RANCH CIR SAN JOSE CA 95120 -5806 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5424 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5424 397 -25- 011 397 -25 -012 397 -25 -013 TETSUO & SHIGEKO GOTOH JEANNIE NGUYEN SU JIM OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 13910 RIVER RANCH CIR 13890 RIVER RANCH CIR 13860 RIVER RANCH CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5424 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5424 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5424 397 -25 -019 397 -25 -014 397 -25 -015 MINGGUI PAN PAULA CAPPELLO YVES G & ANNETTE CASABONNE OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 247 19970 HERRIMAN AVE 13850 RIVER RANCH CIR EL VERANO CA 95433 -0247 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5401 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5424 397 -25 -020 397 -25 -021 WALTER N & LINDA SHAW 397 -25 -022 THOMAS P & DENISE MURPHY WALTER D & JEAN HALL OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14927 JERRIES DR 14933 JERRIES DR 14939 JERRIES DR S TOGA CA 95070 -5408 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5408 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5408 39 - 5 -023 397 -25 -024 ROBERT W & CAROL HEETER 397 -25 -025 ALAN DANCE CHING -YEN HO OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14951 JERRIES DR 14961 JERRIES DR 14965 JERRIES DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5408 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5408 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5408 397 -25 -026 397 -25 -027 397 -25 -028 SITYAM & ANJALI DUJARI ROBERT F DIMICCO JOHN R & MARY TAYLOR OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14969 JERRIES DR 14964 JERRIES DR 14950 GERNEIL CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5408 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5448 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5404 397 -25 -029 397 -25 -030 CHUN KUO 397 -25 -031 MICHELLE & ROBERT ARROYO CHARLES RENNELL OR CURRENT OWNER -HUI OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14956 GERNEIL CT 14952 GERNEIL CT 14948 GERNEIL CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5404 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5404 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5404 397 -25 -032 397 -25 -033 397 -25 -034 JULIE DORST ROBERT & ALLISON DOZIER HERBERT F & NELLIE RICHARDS OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 4250 WILLIAMS RD 14944 GERNEIL CT 14940 GERNEIL CT SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3344 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5404 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5404 Aft-035 397 -25 -036 397 -25 -037 Y 0 & YAUSAN YEE GEORGE & YVONNE HARTER LESLIE H & ELIZABETH LANDIN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14932 JERRIES DR 14928 JERRIES DR 14924 JERRIES DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5407 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5407 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5407 397 -25 -038 397 -25 -040 397 -25 -041 MARILYN BIERACH SALIM SAGARCHI AMY S & HANG YANG OR CURRENT OWNER 14524 OAK ST PO BOX 282 14920 TERRIES DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5407 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6087 SARATOGA CA 95071 -0282 397 -25 -054 397 -25 -071 397 -25 -072 FRED J & HELEN FRITSINGER LIAN S & ALICIA WU JOHN R & SALLY SUCKOW OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14051 LOMA RIO DR 14010 JUNE WAY 14020 JUNE WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5412 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5410 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5410 397 -25 -073 397 -25 -074 397 -25 -075 MORGAN L & PATRICIA HEESCH SANDRA L & NORMAN COLEMAN GLORIA STAHLMAN PO BOX 1181 OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER LINCOLN CA 95648 - 1181 14000 JERRIES DR 14001 JERRIES DR 14005 OAK HOLLOW LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5411 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5409 397 -25 -076 397 -25 -077 KENNETH L & MARJORIE NISSLY LEOPOLD & HELEN PIVK 397 -25 -080 OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER SVAGSM 14011 JERRIES DR 14021 JERRIES DR . 2372 BLUE HERON LOOP SARATOGA CA 95070 =5409 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5409 LINCOLN CA 95648 -8747 397 -25 -082 397 -25 -087 397 -25 -096 MAUREEN RHODES MICHAEL & LORI FOX JUDITH MENNEM M EIER OR.CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 114 REDWOOD 13975 SARATOGA AVE 14000 JUNE WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5457 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5410 BOULDER CREEK CA 95006 -8532 397 -25 -097 397 -25 -101 397 -25 -098 KATHRYN N & C DOUGHERTY LANCE J & AMY ARCHER Jack & Margaret Smith OR CURRENT OWNER 13881 RIVER RANCH CIRCLE OR CURRENT OWNER 19980 HERRIMAN AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 14001 JUNE WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5401 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5410 397 -25 -102 397 -29 -007 PIERRE H & GENEVIEVE BAILLIF 397 -29 -012 OR CURRENT OWNER DONALD A &ALICE GLAZER H LOS GATOS 14021 JUNE WAY PO BOX 3687 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 -1687 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5410 397 -29 -013 SARATOGA CITY OF TOGA F SARA DWAIN L COGGINS C TN: SUZANNE THOMAS Advanced Listing Services OR CURRENT OWNER 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE P.0 Box 2593 14005 OAK HOLLOW LN Dana Point CA 92624 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5449 • • 10 Lega�idwort'lsl"ng�hblieNotices General Notices NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF ROSEMARY C. RUDDY CASE NO. 1.07-PR-162393 To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent credi- tors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ROSEMARY C. RUDDY A PETITION has been filed by PAUL J. RUDDY in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. THE PETITION requests that PAUL J. RUDDY be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent. THE PETITION requests the decedent's WILL and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court. THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to lake many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice 1 led persons unless waived notice or to the proposed D P The independent P admtion authorit will Y be granted unless an interest- ed person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority. A HEARING on the petition will be held on JANUARY 16, 2008, 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 15 located at 191 North First St., San Jose, CA 95113. IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written Objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your allomey. IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the deceased, you most file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal repre- sentative appointed by the court within four months from the date of first issuance of letters as provided in section 9100 of the California Probate Code. The time for filing claims will not expire before four months from the hearing date noticed above. YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a formal Request for Special Notice of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any peti- tion or account as provided in section 1250 of the California Probate Code. A Request for Special Notice form is avail- able from the court clerk. Attorney for petitioner: PETER BAJOREK HALES 8 GEORGE 19040 COXAVENUE, SUITE 3 SARATOGA, CA 95070 408- 255 -6292 (Pub SN 12/26,1/2, 119) NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF LOIS 0. SHERRY CASE NO. i-07-PR-162271 To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent credi- tors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of LOIS O.SHERRY A PETITION has been filed by JAMES B. PITKIN in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. THE PETITION requests that JAME50. PITKIN be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent. THE PETITION requests the decedent's WILL and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court. THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (Thisauthority will allow the personal repre. sentative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the person- al representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interest- ed person riles an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority. A HEARING on the petition will be held on JANUARY 7, 2008, 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 15 located at 191 North First St., San Jose, CA 95113. IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should Important Information: No refund, alien submission. Cmcelaf ads Mill mc,:fye emdit for futon adyer icing, nor a refund. Ads must be canceled before dead- line for drattiswe. Adserdwi ents ate amepted upon the rep—i -lion that the of err and/or 4. agency hoe he right to publish d, —ou.. thereof. In si,lered of such publin adve iu and its agunry agm onin&eunifT -and hulrl .the publisber hamle. aKaimt any e,p,,,. or Io by mason of ­y c6ims arising out of publica- on. The publisber murves dtc right to cvlie alter, omit, or refux ,my vl.enisiug submi-d. Far Policies ronceming specific categories, PI.. refer to the Paca- graph at 61,4.nmg of the -gory or all ns at 408.200.1025 ,1011iiiLus a t. clamified .mmmuniry- nuwspatxrs.mm. appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney. IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the deceased, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal repre- sentative appointed by the court within four months from the date of first issuance of letters as provided in section 9100 of the California Probate Code. The time for filing claims will not expire before four months from the hearing date noticed above. YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you area person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a formal Request for Special Notice of the Filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any peti- tion or account as provided in section 1250 of the California Probate Code. A Request for Special Notice form is avail- able from the court clerk Attorney for petitioner: JAMES B. PITKIN P.O. BOX 2453 SARATOGA, CA 95070 408- 345 -2387 (Pub SN 12/12,12/19,12/26) NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF ALFRED JOSEPH MERNONE, aka ALFRED 1 . MERNONE deceased CASE NO. 1 -07 -PR- 161970 To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent credi- tors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ALFRED JOSEPH MERNONE, aka ALFRED J. MERNONE, deceased A PETITION has been filed by DOROTHY MERNONE in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. THE PETITION requests that DOROTHY MERNONE be appointed as personal repre- sentative to administer the estate of the decedent. THE PETITION requests the decedent's WILL and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court. THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very S m licon valley Comunity Newspapers accepts no fia bflky for its blare, for any cause, to insert an advertise. ment. Liability for any error appearing in an advertisement is limited to the cost of the space actually occupied. No allowance, however, will be granted for an ener that does not materially affect the value of the advertisement. T quuli F; for an adi-,st d1, any emnr must be reported within 15 days " publication dale. Cred'd for errors is limited to first insertion. important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interest- ed person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority. A HEARING on the petition will be held on JANUARY 17, 2008, 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 15 located at 191 North First St., San Jose, CA 95113. IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney. IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the deceased, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal rep,, sentative appointed by the court within four months from the date of first issuance of letters as provided in section 9100 of the California Probate Code. The time for filing claims will not expire before four months from the hearing date noticed above. YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, Y ou may file with the coup a formal Request for Special Notice of the filing of an Inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any peti- tion or account as provided in section 1250 of the California Probate Code. A Request for Special Notice form is avail- able from the court clerk. Attorney for petitioner: .JENNIFER H. FRIEDMAN, SBN 195475 JOHN L. FLEGEL, SBN 57010 1100 ALMA STREET, SUITE 210 MENLO PARK, CA 94025 650 -324 -9300 (Pub SN 12/12, 12/19,12/26) LEGAL NOTICE Notice of Ptovislonat Appolntrnerd Process West Valley - Mission Community College District Trustee Area l Due to the passing of Trustee Dan Cordero, the Board of Trustees announces that it will fill his seat until the next general election in November 2008 through a provisional . appointment process in accor- dance with Education Code Sections 5090 and 5092. Interested candidates must meet the following minimum qualifications in order to be considered for this provisional appointment: • Most be 18 years of age • Must be a registered voter • Must reside within the West Valley- Mission Community College District, Trustee Area 1 (Saratoga /Los Gatos /Monte Serena /por- tions of San Jose and Santa Cruz). Please call the Registrar of Voters Office to confirm (408.299- 8683). Interested applicants should submit a resume and a letter of interest that includes why they are seeking appointment to the WVMCCD Board of Trustees; what skills, abilities, and experiences they would bring to the Board to assist in carrying out its responsibili- ties; and a description of their base of community support and /or their unique under- standing of the community, which would widen the com- munity outreach of the Board. Submit letter and resume to the Office of the Chancellor, West Valley- Mission CCD, 14000 FruiNale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070. Applications must be received in the Office of the Chancellor by 5:00 p.m. on January 16,. 2008. No facsimiles will be accepted. Finalists will be interviewed during the week of January 21, 2008. The Board will make a provisional appointment on or before February 7, 2008. The appointed Trustee shall hold office through November 2008, when the next general election takes place. For further information, please call the West Valley - Mission Community College District Chancellor's Office at 408 -741 -2011. (Pub SN 12/26,1/2) J city [eggs NOTICE OF HEARING BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SARATOGAS PLANNING COMMISSION announces the following pub- lic hearings on Wednesday, the 9th day of January 2008 at 7 :00 p.m. in tit a City Council it Chambers located at 13777 FruiNale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details and plans are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Thursday, 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. If you have questions. Planners are available at the public counter between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pur- suant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this notice, or in written corre- spondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communica- tions should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. 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 list- ed above and may visit other sites as well. for more infor- mation please contact the Community Development Department at 408 868 -1222 or review the Site Visit Agenda on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us. APPLICATION #MOD07 -0002 (397 -08 -091) Shadman, 15219 Sobey Road - The applicant requests a Modification of Design Review Approval to modify an application approved by the Planning Commission at the October 13, 2004 hearing. The original approval was for anew single - story dwelling consisting of 5.677 square feet of floor area and a partial basement. Proposed changes include, but are not limited to: elimi- nating shutters, eliminating divided lites on some win- dows, relocating chimneys, relocated fireplaces, and mod- ifying a trellis on the rear facade. The gross lot size is approximately 46,082 square feet and the site is located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. APPLICATION #MOD 07 -0001 (397- 27 -010) Pichetti/ Cahoon, 18935 Hayfield Court: - The applicant requests modifications to an approved Design Review approval. Modifications include, but are not limited to, the addition of stone to t front facade, the alteration of proposed home's placement on the site, the rotation of the garage, and additional win- dows on the right elevation. The property is zoned R -1- 40,000. APPLICATION #PDR07 -0001 (510 -01 -016) Khouja/ Ramirez, 15211 Hume Drive - The applicant requests Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to demolish the existing home and con- struct a new two -story home. The proposed structure will be two -story with a full basement and require height exception q H P to allow for adherence to the Queen Anne architectural style. A detached pool house is also proposed at a height of approximately 18 -feet 9 -inch- es. The gross lot size is 55,503 square feet, and the site is zoned R- 1- 20,000. APPLICATION #07 -029 (397- 25.009) Maesumi, 13921 River Ranch Circle: - Theappli- cant requests Design Review approval to demolish the existing home and shed and construct a new two -story home. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage will be approximately 4,355 square feet. The net lot size is approximately 18,839 square feet and the site is zoned R -1- 10,000. APPLICATION # PDR07 -0017 (503.68 -0OI) Miller; 14098 Palomino Way - The applicant request Design Review approval to remove an exist- ing 1,320 square foot second story of an existing two -story single - family residence and replace it with a new 1,690 square foot second story addi- tion in approximately the same location. The project also includes demolition of an existing garage and carport, construction of a new 466 square foot detached garage and a 370 square foot addi- tion to the existing lower floor. The residence will not exceed 26 feet in height. The net lot size is 54,075 square feet. The site is zoned R -1- 40,000. Design Review approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060. APPLICATION #07 -366 (503- 69-012) Keyashian; 21818 Via Regina - The applicant requests Design Review approval 10 add 1,977 square feet to the existing upper Floor and /convert 1,707 square feel to the existing basement cre- ating a lower floor. The total floor area of the new house will be 5,677 square feet. The maximum height of the pro- posed buildingwill not exceed the 26 -foot height limit. 'The maximum impervious cover- age will not exceed the allow- able 25% of the net site area. The lot size is approximately 53,562 square feet, and the site is located in the HR zon- ing district. Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060. (Pub SN 12126) trustee Sales NOTICE OF TRUSTEES SALE NO. 07-261 YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED CIF TRUST DATED 12/26/03. UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION TO PRO- TECT YOUR PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT A PUBLIC SALE. IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEED- ING AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWYER. On Jan.16, 2008 at 11:00 AM of said day, at the entrance to THE FORECLOSURE COM- PANY 3001 Winchester Blvd., Ste. "A ", Campbell, Cal. 95008 THE FORECLOSURE COMPANY INC. as Trustee, or Substitute Trustee will sell at a public auction to the high- est bidder for cash (payable at the time of sale in lawful money f the United States) ) the following described property situated in the County of SANTA CLARA, State of California, and described more fully as: See "EXHIBITA" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Will be sold "AS IS ". EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real Property in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California, Described as Follows: Being a Portion of Section 12 in Township 8 South, Range 2 West, Mount Diablo Meridian, as Shown on That Certain Parcel Map, Which Map Was Filed for Record in Book 501 of Maps at Page 52 in the Office of the Recorder of the Coony of Santa Clara, State of California, and as Shown on That Certain Map Entitled "Tract No. 5288', Which Map Was Filed for Record in Book 348 of Maps at Page 14 in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and Being More Particularly Described as Follows: BEGINNING at the Southeasterly Comer of Lot 4, as Said Lot Is Shown on Tract No. 5288, Which Ma Was Filed for Record in Book 348 of Maps at Page 14 in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California; Thence along the Easterly Line of Said Lot 4 and its Northerly Prolongation, Said Line Also Being the Easterly Line of That Certain Parcel of Land Conveyed to John Markulin by Deed Recorded August 16, 1974 in Book 8044 of Official Records at Page 425, North 0 DEG 19' 57" WEST 829.63 Feet to the Intersection of Said Easterly Line of the Land Conveyed to Markulin with the Southerly Line of That Certain 4 Foot Strip of Land Conveyed to the County of Santa Clara by Instrument Recorded May 28, 1924 in Book 89 of Official Records At Page 178; Thence South 89 Deg 31' 00" West along Said Southerly Line 33.29 Feet to the Intersection Thereof with the Northerly Prolongation of the Easterly Line of Lot 1 of Tract 5288 above Referred to; Thence South 0 Deg 09' 56" East along the Last Said Northerly Prolongation and the Easterly Line of Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Said Tract No. 5288, 587.08 Feet to the Southeasterly Corner of Said Lot 3; Thence North 89 Deg 50' 04" East along the Northerly Line of Said Lot 4, 25 Feet to the Intersection Thereof with a Line That Is Parallel with and 10 Feet Westerly (Measured at Right Angles) from the Easterly Line of Said Lot 4; Thence South 0 Deg 19' 5T' East along Said Parallel Line 249.10 Feet to the Intersection Thereof with Southeasterly Line of Said Lot 4; Thence North 55 Deg 47' 39" East along Said Southeasterly Line 12.04 Feet to the POINT OF BEGIN. NING. The street address and other common designa- tion, if any, of the real prop. erty described above is pur. ported to be: VACANT LAND APN No.: 517. 22410. The undersigned Trustee dis- claims any liability for any incorrectness of the street address and other common designation, if any, shown here. Said sale will be made without covenant or warran- ty, expressed or implied, regarding title, possession or encumbrances, to satisfy the obligations secured by and pursuant to the Power of Sale conferred in a certain Deed of Trust executed by Noorudin A. Billawala, as Successor Trustees of the Billawala Revocable Trust UTA Dated June 7, 1999 as Trustors, Recorded 12/31/03 as Instrument No. 17553729 in the office of the County Recorder of SANTA CLARA County. At the time of the initial publication of this Notice, the total amount of unpaid balance of the oblig. ation secured by the above described Deed of Trust and estimated costs, expenses, fees, and advances is $81,20728. To determine the opening bid, you may call the day before the sale at: (408) 374.7204. The Foreclosure Company, Inc., as trustee 3001 So. Winchester Blvd., Suite A, Campbell, California 95008, Dated: Dec. 17. 2007, By: Sharol Lang, President. This office is attempting to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose; whether that information is obtained oral- ly or in writing. NPP0124454 (Pub SN 12126, 112108, 1/9/08) Attachment 7 • 1 4 PROPOSED BESIDEIICE FOR: mw. JOHn MAESUMI 13921 RIVER RAnCH CIRCLE SARATOGA CALIPoRnIA Al SITE PLAN / PROJECT DATA / VICINITY MAP Cl GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN A2 FIRST FLOOR PLAN A3 SECOND FLOOR PLAN A4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A5 EXTERIOR _ELEVATIONS A6 SECTIONS / ROOF PLAN / AREA CALC. Li LANDSCAPE PLAN / DRAINAGE PLAN AR ARBORIST REPORT I SHEET INDEX I OWNER M9. JOHN MAESU I 3131 S. BASCOM AVENUE CAMPBELL, CA 95008 (408) 389 -6800 PROJECT ADDRESS: 13921 RHEA RANCH CIRCLE SARATOGA , CALFORNA 95070 APN # 397 - 25-009 NET SAME AS GROSS LOT SIZE: 18,839 SO. FT. ZONE DISTRICT: R- 1- 10,000 MAX. HOUSE ALLOWED: 4,362 SO, FT. 9 PROPOSED TWO STORES HOUSE 2(Y-0' MAX. HT. • PROPOSED HOUSE & GARAGE 4.355 SO. FT. o SITE HAS A 3% AVERAGE SLOPE • PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SITE COVERAGE BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 2,868 SF. 152 % DRIVEWAY: 650 SF. 3.5 % WALKWAYS & PATIOS : 515 SF. 2.7 % TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE 4,033 SO, FT. AA 2t4 % • E)O,SMO NPERVIOUS SITE COVERAGE BULDNG FOOTPRINT: 2,165 S.F. TL5 % ACCES. BLDGS: 180 S.F. t0 % DRIVEWAY: 950 SF. 5.0 % WALKWAYS & PAVED AREAS: 1,651 SF. 10.0 % TOTAL EMSTNG IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE 5,166 SO. FT. 27A % EXISTING HOUSE HEIGHT: EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE DEMOLISHED. SINGLE STORY HOUSE + GARAGE + SHED WaSTNG STRUCTURE BUILT N 1956 (50 YEARS OLD) TA 5 Tndma Ave efe Lw MapPoini FRONT 32-- 635 25' SIDE (RIGHT) Frm13R Am 18 10' FIRST FLOOR B SECOND FLOOR SIDE (LEFT) 166 34.15 REAR 30,6 385 25' FIRST FLOOR 35' SECOND FLOOR \ , auua J 13 92 1 River Ranch Clr, DRAWN CB I )Saratoga, CA 95070 Merriman Ay! Al OF s+EFTS ;�} !$ Saratoga DRIVEWAY• Q 32._m• i CA • F1R5T FLR v, F. 1\ i O s 1 51$ S39, I 1, I I ihl iu"a,p62ooalwep, .aaa NUel' "apraoi,r,. .- I VICINITY MAP I 517E PLAN LEGEND m I m I. I. I. Imm, PROPERTY LINE REQUIRED SETBACKS — — — — — — EASEMENTS SETBACK ( UTILITY 4 CREEK) TREE PROTECTIVE FENCING 0 `0 R�6 PR01-05ED SET5ACK5 NOTES: - FIRE PLACES IN THIS HOUSE SHALL BE GAS - SETBACK NOTE: PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION B. THE CITY, THE RCE OR LLS OF RECORD SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION THAT ALL BUILDING SETBACKS ARE PER THE APPROVED PLANS. - THE HOUSE LOCATION ALMOST FLAT WITH 45OUT 2% SLOPE - SEE CIVIL DRAWING FOR SITE DRAINAGE 4 TREES LOCATION l 19 f FIRST STORY (FT) SECOND STORY (FT) REQUIRED SET5ACK5 FRONT 32-- 635 25' SIDE (RIGHT) it 18 10' FIRST FLOOR B SECOND FLOOR SIDE (LEFT) 166 34.15 REAR 30,6 385 25' FIRST FLOOR 35' SECOND FLOOR NOTES: - FIRE PLACES IN THIS HOUSE SHALL BE GAS - SETBACK NOTE: PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION B. THE CITY, THE RCE OR LLS OF RECORD SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION THAT ALL BUILDING SETBACKS ARE PER THE APPROVED PLANS. - THE HOUSE LOCATION ALMOST FLAT WITH 45OUT 2% SLOPE - SEE CIVIL DRAWING FOR SITE DRAINAGE 4 TREES LOCATION l 19 f / / J' F— Q 0 �` J• r Z J / W a $ CO Ir EXISTING SHED ♦ 2 a r Q • \ , Sh1LE AS NOTED DRAWN CB TO BE REMOVED SHEET No. a r ,SE Al OF s+EFTS ` GE DRIVEWAY• Q 32._m• :i. CA • F1R5T FLR 1 1\ i O E OO DO 1 51$ S39, I 1, I I / / 0� / EXISTING HOUSE LINE OF FIRST FLOOR / TO BE REMOVED LINE OF SECOND FLOOR / / / T=0 /TREE PROTECTIVE FENCING ♦\` 5 / /I SITE % I I , C IQ, 10 / I / � 12 i 'k- FENCING TFIr FENCING i3 F <R O 14 ;5 ' p, REVISIONS .•••' , t 05 -29 -01 1 11 �- DESIGN i � Y f CB, Quj I o �G°a44G°�a ' - I Picnnin g 9 D¢rign -� - 916.43 0605 4M I'L .� 1! 110011Y1. GN 911765 m r � i I i i I Y (L Z L� / O i U Q U- U w O � Co 2 O 0L Co vJ J' F— Q 0 �` J• r Z J COVERED PORCH W a $ CO Ir W N Q e 2 a r s DAB II -26 -01 Sh1LE AS NOTED DRAWN CB JOB RD 05 -221 SHEET No. a r ,SE Al OF s+EFTS ` GE DRIVEWAY• Q 32._m• :i. CA • F1R5T FLR 1 1\ i O E OO DO 1 51$ S39, I 1, I I 0� / EXISTING HOUSE LINE OF FIRST FLOOR / TO BE REMOVED LINE OF SECOND FLOOR / / / T=0 /TREE PROTECTIVE FENCING ♦\` 5 / /I SITE % I I , C IQ, 10 / I / � 12 i 'k- FENCING TFIr FENCING i3 F <R O 14 ;5 ' p, REVISIONS .•••' , t 05 -29 -01 1 11 �- DESIGN i � Y f CB, Quj I o �G°a44G°�a ' - I Picnnin g 9 D¢rign -� - 916.43 0605 4M I'L .� 1! 110011Y1. GN 911765 m r � i I i i I Y (L Z L� / O i U Q U- U w O � Co 2 O 0L Co vJ J' F— Q 0 Z J g W a $ CO Ir W N Q e 2 a r s DAB II -26 -01 Sh1LE AS NOTED DRAWN CB JOB RD 05 -221 SHEET No. a Al OF s+EFTS 71 /5i VJ r- 0 O Z D -n n m To N r O T� Y r z 8 o - MAESUMI RESIDENCE AT: IV - 13921 RIVER RANCH CIRCLE SARATOGA , CALFORNIA mvI wmrr xonce : use v ncve duwwoe ua nrvsrwran m nrstne�m ro TI[ aaalwt R1oFLT errt wn vrtnx nnv v� enomm � Io > 0 O FIRST FLOOR PLAN !a q a a % :0 0 r 9 i N o' I man (39993�36 H/M nve \ O 2 0 E7jE x G) C x O R m ° II II 3 II II O � 0 � O v x O 0 O L � BUILT - IN CABINETS Hive O BAR MMRTAN1EW CENTER ® ® I II 0o n I l o l < Oo a� Z I I 14o 43 I I o I I I O a O I r c°) I I Fl 8 o - MAESUMI RESIDENCE AT: IV - 13921 RIVER RANCH CIRCLE SARATOGA , CALFORNIA mvI wmrr xonce : use v ncve duwwoe ua nrvsrwran m nrstne�m ro TI[ aaalwt R1oFLT errt wn vrtnx nnv v� enomm � Io > 0 O FIRST FLOOR PLAN !a q a a % :0 0 r 9 i E ob E m O z v TI r O O m Q I -- u' 1 O MAESUMI RESIDENCE AT: (> - g 13921 RIVER RANCH CIRCLE SARATOGA , CALIFORNIA ,._0. F n � � 1 a 0 °o 3 o I, r E t 0 e 3 N jig 00 SECOND FLOOR PLAN $ � q � a � a �; b 1p b 4 reo.rmeroowwoaerHOeocarrwnve saw�cuiocsims musrHOVrawmaoouwwrtxv�avu •.vmuucwr.crwimn�auwo�uioe csrwnoncarsnnm:rnnurrk evm�a.rarccvrucEOm� • • • FINISH GRADE . NATURAL GRADE EXTERIOR BUILDING FLASHES: O STUCCO STONE FINISH BY "CULTURED STONE': DESERT BLEND C05BLEFIELD (CSV -2066) O ROOF TILES BY - MONIER LIFE TILE' OR EQUAL .....1_....1.....1.....1. lmnlmnmm�mnn SLATE RUSTIC BROWN BLEND - CLA551C5 FAMILY ' BUILDING COLORS BY YQELLY- MOORS' OMAIN BUILDING COLOR SPANISH SAPID (ICI 231) OR SIMILAR ®TRIM t ACCENT COLOR '••Y�;mp�p� ��;�n� CARGO (101 412) OR SIMILAR O WINDOWS BY IMARVIN WINDOU.S' lmullmp�p� COLOR: BRONZE FINISH FINISH GRADE . NATURAL GRADE IIIm111�lin .l ►��.i,j1�I�lll�I�llli����� - �= ��_ 7111�I�f 1i�I�I11Q�iiiil�itiilrillil�iiiilrnli��iiiil�iiimn�i��111�11 n•mmmlm•:• %� m" �� =� mnrmulmnlmnmmlmnlmnlmmm�lmnllmm m■mmumi:!�•�"' °_ —���� _. "mmmmlmummlmnlmnlmu�m�•�nnmm� mmnlmnn ►��i �� �,mmmiunmlmnlm„m!�riimmnlm':!!. nnmmlmrl! ■- •� � iii 'viii Iii IRilmn -• � r._.. 1�111�1 ■IIIII■f1111■Illmlllll�.. !nmmmml�..r . 1 ._. -1 1�1� —. ..fl■ 11111■ Illminll ■nlll ■Illmnl /I■Iri�l.._ TOP M05T ELEVATION 42LW 12 4 II /1.t \I /1. 111 /t.1.1 /1.t1i/1...I/1. 111 /1. 111/ 1. 1 .1//1.I/I.1.1/I,.t.1/1.1.1/1... �mm. mummmiummmmmmlmmmmm�lrnnlmnmmmmmnlmm�numw�l 1/1.111/1...1/1 /.11/1.111/1.1.1 ILImam nlmii�nmmrmnlmnmmmmmmmmmmlrnnmmmmmnmm�mnlmnlmmmmlmwmrun ��- mnmmmmmmmm�nnlmummmmmnnmmmmmnmm�lmummmmmn .....1_....1.....1.....1. lmnlmnmm�mnn ,mmm nnm=. m�u��• mnmmmmmnm■ mlmnlmmmummmmlmna- Inmmmnm■mlmummlmnmmmnumlPr- WIN �I�mulmnm�ulmnmmmmlmnml I�,mminmmmmnlmnmm�m 11 mmmmnlm�_��� +mnmm� mmmmmmnn = �.•,'�,m� '••Y�;mp�p� ��;�n� ■■ ■■ ����Imnlmmm�llmmm�umnulmr ii C w;�mmmmmmmnlmmmumnunnnnl� a �1!. mar 'ma'i'.m.1:4.m�nlm.,;°mnllmnm� lmullmp�p� �■ ■■ =,mnnmr e,lmmm�llii■mlmulmumn� Imummmiumi C t.a p ���,�r�m�gm�imm�mmmmm �� IIIm111�lin .l ►��.i,j1�I�lll�I�llli����� - �= ��_ 7111�I�f 1i�I�I11Q�iiiil�itiilrillil�iiiilrnli��iiiil�iiimn�i��111�11 n•mmmlm•:• %� m" �� =� mnrmulmnlmnmmlmnlmnlmmm�lmnllmm m■mmumi:!�•�"' °_ —���� _. "mmmmlmummlmnlmnlmu�m�•�nnmm� mmnlmnn ►��i �� �,mmmiunmlmnlm„m!�riimmnlm':!!. nnmmlmrl! ■- •� � iii 'viii Iii IRilmn -• � r._.. 1�111�1 ■IIIII■f1111■Illmlllll�.. !nmmmml�..r . 1 ._. -1 1�1� —. ..fl■ 11111■ Illminll ■nlll ■Illmnl /I■Iri�l.._ TOP M05T ELEVATION 42LW 12 4 D- TOP MOST ALLOUED ELEVATION (26' -W).. 42208' E- TOP MOST PROPOSED HEIGHT : 42L92' PENSIONS BY S b CR I C�3L°a44L°aa � Planning & DeAgn j 916.435.0605 1 "a BPJNN? RD P- I Z 0 a W W tr _O Q IL x III Aw I MN "1 GARAGE EL 356A2 PRECAST CONC. WOOD GARAGE DOOR BY: - AMARR" I NATURAL GRADE TRIMS - TYP. "CARRIAGE HOUSE DORS COLLECTION' STUCCO STONE DOOR STYLE: 'REUNIOON" W/ SEEDED GLAS STONE VENEER FRONT DOOR BY: "CANTERA DOORS" WOD O . 0WU3T IRON DOOR DOOR STYLE: 'LERIDA / 0-106" H INFORMATION, FRONT SIDE ELEVATION - NORTH / WEST A- LOILEST EX. ELEV. AT BLDG. EDGE: 395.79' B- HIGHEST EX. ELEV. AT BLDG. EDGE: 39637' SCALE: C- AVERAGE ELEVATION: 39000' D- TOP MOST ALLOUED ELEVATION (26' -W).. 42208' E- TOP MOST PROPOSED HEIGHT : 42L92' PENSIONS BY S b CR I C�3L°a44L°aa � Planning & DeAgn j 916.435.0605 1 "a BPJNN? RD P- I Z 0 a W W tr _O Q IL x III EXTERIOR BULDWG FINISHES: OSTUCCO STONE FINISH BY "CULTURED STONE": DESERT BLEND COBBLEFIELD (CSV -20661 O ROOF TILES BY 'MONIER LIFE TILE" OR EQUAL B- HIGHEST EX. ELEV. AT BLDG. EDGE: SLATE RUSTIC BROWN BLEND - CLASSICS FAMILY BUILDING COLORS BY 'KELLY- MOORE" OMAIN BUILDING COLOR: D- TOP MOST ALLOWED ELEVATION (26' -0'). SPANISH SAND 009 2311 OR SIMILAR . ACCENT COLOR: ®TRIM CARGO (KM 412) OR SIMILAR O WINDOWS BY - MARVIN WINDOWS" COLOR: BRONZE FINISH NATURAL GRADE EL. 396.42 TOP MOST ELEVATION 421.92 REAR SIDE ELEVATION - SOUTH / EAST SCALE: 1/4 ".I' -0" 12 4 CR Planning SECOND FLOOR EL. 407.92 & De ign 916.435.0605 on . p- ROMA CA 9UM FIRST FLOOR EL- 396.92 � z 0 Q J 111 O LLI 1 I ILI TOP PLATE HEIGHT INFORMATION, A- LOWEST EX ELEV. AT BLDG. EDGE: 395.19' B- HIGHEST EX. ELEV. AT BLDG. EDGE: 39637' C- AVERAGE ELEVATION: 39605' D- TOP MOST ALLOWED ELEVATION (26' -0'). 42228' E- TOP MOST PROPOSED HEIGHT : 42L92' TOP MOST ELEVATION 421.92 REAR SIDE ELEVATION - SOUTH / EAST SCALE: 1/4 ".I' -0" 12 4 CR Planning SECOND FLOOR EL. 407.92 & De ign 916.435.0605 on . p- ROMA CA 9UM FIRST FLOOR EL- 396.92 � z 0 Q J 111 O LLI 1 I ILI TOP PLATE Q\litl� II�IIIm111�I�111 Illmn._ Imnlmmmni�mmm��:::• ���lr��a !�le��rel���isl!��m��:_ � -• ���3�111 \��iiiii�mmmmwmn.._ \... — �ISi:!elm!11.: - -_ '- .- -•' • Ilmllll l�IIIII�IIlmlllll�lllmlllu. �ainmmmmmmmmmwm i • ,...! L�I � � � .ice", � - Wlft\ b EXTERIOR ELEVAT10ii,4—S- rm m Do n CD n r. � 1 C D p Z a z Id 4MOdGM 510 9 S090'50'916 u6lr30 1 6uluucld 31e,d �L OM] a 8 31v,d d01 A R 18 SNONilA38 SNO1103S aV a $1 wooume I� N3H0lJlN MOON woos A-mv=l 1 I I HIVa w I W0OUC138 UMSVW Z W008U38 SN01103S 9V V ►'���T�S�IIII■ • • III■ �I�IIIIIII�RiiiiIlly .�INllllllllui�llll ■� ■■ -� � V7 IV-10111 sool.Em 31V,d W NV-ld J008 -Wla l -.Z] 39 015 =VM TN E X. SSV,o vmft a-1 OO u-w L3110 M3 Vd va-m .0E �BAO GMU AooN N019S0.1 ,wk" Z a ' f S3d0,S d0.'Ff 'I L&U 1 'STN 34V"V ivun.LVN 13aVNV NSINW I SN011brinoiyo b38V H0013 '13175 556* • !M?tlG\>I . %l9,13J I'RJIM , 3`JVtIO'� �NIQI,�I/4'31V aico,i TV'101 r. p .�w o nu o ^o no 0 n. o ^� o n� o n.a Qr 9d e '011 1331I5 L -60 ON 801' $ f� NMVtlO 31V0 A C 3 D N m r� D D O = I D D n g m rm m Do n CD n r. � 1 C D p Z a z Id 4MOdGM 510 9 S090'50'916 u6lr30 1 6uluucld 31e,d �L OM] a 8 31v,d d01 A R 18 SNONilA38 SNO1103S aV a $1 wooume I� N3H0lJlN MOON woos A-mv=l 1 I I HIVa w I W0OUC138 UMSVW Z W008U38 SN01103S 9V V ►'���T�S�IIII■ • • III■ �I�IIIIIII�RiiiiIlly .�INllllllllui�llll ■� ■■ -� � V7 IV-10111 sool.Em 31V,d W NV-ld J008 -Wla l -.Z] 39 015 =VM TN E X. SSV,o vmft a-1 OO u-w L3110 M3 Vd va-m .0E �BAO GMU AooN N019S0.1 ,wk" Z a ' f S3d0,S d0.'Ff 'I L&U 1 'STN 34V"V ivun.LVN 13aVNV NSINW I SN011brinoiyo b38V H0013 '13175 556* • !M?tlG\>I . %l9,13J I'RJIM , 3`JVtIO'� �NIQI,�I/4'31V aico,i TV'101 r. p .�w o nu o ^o no 0 n. o ^� o n� o n.a Qr L` .7 • TREE INVENTORY TABLE REPLACEMNETTREE yALUE5: 15 GALLON . r 50 24 INCH BOX • r 500 36 INCH BOX . r 1500 NEW TREE • 6 48 INCH BOX • r 5000 52 INCH BOX . r 1000 12 INCH BOX . r 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 IT'S ASSEESSED VALUE / \ I / Y �4 � v / / / BYIA 82E QTY. SOTANCAL NALE OOMAON NALE SFRUBS H 5 8 HEBE BUXIFOLIA VERONICA O 5 4 1 MYRICA CALIFORNICA COMMON MYRTLE 1 5 1 RHODODENDRIIMI NCN S FELICIA AMELLOIDES BLUE IMIARGARITE C I GA b 1 HEMEROCALLU5 HYBRIDS DAYLILY P I GA 5 1 SANTOLINA CHAMIACYPARISSUS LAVENDER COTTON TRMS 1 15 GA I NERIUM OLEANDER "STANDARD" WHITE I OLEANDER 2 15 GA I PINUS CANARIENSIS CANARY ISLAND PINE 3 15 GA I PINUS CANARIENSIS CANARY ISLAND PINE 4 15 GA FF NERIUM OLEANDER "STANDARD" WHITE OLEANDER �� 15 GA VU TW NERIUM OLEANDER "STANDARD" WHITE I OLEANDER N d7 W I PINUS CANARIEN515 CANARY ISLAND PINE d� €" 4 w Wa u ~� � ar a 43 OL 7 Jr F QS = Q TREE NO. N N' W u w > F' l7 U w r- U FF m� 3�8 Nm O rl�i? zC 30 Z 0 Q I AMERICAN SWEETGUM 20 0 0 0 POOR LOU) 3 0 LIQUIDAMIBAR 5TYRACIFLUA 2 AMERICAN SWEETGUM 12 a 50 25 FAIR MODERATE 3 >b %0 LIQUIDAMBAR 5TYRACIFLUA 3 AMERICA! SWEETGUM 18 10 15 25 FAIR MODERATE 3 2.780 LIQUIDAMIBAR STYRACIFLUA 4 SIBERIAN ELM ULMUS PUMILA 22 35 15 25 GOOD MODERATE 1 X 860 5 AgH 125, 30 15 25 GOOD MODERATE 5 1,650 FRAXIMUS LATIFOLIA 10 6 WESTERN g''' I5 25 25 FAIR MODERATE 5 q� 1CWOKIEICNFAIERRY 6 1 WESTERN CHOKECHERRY 8.11 30 S0 25 FAIR MODERATE 5 440 PRUNUS VIRGINIANA 6 BLACK WALNUT POOR 5 1,030 B JUGLANS WIND511 55 20 25 25 LOW S BLACK WALNUT 10 15 50 25 5 1,300 JUGLAN5 HIND511 FAIR LOU) 10 BLACK WALNUT JUGLANS HIND511 22 60 Be 50 FAIR MODERATE 5 4,130 11 WILLOW SALIX LASIAJDRA 145, 40 25 25 FAIR LOW 5 1,110 165 12 ASH FRAXIMUS LATIFOLIA 165 35 15 50 GOOD HIGH 5 3,540 13 BLACK WALNUT JUGLANS HINDNI 24 40 25 25 GOOD HIGH 4 6100 H BLACK WALNUT JUGLANS HMD511 25 40 50 25 FAIR MODERATE 4 3,990 CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE 40 GOOD HIGH 4 X X 13,000 15 F'LATANUS RACEMOSA 35 50 25, REPLACEMNETTREE yALUE5: 15 GALLON . r 50 24 INCH BOX • r 500 36 INCH BOX . r 1500 NEW TREE • 6 48 INCH BOX • r 5000 52 INCH BOX . r 1000 12 INCH BOX . r 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 IT'S ASSEESSED VALUE / \ I / Y �4 � v / / / BYIA 82E QTY. SOTANCAL NALE OOMAON NALE SFRUBS H 5 8 HEBE BUXIFOLIA VERONICA O 5 4 1 MYRICA CALIFORNICA COMMON MYRTLE 1 5 1 RHODODENDRIIMI NCN S FELICIA AMELLOIDES BLUE IMIARGARITE C I GA b 1 HEMEROCALLU5 HYBRIDS DAYLILY P I GA 5 1 SANTOLINA CHAMIACYPARISSUS LAVENDER COTTON TRMS 1 15 GA I NERIUM OLEANDER "STANDARD" WHITE I OLEANDER 2 15 GA I PINUS CANARIENSIS CANARY ISLAND PINE 3 15 GA I PINUS CANARIENSIS CANARY ISLAND PINE 4 15 GA I NERIUM OLEANDER "STANDARD" WHITE OLEANDER 5 15 GA I NERIUM OLEANDER "STANDARD" WHITE I OLEANDER 6 15 GA I PINUS CANARIEN515 CANARY ISLAND PINE PINUS CANARIEN515 CANARY ISLAND PINE NOTES: PROVIDE 3" OF MEDIUM BARK THROUGHOUT SITE LEGEND TREE PROTECTIVE FENCING OTREE CANOPY O PROVIDE WATER - EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE PER ARTICLE 15 -41 8 OF THE "SARATOGA MUNICIPAL CODE" _a DS. INDICATES LOCATION OFROOF DOWNSPOUTS - E`MPTYING ON THE SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE ^tea INDICATES STOR LUATER RETAINED ON SITE NEW TREE I BY THE SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE • SEE GRADING 2 DRAINAGE PLANS FOR 517E DRAINAGE / / � `% / NEW TREE • 2 "0 NEW TREE • 3 NEW TREE • 4 / / I X4 4 NEW TREE • 5 \ \ \ \ \ 1 !: i I% Ikj m �a� o ( 4 I / / / 14 / 15 i FRONT YARD LANDSCAPE & SITE / 11 cl 10 / / / -/ 12 'I I I I I 1 � I I I E PLAN i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 h W U V O 1 ,,= 10' -0,, It 339 Plannlm & Darlai on brimp 1p 1 ROOM ca "74 0 • th) Ti 0 A 12 lit Zvi F. n 13 14 7, 14 ritlo'S lU 13777 Fi,it'alD Am Satsfu�. Califamb 5. ire 130111 Ricer Rincip Circle Application #: 07-029 ARRORBrf REPORT 4+ I5: 4, 2,.06 APN 397 -25 -004 1'rq—1 by Kate Sear (1,x Here Nolf- )nh. M.Csurnt ISA Cmfied Arbrinst W F !NTR0DUC'1I0N- I he p"Td-ty ci­-, c�;j 1 3 39 > i Kn,C'Bs1 h Umcic h- .bi nuled ow" k-jewolish 0, c. isfi., 1w. a, h F, �, ld The-vi-l-i:tT.-Anumcan 1, _tll be S�fE sail Ellgil ins. SITE ORWRVATION'S. Pi -AN KEN TENN AND'I E( HNICAi DISCUSSION I— I— uric, jimposi f", —u-1 h'!p;a;)S The hu."'.) 1,ee LP thc firlm yurd is Ivol pwtectl� by i ii pal it , plan pp—ul. 'llieclin ucc n, ine h,zckyad c"4S 2uoj ondtfl n, ul the k,1p1i.L,1F(h1 lie' 110a - aild it il ;IPPICIPil,111- ILI � Irnov, i;. vvoi- .. i I --nue"O Jim' it b,, 'Tpu-J ih - nec, Lqiiialitt "Alite tom 'Mai-,ed ,s iu..fsstio he f­':j al th:. 1)071,M C,frh, I I ejjjojy I able 11, y,a­c t-c (9 5) to the n, ghhu )-jw n t m d I s Sx Invcy lihafice- Ii.ii- -imils 1} xtmal I-allon, ba: n L 3 lry h s r,cy,i w J - ,ill .1 in th: Plan, 'I — P-IL'IJ f- m- 3&qu.jej). tjjz tr th t d 1niLl' fnid t ­­t "t"n ipC-N �Lllj,��tili N. —v.u- A,,.16 ocar ad-.wh t1h, ing 11' .� Preiiriunaq an, �-itropt,.,in anyot (be cm5ting; s ac fiirdmina�.c. 4-L&ion utilioes 'he -eman-hriStew in in, bc yi.a v[nits lLcel', lu"Ieclivc ficticin,r Pcr City ord'im 1 -;C CJS .tile bi,ojm, ",820, "hi'l, ]-] rc, i tR 1.10 oppraiscd a'- furces 1 ifl I l 5J--4uireir . A the G111,11 t- 1,111M 41 p-_Tjjshi by the foLe,,,vF,jjal S-,.ty cf VIiricuIttirc OSA), 2�100. PLIP I C-fs 11921 R i rer R.1ch RECOAUNWNDATION-s pr*la'cijt fencing, .i, identilkii or (hr wwhrd reap, rm the Jac Plan and number the Zicus cm hr Si:, plan (%vuev shall oht a Z,ee pr- t>ra - u band in the amoi;nl of 3:6,820, which is alml to 100% of0te aprmi-i value t7ciis 71 ' in[! I ;- 15. Band s•all be put in place prior to intimining building di"i 'I'm its -t rez re, cmen a C-Tcr �hall rq,]-e ­4411th 11--1 LNual alue to thc rent tree. ]a, t v Ines n b, :'�jund at the licittCEIL 'it Ihf,'rc attached to the and of this rcpon. 4. D-gu The. Tuojeri - that ircoching fo, imgwion, tighting, drainage or my atheii &.Wcl of p eniains outsulc .ftha dnil1litics infir- curopica 5 I- prota Luve fMCM shO 1,,u intFlalled as sh�nvn n unc ullached trap and mablishat pnur to The , m . , al o f t.fivistr;vt i Cm eq. m1,t- t mtenals on utt IL slul) he comprised o f six - font high chain C1,` ten c[CIG 111" Hate i ighl - fi,jt jal�, 'N . ­Hilt b dorm +l et gal xtized posts, dri•-n 24 inches into lh,' gDund a 1 sm"ed nij mcym- il- It) feet 4iar� [rose --tW;shed, the fencing mils[ Ternain I widislurb.'d and he tn wilt amcc 11mT ,h-o [he ewistriction pmc-s until L'inal inspection. . h. - I iril�gs tim-isz;vp-cJ- all corllstn]W—uiwjdes must be cond=W vuisijr the designaicil fm-i air�a 4mmi iftci fcncime is rcniowd) 7ht�c activities include. but arc not ticcessatily iFnaed I,. flic ftll-ing. ddmali v. Laadmy, t hin, equiprnem c1caning, st-Lpili., and ,hunpine mawnals 4iuclu6jog s.i li U-,J end parking. - Any sppr.ved gradinu or Ir ,min nni, ir,-c5' arionics s.LJI be.mwit6y paformcd using so-is. S n , pruli C of Flees �'. SITC must 0, perforated under the supcmawti arms ISA Certified Arborisi at accaTdmg I, I'S", standar"s I 9 Ch- lippo;all ot'rarniflud p t,jOs 1 11 as �fieniical,. oii told eaolmOis pwhibiwd licricath urm Cznopie-, o: anywl- ou silt that , drautar kneatf, tr-ce,;ammes. Additjoimll}', fuel shall na� be slomd - sha l aj.v. tcf.Cli 19 it iouinteri-- u1 equipment ­•, within 24) feet of the .rte s u-j-nLs. Wom-ed.p. sire, they' muse lit abcl-: fo, eats use ne., tree;. ArFaFfam"ts in tri, I AW, 1,W-,S1j.um2'1 tcvT-ocat s and F.tczq, ,! Yeriel3w ARBORSIT REPORT& PLANS (AUGUST 4, 2006 1 Page 2 of 2 M23all Planning 9 DeAgn 916.435.06051 an Nwm PL CA HIM 0 A LU 0 LU 2 cc LU 0 0 X UL z C) w Z Co 13C LU cc UJ < a 0 cc 0 00 cc V Cit) 1 10-29 -ol 1 05-221 SHM NO. AR OF SHEM TREE MTSITORN TABLE F. L Lq P A—iF 11 1 f F�711 21, .1 0 P kqi1--r Jr-Vithies 1-� 24illhb- SiiO iF 6.1i L— SJ,5C,1 _ rY w.hh OW 11 i-h h- - S I ;jifAl e line.j ai-- h­— d—Wi d li hn 9—d try, r the dmmg, verb Aii,.1 21411, C-k t111:1: is Y- _1,1 6' 1_ 21 3,-- —Lunn li5 Tu 25 N., j tsj", ­Lw , , .:,: .- lla lsi, M is - -5111 1!, f �-o,mrr Rb. 1 —1— hm.!,ri 22 W- 1 Fiiii 'i I 14s, 16,5 25 Is Fit. I,- -Wl P— 1!:;,hl"uxll A 12 lit Zvi F. n 13 14 7, 14 ritlo'S lU 13777 Fi,it'alD Am Satsfu�. Califamb 5. ire 130111 Ricer Rincip Circle Application #: 07-029 ARRORBrf REPORT 4+ I5: 4, 2,.06 APN 397 -25 -004 1'rq—1 by Kate Sear (1,x Here Nolf- )nh. M.Csurnt ISA Cmfied Arbrinst W F !NTR0DUC'1I0N- I he p"Td-ty ci­-, c�;j 1 3 39 > i Kn,C'Bs1 h Umcic h- .bi nuled ow" k-jewolish 0, c. isfi., 1w. a, h F, �, ld The-vi-l-i:tT.-Anumcan 1, _tll be S�fE sail Ellgil ins. SITE ORWRVATION'S. Pi -AN KEN TENN AND'I E( HNICAi DISCUSSION I— I— uric, jimposi f", —u-1 h'!p;a;)S The hu."'.) 1,ee LP thc firlm yurd is Ivol pwtectl� by i ii pal it , plan pp—ul. 'llieclin ucc n, ine h,zckyad c"4S 2uoj ondtfl n, ul the k,1p1i.L,1F(h1 lie' 110a - aild it il ;IPPICIPil,111- ILI � Irnov, i;. vvoi- .. i I --nue"O Jim' it b,, 'Tpu-J ih - nec, Lqiiialitt "Alite tom 'Mai-,ed ,s iu..fsstio he f­':j al th:. 1)071,M C,frh, I I ejjjojy I able 11, y,a­c t-c (9 5) to the n, ghhu )-jw n t m d I s Sx Invcy lihafice- Ii.ii- -imils 1} xtmal I-allon, ba: n L 3 lry h s r,cy,i w J - ,ill .1 in th: Plan, 'I — P-IL'IJ f- m- 3&qu.jej). tjjz tr th t d 1niLl' fnid t ­­t "t"n ipC-N �Lllj,��tili N. —v.u- A,,.16 ocar ad-.wh t1h, ing 11' .� Preiiriunaq an, �-itropt,.,in anyot (be cm5ting; s ac fiirdmina�.c. 4-L&ion utilioes 'he -eman-hriStew in in, bc yi.a v[nits lLcel', lu"Ieclivc ficticin,r Pcr City ord'im 1 -;C CJS .tile bi,ojm, ",820, "hi'l, ]-] rc, i tR 1.10 oppraiscd a'- furces 1 ifl I l 5J--4uireir . A the G111,11 t- 1,111M 41 p-_Tjjshi by the foLe,,,vF,jjal S-,.ty cf VIiricuIttirc OSA), 2�100. PLIP I C-fs 11921 R i rer R.1ch RECOAUNWNDATION-s pr*la'cijt fencing, .i, identilkii or (hr wwhrd reap, rm the Jac Plan and number the Zicus cm hr Si:, plan (%vuev shall oht a Z,ee pr- t>ra - u band in the amoi;nl of 3:6,820, which is alml to 100% of0te aprmi-i value t7ciis 71 ' in[! I ;- 15. Band s•all be put in place prior to intimining building di"i 'I'm its -t rez re, cmen a C-Tcr �hall rq,]-e ­4411th 11--1 LNual alue to thc rent tree. ]a, t v Ines n b, :'�jund at the licittCEIL 'it Ihf,'rc attached to the and of this rcpon. 4. D-gu The. Tuojeri - that ircoching fo, imgwion, tighting, drainage or my atheii &.Wcl of p eniains outsulc .ftha dnil1litics infir- curopica 5 I- prota Luve fMCM shO 1,,u intFlalled as sh�nvn n unc ullached trap and mablishat pnur to The , m . , al o f t.fivistr;vt i Cm eq. m1,t- t mtenals on utt IL slul) he comprised o f six - font high chain C1,` ten c[CIG 111" Hate i ighl - fi,jt jal�, 'N . ­Hilt b dorm +l et gal xtized posts, dri•-n 24 inches into lh,' gDund a 1 sm"ed nij mcym- il- It) feet 4iar� [rose --tW;shed, the fencing mils[ Ternain I widislurb.'d and he tn wilt amcc 11mT ,h-o [he ewistriction pmc-s until L'inal inspection. . h. - I iril�gs tim-isz;vp-cJ- all corllstn]W—uiwjdes must be cond=W vuisijr the designaicil fm-i air�a 4mmi iftci fcncime is rcniowd) 7ht�c activities include. but arc not ticcessatily iFnaed I,. flic ftll-ing. ddmali v. Laadmy, t hin, equiprnem c1caning, st-Lpili., and ,hunpine mawnals 4iuclu6jog s.i li U-,J end parking. - Any sppr.ved gradinu or Ir ,min nni, ir,-c5' arionics s.LJI be.mwit6y paformcd using so-is. S n , pruli C of Flees �'. SITC must 0, perforated under the supcmawti arms ISA Certified Arborisi at accaTdmg I, I'S", standar"s I 9 Ch- lippo;all ot'rarniflud p t,jOs 1 11 as �fieniical,. oii told eaolmOis pwhibiwd licricath urm Cznopie-, o: anywl- ou silt that , drautar kneatf, tr-ce,;ammes. Additjoimll}', fuel shall na� be slomd - sha l aj.v. tcf.Cli 19 it iouinteri-- u1 equipment ­•, within 24) feet of the .rte s u-j-nLs. Wom-ed.p. sire, they' muse lit abcl-: fo, eats use ne., tree;. ArFaFfam"ts in tri, I AW, 1,W-,S1j.um2'1 tcvT-ocat s and F.tczq, ,! Yeriel3w ARBORSIT REPORT& PLANS (AUGUST 4, 2006 1 Page 2 of 2 M23all Planning 9 DeAgn 916.435.06051 an Nwm PL CA HIM 0 A LU 0 LU 2 cc LU 0 0 X UL z C) w Z Co 13C LU cc UJ < a 0 cc 0 00 cc V Cit) 1 10-29 -ol 1 05-221 SHM NO. AR OF SHEM TREF INVENTORY TABLE F. kqi1--r Jr-Vithies 1-� 24illhb- SiiO iF 6.1i L— SJ,5C,1 _ rY w.hh OW 11 i-h h- - S I ;jifAl e line.j ai-- h­— d—Wi d li hn 9—d try, r the dmmg, verb Aii,.1 21411, C-k A 12 lit Zvi F. n 13 14 7, 14 ritlo'S lU 13777 Fi,it'alD Am Satsfu�. Califamb 5. ire 130111 Ricer Rincip Circle Application #: 07-029 ARRORBrf REPORT 4+ I5: 4, 2,.06 APN 397 -25 -004 1'rq—1 by Kate Sear (1,x Here Nolf- )nh. M.Csurnt ISA Cmfied Arbrinst W F !NTR0DUC'1I0N- I he p"Td-ty ci­-, c�;j 1 3 39 > i Kn,C'Bs1 h Umcic h- .bi nuled ow" k-jewolish 0, c. isfi., 1w. a, h F, �, ld The-vi-l-i:tT.-Anumcan 1, _tll be S�fE sail Ellgil ins. SITE ORWRVATION'S. Pi -AN KEN TENN AND'I E( HNICAi DISCUSSION I— I— uric, jimposi f", —u-1 h'!p;a;)S The hu."'.) 1,ee LP thc firlm yurd is Ivol pwtectl� by i ii pal it , plan pp—ul. 'llieclin ucc n, ine h,zckyad c"4S 2uoj ondtfl n, ul the k,1p1i.L,1F(h1 lie' 110a - aild it il ;IPPICIPil,111- ILI � Irnov, i;. vvoi- .. i I --nue"O Jim' it b,, 'Tpu-J ih - nec, Lqiiialitt "Alite tom 'Mai-,ed ,s iu..fsstio he f­':j al th:. 1)071,M C,frh, I I ejjjojy I able 11, y,a­c t-c (9 5) to the n, ghhu )-jw n t m d I s Sx Invcy lihafice- Ii.ii- -imils 1} xtmal I-allon, ba: n L 3 lry h s r,cy,i w J - ,ill .1 in th: Plan, 'I — P-IL'IJ f- m- 3&qu.jej). tjjz tr th t d 1niLl' fnid t ­­t "t"n ipC-N �Lllj,��tili N. —v.u- A,,.16 ocar ad-.wh t1h, ing 11' .� Preiiriunaq an, �-itropt,.,in anyot (be cm5ting; s ac fiirdmina�.c. 4-L&ion utilioes 'he -eman-hriStew in in, bc yi.a v[nits lLcel', lu"Ieclivc ficticin,r Pcr City ord'im 1 -;C CJS .tile bi,ojm, ",820, "hi'l, ]-] rc, i tR 1.10 oppraiscd a'- furces 1 ifl I l 5J--4uireir . A the G111,11 t- 1,111M 41 p-_Tjjshi by the foLe,,,vF,jjal S-,.ty cf VIiricuIttirc OSA), 2�100. PLIP I C-fs 11921 R i rer R.1ch RECOAUNWNDATION-s pr*la'cijt fencing, .i, identilkii or (hr wwhrd reap, rm the Jac Plan and number the Zicus cm hr Si:, plan (%vuev shall oht a Z,ee pr- t>ra - u band in the amoi;nl of 3:6,820, which is alml to 100% of0te aprmi-i value t7ciis 71 ' in[! I ;- 15. Band s•all be put in place prior to intimining building di"i 'I'm its -t rez re, cmen a C-Tcr �hall rq,]-e ­4411th 11--1 LNual alue to thc rent tree. ]a, t v Ines n b, :'�jund at the licittCEIL 'it Ihf,'rc attached to the and of this rcpon. 4. D-gu The. Tuojeri - that ircoching fo, imgwion, tighting, drainage or my atheii &.Wcl of p eniains outsulc .ftha dnil1litics infir- curopica 5 I- prota Luve fMCM shO 1,,u intFlalled as sh�nvn n unc ullached trap and mablishat pnur to The , m . , al o f t.fivistr;vt i Cm eq. m1,t- t mtenals on utt IL slul) he comprised o f six - font high chain C1,` ten c[CIG 111" Hate i ighl - fi,jt jal�, 'N . ­Hilt b dorm +l et gal xtized posts, dri•-n 24 inches into lh,' gDund a 1 sm"ed nij mcym- il- It) feet 4iar� [rose --tW;shed, the fencing mils[ Ternain I widislurb.'d and he tn wilt amcc 11mT ,h-o [he ewistriction pmc-s until L'inal inspection. . h. - I iril�gs tim-isz;vp-cJ- all corllstn]W—uiwjdes must be cond=W vuisijr the designaicil fm-i air�a 4mmi iftci fcncime is rcniowd) 7ht�c activities include. but arc not ticcessatily iFnaed I,. flic ftll-ing. ddmali v. Laadmy, t hin, equiprnem c1caning, st-Lpili., and ,hunpine mawnals 4iuclu6jog s.i li U-,J end parking. - Any sppr.ved gradinu or Ir ,min nni, ir,-c5' arionics s.LJI be.mwit6y paformcd using so-is. S n , pruli C of Flees �'. SITC must 0, perforated under the supcmawti arms ISA Certified Arborisi at accaTdmg I, I'S", standar"s I 9 Ch- lippo;all ot'rarniflud p t,jOs 1 11 as �fieniical,. oii told eaolmOis pwhibiwd licricath urm Cznopie-, o: anywl- ou silt that , drautar kneatf, tr-ce,;ammes. Additjoimll}', fuel shall na� be slomd - sha l aj.v. tcf.Cli 19 it iouinteri-- u1 equipment ­•, within 24) feet of the .rte s u-j-nLs. Wom-ed.p. sire, they' muse lit abcl-: fo, eats use ne., tree;. ArFaFfam"ts in tri, I AW, 1,W-,S1j.um2'1 tcvT-ocat s and F.tczq, ,! Yeriel3w ARBORSIT REPORT& PLANS (AUGUST 4, 2006 1 Page 2 of 2 M23all Planning 9 DeAgn 916.435.06051 an Nwm PL CA HIM 0 A LU 0 LU 2 cc LU 0 0 X UL z C) w Z Co 13C LU cc UJ < a 0 cc 0 00 cc V Cit) 1 10-29 -ol 1 05-221 SHM NO. AR OF SHEM r� t Item 5 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Type of Application: Owner /Applicant: Staff Planner: Meeting Date: APN: MOD 07 -0002; 15219 Sobey Road Modification of Design Review Approval Shadman Shweta Bhatt, Associate Planner January 9, 2008 2 397 -08 -091 Department Head: John F. Livingstone, AICP 9 \ ?Clg n �^1 i \ . s°rZ t00 Ac�NEi r s5 �` _ tqC•. LT R Oa JJ 1 3 \ "1 1 1.30X.'IdET Hd c 1. 2S •'� z „•Ltd C.A• �.•� ♦.. 0.95 Y Jam' M, tto 1_Y .. PLL osAC- Y 4 O Y mte t ,. g• r t33Ac.NEr 1: S • •ice YCl d :t Ae. t:T� 5 4 2g4C.q - +� r ]u. ll)A. /,�•/, °� /i cn.., •AI u� °' dA/ " I + n.lr f08 /�• 41 N E ' Idsdn d!-T. yer 1. a =rw n r ' dip � 1 \ � ♦ n♦ � Y 6 ♦j 2... ROAD W B3 QV - vnl�ar —. —.mz m 0G I.do 4C. A�(/fjpC^tdTAAnFTry AI . W. `Ei7.r f.odAe.Hf:]. , 1 j r 1.12 AC \• A Z _ _ 1�-• �. wMr �J: ? � � 3r .. 1, t4TTA� t f '..2 i 1 4 � ` IM 7 ` \�� /'� +° ill -___ -'T� �•� a °'y': ♦l nKl ,r.. ,.,`I E.yr PCL 9 Io920CN .]AGK 10�' 99 z �9 �� EV Sllb]eCt: =� r,-"toj Cr 15219 Sobey Road APN: 397 -08 -091 ', _mat'•• .92AGNE0 Ip2+)Egp er _ I \�• 500' Radius Al 15219 Sobey Road Application No. MOD 07 -0002; 15219 Sobey Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ASE STOR ,1( Ap ication filed: 11/19/07 A lication complete: 12/12/07 otice published: 12/25/07 Mailing completed: 12/20/07 Posting completed: 01/03/08 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests a Modification of Design Review Approval to modify an application approved by the Planning Commission at the October 13, 2004 hearing. The original approval was for a new single -story dwelling consisting of 5,677 square feet of floor area and a partial basement. The home has. been constructed and is mostly complete. Proposed changes to the original approval include, but are not limited to: eliminating shutters, eliminating divided lites on some windows,_ relocating chimneys, adding a window on the south elevation, and modifying a trellis on the rear facade. The gross lot size is approximately 46,082 square feet and the site is located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve this Modification of Design Review Approval by adopting the attached resolution with conditions. Staff is not recommending any permanent conditions of approval for this project. • • • • Application No. MOD 07 -0002; 15219 Sobey Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: VLDR (Very Low Density Residential) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: Approximately 46,082 gross square feet SLOPE: Approximately 15.45% GRADING REQUIRED: The original Design Review Approval included landscaping plans that required grading of the western side of the parcel. The approved grading and drainage plans, however, did not show this area to be graded. The applicant proceeded to grade the area consistent with the landscaping plan, but has since restored the soil on that portion of the lot in response to neighbor concern. "As built" grading plans prepared by the applicant's engineer are on file with the Building Department certifying that the topography on that portion of the lot is in substantial compliance to what it was before the area was graded. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed modifications to the single - family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures ", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single - family residences. MATERIALS AND COLORS: The applicant has painted the exterior of the home earth tone colors, similar to that which was approved. The stone veneer on the exterior of the home and the brown roofing material match the description on the previously approved materials board. r. �y h &Vol J t,+ Application No. MOD 07 -0002; 15219 Sobey Road PROJECT DATA R- 1- 40,000 Zonin Approved Proposed Required Site Coverage Residence: 5,637 SF 5,637 SF Driveway and Parking: 3,250 SF 31250 SF Walkways/Patio: 1,661 SF 1,661 SF Maximum Allowable = Pool (not yet built): 608 SF 608 SF 16,128 SF (35 %) Sportcourt (not yet 1,125 SF 1,125 SF built): TOTAL Site Coverage. 12,281 SF 12,281 SF Floor Area First Floor with Garage 5,677 SF 5,665 SF Area: Maximum Allowable = Basement Area '(not 845 SF 1,750 SF 5,688 SF FA): . TOTAL Floor Area. 5,677 SF 5,665 SF Setbacks Front: 30 Feet 30 Feet 30 Feet Rear: 74 Feet 74 Feet 50 Feet East Side: 38 Feet 38 Feet 20 Feet West Side: 68 Feet 68 Feet 20 Feet Height Lowest Elevation Point: 483.0 483.0 Highest Elevation Point: 498.5 498.5 Maximum Height = Average Elevation 490.75 490.75 516.75 (26 Feet) Point: Proposed Topmost 514.5 (23.75 514.5 (23.75 Feet Point: Feet tall) tall) PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a modification to the Design Review Approval granted by the Planning Commission on October 13, 2004. City Code Section 16- 05.035(c)(2) requires modifications to plans. approved by the Planning Commission return to the Commission for review. (Note that Section 15- 80.120 regarding modification is inapplicable because the original approval predates November 22, 2004). Modifications include: eliminating shutters, eliminating divided lites on some windows, relocating chimneys and fireplaces, adding a window on the south elevation, and modifying a trellis on the rear faeade. Plans submitted for this modification show the changes clouded. The original approval included landscaping plans that required grading of the western side of the parcel. The approved grading and drainage plans, however, did not show this area to be graded. The applicant proceeded to grade the area consistent with the landscaping plan, .but has since restored the soil on that portion of the lot in response to a • • Application No. MOD 07 -0002; 15219 Sobey Road Lthe neighbor's concern. "As built" grading plans prepared by the applicant's ne file with the Building Department certifying that the topography on that pot is in substantial compliance to what it was before the area was graded. he Planning Commission should consider a system for retention of stormwatete or minimizing the impact of any such runoff depar ting the site. Neighbor Review A neighbor to the north of the property has submitted several letters, concerning the project. The neighbor had also submitted several comments in regards to the project when it was previously heard before the Planning Commission. Two of his most recent letters (date- stamped September 20, 2007 and October 29, 2007) have been attached to this staff report. His concerns and related discussion are below. ■ Storm water drainage: The original Design Review Approval required "a storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on -site, and incorporating the New Development 'and Construction - Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on -site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan." This condition has not been complied with. However some improvements to the site (e.g. sump features shown on the plans) do partially retain stormwater runoff on- site. The as -built development neither retains all stormwater runoff on -site nor explains why it cannot be so retained. Staff, has added a condition to require installation of a drainage mechanism near the northeastern boundary of the property. The Planning Commission could also consider any explanation from the Applicant as to why the stormwater runoff cannot be better retained on -site. At a minimum the sump features should be included as conditions of approval to any resolution approving the Modification of the October 13, 2004 Design Review Approval. ■ Utility easements: This is a civil issue and is between property owners to resolve. There is existing liti ation regarding this issue. �} � ntPri �. tr7" C.v VV A �b I ■ Gradin : The applicant has replaced the slope on the western side of the lot and has submitted an "as- built" grading plan that shows the topography is in substantial compliance with what was originally in place. Trees equal in value to those removed (including the coast live oak) have been planted on the site. The staff report for the October 13, 2004 hearing listed the basement as being 845 square feet; however the construction documents show the basement size being 1,750 square feet. Absent a condition of approval or Design Review Approval plans showing the basement limited to 845 square feet, the 1,750 square foot basement approved by the City should be recognized and specifically approved as part of this modification proceeding. -� Application :No: MOD 07 -0002; 15219 Sobey Road ■ Hammerhead turn- around: The Santa Clara County fire department has inspected the turn- around area and has verified that this space is adequate for fire -truck turn around. Trees" The arborist has completed a final inspection of the property and has found that the trees have been protected through the construction process. A coast live oak tree ( #17) was removed in the process of restoring the slope on the western side of the property. Replacement trees equivalent to $13,010 were required to be planted and the owner has planted ten 36 -inch box trees and ten 24 -inch box trees for a total replacement value of $20,000. Geotechnical Clearance Geotechnical Clearance was granted for this project as required for the proposed basement. 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. The proposed modifications will .not create a significant visual impact to the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. The home. is earth tone in color, has a rustic appearance, and is set back from Sobey Road. 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 proposed modifications meet the Findings required for Design Approval. The home is still well designed with detailed architectural features. 'Design Review`Findiigs The propose roJ ect is consistent with all the following Design Review Approval findings stated in .City Code Section 15- 45.080: (a) Avoid .,unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project with proposed modifications meets this finding in that the building pad is lower in elevation than those.homes around it. Downslope homes are not impacted as to views or privacy. The proposed modifications do not involve increasing the height of the home or moving. the footprint. The proposed modifications are regarding architectural features (including relocation of chimneys and a new south ',,facing window) and do not increase any impact to views and privacy. • • • f • • • Application No. MOD 07 -0002; 15219 Sobey Road (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The proposed. modifications do not involve changing the natural landscape, as most of the modifications involve architectural features. The applicant has replaced the soil removed on the western side of the lot in substantial compliance with the original natural grade. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The project meets this finding in that the modifications are primarily architectural. In the process of restoring the graded sloping portion of the lot, a coast live oak tree ( #17) was removed. For this tree and others removed, ten 36 -inch box size trees and ten 24 -inch box size trees were planted for a total replacement value of $20,000. This far exceeds the required replacement value of $13,010 for removed trees. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed modifications involve the removal of architectural features such as shutters on the front fagade. The home still has stone accents and maintains building articulation so that the perception of excessive bulk is minimized, meeting this finding. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed modifications meet this finding in that they do not change the home's compatibility of bulk and height with the surrounding homes. (f) rs grading and erosion control methods. The applicant has restored the ortion of the lot so that it is in substantial compliance with the original to erosion control and drainage, the original Design Review Approval that "a storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on -site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction - Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on -site due to topographic, soils or other cons exp a atory note shall be provided on the plan." This condition has not been complied with. However some improvements to the site (e.g. sump features shown on the plans) do p is y retam stormwater runoff i er retains all stormwater runo on -site nor -explains y i canno e. a recommends that a condition be added to a reso ution to require installation of a drainage mechanism near the northeastern boundary of the property. The Planning Commission could also consider any explanation from the Applicant as to why the stormwater runoff cannot be better retained on -site. At a minimum the sump features should be included as conditions of approval to any resolution approving the Modification of the October 13, 2004 Design Review Approval. (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. • Application No. MOD 07 -0002; 15219 Sobey Road Conclusion Staff finds that the Design Review. findings for the proposed modifications can be made in the affirmative. STAFF RECOMMENDATION . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Modification of Design Review Approval MOD 07 -0002 with conditions by adopting the attached resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval 2.. Affidavit of mailing notices, public hearing notice, copy of mailing labels for project notification, and proof of newspaper noticing. 3. Neighbor letters, date - stamped September 20, 2007, October 29, 2007, and January 02, 2008. 4. Arborist; reports dated December 17, 2007, October 10, 2006, March 8, 2004; and June 19, 2002 5. Planning Commission hearing minutes dated June 23, 2004 and- October 13, 2004 6. Reduced Plans,.Exhibit "A." • • • %p &I p g � Cork- lob y. . *'V�vx. A..t c ment a6 Sl OW C,07\1 M4 LZ �o 7LL Cl `..d d Ac APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. MOD 07 -0002 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Michael Shadman; 15219 Sobey Road t Approval of 1VMod'if cation of 'Design Review Approval .Granted October 13, 2004 for a Single Family Dwelling with Basement. WHEREAS, the City o" Planning Commission has received an application for Modification of Design Review Approval to modify architectural features on a single story home, grading, and tree removal.at the property located at 15219 Sobey Road. The lot is situated in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district; and WHEREAS; the Planning Commission held, a duly noticed Public Hearing at which 4; -time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; r: and "- WHEREAS athe''project, which proposes to modify a newly constructed single - family residence is Categorically Exempt` from` the Envir ' rental : Quality Act, (CEQA) pursuant Section 153:03"NeW 6nstruction or Conversion of Small Structures ", Class 3 (a) of the Public`Resources•Code (CEQA). This illass 31exemption applies to construction of a single- family -home in -an-- urbanized area - -and- - - WHEREAS, the 1" has' met .the burden of proof required -to ,support said application for Modification of the October 13, 2004 Design Review Approval based on the following findings specified in City Code Section 15- 45.080: . (a) Avoid- unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project with ,proposed modifications. meets this ;finding in that the building pad is lower in elevation than `those homes around it. Downslope homes* are not impacted as to views ,or privacy... ­ .The . proposed modifications do not ,involve increasing; the height ,of the home' or moving the footprint. The proposed modifications' are regarding-urchitectural features. (including relocation -of chimneys; and a new south facing window) and do not increase, any impact to views and privacy. .`. :,(b) Preserve _ Natural Landscape. - The proposed'; modifications'-do, not.- involve changing the - natural landscape; as most of the modifications involve architectural features., 34 0, applicant has replaced-the soil removed on the western side `of:the ' lot in substantial compliance "with the original natural`grade. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The project' meets this-finding ;in`'that. the modifications. are. primarily architectural. In the process of 'restoring the graded r� Application No. MOD 07 -0002; 15219 Sobey Road sloping portion of the lot, a coast live oak tree ( #17) was removed. For this tree and others removed, ten 36 -inch box size trees and ten 24 -inch box size trees were planted for a total replacement value of $20,000. This far exceeds the required replacement value of $13,010 for removed trees. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed modifications involve the removal of architectural features such as shutters on the front fagade. The home still has stone accents and maintains building articulation so that the perception of excessive bulk is minimized, meeting this finding. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed modifications meet this finding in that they do not change the home's compatibility of bulk and height with the surrounding homes. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The applicant has restored the sloping portion of the lot so that it is in substantial compliance with the original grade. As to erosion control and drainage, the original Design Review Approval required that "a storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on -site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction - Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on -site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan." This condition has not been complied with. However some improvements to the site (e.g. sump features shown on the plans) do partially retain stormwater runoff on -site. The as -built development neither retains all stormwater runoff on -site nor explains why it cannot be so retained. Staff recommends that a condition be added to the resolution to require instal of a drainage mechanism near the northeastern boundary of the property The Planning Commission could also consider any explanation from the Applicant as to why the stormwater runoff cannot be better retained on -site. At a minimum the sump features s ou be inc u e as con i ions o approval to any resolution approving the Modification of the October 13, 2004 Design Review Approval. (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. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Modification of the October 13, 2004 Design Review Approval based on the following findings of consistency with the City General Plan: (a) Conservation Element Policy 6.0 - Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The isproposed modifications will not create a significant visual impact to the rural Application No. MOD 07 -0002, 15219 Sobey Road atmosphere of Saratoga. The home is earth tone in color, has a rustic appearance, and is set back from Sobey Road. (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 proposed modifications meet the Findings required for Design Approval.. The home is still well designed with detailed architectural features. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the application, site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the exemption from CEQA is approved, the - requisite findings are made, and application number MOD07 -0002 for Modification of the Design Review Approval granted October 13, 2004 by Planning Commission Resolution Number 04 -021 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 constructed `as shown on the plans stamped as Exhibit "A" and date- stamped January 02, 2008; hereby incorporated by reference. This approval expressly includes the basement sized at 1,750 square feet. 2. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on -site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction – Best Management Practices, shall be submitted along with the complete construction drawings. The applicant shall install a drainage mechanism (drain inlets /catch basins underneath the existing driveway near the north boundary of the property) to retain all —� WU41 tormwater runoff on site by capturing such stormwater and/or diverting it away from adjacent property. The sump features shown on the grading and drainage plans are hereby made conditions of approval to this resolution approving the Modification of the October 13, 2004 Design Review Approval. 3. Four. sets of complete construction plans incorporating this signed Resolution and Arborist Reports for this project dated December 17, 2007, October 10, 2006, March S, 2004, and June 19, 2002 shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for permit plan check review. 4. Final landscape, irrigation and utility plans shall be incorporated into the • construction plan set and shall take into account the following requirements: Application No. MOD 07 -0002; 15219 Sobey Road . 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. • 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 prolonged exposure to water shall be specified. • Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. • 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. • Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. •. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. 5. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection. 6. Any changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the City pursuant to the procedures then applicable under the City Code. 7. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 8. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the community development department, shall be reconciled with a minimum $500 surplus balance at all times. In the event that the balance is less than $500, all staff work on the project shall cease until the balance is restored to a minimum $50 . YW V-0 CITY ARBORIST • 9. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Report dated December 17, 2007, October 10, 2006, March 8, 2004, and June 19, 2002 shall be followed. Nn Application No. MOD 07 -0002, 15219 Sobey Road 10. Tree protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist, shall be installed and inspected by Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. 11. Prior to issuance of City Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security equivalent to 100% of the total 'appraised value of trees to be retained to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees,. 12. The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The security shall be released after the planting of required replacement trees, a favorable site inspection by the City Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. GEOTECHNICAL CLEARANCE 13. The Project Geotechnical Engineer 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 building foundations, and driveways) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations. Specifically, the Consultant shall consider the following: . ■ For compliance with the Uniform Building Code, consideration shall be given to minimum 15 -inch wide foundation footings. • Consideration shall be given to utilization of minimum two #5 bars (top and bottom) in foundation footings. • Groundwater fluctuations could occur at the site with potential impacts to the proposed basement. The Consultant shall consider the use of an axial sub -drain beneath the proposed basement floor to mitigate shallow groundwater. ■ The Consultant shall also evaluate the location and design of the proposed energy dissipaters with respect to slope stability and erosion impacts. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of permits. 14. 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, and excavations, for fill keyways, and foundation construction prior to placement of fill, steel 'and concrete. t • • Application No. MOD 07.0002; 15219 Sobey Road The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final Project Approval. 15. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 16. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. FIRE DEPARTMENT 17. The applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 18. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging any of the City's actions or proceedings with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. Construction must commence within thirty-six (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, the 9th day of January 2008 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: • ABSTAIN: Application No. MOD 07 -0002; 15219 Sobey Road 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 • • 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 201h day of December , 2007, that I deposited 35 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: 15219 Sobey Road APN: 397 -08 -091 that on -said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. beflise Kaspa Advanced Listing Services C7 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 9t'' day of January 2008, 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: #MOD07 -0002 —15219 Sobey Road APPLICANT /OWNER: Shadman / Shadman APN: 397 -08 -091 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests a Modification of Design Review Approval to modify an application approved by the Planning Commission at the October 13, 2004 hearing. The original approval was for a new single -story dwelling consisting of 5,677 square feet of floor area and a partial basement. Proposed changes include, but are not limited to: eliminating shutters, eliminating divided lites on some windows, relocating chimneys, and modifying a trellis on the rear fagade. The gross lot size is approximately 46,082 square feet and the site is located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. 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 Thursday January 03, 2008. 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.sarato ag 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. Shweta Bhatt Associate Planner sbhattta,saratoga.ca.us (408) 868 -1266 December 17, 2007 300' Ownership Listing Prepared for: 397 -08 -091 MICHAEL SHADMAN 15219 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6255 397 -07 -038 397 -07 -039 397 -07 -037 SRIDHAR RAMESH & SHINKU SHARMA MENG LEE OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 10601 GLENVIEW AVE 15201 SOBEY RD 15211 SOBEY RD CUPERTINO CA 95014 -6238 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6255 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6255 397 -07 -053 397 -07 -054 397 -07 -055 RONNIE BERRY SANFORD BERLINER BARBARA STOCK OR CURRENT OWNER OR- CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 15225 SOBEY RD 15237 SOBEY RD 15249 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6255 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6255 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6255 397 -07 -060 397 -07 -061 GUDAPATI THOMAS U & NORMA COE KENNETH & DEBORAH FOLLMAR OWNER %SOBEY OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER RD -15217 SOBEY RD 15261 SOBEY RD A 95070 -62 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6255 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6255 397 -07 -072 397 -07 -073 397 -07 -062 STEVEN D & ALISA LEWIS VERA H & STEFANIE BRAND JIN KIM OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 306 WALSH RD 15279 SOBEY RD 15283 SOBEY RD ATHERTON CA 94027 -6437 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6255 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6255 397 -07 -100 397 -07 -101 397 -07 -105 AKI FUJIMURA DAVID PROPACH JOSEPH H & LAURA MENARD OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 15220 SOBEY RD 15200 SOBEY RD 15250 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6239 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6239 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6239 39 -08- 026,27 397 -08 -031- 397 -08 =032 S OTT KRIEN CHRIS K'SMITHER JEFFREY B & ELIZABETH BRYANT O CURRENT OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 18 4 MONTE 18975 MONTE VISTA DR 19001 MONTE VISTA DR SARA SARATOGA CA 95070 -6202 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6202 397 -08 -044. 397 -08 -045 397 -08 -046 . JOSEPH & MARY OBOT CAROL W & JEROME LOHR WEI -JEN & MEI -LIEN LO OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 18721 MONTEWOOD DR 18755 MONTEWOOD DR 18787 MONTEWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6221 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6221 SARATOGA.CA 95070 -6221 397 -08 -047 397 -08 -048 397 -08 -049 CESAR M MAYO GLORIA ANASTASIA TOVE SIMONSEN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 18801 MONTEWOOD DR 18811 MONTEWOOD DR 18433 MONTEWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6221 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6221 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6221 397 -08 -050 HAROLD P & ELEANOR LIPTON OR CURRENT OWNER MONTE VISTA DR TOGA CA 95070 -6277 397 -08 -083 DEAN V & JAIMIE BOBROWSKI OR CURRENT OWNER 15225 BLUE GUM CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -6268 397 -08 -093 JOSEPH SWEENEY OR CURRENT OWNER 18929 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6298 CITY OF SARATOGA ATTN: Shweta Bhatt 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CA 95070 • • 397 -08 -081 397 -08 -082 GUPTA RAM PAUL & SA ROJ K 3 -2 -90 DAGMAR M HORVATH OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 15000 BLUE GUM CT 15209 BLUE GUM CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -6268 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6268 397 -08 -091 MICHAEL SHADMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 15219 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6255 397 -08 -094 PATRICK J & SILVIA OHAREN OR CURRENT OWNER 18935 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6202 Advanced Listing Services P.O Box 2593 Dana Point CA 92624 397 -08 -002 KEVIN & YIANNOULLA STURGE OR CURRENT OWNER 18927 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6298 397 -08 -095 BHEDA FAMILY OR CURRENT OWNER 18955 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6202 1I) i3 t ter' -- x •F' 3 1 s _ l s� Gcueral Notices NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF ROSEMARY C. RUDDY CASE NO. 1-07-PR-162393 To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent credi- tors, and persons who may otherwise beinterested in the will or estate, or both of ROSEMARY C. RUDDY A PETITION has been filed by PAUL). RUDDY in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. THE PETITION requests that PAUL J. RUDDY be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent. THE PETITION requests the decedent's WILL and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court. THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless the have waived notice of consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interest- ed person files an objection to the-petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority. A HEARING on the petition will be held on JANUARY 16, 2008, 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 15 located at 191 North First St., San lose, CA 95113. - IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at. tire hearing, and state your objections or File written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance maybe in person: or by your attorney. IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the deceased, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal repre- sentative appointed by the court within four months from the date of first Issuance of letters as provided in section 9100 of the California Probate Code. The time for filing claims wilt not expire before four months from the hearing date noticed above. YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a formal Request. for Special Notice of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of _estate assets or of any peti- tion or account as provided in section 1250 of the California Probate Code. A Request for Special Notice form is avail- able from the court clerk. Attorney for petitioner: PETER BA)OREK - HALES& GEORGE 19040 COX AVENUE: SUITE i SARATOGA, CA 95070 408 -255. 6292 ' (Pub SN 12/26, 1/2,1/9) - NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF LOIS 0. SHERRY CASE NO. 1-07-PR-162271 To all heirs, beneficiaries. creditors, contingent credi- 'lors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of LOIS O.SHERRY A PETITION has been filed by JAMES B. PITKIN in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. THE PETITION requests that JAMES B. PITKIN he appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent. THE PETITION requests the decedents ' WILL and codicils ' e if any, he admitted to p robate. The will and any.codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court. . THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal repre- sentative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the person - at representative . will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interest- ed person files an objection to the petition and shows good .cause why the court should not grant the authority. A HEARING on the petition_ will be held on JANUARY 7, 2008, 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 15 located at 191 North First St., San lose, CA 95113. IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you .should Important Information:. . No refunds after submission. Canceled ads will receia credit for .Future admiring, floc a r,F md. Ads must be canceled before dead. line for chat issue. - -. Achertismsenn are ..opted upon the represenntion chat the adsmiss, and/or its agency have the right to publish die —tem s. thereof. In consideration of such publication, advrrtuer and its ageog agree to inda-mnify and hold the publisher harmless agaimt arty expense or loss by ..on of any claims arising out of public- t .'nc� publish., cs the right to odic. -kc until. or sefusc any adserising submitted. ' Fur pulicia concerning speck camgories, plearc refer to the pan - graph at the baginuing of the category or ell us at 408.200.1025 or email us m eLwifis W- cnmrmoky •rnap.r—en. appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney. IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the deceased, you must File your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal repre- sentative appointed by the court within four months from the date of first issuance of letters as provided in section 9100 of the California Probate Code. The time for filing claims will not expire before four months from the hearing dale noticed above. YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a formal Request for Special Notice of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any peti- tion or account as provided in section 1750 of the California Probate Code. A Request for Special Notice form is avail- able from the court clerk. Attorney for petitioner: JAMES B. PITKIN - -P.O. BOX 2453 SARATOGA, CA 95070 408.345 -2387 (Pub SN 12/12, 12/19,12/26) NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF - ALFRED JOSEPH MERNONE, aka ALFRED J. MERNONE, deceased CASE NO. 1-07-PR-261970 To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent credi- tors, and _persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ALFRED JOSEPH MERNONE, aka ALFRED I. MERNONE, deceased A PETITION has been filed by .DOROTHY' MERNONE in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. THE PETITION requests that DOROTHY MERNONE be - appointed as personal repre sentative to administer the estate of the decedent. THE PETITION requests the decedent's WILL and codicils,' if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court. THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval.. Before taking certain very S ilicon Valley Community Newspapers accepts no lia- bility for its failure, for any cause, to insert an advertise. ment. Liability for any error appearing in an advertisement . is limited to the cost or the space actually occupied. No allowance, however, will be granted for an error that does not materially affect the value of the advertisement. To quali- fy lot an aditsoment. any error must be reported within 15 days of. publication date. Credit for errors is limited to first insertion. important actions, however. the. personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interest- ed person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority. A HEARING on the petition will be held on JANUARY 17, 2008, 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 15 located at 191 North First St., San Jose, CA 95113. IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and stale your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney. IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the deceased, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personalrepre- sentative .appointed by the court within four months from the date of first issuance of letters as provided in section 9100 of the California Probate Code. The time for filing claims will not expire before four months from the hearing date noticed above. YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a formal Request for Special Notice of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any peli- lionor account as provided in section 1250 of the California Probate Code. A Request for Special Notice form is avail- able from the court clerk. - Attorney for petitioner: JENNIFER H. FRIEDMAN, SEIN 195475 JOHN L. FLEGEL, SBN 57010 1100 ALMA STREET, SUITE 210 MENLO PARK, CA 94025 650.324 -9300 (Pub SN 12/12,12/19,12/26) LEGAL NOTICE Notice of Provisional Appointment Process - Westi,h1.M -A1LUion < Community College District Trustee Area 1 Due to the passing of Trustee Don Cordero, the Board of Trustees announces that it will fill his seat until the next general election in November 2008 through a provisional appointment process in accor- dance with Education Code Sections 5090 and 5092. Interested candidates must meet the following minimum qualifications in order to be considered for this provisional appointment: • Must be 18 years of age • Must be a registered voter • Must reside within the West Valley- Mission Community College District, Trustee Area 1 (Saratoga /Los Gatos /Monte Sereno /por- tions of San Jose and Santa Cruz). Please call the Registrar of Voters Office to confirm (408.299- 8683). Interested applicants should submit a resume and a letter of interest that includes why they are seeking appointment to the WVMCCD Board of Trustees; what skills, abilities, and experiences they would bring to the Board to assist in carrying out its responsibili. ties; and a description of their base of community support and /or their unique under- standing of the community, which would widen the com- munity, outreach of the Board. Submit letter and resumf to the Office of the Chancellor, West Valley-Mission CCD, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070. Applications must be received in the Office of the Chancellor by 5:00 p.m. on January 16, 2008. No facsimiles will be accepted. Finalists will be interviewed during the week of January 21, 2008. The Board will make a provisional appointment on or before February 7, 2008. The appointed Trustee shall hold office through November 2008, when the next general election lakes place. For further information, please call the West Valley - Mission Community College District Chancellor's Office at 408 - 741.2011. (Pub SN 12/26,1/2) City Legals NOTICE OF HEARING BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SARATOGA'S PLANNING COMMISSION announces the following pub- lic hearings on Wednesday, the 9th day of January 2008 at n City i he Ci Council 7:00 .m. the Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details and plans are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Thursday, 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 P.m. If you have questions. Planners are available at the public counter between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. if you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pur- suant to a public hearing in court, yo0 may be limned to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this notice, or in written corre- spondence delivered to the Saratoga . Planning Commission at, or prior lo, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communica- tions should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. 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 list- ed above and may visit other sites as well. For more infor- mation please contact the Community Development Department at 408 868.1222 or review the Site Visit Agenda on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us. APPLICATION #MOD07 -0002 (397 -08 -091) Shadman, 15219 Sobey Road – The applicant requests a Modification of Design Review Approval to modify - an application approved by the Planning Commission at the October 13, 2004 hearing. The original approval was for a new single - story dwelling consisting of 5,677 square feet of floor area and a partial basement. Proposed changes include, but are not limited to: elimi- nating shutters, eliminating divided liter on some win. dows, relocating chimneys, relocated fireplaces, and mod- ifying a trellis on the rear Fagade. The gross lot size is approximately 46,082 square feet and the site is located in the R -1. 40,000 zoning district. APPLICATION #MOD 07 -0001 (397.27 -010) Pichetti/ Cahoon. 18935 Hayfield Court: - The applicant requests modifications to an approved Design Review approval. Modifications include, but are not limited to, the addition of stone to the front raptle, the alteration of proposed home's placement on the site, the rotation of the garage, and additional win- dows on the right elevation. The property is zoned R -1- 40,000. APPLICATION #PDR07.0001 (510.01 -016) Khouja/ Ramirez, 15211 Hume Drive – The applicant requests Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to demolish the existing home and con- struct a new two -story home. The proposed structure will be two -story with a full basement and require a height exception to allow for adherence to the Queen Anne architectural style. A detached pool house is also proposed at a height of approximately I8 -feet 9 -inch- es: The gross lot size is 55,503 square feet, and the site is zoned R -1- 20,000. APPLICATION #07 -029 (397- 25.009) Maesumi, 13921 River Ranch Circle: -The appli- cant requests Design Review approval to demolish the existing home and shed and construct a new two -story home. The total floor area of Ile proposed residence and garage will be approximately 4,355 square feet. The net lot size is approximately 18,839 square feet and the site is zoned R•1. 10,000. APPLICATION # PDR07 -0017 (503.68 -007) Miller; 14098 Palomino Way –The applicant request Design Review approval to remove an exist- ing 1,320 square foot second story of an existing two -story single- family. residence and replace' it with a new 1,690 square foot second story addi- tion in approximately the same location. The project also includes demolition of an existing garage and carport, construction of a new 466 square fool detached garage and 1 370 square foot addi- tion to the existing lower floor. The residence will not exceed 26 feet in height. The net lot size is 54,075 square feet. The site is zoned R -1- 40,000. Design Review approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060. APPLICATION #07.366 (503- 69-012) Keyashian: 21818 Via Regina - The applicant requests Design Review approval to add 1,977 square feet to the existing upper floor and /convert 1,707 square feet to the existing basement cre- ating a lower floor. The total floor area of the new house will be 5,677 square feel. The maximum height of the pro- posed building will not exceed the 26 -foot height limit. The maximum impervious cover- age will not exceed the allow- able 25% of the net site area. The lot size is approximately 53,562 square feel, and the site is located in the HR zon- ing district. Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060. (Pub SN 12126) Trustee Sales NOTICE OF TRUSTEE'S SALE NO. 07-261 YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST DATED 12/26/03. UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION TO PRO- TECT YOUR PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT A PUBLIC SALE. IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEED- ING AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWYER. On Jan. 16, 2008 at 11:00 AM of said day; at the entrance to THE FORECLOSURE COM- PANY 3001 Winchester Blvd., Ste. "A ", Campbell, Cal. 95008 THE FORECLOSURE COMPANY INC. as Trustee, or Substitute Trustee will sell at a public auction to the high- est bidder for cash (payable I time of sale in lawful at the 1 money of the United States) the following described property situated in the County of SANTA CLARA. State of California, and described more fully as: See "EXHIBIT A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Will be sold "AS 15 ". EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real Property in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California, Described as Follows: Being a Portion of Section 12 in Township 8 South, Range 2 West, Mount Diablo Meridian, as Shown on That Certain Parcel Map, Which Map Was Filed for Record in Book 501 of Maps at Page 52 in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and as Shown on That Certain Map Entitled "Tract No. 5288 ", Which Map Was Filed for Record in Book 348 of Maps at Page 14 in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and Being More Particularly Described as Follows: BEGINNING at the Southeasterly Corner of Lot 4, as Said Lot Is Shown on Tract No. 5288, Which Map Was Filed for Record in Book 348 of Maps at Page 14 in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California; Thence along the Easterly Line of Said Lot 4 and its Northerly Prolongation, Said Line Also Being the Easterly Line of That Certain Parcel of Land Conveyed to John Markulin by Deed Recorded August 16, 1974 in Book B044 of Official Records at Page 425, North 0 DEG 19' 57" WEST 829.63 Feet to il Intersection of Said Easterly. Line of the Land Conveyed to Markulin with the Southerly Line of That Certain 4 Foot Strip of Land Conveyed to the County of Santa Clara by Instrument Recorded May 28, 1924 in Book 89 of Official Records At Page 178; Thence South 89 Deg 31' 00" West along Said Southerly line 33.29 Feet to the Intersection Thereof with the Northerly Prolongation of the Easterly Line of Lot 1 of Tract 5288 above Referred to; Thence South 0 Deg 09' 56" East along the Last Said Northerly Prolongation and the Easterly Line of Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Said Tract No. 5288, 58708 Feet to the Southeasterly Corner of Said Lot 3; Thence North 89 Deg 50' 04" East along the Northerly Line of Said Lot 4, 25 Feet to the Intersection Thereof with a Line That Is Parallel with and 10 Feet Westerly (Measured at Right Angles) from the Easterly Line of Said Lot 4; Thence South 0 Deg 19' 57" East along Said Parallel Line 249.10 feet to the Intersection Thereof with Southeasterly Line of Said Lot 4; Thence North 55 Deg 47' 39" East along Said Southeasterly Line 12.04 Feet to the POINT OF BEGIN- NING. The street address and other common designa w tion, if any, of the real prop- erty described above is pur- ported to be: VACANT LAND APN No.: 517 - 22.110- T undersigned Trustee claims an itabilit far Y V incorrectness of the slre� address and other common designation, if any, shown here. Said sale will be made without covenant or warran- ty, expressed or implied, regarding title, possession or encumbrances, to satisfy the obligations secured by and pursuant to the Power of Sale conferred in a certain Deed of Trust executed by Noorudin A. Billawala, as Successor Trustees of the Billawala Revocable Trust UTA Dated June 7, 1999 as Trustors, Recorded 12/31/03 as Instrument No. 17553729 in the office of the County Recorder of SANTA CLARA County. At the time of the initial publication of this Notice, the total amount of unpaid balance of the oblig- ation secured by the above described Deed of Trust and estimated casts, expenses, fees; and advances is 581,20728. To determine the opening bid, you may call the day before the sale at: (408) 374.7204. The Foreclosure Company, Inc., as trustee 3001 So. Winchester Blvd., Suite A. Campbell, California 95008; Dated: Dec. 17. 2007, By: Sharol Lang, President. This office is attempting to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose: whether that information is obtained oral- ly or in writing. NPP0124454 (Pub SN 12/26, 112108, ]/9/08) J • Attachment 3 • • 'THOMAS .0 . COE, cMfgE, PE Telephone: 1 (408) 354 -2139 15217 Sobey Road, Saratoga, California 95070 -6255 USA Facsimile: 1 (408) 354 -2286 f , September 20, 2007. VVia, Hand Deliver Mr. John F. Livingstone, Cri r lA1JJ /O`"` ,Community Development Director City of Saratoga +�r it ' SEP 2'0 ZQUI 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 wI I r (a; s viz %� i OCti COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT , Fax: (408) 867 -8555 Subject: Issues and concerns pertaining to Mr. Michael Shadman's project at, 15219 Sobey Road Dear Mr. Livingstone: I am an adjoining property owner to Mr Michael Saadman's project at 15219 Sobey Road and I -have several issues and concerns .pertaining to it that deserve your immediate. attention and consideration prior to you granting Mr. Shadman his Final Approval and Certificate of Occupancy for this project. These are: • 1) Storm Water Drainage: When this subject lot was beginning to be formed by subdivision in 1983 by the Foleys it was recognized and understood that when this lot was, developed, improvements would be required for the drainage of storm -water out to Sobey Rd. -via, the common roadway. The Foleys had agreed- to: make. these improvements and it was a stipulated requirement for the subdivision.. - However, this. stipulated improvement requirement has, never. been implemented nor has it been imposed on Mr. Sahadman's project as a condition of approval. When I questioned the Planning Dept. about this requirement not being imposed on the current Shadman project when it was getting underway in the fall of 2005, I was told that it was no longer pertinent nor required as it was being preempted- by a new requirement and this, as shown on Mr. Shhdman's drawings, being: "Conditions, of Approval Resolution No. 04.021 : G' otechnical and Public Works Review" "9. A storm_ water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on -site and incorporating the New Development and Construction Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on -site due to topography, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on plan.. " I have not been able to locate nor has the Planning or Building Departments been able to show me any study or calculations or an explanatory note on Mr. Mr.- Livingstone, September 20, 2007 page, 2 of 4 Shadman's plan as to why storm water can or cannot be retained on his site. It is quite obvious Mr. Shadman now has over 3000 square feet of impervious surfaces in his front entrance and driveway areas that are sloped and contoured to flow to the northeast corner of his property and into a valley gutter on my property. This gutter was never designed to handle the type of flows which can be expected given these improvements. There has been no attempt whatsoever to retain the storm water from these. improvements, i.e. a catch basin or drain to a dry -well and a semi - pervious paver system with the pavers being installed on a gravel bed along with gravel grouting. Mr: Shadman also has a 2 inch and a 4 inch drain line each day - lighting and discharging into my valley gutter as well This now surcharged .valley gutter of mine drains through a 5' inch diameter grate into a 4 inch line which also receives water from a similar gutter on the other side of my driveway and from a third drain further down our common driveway. This 4 inch line then carries this accumulated storm water through and past an entrapping swale, discharging it further down the common driveway so it can flow on to Sobey Road. This storm drain system that was installed and improved by me in 2000 worked well for the existing conditions, but it was not designed for' nor will it handle the additional flows that Mr. Shadman is now directing into it. - Mr. Shadman's storm water is clearly not being retained on his site and there is now, no plan or, provision to deal with it on the neighboring properties with its potential for serious damage and safety issues. It would be inappropriate for you to give this project of Mr. Shadman's Final Approval and a Certificate of Occupancy until this whole storm water drainage matter is evaluated and corrected in an appropriate manner and in., consideration of the adjacent properties. 2) Utility Easements: Even at the planning stages for the formation of this lot in 1983, questions were being raised as to whether or not there were viable utility easements in place for this site. These questions and concerns have been substantially avoided by Mr. Shadman as a result of a lawsuit brought against me by Mr. Shadman. We are involved in civil litigation..regarding utility ease- ments. A title company expert has concluded that there. are not viable recorded utility easements in place for this site via the driveway easement to Sobey Road. Although Mr. Shadman has a water and sewer line connected, except in one instance where he bypassed the driveway easement, he has no permissive or legal right to install these lines. He has no viable recorded water, sewer, gas, electrical, phone.and /or cable easements as yet. Thus I request that you do not grant Mr. Shadman Final Approval or a Certificate of Occupancy for this project until he can substantiate to you that he has acquired and properly recorded the viable utility easements he will be needing for the installation of his utilities. 3) Grading - Approved Cut & Fill Quantities: It is my belief from personal observation and seeing the significant contour changes that have occurred on Mr. Shadman's property that the Approved Cut Quantities for this project have been far exceeded. These being: Basement Cut 400 c.y. House Pad Cut 600 c.y. Mr. Livingstone, September 20, 2007, page, 3 of 4 Site Excavation 500 c.y. Site Fill 200 c.y. The. basement has apparently been allowed to expand to 1,750 sq. ft. (1750 x 10 17500 c.f. /27 1= 648 c.y.) or 248 c.y. more than approved. The house pad cut I am not sure of and is probably not of significance at this point... However, I believe the site excavation has.far.exceeded the approved 500 c.y. I am aware that Mr. Shadman was required to replace a lot of the material that he had had removed from his western slope but I know that he has not as. yet returned all the material that is defined and required in his repair plan. In other words, even though the excessive: grading was discovered by the City, I do not believe that the remediation ordered was fully accomplished nor is the now existing grading even close to the original approved contours. As an example, a previously existing 10 inch oak tree on the western slope of his property was required to be protected and preserved. Mr. Shadman allowed this oak tree to be undermined and destroyed during the excavation of " his basement._ As we scrutinized. the plans for this project back in 2004 for public review.and comment, this secured 1011; oak tree and its drip -line was an extremely important benchmark for us in that it established. a secure point of reference as to what we could expect the site contours to be, in this area at the conclusion of this project. But with Mr. Shadman's excessive excavations the original grade- at the base of this tree's drip -line was at least 3 to 4 feet higher than that area is today. Under the circumstances, Mr. Shadman. should be required to have this drip -line area surveyed and restore it, to its original grade elevation and to re -plant a suitable replacement tree at that oak's location. There has also been a lot of extra material removed .from Mr. Shadman's side and front yard areas that was :not depicted on his approved grading and landscape drawings. Mr. Shadman should also be required to have his entire exterior site accurately surveyed to determine the actual amount of cubic yards " of material excavated and to replace those materials that are in excess 'of the approved 500 cubic yards. This gap to allow for appropriate pagination. want to than y ou a for y k all our time, effort and conscientious consideration I with regard to these matters and our community's well being. I look forward to your .Mr Livingstone, September 20, 2007 page, 4 of 4 0 prompt response to these issues and concerns and to what the City's position will be on each of them. cc: Mr. Brad D. Lind Mr. Jonathan Wittwer Mr. Michael Shadman Mr. & Mrs. Madhu Shridhar Mr. & Mrs. Ramesh Sharma Dr. & Mrs. Surenda Gudapati Mrs. Ronie Berry Mr. Hemant Bheda • IU Sincerel , Thomas U. Coe THOMAS V COE CMfgE, PE Telephone: 1 (408) 354 -2139 15217 Sobey Road, Saratoga, California 95070 -6255 USA Facsimile: 1 (408) 354 -2286 October 27, 2007 Mr. John F. Livingstone, Community .Development Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Via Hand Delivery H 0 CITY A Fax:, (408) 867 -8555 Subject: An additional issue and concern pertaining to Mr. Michael Shadman's project at 15219 Sobey Road Re: My letter to the Saratoga. Planning Commission, dated June 23, 2004 along with its references and enclosures Dear Mr. Livingstone: As it pertains to Mr. Michael Shadman's "Subject" project at 15219 Sobey :Road, 'my referenced. letter to the Saratoga Planning Commission, dated June 23, 2004 made the following request (p. 4, 91 "4"): "We further request that you require the builder to provide an unobstructed Paved extension . of the 20 foot wide non- exclusive Right of Way onto their property 30 feet in length so as to provide a "hammer- head" turnaround at the end of our common driveway. This so as to conform to the City of Saratoga's . and ;the responsible Santa Clara County Fire Department's mini- mum requirements for this sort of turnaround this to complete the turn - around require imposed on us installing our driveway gate." (Note: ��3° an p. A .of my letter to Mr. Bill Gorman, dated February 21, 2001 also deals with and helps clarify this matter as well - a copy of this letter with its related enclosure was referenced and enclosed with my referenced letter to the Planning Commission of June 23, 2004) The Planning Commission acknowledged this request and imposed it as a stipulation to this project.. Mr. Shadman's approved drawings for this project clearly acknowledge and depict this imposed requirement. However, in this past week Mr. Shadman has had a gate control pendent installed that encroaches 40 inches into what is required to be this unobstructed area. He also has a curbing and planter that is encroaching 36 inches into and along the length of this area blocking what is to be paved and unobstructed. Thus, I respectfully request that you have Mr. Shadman immediately remove these obstructions and maintain this area in the paved and unobstructed manner that is required. This is necessary so that large :vehicles, i.e. delivery vans, fire trucks and the. like that find Mr— Livingstone, October 27, 2007 page, 2. of 2 themselves at the end of our common private driveway will have adequate space and the full potential turning radius that this hammer,-head is intended to provide for turnaround. I again want to thank you and your staff for your time, effort and conscientious consideration with regard to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response to this issue and concern and to what the City's position will be with regard to it. Sincerely, Thomas U. Coe cc: Mr. Brad D. Lind Mr. Jonathan Wittwer Mr. Michael Shadman Mr. & Mrs. Madhu Shridhar Mr. & Mrs. Ramesh Sharma Dr. '& Mrs. Surenda Gudapati • r l Da4 n9— >> _ , j LQC u o`l� • s PLANNING COMMISSION .MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Shweta Bhatt, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: January 09, 2008 SUBJECT: MOD 07 -0002; 15219 Sobey Road Neighbor Comments Staff has received two additional letters from neighbors in regards to the project referenced above. W-- • 4 TOl'vl �� cr ;�,� C.-, P GAG 5,5 ' 5 C�7Ci� �— cJ I Y� 2 ��G ►1 Y1� .� � �`U �'1 j'�'1 i S 5 � c '� GO OF boe o M Ill GGM�UN`1,1 rte -. -* Mo -D o7- 00x2 152)-7 SS�6 -e `7 Rd' . k) e- oe�k�sZ P7 P/ (D,mn�.Ssi�'i %� YL'S'0 1U� �ollo ;1i ce � �e 0 t Attachment 4 • • Community Development Department City of Saratoga. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 , 15219 Sobey Road ARBORIST REPORT " APN 397 -08 -091 Owner: Michael Shadman CONSTRUCTION REPORT INTRODUCTION Application #: 04 -034 December 17, 200 Prepared by Kate Bear ISA Certified Arborist WE 2250A On October 3, 2007, I inspected the trees on the property following completion of the new home. Trees # 2 — 5 and 18 — 22 were approved for removal as part of the project. Trees #2, 5 and 18 were retained during construction even though removal was allowed. Pine trees #12, 14a, 15 and 16 had died and were removed. Tree #17, a coast live oak, was removed without approval. New trees with a total replacement value equal to the appraised value of the removed trees were required as mitigation. The total appraised value of the removed trees was $13,010. Acceptable species of replacement trees included Quercus lobata, Quercus agrifolia, Quercus douglasii, Quercus Kellogii, Acer macrophylla, Sequoia sempervirens, Aesculus Californincia, or Pseudotsuga menziesii. The .owner planted a total of ten 36 -inch box trees and ten 24 -inch box trees following completion of the house for a total replacement value of $20,000. They included big leaf maples (Acer macrophylla), and redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens), two of the species listed above as acceptable species. The value of the replacement' trees exceeds the value of the removed trees. RECOMMENDATION I recommend the release of the tree protection bond for this project. Page 1 of 1 r� L • • • • Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 • 15219 Sobey Road Application #: 04 -034 ARBORIST REPORT October 10, 2006 APN 397 -08 -091 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arbonst Owner: Michael Shadman Phone (408) 868 -1276 THIS REPORT REVISES AND REPLACES THE REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 28, 2006. CONSTRUCTION REPORT INTRODUCTION The property owner of 15219 Sobey Road is in the process of constructing a new single family home. On September 28, I was asked to look at the site with respect to tree protection and grading work around protected trees. I revisited the site on October 10, 2006 to see if tree protection fencing had been installed around tree #1 and if soil had been removed from within the drip line of the canopy of tree #5. Neither of these actions 10had been completed. Plans reviewed for this report included Sheet Al, Site Plan, dated January 19, 2005, by Shad Engineers, Inc., Sheet C -1, Grading and Drainage, dated August 3, 2004, by Westfall Engineers, Inc., Sheet Ll, Conceptual Landscape plan, dated August 2004, by Greg G. Ing & Associates Landscape Design and Sheet T -2, Conditions of Approval, dated January 19, 2005. Also reviewed were the planning commission resolution 04 -021, the arborist report dated June 19, 2002, by Barrie Coate and Associates and the arborist report dated March 8, 2004, by David Babby, RCA. SITE OBSERVATIONS, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION When I arrived on site, oak tree #1 had no fencing around it and oak tree #5 was fenced, but had a 20 foot high pile of soil fill adjacent to it right up against the fence, within the drip line of the tree's canopy. Tree #1 is protected by ordinance and requires fencing around it during the remainder of the project.. According planning commission resolution 04 -021, all recommendations in the March 8, 2004 arborist report were to be followed. According to the arborist report dated March 8, 2004, it, including the tree inventory table and the map showing tree protective fencing, was to be included on the final building division set of plans. The arborist report is not included in the building division plans. When I arrived on site, tree #17 had been removed without planning commission approval or a tree 0 removal permit. The appraised value of this tree is $1,790. d replacement b the planning commission. They included Seven trees were approved for removal an p y p g trees #3 -5 and 18 -22. Tree #5 has been retained and protected. The total value of trees #3, 4, and 18 -22 is $9,410. With the removal of tree 417, the total appraised value of trees removed is equal to $11,200. Page 1 of 2 • 0 1.521.9 Sobey Road Mitigation for the removed trees shall be replacement of the trees with trees equal in value to their total appraised value of $11,200. Acceptable species are listed below. The owner has a performance bond in place for this project, in the amount of $21,700. This satisfies the City's requirement to have a tree protection bond in place during the project which is equal to the total appraised value of all trees to be preserved. REQUIREMENTS 1. A copy of the March'8, 2004 arborist report shall be attached to the jobsite copy of the plans by October. l3, 2006. It shall remain with the job site set of plans until the project is completed. 2. Owner shall have stockpiles of rocks, construction materials and fill soil removed from under the canopy of protected trees #1 and #5 by October 13, 2006. 3. Owner shall install tree protective fencing around tree #1 by October 13, 2006. Failure to meet the deadline may result in the project being stopped until the work has been completed. 4. Owner shall plant trees equal in value to $15,906, when the project is landscaped. Acceptable species include Quercus lobata, Quercus agrifolia, Quercus douglasii, Quercus Kellogii, Acer macrophylla, Sequoia sempervirens, Aesculus Californincia, or Pseudotsuga menziesh. 5. Fencing installed around protected trees 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. 6. 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. 7. Any approved grading or ,trenching beneath the trees' canopies shall be manually performed using .shovels. 8. Any pruning of trees on site must be performed under the supervision of an ISA Certifi ed Arborist and according to ISA standards. 9: The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath tree canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath tree canopies. Additionally, fuel shall not be stored nor shall any refueling or maintenance of equipment occur within 20 feet of the tree's trunks. Enclosure Copy of arborist report dated March 8, 2004. Page 2 of 2 i • Y ARBORRESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE AT 15145 SOBEY ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA i OWNER'S NAME: OVERLAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION #: 04 -034 APN #: 397 -08 -091 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga J i y 13777 Fruitvale Avenue �!- Saratoga, CA 95070 f; Prepared by: . David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE -4001A March 8, 2004 P.O. Box 25295. San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources(n.?earthI ink. net Phone: 650.654.3351 Fax: 650.654.3352 Licensed Contractor 4796763 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 8, 2004 SUMMARY The proposed project exposes 24 trees regulated by City Ordinance to potential damage or removal. By implementation of the proposed design, eight trees will require removal ( #3 -5 and 18- 22). Their removals are appropriate due to their poor structural condition. Replacements equivalent to their combined value of $14,120 are recommended as mitigation. The removal of tree #2 is encouraged and should be allowed. No replacements for this tree are suggested. The tree protection bond is required to equal 100% of the appraised value of trees planned for retention, which equals $16,910. INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the proposal to construct a single - family residence on a vacant lot 15145 Sobey Road, Saratoga. This report presents my findings; provides protection measures for retained trees and mitigation for those being removed; identifies each tree's condition, species, size and suitability_ for preservation; and presents tree appraisal values. Data compiled for each inventoried tree is presented on the table attached to this report. A previous City Arborist report (dated June 19, 2002, Barrie D. Coate and Associates) was prepared for development of this site and contains an inventory of trees. #1 thru 22. Trees #14a and 16a were added to the inventory and are included within this report . Please note much of the survey data presented on the attached table was derived from the previous report. Aluminum rectangular tags were found attached to the trunks of most inventoried trees. They contain numbers that correspond to those shown on the attached map and table. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheets C1 (Westfall Engineers, Inc., dated 9/21/03), and L1" (Greg G. Ing and Associates, not dated). A copy of the Conceptual Landscape Plan is attached that identifies the prescribed locations of protection fencing, as well as each tree's number and location. Trees #6, 8, 10 and 16 were not shown on the plan and were plotted by me; their locations should not be construed as being surveyed. 15145 Sobey Road, Saratoga Page I of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department • • • 0 0 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 8, 2004 • FINDINGS The proposed project design exposes 24 trees regulated by City Ordinance to potential impacts. They include eight Coast Live Oaks ( #l, 3 -7, 17, 18), one Valley Oak ( #16a), three California Black Walnuts ( #20 -22), one English Walnut ( #19), ten Monterey Pines (##8 -14, 14a, 15, 16) and one Red Ironbark Eucalyptus ( #2). Trees #6 thru 9 are located on the neighboring southern property. They are inventoried for this report as they are exposed to potential damage from development activities. Eight trees are in direct conflict with the proposed design and include. #3 -5 and 18 -22. These trees have been assigned either a low or moderate suitability for preservation and their removal is appropriate to accomplish development. Replacements are necessary. Tree #2 is a Eucalyptus that has been severely reduced in height some time ago. As a result, the tree has and will continue to have, throughout its life, weakly attached branches. Plans indicate retaining this tree. Due to the potential risk this tree presents to public safety, I recommend its removal rather than retention. Replacements for this tree are not necessary. Trees planned for retention are anticipated to survive the development provided recommendations presented in the next section are carefully followed and incorporated into the construction plans. RECOMMENDATIONS Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to any grading, surface. scraping or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of five- to six -foot high chain link mounted on two -inch diameter galvanized steel posts that are driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 12 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. Its location shall resemble the precise location shown on the attached plan and be placed at or beyond the canopy edge (i.e. the furthest overhead branch from the trunk) and no further than two feet from any proposed hardscape. 2. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas (even after fencing 'is removed) and off unpaved soil beneath tree canopies. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading (both soil fill and excavation), surface scraping, trenching, storage and dumping of materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 3. Utilities should be planned outside from beneath a tree's canopy. Where this presents a conflict, I should be consulted. 4. All trees presented in this report should be shown on all applicable plans. 15145 Sobey Road, Saratoga Page 2 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 8, 2004 5. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. Herbicides and pesticides used beneath canopies must be labeled for safe use near trees. 6. The pruning and removal of trees must be performed under supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to standards established by the ISA. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained by referring to the following website: http://Www.isa- arbor.com/arborists/arbsearch.htmL 7. Landscaping (hardscape, planting and irrigation) plans and those showing any new underground utilities should be submitted to the City for review of tree impacts. Approval should be provided prior to their implementation. 8. Stones or mulch should be placed no closer than one -foot. from a tree's trunk. 9. Irrigation trenches planned parallel to. a trunk shall, be no closer than 15 times the diameter of the closest trunk. Irrigation trenches installed radial to a trunk can be placed no closer than 5 times the diameter of the closest trunk and at least 10 feet apart at the canopy's perimeter. Irrigation spray shall come no.closer than five feet from a tree's trunk. Please note trenches dug for electrical lines should be installed by the same guidelines. 10. The combined value of trees proposed for removal is $14,120. Mitigation for their removals shall include installing new. trees on site that are equivalent to their.combined value. The replacement tree values and sizes are presented on the `Replacement Tree Values' chart shown on the attached table. Acceptable. replacement species include Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Black Oak (Quercus kelloggii), Blue Oak (Quercus douglasii), Scrub Oak. (Quercus dumosa), Big Leaf maple (Ater macrophyllum), California Buckeye (Aesculus . californica), Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). The tree sizes and species shall be shown on any, landscape or planting plan. In the event. that the necessary amount and size of replacement trees cannot be reasonably installed on site, the outstanding value amount shall be provided to the City for deposit into the `Tree Fund' (City Tree Ordinance, Section 15- 50.150). 15145 Sobey Road, Saratoga Page 3 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department • • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 8, 2004 TREE PROTECTION BOND The combined appraised value of trees planned for retention is $16,910. In accordance with the City Ordinance, a bond equivalent to 100% of this value is required to promote their protection. The appraised tree values presented within the June 19, 2002 report were calculated by others and were used for this report. The values for trees #14a and 16a were calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`h Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Copy of the Conceptual Landscape Plan 15145 Sobey Road, Saratoga City of Saratoga Community Development Department Page 4 of 4 TREE INVENTORY TABLE g Coast Live Oak 13,9,8,8,6 35 1 1 1 1 I 4 - X $1,000 1 (Quercus agrifolia) ] 1, 8, 7 20 20 100% 25% Fair Low 2 - X $1,870 g Red Ironbark 13,9,8,8,6 35 1 1 1 1 I 4 - X $1,000 2 (Eucalyptus sideroxylon) 18, 8 20 20 1 75% 0% Poor Low 2 - X $0 g Coast Live Oak 13,9,8,8,6 35 1 1 50% 1 I 4 - X $1,000 3 (Quercus agrifolia) (3) 20 35 100% 25% Fair Low - X X $3,310 g Coast Live Oak 12, 11, 35 1 1 50% 1 I 4 - X $1,000 4 (Quercus agrifolia) 13, 7, 7, 3 20 20 1000/- 25% Fair Low - X X $2,820 g Coast Live Oak 12, 11, 35 25 100% 50% Good I 4 - X $1,000 5 (Quercus agrifolia) 6,5 1 25 35 11 25% Fair Low - X X $4,710 g Coast Live Oak 12, 11, 35 25 100% 50% Good High 4 - X $1,000 6 (Quercus agrifolia ) 11, 6 25 35 100 ° /a 25% Fair High 4 - X $2,430 g Coast Live Oak 18 35 25 100% 50% Good High 4 - X $1,000 7 (Quercus agrifolia) 9, 6 20 15 100% 75% Good High 4 - X $450 g Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) 18 35 25 100% 50% Good High 4 - X $1,000 9 Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) 12 40 20 75% 50% Fair High 4 - $360 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gallon = S150 24 -inch box = $420 36 -inch box = $1,320 48 -inch box = $5,000 52 -inch box = $7,000 72 -inch box = $15,000 Job: 75145 Sobey Road, Saratoga Prepared for. City of Saratoga Community Development Dept - Prepared by: David L Bobby, RCA I of 2 3/8/1004 Monterey Pine 1 18 T40 40 100% 50% Good Moderate 3 - $100 10 (Pinus radiata ) 12 - 40 20 100% 50% Good Moderate 4 - X $450 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gallon = S150 24 -inch box = $420 36 -inch box = $1,320 48 -inch box = $5,000 52 -inch box = $7,000 72 -inch box = $15,000 Job: 75145 Sobey Road, Saratoga Prepared for. City of Saratoga Community Development Dept - Prepared by: David L Bobby, RCA I of 2 3/8/1004 Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata ) 1 18 T40 40 100% 50% Good Moderate 3 - $100 l l REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gallon = S150 24 -inch box = $420 36 -inch box = $1,320 48 -inch box = $5,000 52 -inch box = $7,000 72 -inch box = $15,000 Job: 75145 Sobey Road, Saratoga Prepared for. City of Saratoga Community Development Dept - Prepared by: David L Bobby, RCA I of 2 3/8/1004 Monterey Pine (Pinus r adiata) 9, 6 30 20 75% 50% Fair Moderate 3 - $190 12 . REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gallon = S150 24 -inch box = $420 36 -inch box = $1,320 48 -inch box = $5,000 52 -inch box = $7,000 72 -inch box = $15,000 Job: 75145 Sobey Road, Saratoga Prepared for. City of Saratoga Community Development Dept - Prepared by: David L Bobby, RCA I of 2 3/8/1004 Monterey Pine 1-75'/, 13 (Pinus radiata) 16 35 35 75% 50% Fair Moderate 3 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gallon = S150 24 -inch box = $420 36 -inch box = $1,320 48 -inch box = $5,000 52 -inch box = $7,000 72 -inch box = $15,000 Job: 75145 Sobey Road, Saratoga Prepared for. City of Saratoga Community Development Dept - Prepared by: David L Bobby, RCA I of 2 3/8/1004 Monterey Pine lq (Pinus radiata) 12 35 20 75% 50% Fair Moderate 3 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gallon = S150 24 -inch box = $420 36 -inch box = $1,320 48 -inch box = $5,000 52 -inch box = $7,000 72 -inch box = $15,000 Job: 75145 Sobey Road, Saratoga Prepared for. City of Saratoga Community Development Dept - Prepared by: David L Bobby, RCA I of 2 3/8/1004 TREE INVENTORY TABLE L---A Monterey Pine Monterey Pine 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 15 (Pinus radiata) 14a (Pinus radiata) 11.5 15 35 75% 25% Fair Low 4 $1,180 $350 L---A Monterey Pine 7.5,6,5.5, 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 15 (Pinus radiata) 1 21 1 45 35 75% 50% Fair Moderate 4 - X $1,180 L---A Monterey Pine 7.5,6,5.5, 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 16 (Pinus radiata) 25 45 45 75% 50% Fair Moderate 5 - X $1,670 L---A Valley Oak 7.5,6,5.5, 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 16a I (Quercus lobata) 3 25 30 100% 25% Fair Moderate 4 - $2,600 L---A Coast Live Oak F8,7,6,6,4 1 1 1 1 1 I 17 (Quercus agrifolia) 9,9,9,7 15 30 100% 25% Fair Low 4 - $1,790 L---A Coast Live Oak F8,7,6,6,4 1 1 1 1 1 I ]g (Quercus agrifolia) 16 1 20 1 35 1 100% . 50% Good Moderate - X $1,580 L---A • REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 1 $150 24 -inch b.,— $420 36 -inch box = $1,320 48 -inch box = $5,000 52 -inch box = $7,000 72 -inch box Job: 15145 Sobey Road, Saratoga Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Dept Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA 2 of 2 31812004 V X X i! English Walnut 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 19 (Juglans regia ) 16 20 35 75% 75% Good Moderate - X $1,100 • REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 1 $150 24 -inch b.,— $420 36 -inch box = $1,320 48 -inch box = $5,000 52 -inch box = $7,000 72 -inch box Job: 15145 Sobey Road, Saratoga Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Dept Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA 2 of 2 31812004 V X X i! California Black Walnut 1 I F20 (Juglans hindsii) 14 15 30 75% 50% Fair Moderate - X $220 • REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 1 $150 24 -inch b.,— $420 36 -inch box = $1,320 48 -inch box = $5,000 52 -inch box = $7,000 72 -inch box Job: 15145 Sobey Road, Saratoga Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Dept Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA 2 of 2 31812004 V X X i! California Black Walnut 1 I 21 1 (Juglans hindsii ) 1 16 15 1 30 1 50% 25% Poor Low - X $290 • REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 1 $150 24 -inch b.,— $420 36 -inch box = $1,320 48 -inch box = $5,000 52 -inch box = $7,000 72 -inch box Job: 15145 Sobey Road, Saratoga Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Dept Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA 2 of 2 31812004 V X X i! California Black Walnut F22 (Juglan.shindsii) 111,10, ]0 15 20 50% 25% Poor Low - X $90 • REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 1 $150 24 -inch b.,— $420 36 -inch box = $1,320 48 -inch box = $5,000 52 -inch box = $7,000 72 -inch box Job: 15145 Sobey Road, Saratoga Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Dept Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA 2 of 2 31812004 V X X i! 2019.41' N 89' 4-1. '55-" E 5jLq AtLd, -M : City of Saratoga COInInt"lily Devel6p Notes 4' Otdin.,ince W-C, �.jnpjdcnti'rlcl,2'1 ttcc%o"j,e and j-,'not In Scale. M has been reduced in ap ;k , !`latch 8,26O1 tj 119 Y i Ift li �y IW .. `iM BA R RIE D. CATE and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants. _ 23535 Summit Road , Los Gatos, CA 95033 408/353 -1052 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE EDWARDS PROPERTY 15145 SOBEY ROAD SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of Kristin Bore] Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist June 19, 2002 Job # 05-02 -093 Plan Received: 6.12.02 Plan Due: 6.24.02 i JUL 2 ��02 CITY Of M&AiUVA COMMNITY1 EVELOPA4 TREE SURVEY AND PRESER V?�!K N RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE ED�kARDS PROLE'; Y 15145 SOBEY ROAD, SAR.ATOGA Assignment At the. request of the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to construct a new residence on a vacant lot located at 15145 Sobey Road, Saratoga, in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report rates the condition of the trees on site that are protected by City of Saratoga ordinance. Recommendations are included to mitigate damage to these trees during construction. The plans reviewed for this report are the construction plans prepared by Williams Residential Design, Morgan Hill, Sheets Al — A13, 5- 13 -02, and the Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by Westfall Engineers, Saratoga, Sheets 1 and 2, dated May 2002. Summary This proposal may expose 22 trees to some level of risk by construction. Eight trees would be removed by implementation of this design. Replacement trees, which equal the values of the trees removed, are suggested. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected to the retained trees. A bond equaling 25% of the values of all of the retained trees is recommended to assure their protection. Observations There are 18 trees on this site and 4 trees on the adjacent property toward the south that may be exposed to damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the Iocation of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree on this site has been tagged with a metallic label indicating their assigned numbers. The 22 trees are classified as follows: Trees #1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 17, 18 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Tree #2 Red ironbark gum (Eucalyptus sideroxylon'Rosea') Trees #8; 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) Tree # 19 English walnut (Juglans regia) Trees 920, 21, 22 California black walnut (3uglans hindsii) The particulars regarding these trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread; health, and • structure) are provided in the attachments that follow this text. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH. CONSULTING ARBORIST TUNE 19.2002 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVA , N RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE EDWARDS PROP -i Y 15145 SOBEY ROAD. SARATOGA The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent - Extremely Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. The combination of health and structure ratings for the 22 trees are converted to descriptive ratings as follows: Exceptional Fine Fair Marginal Poor.. Specimens Specimens Specimens Specimens Specimens 7,8, 10, 11, 18, 1, 3-6,9, 12 -17 2 22 19, 20 21 Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. . Poor specimens cannot significantly improve regardless of care. For any which are considered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not be typically requested. I recommend that the,trees located on the adjacent property be treated as Exceptional regardless of condition.. It appears that this property was once an English walnut orchard. The majority if not all of the original walnut trees are gone. The root stock California black walnut (Jugtans hindsii), of some of the trees have survived. Many of these trees are small and are not large enough to be protected by the city ordinance. The Monterey pine trees are located in a row adjacent to the property boundary on the south side. It appears that they may have been planted as a screen. With the exception of.-Tree #7, all of the coast live oak trees on this site are from stump sprouts. The original leader was destroyed and, for most of these trees a portion of the original.still remains among the cluster of watersprouts, which have emerged from the base. Because of this, the structures. of most of these trees is fairly poor. A few are 'slightly better than the others. This is noted by the numerical rating system used to rate the trees on the data sheets attached to this text. The spaces between the trees have been disced to control the weeds. Because of this, all of the trees are considered to be in stress due to loss of absorbing roots. As an alternative to discing, I recommend that the i seeds be mowed. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH; CONSULTING ARBORIST JUNE 19,200-2 • • • AND PRESERVti iION RECOR4MENDATIONS AT THE EBWARDS PROPERTY 3 TREE SURVEY 15145 SOBEY ROAD; SARATOGA Since the trees are already in stress, this has a bearing on the amount of area which must be left undisturbed near trees which are to be retained. Bear in mind that all trees that are large enough to be protected by the city ordinance are "protected" trees, whether they are included in this survey or not. There are several large oak trees southeast of Tree #6. The owner and the contractor(s) are responsible to prevent the use of equipment or to prevent any construction activity inside the dripline of any tree that is large enough to be protected by the city ordinance. Thus, trees that are not included in this report are not excluded from protection. It is our practice to include only those trees that seem likely to be affected by proposed construction. Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction Trees #3, 19, 20, and 2.1 are directly in conflict with the construction of the proposed residence. In addition to these, the construction damage to Trees # I, 2, 5, 17, 18, and 22 would suffer too severe root damage to expect these to survive unless revisions to the proposed plans are made. If the footpa"re to be relocated enough to change the driveway sufficiently to preserve Tree #I hen Tree #4 would be lost. it Tree #2 is a marginal specimen and, in my opinion, is not worth attempting to retain. The proposed P sed driveway is located approximately 6 -7 feet from the trunk of Tree 95. This specimen would require that the arc of the driveway be located a minimum of 12 feet from this tree's multi -trunk mass. To achieve a larger diameter arc in the driveway around the south and west sides of the trunk of Tree #5, it appears that the driveway approach to the garage would have to be relocated. in this event, the footprint of the house would be turned so that the front of the house would face more toward the east. In this event, Tree #4 would be lost. Both Trees #4 and 5 have the same health and structural condition. The only advantage to retaining Tree #5 and losing Tree 94 is that Tree #5 is somewhat larger. The plan proposes to construct a retaining wall within approximately 5 -6 feet of the trunks of Trees #17 and 18. This is not a sufficient distance to expect that either of these two would survive the root loss that would occur during constructions of the footing. In order to expect the survival of these trees, the wall would have to be constructed further from the trunks toward the east. Tree # 17 would require a minimum distance of 15 feet from the trunk, and Tree # 18 would require a minimum distance of 12 feet from its trunk. Although these two trees have formed by sprouts from stump sprouts, their structure is less bad compared to the other oak trees at this site. For this reason, these two trees are well worth preserving. A portion of the retaining wall is proposed inside the driplines of Trees 413 and 14, 0 Nvhich are both Monterey pines. This species is highly sensitive to root damage when as mature as these two specimens. Although these are not excellent trees they do provide a PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH; CONSULTING ARBORIST JUNE 19.2002 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVA ION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE EDWARDS PROPERTY 4 15145 SOBEY.ROAD. SARATOGA functional screen between this property and the property toward the south. In my opinion, the retaining wall must be shortened or relocated outside the canopies of these trees. The locations of underground utilities are not shown on the maps provided. In order for the trenching of these utilities to be done without tree loss it will be essential that the trench locations must be planned prior to construction and that the trenches are located exactly as planned. This must not be left up to contractors or to the utility providers. Recommendations 1. I recommend that the retaining wall be relocated a minimum distance of 15 feet from the nearest trunk 'of Tree #17, and a minimum distance of 12 feet from the nearest trunk of Tree # 18. 2. I recommend that the retaining wall be shortened or redesigned so that the retaining wall itself and any grading to construct it, including backfill, would be outside the driplines of Trees #13 and 14, as well as any of the Trees #7 -16 located adjacent to the south property boundary. 3. I recommend that the Grading and Drainage Plan be revised so that no grading would occur inside the driplines of any retained trees. 4. I recommend that the owner be given the option of preserving Tree #4 or Tree #5. In the event that the owner would elect to preserve the larger Tree #5, the plans must be revised so that the driveway is located a minimum of 12 feet from the nearest trunk. 5. I suggest, that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink, a minimum height of 5 feet mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet (minimum) into the ground. The fence must be in place prior to the arrival of.any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all. construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. The contractor(s) and the owner must be made aware that refund of tree protection bonds are based on the correct location and dedicated maintenance of these fences. Please note that i have shown protective fencing for the protection of Tree #4. In the event that the owner has made the revisions to retain Tree #5 instead of Tree #4, the protective fence must be located a minimum of 1.1 feet from the nearest trunk of Tree #5. 6. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest that the city arborist be consulted. A 2 foot section of each trench adjacent, to any tree must be left exposed for final inspection by the city arborist. ., JiIIJE 19, 2W "[ PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L: BENCH, CONSM,TMI A.RBORIST • • is TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVAI ION RECOND&- NDATIONS AT THE EDWARDS PROPERTY 5 15145 SOBEY ROAD. SARATOGA 7. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of retained trees (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements, the city arborist must be consulted. 8. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to retained Trees #4 (or #5, if retained), #17 and #18 during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every 2 weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by the use of a soaker hose, which must be located near the dripline for the entire canopy circumference. 9. A full 4 inch layer of coarse of wood chips must be spread over the entire root zones of Trees #4 (or #5, if retained), 17, and 18. Spreading of the chips must be done by hand. 10. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. Loose soil must not be allowed to slide down slope to cover the root collars of retained trees. 11. Trenches for a drainage system must be located outside the protective fencing, which is noted on the attached map. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, the city arborist must be consulted prior to trenching. 12. Landscape pathways and other amenities constructed under the canopies of trees must be done completely on grade without excavation and without the severing of roots. Tree #4 is the most vulnerable to this. 13. I suggest that the species of plants used in the root zones of oak trees be compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of the oak species indigenous to this area. A publication about plants compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. 14. Any pruning must be done by an ISA certified arborist and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 15. Landscape irrigation trenches (or any other excavations), inside the driplines of trees, must be no closer than 15 times the trunk diameter, if the trenching direction is across the root zone. However, radial trenches (i.e., like the spokes of a wheel) may be done closer if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to the tree's trunk, and if the spokes are at least 10 feet apart at the perimeter. 16. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. Further, spray irrigation must not be aesignea to strike inside the canopy driplines of oak trees. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST .TUNE 19, 2002 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECO ^ff_ 3DAnONS AT THE EDWARDS PROPERTY 6 15145 SOBEY ROAD, SARATOGA . 17. Lawn or other plants that require frequent watering must be limited to a maximum of 20% of the entire root zone and a minimum distance of 7 times the trunk diameter away from the trunks of oak trees. 18. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection. 19. If trees are in the path of discharge of drain dissipators or downspouts, those devices must be relocated. The discharge must be directed a minimum of 15 feet to the side of the trunk of anv tree. 20. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled,. dumped inside the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA standards, Seventh Edition. The following trees. are expected to be removed by implementation of this plan. Replacements are suggested. These trees are assessed as follows: Tree # 1 - $1,871 Tree # 2 - $1,073 Tree # 3 - $3,305 Tree # 5 - $4,714 Tree # 19 - $1,099 Tree # 20 - $ 218 Tree # 21 - $ 285 Total. $ 122563 This value is equivalent to 9 -36 inch boxed, and 1 -24 inch boxed native specimens. There are other equivalent alternatives. However, 36 inch boxed specimens and sometimes 24 inch boxed specimens may not be available at the end of the project unless the trees are secured with a grower at the onset of construction. 'I recommend that it be required that replacement trees be secured within 60 days of the issuance of permits. Growers will hold trees upon request. Thus, delivery may be scheduled after construction is completed. The combined value of the trees expected to be retained ( #4, 6 -18) is $16,480. 1 suggest a bond equal to 25 % ($4,120) of the total value of the trees that will be retained to assure their protection. • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L.'BENCH. CONSULTING ARBORIST JUNE 19, 2002 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE EDWARDS PROPERTY 15145 SOBEY ROAD, SARATOGA Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak — Quercus agrifolia Valley oak — Quercus lobala Big leaf maple —Ater macrophyllum California buckeye — Aesculus californica Coast Redwood — Sequoia sempervirens Rtstectfully subm' d, a Michael L. Bench, Associate. MLB /sl. Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Platform Buffer Map PREPARED BY: N4!CFAEL L. BENCH. CONSUI_T'NG ARBORIST JUINTE 19, 2002 X'N 54 GLOSSARY Co- dominant (stems, branches) equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the crown. BARRIE D. COJOE AND ASSOCIATES 10 Horticultural Consultants (408) 353 -1052 Fax (408) 353 -1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 Crown - The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage. Cultivar - A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning. Decurrent - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking a central leader resulting in a round - headed tree. Excurrent - A term used to describe a tree crown in which a strong central leader is present to the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively decrease in length upward from the base. Girdling root - A root that partially or entirely encircles the trunk and/or large buttress roots, which could restrict growth and downward movement of photosynthates. Included bark - Bark which is entrapped in naffow- angled attachments of two or more stems, branches, or a stem and branch(es). Such attachments are weakly attached and subject to splitting out. Kinked root - A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply bent and can cause plant instability and reduction of movement of water, nutrients, and photosynthates. Root collar - The flared, lower portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also referred to as the "root crown". Leader - The main stem or trunk that forms the apex of the tree. Stem - The axis (trunk of a central leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached. Temporary branches - A small branch on the trunk or between scaffold branches ruined to shade, nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. These branches are kept small and gradually removed as the'trunk develops. Definition of Woody Parts. Trunk - The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch. Scaffold branches - zIn decurrent trees, the branches that form the main, structure of the crown. Limb — A major structural part. Branch - A smaller part, attached to a limb or scaffold branch. Branchlet — A small part, attached to a. branch. Twig — A very small part attached to a branchlet. Leaf — The main photosyrithctic organ of most plants. • • • Jotle: Edwards Job Address: 1* Sobey Rd. Job #05 -02 -se June 19, 2002 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15 -gal = $120 24 "box =$420 36 "box = $1,320 48 "box = $5,000 52 "box = $7,000 72 "box = $15,000 1 = BEST, 5 = WORST Page 1 of 4 9 0 Mae sur menu Condition PruninalCabli na Needs PesilDlsease Problems Recommend. T °' 6 � ? (0 0 � Cn a > BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES t7 c5 I- _ at u� _ > w o K (400)351052 ' g w a z z F' z u�W1 o 8 235355umm8Road kJ �Z _ - W LasGale,CA 95030 � 0 > U 8 8 p J y�Y O O O J = i Q Q K IIIUYYY m 7 W q r j •� •� Key # Plant Name o 0 o i cn _ (��jjJ =. U U U z z ¢ 1 Coast Live Oak 111 x 8 \7 6.0 1 14 20 20 1 1 1 4 1 5 Quercus a rifolia 9x3 sq. in 154 X $27 1sq. In. = $ 4,158 X sp. class 100% = $4,158 X cond. 60% _ ' $ 2,495 X loc. 75% _ $ 1,871 Total Value 2 Ironbark Gum 18.0 x 17.0 22 1 20 1 20 1 1 1 4 1 5 Eucalyptus side lon'Rosea'—d s . In 368 X $27 /sq. In. _ $ 9,936 X sp. class 30% _ $2,981 X cond. 60% - $ 1,788 X loc. 60% _ $ 1,073 Total Value 3 Coast Live Oak 13.0 x 9 \6 1 8.0 multi 20 35 1 1 1 4 1 5 6x4 In 272 X $27 1sq. In. = $ 7,344 X sp. class 100% - $7,344 X cond. 60% - $ 4,406 X loo. 75% = $ 3.305 Total Value 4 Coast Ltve Oak B.0 x 8\7 7 \5 1319 20 20 1 4 5 4 8 s . in 232 X $27 /sq. in. = $ 6,264 X sp. class 100% - $6,264 X cond. 60% _ $ 3,758 X loc. 75% = $ 2,819 Total Value 6 Coast Live Oak 12.0 x I 10.0 1 6% 114 25 35 1 4 5 X3 5 13x3 . In 388 X $27 /sq. In. = $ 10,476 X sp. class 100% _ $10,476 X cond. 60% = $ 6,286 X loc. 75% = $ 4,714 Total Value 6 Coast Live Oak 12.0 x 111,0111\61multi 25 1 30 1 1 1 4 1 5 in 200 X $27 /sq. in. = $ 5,400 X sp. class 100% _ $5,400 X cond. 60% = $ 3,240 X loo. 75% = $ 2,430 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15 -gal = $120 24 "box =$420 36 "box = $1,320 48 "box = $5,000 52 "box = $7,000 72 "box = $15,000 1 = BEST, 5 = WORST Page 1 of 4 9 0 Job 'title': Edwards Job Address: 15145 Sobey Rd. Job #05 -02 -093 June 19, 2002 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15 -gal = $120 24 "box = $420 36 "box = $1,320 48 "box = $5,000 52 "box = $7,000 72"box = $15,000 u ] = BEST, 5 = WORST Page 2 of 4 Measurements Condition PruninuiCablina Needs Pestmisease Problems Recommend. BARRIE D. COATE D and'ASSOCIATES ° 0 w U? Lu w ,7 Lu _ ui (408)3531052 $ 10 uw `� ? F O o a0 23535fnmmitRoad L(sGaln,CA95030 w i�F w oZ Z M y d W (, q g g w p Y W ]. O H a �. Z uU� d W W ? p O w z 6 U X U U � O O Key $1 Plant Name o f o o O z ( i 6 § � U � � � ? 0 o F o M z z 7 Coast Live Oah 9.0 . x J7610 10 20 15 1 2 3 sq. in 78 X $27 1sq. In. = S 2,106 X ap, class 100% _ $2;106 X cond. 6D% . _ $ 1,284 X Ix. 60% _ $ 758 Total Value 8 Monterey Pine 18.0 19 1 35 1 20 1 1 31 1 4 Pinus radiate sq. in 254 X $27 1sq. in. = S 6,867 X sp. class in _ $2,060 X cond. 75% - $ 1,545 X loc.. 65% ' _ $ 1,004 Total Value 9 Mantera Pine 12.0 1 1 1 13 1 40 1 15 1 2 1 3 1 5 . . In 113 X $27 /sq. In. = $ 3,052 X sp. Gass 30% _ $918 X cond. 80% - $ 549 X loc. 65% _ $ 357 Total Value 10 Montere Pine 12.0 13 40 15 1 3 4 sq. In 113 X S27 /sq. In. = $ 3,052 X sp. class 30% _ $916 X cond. 75% - S 687 X loc. 65% _ $ 446 Total Value 11 Monterey Pine 18.0 19 40 30 1 3 4 I 1 1.1 1 17771' ---d sq. In 254 X $27 /sq. In. = $ 6,667 X sp. class 30% _ $2,060 X oond. 75% = S 1,545 X loc. 70% _ $ 1,082 Total Value 12 Monterey Pine --d 9.0 x 6.0 14 30 15 2 3 5 7-7-11 I'l I I I sq. in 63.6 X $27 /sq. In. = $ 1,717 X sp. class 30% = $515 X cond. 75% = $ 386 X loc. 50% = S 193 Total Value 13 onterev Pine 16.0 1 30 1 2 1 3 1 5 sq. in 201 X $27 /sq. In. = $ 5,426 X sp. class 30% = $1,628 X cond. 75% = $ 1,221 X loc. 60% = S 732 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15 -gal = $120 24 "box = $420 36 "box = $1,320 48 "box = $5,000 52 "box = $7,000 72"box = $15,000 u ] = BEST, 5 = WORST Page 2 of 4 Jostle: Edwards Job Address:1 *Sobey Rd. Job #05 -02- June 19, 2002 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal - $36 15-gal a $120 24 "box - $420 36 "box - $1,320 48 "box = $5,000 52 "box - $7,000 72 "box = $15,000 1 = BEST, 5 = WORST Page 3 of 4 Measurements Condition Prunina/CabllnaNeeds PestlDlseaseProblems Recommend. o s w o W W W BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES F _ p w (408) 353.1052 235355ummdRoad $ 0 w clo�� F O z F z ? z O O z Q Y tr a � tA G w tY $ LMcAo;,CA 75030 rn � W C z O Of W t'i �� w rr ¢ W u� W n p W j F Q, W o > W a H O Z U o U OU 3 w a a a c5i : WN w 8 Key 9 Plant Name q 03 O w a Lu ; x � W a � Z O z z K O x tp x rn x U U U U M U d O D 14 Mon ere in 12.0 14 35 20 2 3 5 --�71 [-Tj- s . In 113 X $271sq. in. = $ 3,052 X sp. class 30% = $916 X cond. 75% = $ 687 X loc. 65% = $ 446 Total Value 15 MontereyPine 21.0 1 1 1 22 1 45 1 36 1 2 1 3 5 a . In 346 X $27 /sq. In. _ $ 9,347 Xsp. class 30% = $2,804 X cond. 60% = $ 1,662 X loc. 70% - $ 1,178 Total Value 16 Monterey Pine 25.0 1 1 1 27 1 45 1 40- 2 1 3 1 5 s . In 491 X $27 /sq. In. = $ 13,247 X sp. class 30% $3,974 X cond. 60°% = $ 2,384 X loo. 70% - $ 1,669 Total Value 17 Coast Live Oak 9.0 x 919 1 7.0 1 multi 15 1 20 1 4 1 5 s . In 147 X $27 1sq. In. _ $ 3,969 X sp. class 100°% = $3,969 X cond. 60°% = . $ 2,381 X loc. 75°% $ 1,786 18 Coast Live Oak 8.0 x 7\6 1 614 I 8 20 1 30 1 3 1 4 x3 s . in 104 X $27 /sq. In. = $ 2,808 X sp. class 100% = $2,808 X cond. 75% = $ 2,106 X too. 75°% _ $ 1,580 Total Value 19 En lish Walnut 16.0 18 20 1 35 1 2 3 Ju Ions re is s . in 201 X $27 /sq. In. _ $ 5,426 X sp. class 300% = $1,628 X cond. 90% = $ 1,465 X loc. 75% _ $ 1,099 Total Value -.71 20 California Black Walnut 114.0 15 15 20 1 3 4 7 Ju lans hindsii . in 154 X $27 /sq. in. _ $ 4,154 X sp. class 10% _ $415 X cond. 75°% _ $ 312 X loc. 70% _ $ 218 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal - $36 15-gal a $120 24 "box - $420 36 "box - $1,320 48 "box = $5,000 52 "box - $7,000 72 "box = $15,000 1 = BEST, 5 = WORST Page 3 of 4 Job Title: Edwards Job Address: 15145 Sobey Rd. Job x#05 -02 -093 June 19 2002 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15 -gal - $120 24 "box - $420 36 "box - $1,320 48 "box - $5,000 52 "box - $7,000 72 "box = $1500 r1 • 1 = BEST, 5 = WORST Page 4 of 4 .0 Measurements Condition Prunina/Cablina Needs PesflDisease Problems Recommend BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES Ft 0, o �. W W a U d `? 14 081 353-1052 $ W� a a w ° a o r N a m —7d Z c4� O c� Z 23535SummitRoad UACAos,(A 95030 w W _ Z w a d w 0 w Q a L } 0� J p M OQ o = ~ 0�� $ �u _ 2 W ..1 U F- O OD S. > O W J Z Z N W S O y Z �' U 1— O (LLB O Key N Plant Name o o S z U U z a z z 8 21 California lack Walnut 16.0 18 15 20 1 3 4 T771- s . In 201 X $27 /sq. In.= , $ 5,426 X sp. olass 10% _ $543 X cond. 75% _ $ 407 X loc. 70% _ $ 285. Total Value 22 Califomla Blaok Walnut 11.0 x 10.0 10.0 12 20 3 4 7 scl. in 'i75 X $27 /sq. in.= $ 4,725 X sp. class 10% _ $473 X cond. 30% _ $ 142 X loc. 60% _ $ 85 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15 -gal - $120 24 "box - $420 36 "box - $1,320 48 "box - $5,000 52 "box - $7,000 72 "box = $1500 r1 • 1 = BEST, 5 = WORST Page 4 of 4 .0 BARRIE D. COATE AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353 -1052 Fax (408) 353 -1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION These are general recommendations And may be superseded by site - specific instructions BEFORE Plan location of trenching to avoid all possible cuts beneath tree canopies. This includes trenches for utilities, irrigation lines, cable TV and roof drains. Plan construction period fence locations which will prevent equipment travel or material storage beneath tree canopies. Install fences before any construction related equipment is allowed on site. This includes pickup trucks. Inform subcontractors in writing that they must read this document. Require return of signed copies to demonstrate that they have read the document. Prune any tree parts, which conflict with construction between August and January. Except for pines which may be pruned between October - January. Only an ISA certified arborist, using ISA pruning instructions may be used for his work. If limbs are in conflict with the construction equipment before the certified arborist is on -site, carpenters may cut off offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18" long stub, which should be re -cut later by the arborist. Under no circumstances may any party remove more than 30% of a trees foliage, or prune so that an unbalanced canopy is created. DURING Avoid use of any wheeled equipment beneath tree canopies. Maintain fences at original location in vertical, undamaged condition until, all contractors and subcontractors, including painters are gone. Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave 5 =6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from the trunk. Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June - October). Apply 10 gallons of water per I" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 ' /z') once per 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, or adjacent to construction not around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any organic material which is non toxic may be used. AFTER Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just inside the dripline. Continue until 8" of rain has fallen. Avoid cutting irrigation trenches beneath tree canopies. Avoid rototilling beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which absorb water. Avoid installation of turf or other frequently irrigated plants beneath tree canopies. 3) B A t-i o Con ARRIE T). COA`]'I? — — 'Free ee lies -.ery t_A on - -- Y F. t t I i 1 t �tf c_• Top of fence hung with I fluorescent flagging tape t every 10 feet. t l� 6' chain link or welded wire mesh 8 fence post of 2" diameter GI pipe or T -angle post • Fence placed at drip line IA 1 or 50% - rester than the tree canopy radius O-ere possible Foadway _ - - - — — rence�t in.a t When construction is to take place beneath a tree canopy on one side, the fence should be sited .? 3 teet be and that construction but r:k.:uc rur :1nri the lfef� Inrnk _ Construction period protection for trees should be provided before grading or other equipment is allowed .on the property. If construction or paving is to take place throughout the area beneath the canopy and dripline fencing is not practical, snow fencing should be used to protect trunks from damage Three layers of wire and lath snow fencing to 8' above ground on .% trees where construction �'� I , will take place beneath the canopy • 13arrie D. Coate Er Associates (408) 353 -1052 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANTS Certified Consulting Arborist Radial Trenching The Do's and Don'ts of Irrigation Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Root Protection Zone 1'/2 times the Dripline Diameter —► '17,1 e I8 �h 7e aee Irrigation lateral lines may be installed (12- inches deep) in hand dug trenches in areas containing shallow absorbing roots if the trenches are at right angles to the trunk as opposed to cutting across the root mass area. Mainlines (18- inches deep) must be installed outside Of the root protection zone. In no case may sprinklers wet the area within 5 times the trunk diameter. of the trunk. root ti sv 5 times trunk dia meter of �•_� -, y : day_ _ Lateral line 12- inches deep* 4 --Okay in A 1 -inch Piy6od and Wood Chips platfo* Buffer for Areas Beneath A Tree Canopy which Must Be Used for Foot Traffic Prepared by: ,Barrie D. Coate Er Associates Horticultural Consultants (408) 353 -1052 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 • • - .-- - -- a1 v0 — - - 6 Sur; a 14 17 .. 1 3. 12 d9 5 1 ° y r , If 1 97- ° 2 0 Protective F ence 2 Ice? % AAA i � � �. .f - i ,, 1/ .� tJ -6� '-�, `��` -- • '`•¢ -4 r ice.. —�. 'l.%JI/l � • � � 5 ' d L \ 2 ' -'• a•1S �. Ire Z�— peS00' _5 0, /L C \ Tree Survey and Preservation Recommendations at the BARRIE D. COATE Edwards property, 15145 Sobey Road and ASSOCIATES (408) 3531052 Prepared for: 23535 Summi Read U6 GIN, CA 95030 City of Saratoga, Planning Department HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT Date: June 2002 CONSULTING ARBORIST Job 0,05-02-093 Tree numbers correspond to evaluation chats. All dimensions and tree locations are approximate. Attachment 5 • • • • MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Garakani called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Hunter, Garakani, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl (arrived at 8:10 P.M.) Absent: Commissioner Zutshi Staff. Director Tom Sullivan and Assistant Planner Ann Welsh PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of June 9, 2004. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Schallop, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of June 9, 2004, were adopted with corrections to pages 10, 13, 16 & 20. (5 -0 -2; Commissioners Uhl and Zutshi were absent) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 17, 2004. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Director Tom Sullivan 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 0 There were no Consent Calendar Items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 23, 2004 Page 8 • Said that the current home is 2,200 square feet and they are adding 1,100 square feet upstairs or two rooms. • Stated that this is a small house when compared to others in the area. Commissioner Hunter asked if the footprint is the same except for the patio. Mr. Karen Bhatia replied yes. Director Tom Sullivan reported that per the Design Review Section of Code, the maximum size of floor area allowed would be 7,200 square feet. Chair Garakani: • Said that this is a constrained property as the owners cannot move toward the setbacks. • Pointed out that they are only adding two rooms with approximately 1,100 square feet. • Said that there is no issue here and any concerns can be mitigated with the planting of good trees. With that, the Bhatias will have their house and the City will have its views. Commissioner Rodgers expressed support for the idea of native trees, proposing that a big Oak tree be planted up front. Commissioner Nagpal suggested giving staff guidance to finalize tree placement. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning 'Commission approved a Design Review request to construct a 1,739 square foot second floor addition to an existing 2,814 square foot single -story structure on property located at 13228 Pierce Road, with the following requirements: ■ Plant a screening tree for the neighbor to the east, upon consultation with the neighbor to see if it is found to be necessary once framing of the second story addition has occurred; ■ Provide landscaping along Pierce Road, using native trees; ■ Require the use of attractive pavers for the driveway and paved area at the front of the property both for drainage and appearance; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop, NOES:: None ABSENT: Uhl and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Uhl arrived at 8:10 p.m. and joined the Commission at the dais following the conclusion of Agenda Item No. 1. PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.2 APPLICATION #04 -034 397 -08 -091 OVERLAND DEVELOPMENT INC. 15145 Sobey Road: Request Design Review approval to construct a 26 -foot high single -story structure on a vacant lot with Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 23, 2004 Page 9 an average slope of 16 %. The size of the home is 5,681 square feet with a 845 square foot basement. The lot size is 46,082 square feet and the parcel is zoned R -1- 40,000. (ANN WELSH) Assistant Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to construct on a vacant parcel. • Stated that the new single -story home is proposed at 26 feet in height and would include 5,681 square feet with an 845 square foot basement. • Described the lot as consisting of 46,082 square feet with access from Sobey Road through a 20- foot wide access easement. • Said that this project could be consistent with Design Review guidelines if conditions of approval are met. • Said that neighbor concerns include issues of proximity of the garage to an adjacent parcel and the access easement. Commissioner Hunter questioned the proposed placement of the house and garage at angles and asked for the reasoning behind that site design. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh deferred that question to the project architect but said that they probably don't want to see the garage when they drive up to the house. Commissioner Hunter asked why not place the garage at the back of the house. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied that this would interfere with a future pool site. Commissioner man issioner Nagpal asked how homes the access easement serves. y Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied that this issue was addressed for the previous subdivision. Reported that minutes from the public hearing consideration of the subdivision indicate that staff had recommended the widening of the paved portion of the access at the time of subdivision to 18 feet. The Planning Commission had recommended that it stay as it is, which is a 20 foot wide easement of which 14 feet is paved. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this easement is serving four lots, including this one. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied that it is a matter of interpretation. The front lot has about 90 percent of its driveway accessing directly from Sobey Road frontage. Three other lots use this easement and this would be the fourth lot to use it. Commissioner Nagpal asked clarification that a previous Planning Commission decided that the access easement served four lots and did not require widening. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied yes, correct. She added that a neighbor appealed this decision when it was made in 1983. However, Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision. She reminded that the subdivision plan shows access from Sobey Road for that parcel. 0 Commissioner Hunter asked what the grounds were for the appeal that occur in 1983. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 23, 2004 Page 10 Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied there were a couple of issues including access for five lots and not four. Commissioner Rodgers asked who owns this access road. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh: • Advised that the access easement is 291 feet long and is owned by four different people. Mr. Coe owns a portion. Another person owns 20 feet, a third owns 200 "feet and the fourth owns 50 feet. • Stated that the applicant for tonight's project had a title report that states that they have access to the 20 -foot wide easement. The final recorded map shows access to Sobey Road. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is a copy of the restatement of right -of -way. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that final maps don't usually have proposed building footprints on them. She added that the subdivision was approved based upon that access easement agreement. Director Tom Sullivan advised that" within the City's existing Subdivision Ordinance it is made clear that conceptual architecture is not approved. Commissioner Nagpal said that it is not the architecture but rather its placement on the site that is of concern. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that the original location was up high on the property. One neighbor would prefer that the house not be placed where it had originally been conceptually placed on the Tentative Map. Chair Garakani asked if there is room available'for the enlargement of the access road. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that to do so would encroach on trees, etc. Chair Garakani asked again if it is possible to enlarge to 20 feet. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied that it would be difficult as it would require the okay from the four different property owners who would lose three feet of their property. Chair Garakani said that this is an issue that should be looked into. Commissioner Nagpal said that it could be looked at as part of Design Review. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh agreed that it could be made a condition of approval. However, she_ spoke with Public Works and Fire staff and it is not their policy to require widening in a pre- existing condition. The 14 -foot wide paved access easement with two -foot shoulder is sufficient for fire access. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the authority to require expansion is available during the Design Review process. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes, the Commission could exact off -site improvements. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 23, 2004 Page 11 Commissioner Rodgers asked if the Commission could impose a condition that affected non - involved property owners. Director Tom Sullivan replied no, only on the owner before the Commission. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Michael Davis, Project Designer: • Apologized to the Commission for missing the site visit as he was called into a meeting. • Said that the design and placement of the house minimizes the impact of grading of the site. • Explained that there is a 15 -foot difference from the lowest to highest point with a 10 -foot rise from the garage to the house. They are tucking the house into the hillside. • Added that building higher on the lot would equal a steeper slope. • Stated that they also wanted to keep the house away from the nearest neighbor. Pointed out that the required setback on the east side is 20 feet. They have gone to 38 feet. • Said that they have staked out the home. • Said that the placement of the home allows fire truck turnaround on site. • Explained that the access easement serves Mr. Coe, his client and two other properties. • Stated that widening the access would require tree removal and that Fire is happy with what is there. • Reminded that there are not a lot of trip counts for this access easement. • Reported that the upper neighbors to the west, Dr. and Mrs. Johnson, are concerned if the house is raised up higher on the site. • Said that they are taking out few trees and will provide screening in consultation with the Johnsons. • Said that he personally spoke with five neighbors, four in person and one over the phone. P Y p g Commissioner Hunter asked for an explanation on the footprint of the house and the garage being way up front near the Stocks' property. Mr. Michael Davis replied that the placement is to limit grading. Placing elsewhere would cut into the hillside more. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the garage would be seen from the neighbor's deck. Chair Garakani asked what other problem would occur for neighbors if the house placement were to be moved. Mr. Michael Davis replied visual impacts. He said that they would extend the landscaping. Chair Garakani asked if Mr. Michael Davis has considered both neighbors' concerns. Mr. Michael Davis said that they have considered neighbors' concerns and met with these neighbors. He said that there would be an eight -foot landscape buffer. Additionally, if the house is placed higher up the lot, it looks higher while they are tucking the house into the site where it is located. Said that their home is a French - country style with a steeper roof pitch. 0 Chair Garakani suggested that this particular parcel does not support that architectural style and asked if the applicant would be willing to change his architecture. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 23, 2004 Page 12 Commissioner Hunter asked if this home is for sale. Mr. Michael Davis replied yes, it is a spec home. He added that it is a stepped house with four levels to keep the house tucked in. There have been no neighbor concerns raised regarding height. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there . would be geotechnical considerations if the house were moved further uphill. Mr. Michael Davis replied no, the site is good. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Michael Davis if they had considered a two -story home with a smaller footprint. Mr. Michael Davis replied that this was considered to be out of the question for this site. Commissioner Rodgers asked if they had considered lowering the height of the structure. Mr. Michael Davis replied yes. Commissioner Rodgers asked why the client wants this specific style since they won't live in this house. Mr. Michael Davis replied that this is the style that they like. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that they have made concessions on the setbacks so that it does not appear too close to the neighbor. Mr. Michael Davis reminded that where a 20 -foot setback is required, they are proposing a 38 -foot setback. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh pointed out that the front setback is 30 feet, the other side is 78.6 feet and the rear is 73 feet. Commissioner Hunter asked whether the circle in front of the house is required by Fire. Mr. Michael Davis said that it is'one option acceptable to Fire, the other being a hammerhead. Commissioner - Rodgers asked whether a hammerhead represents a smaller area than a circular drive. Mr. Michael Davis replied-yes., Commissioner Rodgers asked about tree preservation. Mr. Michael Davis said that they lost one additional Oak tree when the moved the house eight feet further. He added that no pool area is proposed. Chair Garakani pointed out that sports court.depicted on the site plan. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 23, 2004 Page 13 Mr. Michael Davis advised that they had to show what could be put in but that they don't plan to actually put it in themselves. An eventual owner could pursue this. Mr. Tom Coe, 15217 Sobey Road, Saratoga: • . Said that he and his wife, Norma, live on the northern boundary of the subject lot. • Said he submitted a letter. • Advised that they received the public hearing notices on June 14th • Asked the Commission to postpone its decision. • Reported that the house number on the notice does not fit correctly in sequence with existing homes in the area and suggested that this proposal should be re- noticed as some neighbors are unaware of the proximity to their homes due to this confusing address. • Said that the major issue is that this project will result in the over - burdening of the right -of- -way to Sobey. • Said that the subdivision was appealed to Council because the access serves four lots already. This is a violation of the Subdivision Ordinance to have an access easement serve more than four parcels. • .Reported that the access is substandard right now. On trash day there is no place to put out cans. One more home would equal more cans. • Stated that this is not land locking this lot as there is an easement in place to Monte Vista. • Said that there are lots of issue and that he would like more time to prepare. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Tom Coe for his opinion of a one -story versus two -story home on this site. Mr. Tom Coe said that this is not an issue for him. The bulk of this house is like a two -story already and includes considerable attic space. Said that he can appreciate the architectural aspects of dormers but that he had not been allowed to incorporate them into his own home's design a few years ago. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Tom Coe for the height of his own home. Mr. Tom Coe said that his two -story home is 26 feet tall. He pointed out that the house size proposed for the subject lot during the time of subdivision was significantly smaller that the one currently under consideration. Mr. Larry Williams, 133 Glenridge Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that he is the property owner who bought this property three years ago with the clear understanding that he had an easement. • Stated that the neighbor, Mr. Coe, has caused problems with previous proposals. • Said that he original planned for a mega home but backed off from that to a 5,600 square foot home. • Pointed out that Mr. Coe was well aware of this pending project as he ran into the project superintendent several weeks ago and discussed the project with him. Ms. Shinku Sharma, 15211 Sobey Road, Saratoga: • Said that she moved here eight years ago and that the owner at that time explained the easement as being shared with three neighbors. • Said that four to five years ago, this subject lot went on sale. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 23, 2004 Page 14 • Said that when she received the public hearing notice, she went looking for 15145 Sobey Road and couldn't find it. She was confused with the numbering and didn't realize this property was so close • to her property. • Said that she has had no time to look at plans and that no one approached her with the plans. • Expressed concern for traffic on the access easement and pointed out that she owns the largest portion of this easement. • Said that she would like to come back and address the issue of the easement. Assistant .Planner Ann Welsh explained that there is typically no address for a vacant lot. When she searched the Assessor's Parcel Map, the project site was labeled with the address 15145. Another address source had a different address. She said that to cover all bases, she had .the project site posted. Suggested that if the project is to require re- noticing, perhaps both address could be included. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the old address is prior to subdivision. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied that she did not know. One informal map of addresses has one address and the Parcel Map has this .address. Usually the corresponding address to the .Assessor's Parcel Number is used. It is the address.used for the plans. Commissioner. Hunter said that property owners who receive notices usually compare addresses to their own to see the proximity to their own homes. Ms. Barbara Stock, 15249 Sobey Road, Saratoga: • ` Stated that she has lived here for 39 years and that her property is immediately adjacent to this subject property. • Announced her objections as the garage entrance will face her rear property line with no room for a landscaping buffer: • Recommended rotating the garage by 90 degrees toward Sobey Road and the relocation of the main portion of the house by 12 feet. • Said that a 26 -foot tall single -story house is not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood and suggested a reduction in height by at least six feet. • Pointed out that the attic could be illegally. converted into living space. • Said that this is a spec house. These people will leave the area but she would have to live with the consequences of this project for the rest of her life. Commissioner Hunter asked Ms. Barbara Stock for the height of her own home. Ms. Barbara Stock replied that she was not certain but that it is a single- story. Commissioner Hunter estimated that a typical height for a single -story home is about 18 feet. Mr. William Johnson, 18955 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga: • Stated that he lives to the west of this lot. • Said that if the home is moved_ uphill, it would cut off their valley view. • Said that he has lived here for 50 years and has a lovely view. • Suggested that trees and landscaping be limited to 25 feet in height. • Pointed out that the site has very high weeds and asked that these weeds be disked. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 23, 2004 Page 15 • Commissioner Hunter reported that the Fire Department sends out letters for such matters. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. William Johnson if he is open to the concept of access for this lot via Monte Vista. Mr. William Johnson said not from the private road but that from Monte Wood it would be okay. Mr. Michael Davis: • Reminded that the 1983 issue regarding access has already been addressed and that Fire is comfortable with site access through this easement access. • Stated that this issue has been put to rest already. • Reported that there is no easement on record from this lot to Monte Vista. • Said that this is the fourth lot to access the easement. • Stated that Planner Ann Welsh raised the issue of confusion about the address for the site and that they posted the site immediately when she asked them to do so. • Said that the neighbors saw the story poles in place. Commissioner Schallop asked Mr. Michael Davis if he had met with all of the neighbors who spoke this evening. Mr. Michael Davis said all but Mrs. Sharma. • Chair. Garakani asked when these conversations occurred. Mr. Michael Davis said prior to installation of the story poles. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Michael Davis if any contact occurred prior to submitting designs. Mr. Michael Davis replied no. Chair Garakam advised that the application process requires applicants to discuss their plans early with their neighbors prior to the submittal of plans. Director Tom Sullivan disagreed with that statement. Commissioner Hunter said that this requirement is often hard to accomplish. Commissioner Nagpal added that something has to be drawn up in order to have something to show. Mr. Michael Davis: • Said that they can bring a plan to neighbors but that the story poles give an idea of the bulk and proportion. • Said that he talked to Mr. Johnson just last week. • Reported that spinning the garage would put it closer to them at 30 feet instead of the proposed 38 feet as it is now. • Said that they could go seven feet higher uphill, keep the garage as it is and drop the roof pitch. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 23, 2004 Page 16 Commissioner Nagpal .said that there have been a lot of comments today and asked Mr. Michael Davis if he is.open to a continuance of this project. • Mr. Michael. Davis said that reaching a compromise today would be preferable. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Hunter said that she feels this item must be continued as the proposed house is. very tall, close to'the Stocks' home and there are a number of issues to consider. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that there are 34 names on the notice list and said that posting the site correctly is important. Commissioner Schallop replied that the notice is not improper and a continuance of this project is not required for noticing reasons. Said he would support a continuance if doing so would be productive. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that she could not find the site when she went looking for it. Commissioner Hunter said that there are more issues than just the noticing. Commissioner Schallop said that the Commission must give instructions on what to do. Commissioner Hunter said that the story poles have only been up for five or six. days and there are a number of reasons to support continuance. Chair Garakani said -that. he has an objection to the design, saying that the parcel should be able to support the design. This project is both wide and tall. The applicant could go with a two -story structure with a smaller footprint. The whole design is disturbing. Commissioner Uhl, said that a lot of neighbor feedback has not yet been incorporated and that four of the six required findings cannot be made in his opinion. Commissioner Rodgers agreed. Commissioner Nagpal: • .. Agreed with Commissioner Uhl. • Suggested that the house be slide up the hill using a smaller footprint and two -story design and reconfigured garage. • Said that such a design would. be more sensitive to trees, particularly Trees 3, 4 and 5, which are Oaks. • Stated that there is not enough information available on the access easement and some research should be done to see if there is an easement available to Monte Vista. • Said that she could see how a 14 -foot wide driveway serving five homes is quite an issue. Commissioner Rodgers cautioned that the easement is a legal issue that may not be in the purview of the Planning Commission. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 23, 2004 Page 17 Director Tom Sullivan reported that the 1983 Council action was final. The next avenue available to • the appellants was Court action, which was not pursued. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh reminded that the first home was interpreted as not using the easement for access since most of their own driveway was within the City's right -of -way. Commissioner. Schallop asked what options are being offered to the applicant. Chair Garakani replied the options include outright denial, which seems to be the direction the Commission is leaning toward if action is taken this evening, or continuing the application in order to work with the neighbors and City to work out design issues. Mr. Michael Davis asked if they would return for the next meeting. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. This item would have to be re- noticed and be worked into a future agenda. Mr. Michael Davis reminded that the Planning Commission and Council already granted approval of the Subdivision in 1983. Said that there is no concern that there is legal access to Sobey Road via this easement for this lot. Commissioner Schallop asked staff if the City Attorney could be consulted on this issue of the access easement. Director Tom Sullivan said that an interpretation can be obtained. Chair Garakani cautioned that this body should not judge on that issue. Mr. Larry Williams reminded that he purchased a property with a recorded easement. This is an improved lot for which he paid two million dollars. Reminded that the easement is a Title issue. Chair Garakani informed Mr. Larry Williams that the continuance is not based on the easement but rather on design issues. Chair Garakani re- closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission continued consideration of a Design Review application to construct a 26 -foot high single -story structure on a vacant lot with an average slope of 165 located at 15145 Sobey Road to a date uncertain with the following instructions: • That the project be re- noticed; • That the project be brought back to the next available meeting; • That the applicant meets with neighbors regarding design issues; • That a legal interpretation on the issue of the access easement be obtained by the City Attorney; • That the applicant consider the design comments made by the Planning Commission during this evening's hearing; Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 23, 2004 Page 18 • That a, project incorporating a smaller footprint, perhaps a two - story, be considered; • • That Trees 3, 4 and 5 be considered for preservation; • That the placement of the garage be reconsidered; and • That a detailed landscaping plan be prepared; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Uhl apologized to the Commission for being late for this evening's meeting. COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council Minutes from Regular Meeting on June 2, 2004 and Special Meeting on June 9, 2004. There were no Communications Items. Miscellaneous Information Director Tom Sullivan advised that a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce was held, the first meeting for the re- writing of the Sign Ordinance. Chair Garakani advised that he would be out for the July 28th meeting as would Commissioner Rodgers. Commissioner Uhl and Schallop both advised that they would be out for the July 14th meeting. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Schallop, Chair Garakani adjourned. the meeting at 9:50 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of July 14, 2004, at 7:00 P.M. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Garakani called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi Absent: None Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone, Associate Planner Ann Welsh and Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of September 22, 2004. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of September 22, 2004, were adopted with corrections to pages 6, 8, 9 and 11. (5- 0 -0 -2; Commissioners Schallop and Uhl abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no oral communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 7, 2004. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Director Tom Sullivan announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2004 Page .4 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (Application #04 -208) to allow the installation of six cellular panel antennas on an existing monopole on • property located at 17777 Saratoga Avenue by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.4 APPLICATION #04 -034 (397 -08 -091)— OVERLAND DEVELOPMENT INC., 15145 Sobey Road: Request Design Review Approval to construct a 25.5 -foot high single -story structure on a vacant lot with an average slope of 16 %. The size of the home is 5,677 square feet with an 845 square foot basement. The lot size is 46,082 square feet and the parcel is zoned R -1- 40,000. (ANN WELSH) Associate Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this item was continued from June 23, 2004, when the Planning Commission directed the applicant to revise plans to address neighbor.concerns regarding the garage and right of access. • Explained that the applicant is proposing to construct a 23 foot, 9 inch high single -story residence on a 46, 082 square foot lot that is accessed from Sobey Road through an access easement. • Described the proposed home as consisting of 5,677 square feet with an 845 square foot basement on an R -1- 40,000 zoned parcel. • Pointed out the changes'from the original submittal as including the reduction to the 23 foot, 9 inch height; the reorientation of the garage to face Sobey Road rather than the neighboring property to the east; the increase of one of the side yard setbacks to 30 feet; the retention of an additional tree; the relocation of the house further to the west so that it is more centered on the lot; a reduction in the FAR and coverage and revised landscaping to include low- growing flowering Plums and an additional Coast Redwood to, the east. • Stated that the City Attorney was consulted regarding the issue of access and a, legal analysis was .prepared that concludes that Council. with its actions of 1983 decided the issue. That decision must stand. • Recommended approval with conditions of approval as outlined. Chair Garakani :asked about the letter from the neighbors, the Coes, in which they raise issues of concern. Commissioner Rodgers questioned whether this letter should be discussed here or during the public hearing. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that this is the public hearing. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that when the staff report is done, the public hearing would be opened. Commissioner Rodgers thanked staff for including the requirement for a change of address as a condition of approval as this site is currently hard to find. It is important that a property be addressed so it is easy to locate. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2004 Page 5 Commissioner Zutshi asked staff who is responsible for installing the fire hydrant. Planner Ann Welsh replied the applicant. Commissioner Hunter asked whether the Commission must find it agrees with the actions of Council in 1983 or overturn them. Planner Ann Welsh said that the Commission would have to find that circumstances have substantially changed to disregard the actions of Council from 1983 regarding the access to this site. Commissioner Hunter asked if the Commission has any purview over the issue of trash collection. Chair Garakani replied no. Commissioner Nagpal opined that nothing appears to have changed since 1983 with regards to the driveways and access for this parcel. Planner Ann Welsh agreed, saying not as far as she can see. Commissioner Hunter asked staff if Fire is satisfied with the access road width. Planner Ann Welsh replied yes, it meets Fire's requirements. Fire is satisfied as long as proper turnaround is available. The plans have been revised to show Fire access. Commissioner Hunter asked about the other claimed access from Monte Vista. Planner Ann Welsh replied that in 1983 three parcels were subdivided, two with frontage access from Monte Vista and the third from Sobey Road. At that time, Mr. Coe objected. All decisions have been made as it stands now and per the City Attorney it cannot be changed now. There must be something very specific to support a change, not something general. .Commissioner Nagpal asked if the trash truck comes all the way in. Planner Ann Welsh said that she has heard from one neighbor that the truck does go up the road. This is simply hearsay from that neighbor. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that a fire gate proposed in 1983 was never installed. Planner Ann Welsh said that she spoke with Dr. Johnson about that. There is a barrier at Monte Vista now but the neighbors did not want a major change at that time and kept it as it currently is. Unless a property owner is a successor in interest, a new property owner is not held responsible for that requirement. Chair Garakam opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Michael Davis, Applicant: • Thanked the neighbors for working with them. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2004 Page 6 • Explained some of the design changes including the reorientation of the garage by 90 degrees so that it is facing Sobey and thereby removing visible parking from the sight of the neighboring property. • Added that a bare spot in screening landscaping would be filled with an additional Redwood tree. • Reported that the Johnsons, who live to the west, were concerned about tree heights impairing their view. The originally proposed Oak trees were felt to be too tall. The Johnsons suggested flowering Plum trees instead. • " Added that by spinning the garage, they also straightened the house from an angle into an L- shaped structure and lowered the height. • Pointed out that they also were able to save an additional tree. • Thanked Planner Ann Welsh for her thorough report. • Said that they have 4,000 square feet less impervious surface than is allowed. • Reported that there is no record of an access easement from Monte Vista Drive for this parcel. • Advised that their. Real Estate Attorney is present and available for any questions. Commissioner Uhl asked about the issue of tractor access. Mr. Michael Davis: • Said that Mr. Coe raised this issue but that there is no legal access to the easement for tractor access. • Explained that the fire truck turnaround would be a hammerhead and that Mr. Coe would be responsible for half of this turnaround. • Added that an option to installing a hydrant is to sprinkler the house as they are proposing to do. Chair Garakani asked if the inclusion of two Redwood trees has been discussed with the neighbor. Mr. Michael Davis said that the neighbors are open to another. Commissioner Hunter asked the Applicant's Attorney if he has any disagreement with the opinion reached by the City Attorney on the issue of the easement. Mr. Sam Chuck, Attorney for the Applicant: • Replied that he agreed with the City Attorney's letter. • Said that he looked at the documentation from 1983 and that significant changes would be required in order to revisit the access issue. Commissioner Hunter commended the applicant on the changes made to the project, particularly the height reduction, saying that this is a very nice looking house. Mr. Michael Davis said that they worked closely with the neighbors and appreciated their time and input. Commissioner Nagpal commended them for saving an additional tree. Commissioner Rodgers: • " Noted for the record the letter of October 12, 2004, from Thomas and Norma Coe in which they raise concerns regarding this application. The letter should be accepted into testimony. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2004 Page 7 Director Tom Sullivan added that the City Attorney's response should also be accepted. Chair Garakani said that both could be entered into the record, including the City Attorney's response as prepared by Ann Welsh following their conversation on the subject. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Commissioner Rodgers: • Distributed her written comments in response to the issues raised by the Coe letter. • Asked staff if there is any reason for her to read this into the record. Director Tom Sullivan replied not. If there are issues, they should be raised in the discussion. Commissioner Rodgers: • Stated that regarding Issue #l, which the Coes are against the planting of Redwoods, the City's policy is to favor native trees. • Stated that regarding Issue #2, ingress /egress from Sobey Road and space for trash cans, this issue can be discussed amongst the neighbors on Sobey as there appears to be sufficient access for trash collection. Additionally, a Traffic Safety Review is required under the conditions of approval whereby this issue can be evaluated further. • Said that regarding Issue #3, status of a fire gate on Monte Vista Drive, according to the Assistant City Attorney this is not an issue. The Fire Department does not require it. Perhaps this issue could more appropriately be referred to the Public Safety Commission. • Concerning Issue #4, widening of easement to 18 feet, the Fire Department finds the existing access at 14 feet to be in compliance. No reason was mentioned for widening this road and two vehicles can comfortably pass each other as the driveway currently exists. There is little space for extra road shoulder to be located. The maintenance issues (tree trimming) raised must be solved by the. easement holders. The concerns regarding potential damage to driveway pavers on the Coe property during'construction is handled through a condition of approval. • Regarding Issue #5, applicant's right of ingress /egress over the easement to Sobey Road, while the Coes believe there is a change in circumstances, the City's Attorney says the Commission is precluded from denying use of the access easement. If the Commission finds as a matter of fact that there is a change of circumstances, it may address this issue. • Added that the Coes charge that in 1983 three parcels took access to Sobey. One has been changed to be off the private road and the applicant would be the fifth home to use the private road. Additionally, that two parcels on the east of the private road have rights of way, that traffic has increased since 1983 and that an alternate access point from Monte Vista Drive exists for this particular parcel • Countered those points by saying that in her opinion the first driveway appears to be off the public road and not the private road. That the two parcels to the east are oriented in the opposite direction and have access to Sobey in that direction, that a Traffic Study would be conducted as a condition of this approval and that the validity of the claimed easement from Monte Vista. Drive is not documented, and that this specific parcel was created with covenants that run with the land to provide access. Therefore, no change in circumstances can be found. Therefore, the Commission is precluded from considering the issue of the applicant's use of the private road. Commissioner Hunter told Mr. Johnson that she wished the originally proposed native Oak trees would be planted, although flowering Plum trees are also nice. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2004 Page 8 Commissioner Zutshi reported that she and Chair Garakani had driven all the way up to the Coe property and felt that two more Redwood trees would not be detrimental to their views. Commissioner Nagpal expressed her appreciation for the revised design. She agreed that it is tough to make the finding finding here that there is a change of circumstances regarding access rights. Suggested leaving the issue of trees to staff in conjunction with input from the neighbors. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval to allow the construction of a new residence on property located at 15145 Sobey Road with the direction that staff work out the issue of tree selection in consultation with the arborist and upon consultation with the neighbors,'by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None. ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.5 APPLICATION #04 -227 (503 -10 -049) — DOUGHERTY, 20125 Orchard Meadow Drive: Request Design Review Approval to build a new two -story house on an existing vacant lot. The proposed structure will be 7,960 square feet, which includes a 498 square foot garage. The gross lot size is 9.15 acres. The maximum building height of the residence will not exceed 26 feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the. applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to construct a new single - family residence on an existing vacant lot. The new structure would be 7,960 square feet with a 498 square foot garage and a maximum FAR of 8,000 square feet. • Described the property as consisting of 9 gross acres. The maximum height of the structure would . be less than 26 feet. • Explained that this parcel is in' County jurisdiction but within the City of Saratoga's sphere of influence and ' Urban Service Area. Most of the City's Codes do not apply with this application. The-City is asked to sign a form stating that this project is consistent with its General Plan. Such a form was signed several years ago in error. The applicant litigated and a settlement agreement was reached. The project will meet the City's Design Review Standards for height and FAR. Grading, landscaping and lot coverage are not under City review. • Stated that the project will incorporate stucco siding and stone veneer. A material sample board has been provided. • Announced that the project meets Design Review findings and recommended approval. • Said that the applicant is unavailable this evening due to a family emergency but that her architect is present on her behalf. Commissioner Zutshi asked staff what is the maximum square footage for this structure. Planner John Livingstone replied 8,000 square feet: • Attachment 6 • Item 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Shweta Bhatt, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: January 09, 2008 SUBJECT: MOD 07 -0002; 15219 Sobey Road Please find attached hard copies of letters from neighbors that were submitted after packets were delivered. Some of these were scanned and emailed last week, and others were distributed at the site visit. 01/09/2008 11:221 F9l ,4 BEG E dv E JAN 0 y WA CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT yoff 7 d -1APA( r y�r #WA9 fi(XV)pr' 7-67 welt- Bull'-r AM0 1np4W1,r-1e-XA17- .0 Hemant & Monisha Bheda 18955 Monte Vista Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 D January 8, 2008 lA�i l� 8 2008 The Saratoga Planning Commission COMMUMY OEV LOPMENT City of Saratoga Re: #MOD07 -002 -15219 Sobey Road Our property is located to the west of and above 15219 Sobey Road. We request the following: 1) "Westernly" slope to be restored to its original natural grade. We are concerned about the stability of the hill as our house sits on the top of this hill. 2) We ask for a permanent condition of approval for the owner of 15219 Sobey Rd - not to plant trees on the "westernly" slope that will obstruct our views. 3) Property boundary monuments to be replaced. and recorded with the county. These markers were removed by Mr. Shadman's contractor during fence construction. 4) Replace the wooden fence between our properties with chain linked see through fence or alternatively move this fence to Mr. Shadman's property. 5) Mr. Shadman to clean up the dirt and concrete debris left behind on our property while constructing the fence and digging the power -line trench. These activities were carried out without our permission. We request planning commission NOT approve application: "MOD07 -002- 15219 Sobey Road" until above listed issues have been resolved. We have been trying to resolve fence related issues with Mr. Shadman for last ten weeks and despite his promises, there has been to progress. Sincerely, Hemant & Monisha Bheda Q e'I ✓1 i. C G i Y► ��7 C l'I GL� Y1,1 PP. 1819 )7 Al o vtl-e— vii t-a �. r 3/-7'77 4�1 r vo-tz /IV D 9 �� JAN 0 d [U08 Cam. 9E6' � a 9S-D-70 CITY Or SARATOGA _ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT a 11 jig 1 p0, V o` f 5, a 5 So bleAd P- d Q.,-,� PG Otj�tQt S �,4u%� e.f . S �n�� r n�� 11 a�� oL�e k--�c t�-e.. o��✓aPn�# a -9 s� � s'a,-z� 4 —o lu-c�Lk- -eu-f-ry qfb-&A C-tA. ty c a.,.0 ► v� 40 bC- c� n u b �,{;Qp -era osti�d - Sy �,�,,,�� e-��. tc.�l,�.i �'L ,tiLC s� ,�� lti�s t�r�ti�.� ✓� � c.�� f t_4`L t.a- _ ✓ . C4/i �� -E_d� (�:.�:S��l.�l c Z C�-►2 J-E C, I/w cle- C� • Hsu- /�,�,; -joa- , . ,t" Le bc 5 THOMAS U. COEI CMfgE, PE Telephone: 1 (408) 354 -2139 15217 Sobey Road, Saratoga, California 95070 -6255 USA Facsimile: 1 (408) 354 -2286 January 3, 2008 Via Hand Delivery A�, D (page 1 of 4) Saratoga Planning Commission CCU City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Fax: (408) 867 -8555 Subject: Issues and concerns pertaining to APPLICATION /ADDRESS: MOD07- 0002 15219 �Sobey Road, APPLICANT /OWNER: Shadman /Shadman, APN: 397 -08 -091 Re: 1) APPLICATION /ADDRESS: MOD07 -0002 - 15219 Sobey Road, APPLICANT/OWNER: Shadman /Shadman, APN: 3.97 -08 -09:1 2) APPLICATION # 04 -034 (397,08 -091) Overland Development, Inc., 15,145 Sobey Road; This being the original Application approved by the Planning Commission at the October 13, 2004 hearing to which this Applicant, Mr. Shadman is requesting this "Modification of Design Review Approval., 3) Your "NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING" to us, undated _but postmarked 22 DEC 2007 (received 12- 24 -07) concerning this "Subject" Application: MODO? -0002 ' 4) 'My wife's and my-Jetter to -you, dated June 23, 2004 on `.`Subject" (that being the original approved Application) along with all of its references and enclosures (2.7 pages w /enclosures) 5) My wife's and my letter to you, dated October 11, 2004 on "Subject" •(again bung the original approved Application) along with its references (5. pages) 6) My letter to Mr. John F. Livingstone, dated September 20, 2007, on "Sub- ject" 7) My letter to Mr. John F, Livingstone, dated October 27, 2007 on "Subject" 8) My attorney, John S. Perkins' Email letter to City of Saratoga, Attention: Brad Lind, dated December 31, 2007 on "Subject" Dear Commissioners: I have a number of issues. and concerns that I would like to bring to your attention relating and pertaining to the "Subject" APPLICATION/ADDRESS:. . • • a Saratoga Planning Commission, January 3, 2008 page, 2 of 5 MOD07 -0002 15219 Sobey Road, APPLICANT/OWNER: Shadman / Shadman, APN: 397 -08 -091. I respectfully request that you give consideration and respond to the following: 1) . First, I would like to request that you postpone this hearing and /or delay your decision on this matter until I, my attorney and others have had a fair chance to review and respond to you adequately in regard to this Application. I ask that you consider this request of mine based on several points: A) The Notice for this Hearing was mailed out on Saturday, 12- 22 -07; I didn't receive it until Monday - 12- 24 -07; the City offices were closed until 1 -2 -08 (9 days later) and we were to have our written response into Planning by noon of the next day, 1 -3 -08. There was no. information available to us in the interim and only limited information available on the 2nd. There is no way we could have an adequate response ready for your review today (1- 3 -08). B) Unfortunately, the original drawing and plan package that was approved by you on October 13, 2004 has apparently been lost by the City and is not available for comparison. This creates a major problem that makes it problematic for us to adequately respond to this Modifica -. . tion of Design Review. C) Your Notice for this Hearing states "Proposed changes include, but are not limited to: eliminating shutters, eliminating divided lites on some windows, relocating chimneys, and modifying a trellis on the rear facade. ". Inappropriately, there isn't even a list available of the proposed changes or modifications that are being considered or put forth. for approval. The only documents available to us to inadequately describe the proposed changes was a drawing package where the changes were purportedly identified by clouding. Many of these cloudings are obscure and certainly don't describe the nature nor scope of the proposed change. Then not having access to the original approved drawings to make comparisons makes this even more of a problem. More disturbing, some of the obvious changes that have been made to the project that we are aware of and concerned about and that deserve your consideration are not clouded or identified, i.e. site grading and contour changes, the quantities of excavation, storm water retention and drainage concerns, underground utility easements, illegal gate and fencing height in front yard set back, air conditioning units illegally installed in front yard set back, encroachments into what is to be an unobstructed hammer -head turnaround area, etc. D) As -built documentation is not readily available to us so as to make comparisons to unavailable approved documents. This makes it very difficult if not impossible for us to respond appropriately and adequately in the 7 days (January 2" d to the 9`h) that we have been given /allowed. 2) There has been numerous and significant changes to what was approved with respect to the site grading, contours and excavation that has changed the Saratoga Planning Commission, January 3, 2008 • page, 3 of 5 whole scope of this project from my perspective. There had been 500 CY (cubic yards) of Site Excavation approved along with 200 CY of Site Fill, this having a net effect of 300 CY. I believe there has been over five times (1500 CY) that amount removed from the Site itself. 400 CY were approved for the Basement Cut and in reality there were more than 750 CY removed. What was depicted to us and approved by you was this lovely tree studded hillside that this home was going to be set into and what we ended up with is an excavated bowl that the home has been set into. As an example, a previously existing 10 inch oak tree on the western slope of his property was required to be protected and. preserved. Mr. Shadman allowed this oak tree. to be undermined and destroyed during the excavation of his basement. As we scrutinized the plans for this project back in. 2004. for Public review and comment, this secured 10" oak tree and its drip -line was an extremely important benchmark for us in that it established a secure point of reference as to what` we could expect the site contours to be in this area at the conclusion of this project. But with Mr. Shadman's excessive excavations the original .grade at the base of this tree's drip -line was at least 3 to 4 feet higher than that area is today. Under the circumstances;' Mr. Shadman should be required to have this drip -line area surveyed and restore it to its original grade elevation and to re -plant a suitable replacement tree at that oak's location. There has also been a lot of extra material removed from Mr. Shadman's side and front yard areas that-was not depicted on his approved grading and landscape drawings nor is it shown on his as -built drawing. Mr.. Shadman should also be required to have his entire. exterior site accurately surveyed to determine the actual amount of cubic yards of material excavated and to replace those materials that are in excess of the approved -500 cubic yards. Furthermore, these unapproved excavations will have had an impact on "slope density". and. perhaps the amount of allowed square footage allowed in the home .-.another reason for an accurate survey for slope density.. I don't expect that you would require.him to shrink the size of his home. at this point but it might be appropri- ate to get.the excess material that was removed back so as to restore compatible slope density. 3) Storm Water Drainage: When this subject lot was beginning to be formed by subdivision in. 1983 by the Foleys it was recognized and understood that when this lot was developed, improvements would be required for the drainage of storm water out to Sobey Rd. via the common roadway. The Foleys had agreed to make these improvements and it was a stipulated requirement for the subdivision. However, this stipulated improvement requirement has never been implemented nor has it been imposed on Mr. Sahadman's project as a condition of approval.. When I questioned the Planning Dept. about this requirement not being imposed on the current Shadman project when it was getting underway in the fall of 2005, I was told that it was no longer pertinent nor required as it was being preempted by a new requirement and this, as shown on Mr. Shadman's drawings, being: "Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 04 -021 CGeotechnical and Public Works Review" "9. A storm water retention plan indicating bow all storm water will be retained on -site and incorporating the New Development and Construction Best Saratoga Planning Commission, January 3, 2008 page, 4 of 5 Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on -site due to topography, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note sball be provided on plan. " I have not been able to locate nor has the Planning or Building Departments been able to show me any study or calculations or an explanatory note on Mr. Shadman's plan as to why storm water can or cannot be retained on his site. It is quite obvious Mr. Shadman now has over 3000 square feet of impervious surfaces in his.front entrance and driveway areas that are sloped and contoured to flow to the northeast comer of his property and into a valley gutter on my property. This gutter was never designed to handle the type of flows which can be expected given these improvements. There :has been no attempt whatsoever to retain the storm water from these improvements, i.e. a catch basin or drain to a dry-well and a semi - pervious paver system with the pavers being installed on a gravel bed along with gravel grouting. Mr. Shadman also has a 2 inch and a 4 inch drain line each day - lighting and discharging into my valley gutter as well. This now surcharged valley .gutter of mine drains through a 5 inch diameter grate into a 4 inch line which also receives water from a similar gutter on the other side of my driveway and from a third drain further down our common driveway. This 4 inch line then carries this accumulated storm water through and past an entrapping swale, discharging it further down the common driveway so it can flow on to Sobey Road. This storm drain system that was installed and improved by me in 2000 worked well for the existing conditions, but it was not designed for nor will it handle the additional flows that Mr. Shadman is now directing into it. Mr. Shadman's storm water is clearly not being retained on his site and there is now no plan or provision to deal with it on the neighboring properties with its potential for serious. damage and safety issues. It would be inappropriate for you to give this project of Mr. Shadman's Final Approval and a Certificate of Occupancy until this whole storm water drainage matter is evaluated and corrected in an appropriate manner and in consideration of the adjacent properties. 4) Utility Easements: Even at the planning stages for the formation of this lot in 1983, questions were being raised as to whether or not .there were viable utility easements in place for this site. These questions and concerns have been substantially avoided by Mr. Shadman as a result of a lawsuit brought against me by Mr. Shadman. We are involved in civil litigation regarding utility ease- ments. A title company expert has concluded that there are not viable recorded utility easements in place for this site via the driveway easement to Sobey Road. Although Mr. Shadman has a water and sewer line connected, except in one instance where he bypassed the driveway easement, he has no permissive or legal right to install these lines. He has no viable recorded water and sewer easements as yet and we are not sure about gas, electrical, phone and /or cable. If Mr. Shadman is not successful in negotiating and obtaining viably recorded easements for these utilities, he could be required to remove these utilities that he has installed through thes adjoining properties. The changes that have occurred from what is depicted on the approved drawings for these utility sources have had a very significant impact on us and to some of our neighbors. g Saratoga Planning Commission, January 3, 2008 • page, 5 of 5 5) With regard to the approved and required hammer -head on this "Subject" project, I refer you to my referenced letter to the Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, dated June 23, 2004 where I made the following request (p. 4, 91 "4"): We further request that you require the builder to provide an unob- structed paved extension of the. 20 foot wide non - exclusive Right of Way onto their property 30 feet in length so as to provide a "hammer- head" turnaround at the end of our common driveway. This so as to conform to the City of Saratoga's and the responsible Santa Clara County Fire Department's minimum requirements for this sort of turnaround - this to complete the turnaround requirement imposed on us installing our driveway,gate." (Note: 9 "3" on p. 4 of my letter to Mr. Bill Gorman, dated February 21, 2001 also deals with and helps clarify this matter as well - a copy of this letter with its related enclosure was referenced and enclosed with my referenced letter to the Planning Commission of June 23, 2004) The Planning Commission acknowledged this request and imposed it as a stipulation.to this project. Mr. Shadman's approved drawings for this project clearly acknowledge and depict this imposed requirement: However, Mr. Shadman has had a gate control pendent installed that encroaches 42 inches into what is required to be this unobstructed area. He also has a curbing and planter that is encroaching 36 inches into and along the length of this area blocking what.is to be paved and unobstructed. Thus; I respectfully request that you have Mr. Shadman immediately remove these . obstructions and maintain this area in the paved and unobstructed manner that is required. This is necessary so than large vehicles, i.e. delivery vans, fire trucks and the like that find -themselves at the end of our common private driveway will have adequate space and the full potential turning radius that this hammer- head is intended to provide for turnaround. Note: I have more to say about the above topics but I am flat out of time. I also have some other items, issues and concerns to bring to your attention and .discuss, but I now need. to get this document in its inadequate form to the City now for distribution. I will try to have more for you at the Site visit on Tuesday, the 8th. I really need several weeks to research all of this, collect viable documentation and evidence and prepare a good crisp, concise and adequate presentation for you. Thus as requested, will you please postpone this hearing and /or delay your decision on this matter until I, my attorney and others have had a fair chance to review and respond to you ade- quately in regard to thi's Application. Thank you again for all of your time, effort and conscientious consideration with regard to these matters, my requests, and our community's well being. Sincerely,. Thomas U. Coe f. 01/03/2008 18:06 4089433 PERKINSJ LAW • PAGE 02 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN S. PERKINS 75 E. SANTA, CLAAtA. S'r,EtUT SUITT 1400 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 TELEPHONE: (408) 286.2700 FAX: (408) 947 -4333 January 3, 2008 v D� SAN p G 2ooa Via Fax (408) 867 -8555 O SARATpGA City of Saratoga Community Development Dept. COMMON� pEVELOPM�N� Attention: Shweta Bhatt 13777 Fruitdale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Response to Public Hearing Notice Sent December 22, 2007 Application: MOD 07 -002 Appliance: Shadman Address: 15219 Sobey Road APN: 397 -08 -091 Dear Ms Bhatt: Please consider this letter both a request for a continuance of the January 9, 208 hearing on the above application and, if the hearing is not delayed, a rather rushed response to issues which will or may be raised at the public hearing. Please include this letter in the Planning Commission packet. A. Request for Continuance. I represent Torn and Norma Coe, neighbors adjacent to the project at 15217 Sobey Road. The Coes request a continuance due to the shortness of time. to prepare information for the Conu- nission, The reasons for the extension request are as follows: 1. Inadequate Notice. Although Mr. Coe was aware that Mr. Steadman had requested approval for portions of his project that had deviated from the original scope of construction approved by the City, he was not aware of the actual changes or modifications requested. It was our intent on visiting the City once the City staff was prepared to discuss the entire scope of these modifications, and simultaneously review the applicant's changes and the staff report commenting on them. That did not happen. Instead, on Saturday, December 22, 2007, the City mailed its Notice of Public Hearing. By the time the Coe$ received it on December 24, 2007, the City offices were closed until January 2, 2008, one day before the cutoff for written communications from neighboring properties. Although Mr. Coe and myself visited the City Community Development offices early on January 2, 2008. Documents that we requested be copied for more extensive review could not be copied in enough time for our written communication to be as succinct or studied as 01/0312008. 18:06 4089474333 PERKINSJ LAW PAGE _03 City of Saratoga January 3, 2008 Page 2 possible. Furthermore, we were denied copies of any drawings unless we, subpoenaed therm, Having to provide detailed comments on the issues we feel are important in one day, under these conditions, is simply unfair under these circumstances. 2. pcomplete City .Records. The Notice sent by the City does not designate all the specific items to be considered by the Commission as project modifications. The Notice lists a few, but states `.`Proposed Changes include, but are not limited to ...." No staff report had. been prepared as of our visit. No memo exists to our knowledge listing all of the modifications requested to be approved. Some recent versions of the original approved drawings with revision notes include new comments and changes to the drawings. However the changes are not all included in the "cloud" notes and revisions. Therefore if is confusing and nearly impossible for me, Mr. Coe or any other interested neighbor to determine the scope of the modification requests. There is insufficient time and information available as a result of the foregoing to enable the Coes to verify, either by themselves or through outside consultants, the accuracy of applicant's presentation on issues of significant effect on them. We therefore request that this he be postponed for at least two weeks in order to properly prepare our position. B. Issues of Concern to the Coes. Background. I will not detail the complete background of the Coes' concern over the development of what is now the Shadman parcel. After objections going back as far as the 1984 subdivision by the prior owner Foley, the Coes executed a written agreement with Shadman's predecessor, Overland Development Co., to put to rest access issues, in consideration for an. ' agreement for Overland to underground electric utilities and to enter into a further agreement to maintain the common driveway to Sobey Road with three additional owners (a total of 5 including Overland). The agreement, which the City has a copy of, was ignored by both Overland and Shadman. After the current project started the Coes made the City aware, among other things, of Shadman's grading,- which. had far exceeded that shown on the approved plans.. A violation notice was issued. As a result Mr. Coe was sued by Mr. Shadman, essentially to shut him up through intimidation. Shadman's lawsuit is still pending. Whether or not Mr. Shadman has bothered to present therm in his project modification application, the following is a list, albeit not complete, of important compliance issues regarding this project that are currently unresolved. 7 . Gradin . Notwithstanding the inferences of a letter from Advance Soil Technology dated December 4, 2006, the Coes believe that the approved grade prior to the unauthorized grading of the western slope of the property was not restored, and that the "as- built" drawing is incorrect. A failure to restore the original grade has a significant effect on the continued stability of the western portion of Shadman's property adjacent to neighbors Coe and Behda (18955 Monte Vista Avenue). Also, the floor area ratio calculations effected by the 01/03/2006 18:06 City of Saratoga January 3, 2008 Page 3 4089474333 • PERKINSJ LAW' • PAGE 04 slope!density formula applicable to this property are affected. The square footage of this project has expanded over the original approvals. It has not been reduced. 2. Drainage. The original plans approved on the Overland project prior to Steadman acquiring it seem to have been misplaced by the City. Many requests have been made by the Coes to find them, to no avail. The plans available now as the original approved plans of Shadman do not include some of the drawings originally promulgated to the neighbors, including Coe. They now show site drainage required to be handled on -site, presumably through the use of dissipaters and french drains. The Coes have discussed their belief with City staff that because of the significant amount of runoff which will be generated from the roofs and driveways of this project, on -site retention will not work. The City staff has not strongly disagreed but has taken a wait and see approach. The Coes believe that a majority of the property will drain in front of their property, onto the private access driveway, overloading the existing storm water drain and creating a "lake" in that driveway. Excess water will then flow onto the property of neighbor Berry. Shadman has now installed overflow outlets pointing in that direction that are obviously not an on -site solution. However he has not agreed with the City or the, neighbor to improve storm drainage along the private driveway. A positive and enlarged drain to Sobey Road seems to be the only reasonable solution. 3. Fence and Gate Heights. The Coes believe that the height of the front yard fence along Coes' driveway and the Shadman entry gates are too tall and violate City ordinances. 4. Hammerhead ]:=Mound. Originally the City and the County Fire Department required an unobstructed "hammerhead" turnaround on the Shadman property. The turnaround would also be used by. larger trucks and commercial vehicles. The Shadman portion of the turnaround has been narrowed by approximately three feet, partially obstructed by their gate controller and made more difficult by angling their driveway. This is a revision from the earliest plans and makes it very difficult for large vehicles to make the hammerhead from the Coes' property. Ease of turning for hg_th the Shadman and Coe properties were the reasons for the original alignment, which has now changed. 5. Improper Front Setback. The A/C units adjacent to the Shadman residence are not only unsightly but are installed within what appears to be the front yard setback. 6. Utility Service, Had Shadman and/or Overland complied with the written Coe /Overland agreement the location of utility services would probably not be an issue. However Shadman's position is to ignore and avoid any recognition or perfomance of any portion of it. As a result, he has no recorded legal rights to access any utility connection down the private driveway to Sobey Road. He installed a water line without prior notice to any of the private driveway owners except Coe. Although he has constructed a "run around" for his sanitary sewer line to avoid Coes' portion of the private driveway, at least two of the other owners have balked at giving Shadman recorded permission to utilize that line with payment. 01/03/2008 18:06 4089474333 PERKINSJ LAW PAGE 05 City of Saratoga January 3, 2008 Page 4 therefor and entering into a formal agreement to maintain the private driveway:. So far the City has allowed occupancy on a temporary basis without resolving the utility issues. There are many loose.ends on this project that.affect the Coes and other neighbors. This is an appropriate time to resolve all unresolved issues. However, we request a continuance of this hearing to more frilly discuss (in writing) all of them in light of the very brief time allowed for oral presentation at the hearing. very lo urs Jo S, Perkins JSP /slh - cc: Clients JAN -09 -2008 01:42 From: To:8678555 Pa9e:2,2 • OMID SHAKERl 15410 QUITO ROAD, SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 85070 408-666-65ACD January 9, 2006 of GoMM 'tv � o� Planning Commission City of Saratoga 93777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Honorable Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, 1 am writing this letter to provide you with my opinion regarding the property owned by Michael Shadman located at 15219 Sobey Road, Saratoga, CA 95070. As a neighbor, I pass by this property often. 1 believe the owner has done a great job in building a high quality house in our neighborhood. I believe this one story house is compatible with the neighborhood. I urge the Commission to approve the final occupancy for the homeowner. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 408 -666 -6556. Sincerely, Omid Shaked JAN -09 -2008 15:34 COLDWELL BANKER SARATOGA 4089960849 P.01i01 r_ JAN 0 2008 �5 � .COLS G .✓` EMTY @F SARATOGA /S-/27 �?EVELOPMENT sw Ll r � j Coldwoll Banker bCtICVCS tliiw inloirrm iun w be r:wiaU kuL Ilan uuL vr• Tier) diinn'i`uii wtion and a"Lrnco iw Icgal reaperuihilicy for ita accuracy. TOTAL P.01 r: B c M K N C P T F SYMBOLS vD9L•1 SHEARWALL G ENTRY LEVEL: BE ROUGIITTo YDLSCOIEREDONTHESE SIGN $hW3, HE BROUGHT T'O THE DESIGN FIRE PROTEG71'ONNO11,_9 T2 Conditions of Approval A 2' -0" x 7' -4" 14 SO. FT. Civil . (408) 446 -0809 voice, (408) 446.0349 fax ALL WORK TO BE IN CONFORNLINCE WRH APPJCALL_E B 21' -4° z 9'-0" 186 SO. FT, Site Grading & Drainage Plan ' CODBS ANT! REGULATIONS: T- G 11' -0' x 4' -4" 47 50. FT. L CAIJFORNIA. , COOK 2M1 FDrTION 11990 IJRi 2. C,WFOFLNLA BNI1lIVG GOOF. ?001 I:DTDON 1199T L13G1 AREQIiIIIED A[)JUS'IED PRE FLOW OF 1000 GP\1 AT 20 PSI RESIDUAL PRESSURE,. THE ADJL'SIPJ) PRE FLOW SAR ATOGA D 57' -0' x 3-Y' -0' {2,223 SO. FT. IS AVVIABLF: [RON AREA WA "ITR MAINS A \D FlItI: Westfall Engineers. Inc.. ` 0 FIARR E NOT USED - Architectural (BAY WINDOTn 1F - 128 SQ. FT. AVERAGE SLOPE DENSITY CALCULATION: IEGULATIONS. C 2' -4" x 1}' -0' 28 50 FT. Entry Level Floor Plan C0JNRAC1 ORASSMIES FUIJ- RESPONSGUJTY I-'OR METHOD AND .V ANINER OF CON'STRUC [ON,AND FOR ALT_ PBRMrr. H 2' -0" x 8' -0" - 4 S.F. 0 SO. FT. _1C0NTOUR 476 LENGTH 62.60 FT. ROOPNG MATERIAL TO BE CLASS'A" - SEE Ex1EROR ELEVATION\ TYPICAL I}UiOUGHOu r ' x 8' -0" B 50. FT, 478 i' 86 FT. 5 J 1' -0' z 15' -0" 15 54. FT. 480 121 FT. Cross Sections K 10' -0° x 33' -0" 330 SQ, FT. r 482 180 FT, FROM SrRIJCTURr FOR POSITIVE DRAINAGE q LANDSCAPED AREAS e SLOPE GRADE 2 %MIN. C. P.A \FD L 4' -0" z 13' -0" - 16 S.F. 35 SO. FT. '> 404 249 FT. (NFPAI STAND ?.RD # F 3cL A STATE_ OF CALIFORNIA LICEI.ED EIRE PROTECFON CONDLACTOR SHALL SL'FNRT PLANS, M 32' -0' x 13' -0' 416 SO. FT. (� 406 468 230 5. FT. 225.50 FT. A 1 O N 34' -0° z }q' -0'56 SD. FT. 490 225 FT. Exterior Details 0 12' -10" z T -0° 76 S0, FT. 492 222.50 FT. WRIER HEA'nNG..MD LIGHTING S1SIL- M5..4S WF1L AS P 11' -0" x 5' -0° 55 SO. FT. 496 222 FT. CaORACTOR�SHni1 SL'B.MD-PLANS. GALCI.UTION'$. 0 2' -0' x 12' -0" 24 SO. FT. 498, 215.67 FT. R 2' -0' x 14' -0" 28 SQ. FT. 500 212 FT. V TOTAL ENTRY LEVEL 4, ]69 S0. FT. 502 213 FT. ALL WORK APPLIANCES AND EQLIPMEN COMPLI' WITH C.E.C. 71T1_E 24 RESIDENFDAt- ENERGY ST.NNDARDS. COVERED ENTRY PORCH 40 S0. FT. 504 >, 506 217 FT. 215 FT. INSPECTION PER UMC 303.1 c S3 ,4,009 SQ. FT. ! 508 209.50 FT. S4 GARAGE / MECH. RM. AREA: 510 2 162.50 FT. FT. 78 SS 5 22'-0 "X36' -0" 792 50. FT. 1. TOTAL 3.569.27 FT. Retaining Wall Structural Details T - 64 S0, FT. S= 0.00229 x I x L S= 0.00229 x 2 x 3,569.27 and TOTAL GARAGE AREA 856 54. FT, Electrical q 1.058 TOTAL FLOOR AREA 5,665 50. FT. S = 15.45% SAY 16% GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES SYMBOLS DRAWING INDEX SHEARWALL T 1 Title Sheet BE ROUGIITTo YDLSCOIEREDONTHESE SIGN $hW3, HE BROUGHT T'O THE DESIGN FIRE PROTEG71'ONNO11,_9 T2 Conditions of Approval CONVIFOCOF NT ASSOCIATES PRIOR TO CAM\ LN ION\ 9 5I' OF, I.N WORK IN PRE E TD N. All WRITTEN M DIMENSIONS. NS.iLJ, T'.910E CF_DE'CE OVER SCALED DIMEN510N5. Q THE FIRE I THE �FL01v "TIRE FIRE PLOW' FOIi TI4IS PROJiiCT LS 22500 PN Civil . (408) 446 -0809 voice, (408) 446.0349 fax ALL WORK TO BE IN CONFORNLINCE WRH APPJCALL_E AT 20 PSI RESIDUAL PRESSURE. AS AN ALIT- )N'LAT1C PRE SPRINKLER SYSTTJ4 WILL BE INST LL.E -D. THE CC 1 Site Grading & Drainage Plan ' CODBS ANT! REGULATIONS: FUZE FLOW HAS BEEN REDUCED BY 75 %ESTABUSHWG C2 Utility Plan L CAIJFORNIA. , COOK 2M1 FDrTION 11990 IJRi 2. C,WFOFLNLA BNI1lIVG GOOF. ?001 I:DTDON 1199T L13G1 AREQIiIIIED A[)JUS'IED PRE FLOW OF 1000 GP\1 AT 20 PSI RESIDUAL PRESSURE,. THE ADJL'SIPJ) PRE FLOW SAR ATOGA CIVI L ENGINEER 3. G••\LIFDRVLI MKCHANICAL CODE: 20.\) EDTRON Pl- IS AVVIABLF: [RON AREA WA "ITR MAINS A \D FlItI: Westfall Engineers. Inc.. DETAILS UMC) 4. CAUPORNLA PI 13NU COUP 2001 EDn10N(2000 LTC) HYDRANr(S) WHICH ARE SPACED AT THE REQ6 tiD Architectural 5. CALL UR A KLLCTRIGAL CODE 2001 EDRION' (1999 \ECI G. ANY OTHFRAPPUCABLE LOCAL AND STA'I£-A ND SPACING. Al Site Plan IEGULATIONS. RESIDENCE TO BE FIRE SPRINICLERED CDNFORAIING TO NFP.A"D. ICLUSIVE OFTHE GARAGE UNDER SEPARATr A2 Entry Level Floor Plan C0JNRAC1 ORASSMIES FUIJ- RESPONSGUJTY I-'OR METHOD AND .V ANINER OF CON'STRUC [ON,AND FOR ALT_ PBRMrr. A3 Basement Level Floor Plan JOB SITE S ,AFEIV DURING CO'v57RUCIION. ROOPNG MATERIAL TO BE CLASS'A" - SEE Ex1EROR ELEVATION\ TYPICAL I}UiOUGHOu r A4 Exterior Elevations VFl2TE,• LDG.ATI.N of LmIJTIFS :1.ND ExIS"MG GowmaNS AS Exterior Elevations AT SITE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND 13113131\(;. MATE MATERIAL, S FABL. BE R HIGI I FIR WITH MISHED MAATERIAL SUTI'ABLE FOR HIGI I PRE IWMD ZONES AB Cross Sections SLOPE ALL FINISH GRADES A NIIN.OF 4 %FOR:; 0 "AWAY" RESIDENCE SnAI BE EQUIPPED WTFH AN'APPROVED. A7 Cross Sections O FROM SrRIJCTURr FOR POSITIVE DRAINAGE q LANDSCAPED AREAS e SLOPE GRADE 2 %MIN. C. P.A \FD ,ALTONLATIC FIRE SPRUNKU-R S1'STENI. FRDRAULIC VJ.Y DESIGNED PM N'XIION,AL FIRE PROTECTION.15SOCIA"DON AS Entry Level Reflected Ceiling Plat) ARF_AS. THE BNLDEa SW\Ll PROVIDE THE BUILDING OWNER. (NFPAI STAND ?.RD # F 3cL A STATE_ OF CALIFORNIA LICEI.ED EIRE PROTECFON CONDLACTOR SHALL SL'FNRT PLANS, A9 Basement Level Reflected Ceiling Plan. MA,NIGER. AND 1'HE ORIGINAL OCCUPANTS A UST OF THE_ ENERGY- SAATNG CONSFJRVA 1ON FCATU'HES DEUCES. CALCLV_A'RONS. A CONIPLEFED PDt ffr APIUcAnON .4No APPROPILATE FEES TO THE SANTA CI-ARA COUI Y FIRE A 1 O Roof Plan MATERIALS. AND COMPONENTS INSTALIJ:D IN THE DEPAR"ITIENT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO All Exterior Details BUILUING. .Ah'D INSTRUCTIONN'S ON HOW TO USE 71AENI EFFICIENTF-1', SUCH FEATLRFS INU.UDE HFAN) , COOLL \G. BEGINNING A:NY WORK RF_IATED TO THE SPPoMC SYSTEM. /� 1 2 Finish Schedule WRIER HEA'nNG..MD LIGHTING S1SIL- M5..4S WF1L AS © A STATE OF C ALJFORNN LICENSED FIRE PROTECTION IN$L,LATO\, WEATHGfiSTTUPPNG W1NT)nW SELADFS, AND CaORACTOR�SHni1 SL'B.MD-PLANS. GALCI.UTION'$. 'ITJFA I.AL MASS MATERIALS. THE INSTRUCTIONS SHNL BE ;\ COMPLEI,:D'.AP9.ICATION .A. \D THE APPROPtI,ATE F' O aQNSISTANI' WTR-t SPECIP(A nc,NS SET M.-FF1 BY 111E FEES TO THE [IRE ULPARTMF � F FOR REVIIIV PRIOR C Structural V `SHAD_ O BEGF;VNIaTrtL'JR WORK. I S 1 Foundation Planand First Floor Framing Plan ' ALL WORK APPLIANCES AND EQLIPMEN COMPLI' WITH C.E.C. 71T1_E 24 RESIDENFDAt- ENERGY ST.NNDARDS. INSTALLATION FOR AU_ LISTED EQUIPAIPYI SHAIJ. BE PROVIDED TO THE FIELD INSPECTOR .AT TIME OF c� S2 Roof Framing Plan SEE SHEET T24 FOR ADDmON:AL ENERGY COMPIJ.ANCE INSPECTION PER UMC 303.1 c S3 Foundation .Details ' NOTES. SCOPE OF wow: r: A NEW SINGLE Fh 11LV RESIDENT:B S4 Structural Framing Details THE -ECFi'ICAL EN -E., 1ND/)F1 CNL FNDI£J:R SS Retaining Wall and Structural Details 1AH0 PREPARED THE SOBS IAti5T1G - H456EE" RPT.AI£D TO PROVIDE SOIL 5T IF.OBSBRY'Al1ON \,NIT DEFERRED sUTI. nTAL rmms: I.I RESIDENTIAL FIRESPRIIKERS - ;S6 Retaining Wall Structural Details PROVIDE PERIODIC AND FINAL REPORTS TO THE CX- 2.1 RESIDENTIAL STAIRS and 3.) ELeltf•R' Electrical _ THESE DEFERRED SUBMITTALS St-LVJ_ FIRST BE SUBWITTF,D TO THE PROJECT DESIGNER AND/OR ENGI MIR EM I Entn) Level Electrical/Mechanical Plan FOR REVIEW AND COORDINATION: FOILOW'ING THE GOMPFIION OF PROJECT DESIGN/ENGLNEER RENEW AND EM2 Basement Level Electrical/Mechanical Plan COORDINATION, A SUBMITTAL TO THE CITY OF- 5ARA'IDGA - SHALL BE MADE FOR CITY REVIEW AND APPROVAL, WHICH SHALL. INCLUDE.\ LETTER STATING THIS RE- I V.AND Title 24 C OORDIATION HAS FN BC PLRI ORMLD A \D COMP.EIED AND PI-AN AND CAI CUL%TIO \'S FUR THE DEFERRED I IENIS ARE FOUND TD BE ACCFJPTABLE WHH NO T24 Energy y Compliance t' E\CEPt IONS PER 1 BC LOC 3.4 L JN}waUu 14W1f°D, avFfaFx*511w¢gy11At T}IFSkseror Eii 1Y1P1 es&silcelnylyf AB�r�sas�M�Rw4 Landscaping / #�G9,L�,tR9���sa�P�L�m� ntiP L "L's'°a °' °° RGU1uF -I" a)3c23176. f.1 ___ .._,Final Landscape Plan ABBREVIATIONS SYMBOLS CONSULTANTS 1I SHEARWALL SOILS ENGINEER . A �N,A11 T.PE Advance Soft Technology. Inc. JOB SITE 12333 S. Sa 9 070unnyA:ale Rd., Ste. E Saratoga, Ca. s 070 - - NOTE: set- SHEET E11 MR IIFCTRIC A . (408) 446 -0809 voice, (408) 446.0349 fax SWROFS UST :-th REPORT # 02128 -5 �lbm 9 SECTION -FL6 DATED: MaV 15, 2002 ( wee w (- s1s TIT 1- SAR ATOGA CIVI L ENGINEER mw wuwrw ` x' iwn T Westfall Engineers. Inc.. DETAILS 14583 Big Basin Way' Saratoga, Ca. 95070- -Mw hNDCasfa'W:a �DE7 (408) 8 7.0244 voice, (408) 867 -6261 fax ue: c .rw- a Landscape Designer P` a1..aea Gre G. Info & Associates 158 The Alameda, Suite 201 •n ".. San Jose, Calif. 95126 "�'° w ,., ', PL.na LINB Hr. - - - - (408) 947 -7090 voice, (408) 298 -4460 fax nw •=I=s � IR - w�m>eoamw.*mm�amearm'�wm.�la e,e, °`"a ABBREVIATIONS VICINITY MAP MICHAEL DAVIS x AwB GZ OB 0. DZ2303 JOB SITE MOM A 15145 SOBEY Ft0AD CITY OF SAR ATOGA JOryw mw wuwrw ` x' iwn T esr un.x,on x.rs. rormec rn =; N.TS, OWNERS DATA Overland Development, Inc. 133 Glenridge Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 408-891-7971 TA LOT DATA: Accessor's Parcel Number: 397 -OB -091 Property Location: City of Saratoga Existing Uses Vacant Lot Zoning District RI (40,000) - Gross Lot Size 46,082 sq. ft. Slope Reduction ��' 10,138 sq. ft. Net Lot Size `- 3594 6 sq.._ ft. Allowable Floor Area $;56(_ sq. ft. Allowable Impervious Coverage 35% = 16,128 sq. ft. ,,Average Site Slope: 15.45% Slope Reduction: slope = 16% (for floor area colt.) 10% + (2% x 6) = 22% `• 22% x 46,082 sq. ft. = 10,1381, 46,082 sq. ft. - 10,138 = 35943 sq. ft. net site area Slope ® Building Site: 12.5% or 13% AProposed Impervious Coverage: building coverage: 5,637 sq. ft. driveway & parking: 3,250 sq. ft. porches and walks: 200 sq. ft. patio at living room: 634 sq. ft. patio at family room: 827 sq. ft. Total Im ervious Cover. e: 10,548 s . f . proposed pool: 608 sq. ft. proposed sport court: 1,125, sq.' ft. Total Impervious Coverage: 12,281 sq. ft. Mcl„aca vcva a 1Hw.a P°cl -a aPm1 cam'. i Allowable Floor Area: '4,050 sq. ft. + (78x21) `= 5,688 sq. ft. , total floor area allowed HOUSE DATA: 4769 sq. ft. Entry Level A 856 sq. ft. Garage /Meth. Ran. f . 40 sq. ft. Covered Entry Porch'. 5,665 SQ. ft. Total Floor Area 5,688 sq. ft. Allowable Floor Area 1,750 sq. ft. Basement J 0 n ✓ Q D J W U r V Z W 5w O F+1 Q Woo O �, O rLQ. Lo fn d' L(i NO./ DAl'F./ RF\•LSION &1LLDwG RAN CHECK 3/tY04 _.JI /iVt67 �y CI 0 ai � m ws' BATE J4N. 19 2m05 c Je NONE MICHAEL DAVIS x AwB GZ OB 0. DZ2303 MOM A �J I 1 1 r, • l� u gpa A zFz. E d 8 b A SLOPE UNPAVED AREA AWAY FROM WAIXWAT VERTICAL SURFACE IO- RASE ROCH 9SS COMP. In TERI.00KING PAVERS RE mow? . . t .I INTERLOCKING PAVERS SECTION AT DRIVEWAY SCALE: EY FOR —NE PAVEMAN a OPE UNPA FA gREAS EXCEPT NEAR PN -ENTY —G Y -- ROM tEYENT aP OF SOL AT UNPAVED AREAS NOTE: MICKENED ALL EDGES L �l AGT CUR5E MALLS OF fErvSPT A.C. PAVING OVER AGGREGATE BASE + -GONG PAVING M 'A EIT � I AG GAT I RSF ,2 EDGE OE PAVING DETAIL JSCALE: 11/2 D L4 )AC PAVING SECTION SCALE: 0 IM:,RTG Ox _ WPACiIONµ — IC fUV TIIIuaacnnrUlL �- O FANG BASK. HL L­PA- PIPE REDDING SCALE: i 1 /J.' " =1'- GENERAL NOTES. ENTRY GATE 59ALL CRFOW A/ PRE DEPARR STANDARD DETAILS AND SPECFICATION9 GA WHEN OPEN, GATE SHALL NOT OBSTRUCT ANY PORTION OF THE REOIIRED WIDTH FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS ROADWAYS OR DRIVEWAY. LOCKS, F PROVIDED SHALL BE FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION ACCESS DRIVEWAY SHALL BE AN ALL WEATHER SURFACE, WITH AN MOBSTIIDTED WIDTH OF K FEET PAYED ( 2 FEET UNPAVED, A VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF B' -6' MN, AND A MAXMJI , SLOPE OF 5%. Ij INSTALLATIONS SHALL CONFORM TO FIRE DEPART115a DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHEET OA REOIIRED DRIVEWAY INSTALLATION: PROVIDE 6' CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE A SUBGRADE COMPACTED TO 55% SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCEPTED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION BILK CG"®I$TIBLE MATERIALS SHALL NOT BE DELIYERED TO THE 811E UNTIL REQUIRED NSTALATIONS.' ARE COMPLETE. APPROVED N1BER5 OR ADDRESSES SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL NEW AID EXISTING BUILDINGS M SUCH A MAKER AS TO BE VISIBLE AND LEGIBLE FROM YTHE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY. MA®ER5 SMALL CONTRAST WITH THEIR 1� ALL ELECTRICAL LINES, CO'PANICATION LINES. AND APFWTB44NMS INCLUDING ALL PUBLIC UTILITY, DATV AND TELEPHONE SYSTS-B, SMALL BE LOCATED AND INSTALLED UNDERGROUND. CONSTRICTION SITE SHALL BE ENCLOSED By 6' OPAURIE FENCE AT ALL TMES DURING CONSTRICTION N� NO CONSTRICTION MATERIAL, EaJFM T. PORTABLE TOILETS, TRASH CONTAINERS, OR DEBRIS SHALL BE RACED N THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY. to A TRASH CONTANER SHALL BE M KTAINED ON SITE AT ALL TIME S AND DEBRIS ON SITE WHICH WJILD OTERIASE BLOW AWAY, SHALL BE REGULARLY COLLECTED AND PLACED N COMAMR Ij ALL COSTRICTION DEBRIS (WOOD SCRAPS AND OTHER DEBRIS MICH COULD BLOW AWAY) SHALL BE PILED WITW.N THE F'ROPER(T LINES OF THE PROJECT IN A NEAT AND SAFE MANNER THE PROJECT SMALL HAVE SIGUGE VIEWABLE FROM THE PUBLIC STREET THAT INDICATES THE HOURS OF CONSTRICTION AS: MON. - FR. FROM 1,30 AM TO SOO PM, CID SATURDAYS FROM 9:00 AM TO 5,00 FM, LIUr�RtrES oc n ATE PRIOR OR TO FINAL INSPECTION FOK ANY BUILOMG O2 STRUCTURE, THE GEOTECNNICAL ENGINEER — A_L RNBH —1 A OR CIVIL ENGINEER WHO PREPARED THE SOIL MN 6 sx FpR>' -m' AUAY PRCIMi INVESTIGATION SHALL 1991E A FINAL REPORT e,wcnrE Fax Drsaw•'= • STATM THE COLLLETED PAD, FONDATbN FNISH L4�OBC I A18M 01'.OPE GRADES 2x IMYa PAVED Ah4A9 GRADING, AND ASSOCIATED 911E WOW SUBSTANTIALLY AND INVESTIGATION. MI TO THE APPROVED PLANS, SPECFICATION9, ALL G�X�ACIED FNtSHED GRADE> AND INVESTYadTKN nut vx GRADmNT A LUm �s ENTE oR REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS POUND FOR A M>L DISTANCE OF > Fi. FOR ALL PROPOSE,, HARDSGAPE. owNSroVTS PImf+CAIMEi6 0HIatD REFER TO LANDSCAPE AND C114L e£ PsA1NDED WITH ADEQUATE. NQL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORIATION FERFpRATED DRAW TwFe roc mr aTaxn WATER AWAY FRaA TIE BTRictuff . p LOWEST NATURAL GRADE: 4830 DRNNI £ DtaHA £ PM£ >HALL RE PVD ® AT HOUSE PIFW. A TIN CF R TH EN >8 SHOULD BE VaED. E uBE oP NEOPRENE oReY+ATED HIGHEST NATURAL GRADE, 4995' PLASTIC PIPIN' b NOT ALLCUED. - AT NNW.: EXCAVATION CUTS EXCEEDM 5 FEET AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE: 490.'15' h TTPICALLY REQUIRE A DO5A PEWIT. AT HOUSE ALL EXCAVATIONS MUST COWOF41 TO APRICAELE OSHA AND CAL -OSHA MAXR1M ALLOWABLE: 516.15' REOIIRE(TENTS CONTACT CALIFORNIA BUILDING HEKmT DEPARTMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH (ODSH.) FOR NFORMTION PROP05ED MAXIII-LM 5145' ABOJT REQUIRED PERIMS. BUILDING WEGHR COSH (510)194 -2521 ENTRY LEVEL FINISH; 4910' © PRIOR TO REQ.ESTING A FO DATION BY THE CITY, THE GEC"CHIICAL ENGINEER FLO ' OR CIVIL ENGINEER WHO PREPARED THE p NOTE: MAXI IM ALLOWABLE BALDING SOIL NVESTGATION &HALL PROVIDE A WEIGHT 15 26'-0' ABOVE THE AVERAGE FIELD REPORT (N LLRITPG)LLHId SMALL NATURAL GRADE ELEVATION STATE THE FOLLOWING: t THE WILDING PAD WAS PREPARED AND COMPACTED IN ACCORDANCE W THE SOILS REPORT A SPECIFICATIONS. 2. THE RGC NDATION ANDAOR PIER EXCAVATION - DEPTH AND BAC FILL MATERIALS, AND DRAINAGE 9UBSTANIALLYCOrPLY TO THE SOL FORT AND APPROVED PLANS. - NO./ DATE/ REVISION Q -� DEPT. ' ©DESL'N REVIBION 1MA+N © �uNNG DEPT. ®&IILOBG MAN aECC 9(n0a I �ti 1 i mIQ Q � o LU O N 'o (c U co '- � O T 9U 6 tl; , 6 o, y Tn o U; yu) N co E � Y .JAN. 19 2mU9S 91;AIE I /16 "ai' -m" Ra.ECr IwwmH MICHAEL DAMS Hoe Hu OL'3O3 &HT Al 0 V. AS ESCAPE LADDER SHAL. RE VCR VAN'Nli A IXFI) 13 jG1111YCIL 2 F-S APE LADOTR SHALL EXI-,.ND R..• F'COR 01 l(lHTWELL UP I. 11111S. -F. 3 ESCAPE LADDER 0 aErRDOM UGP�ILLS -AL- I-F A NlT CLEAR CPTNiN,, A- LAODER OF 9 SO f "1. MIN, 3 A �ADDCR b L PDT INCR,,ACH NTTI 11 Ir Dy liloRr MAL, I, -�L-G Ao-s Slilu 'L ': -All ;1 INC �S lir, N1 MR. Qi GIACC SmA­ BE li IMNOGW . DOOR SIZES - ARE FOR UPS. PURG`7BCS GNI.Y. ACRJAi. WINDOW & DOOR SIZES SHALL . ... . SET PER - SPEOTIGAI.S. MARC & MODEL NUMBERS SHALL. BE CALLED OUT PER SUPPLIER'S AND/OR OWNER'S SBOODC LON& WNDDWS TO RE --p- (U.....) AU- orTERSOR HEADERS SHALL BE 0 TY-0* U.N.O. ALL E(REIBOR DOORS .- RE AT -1 1 il/" M.CS ALL -' GOOKS. GLASS WMIN 24" OF DOOR . -1. LIF OF -, GLASS SUBSET TO HUMPH IMPACT. M. SHALL BE SAFTEY TEMPERED N . ... NET -AN ORE... OF 20' -TH . 24- 1. NEIGHT W/ MIN, CLEAR OPENING OF 57 FEET PER U.-. - AIGISTURE REST ANT UNGIURLAMENT TO A %,.= OF I.- ABOVE GRAN IN All SHOWS GLASS ..- PER UBG ..,.,.A PROVIDE TEMPERATURE MIANG VALVE 0 ALL SHOWERS YOB U.P Q WATER HEATERS & FURNACES TO BE G.- GERRFI WATER HEADERS M HAVE PRESSURE & TEMPERATURE KUTF - & DISCHARGE M OUTSIDE -ANCES PER U.M.G. CHAPTER 7 & U.P.C. CHAPTER WATER HEATERS SNAL, BE STRAPPED ... ME - & LOWER 113 OF THE HEALER STRAPS SHALL BE LOCATED ANN OF '. .. ANY -­ -- ..- TO BE ON PLATFORM II• MIN 11.1 - TOPICAL M U.... & U.. .C. OPENINGS AROUND GAS ARTS. DUCTS & PIPING . EACH FLOOR .- BE P. -PIED ART WCTS IN GARAGE THAT PASS THRU UMNG/ WAGE COMMON WALL SHALL BE 26 GA. STEEL M THICKER PER UBC INSTALl, PRE -F MT,- FIREPLACES PER MFG'S WEC'& PROV E LG.B.O. -OVED NUMBERS M BUIIWNG DEPT. IRON TO INSTALLAIDIN PROVIDE FRE-STOAS IN OPENINGS 0 FLOOR & CEILINGS OF ALL FIREPLACES PER UZ.G. PROVIDE AG/DC SMME G-CFDI W-W EACH SLEEPING ROOM A, CENTRALLY LOCATED IN CORRIDOtS OR AREAS ONNG ACCESS TO EACH SLEEPING AREA ALL DETECTORS TO BE ITERCONNIECTIED TYPGAU WRAP ALL E)DERION - WITH COX KYWGDU TYPICAL THROUGHOUT PROASUE I.' DEEP . 12' - -SUM BOARD SOFT! o/ U-13 CABINETS 0 OTGNION & LAUNDRY B- ALL HOSE 01805 SHALL HAVE -REMOVABLE TYPE SA-PPOW YREVSNT- DENIGE. HEART AND ROME GISGRAIGE UNEE TO EITEAOil URC MISS 1-11M, I 11=17 COMBINAB S. CONFORDI. TRIP r a-Ga, OR THERNOSTARG MOXING VALVES PER UIRG SECT 410.7 NO UxppdLGOT -I - BY - YOR FROM I= 20 AN 'DOSS, GGOR. OR GRAB, PW UPC SECTION 707.10, ---- ---X rA,4=.= GUT . RUQ= R, BE = I QUERS , MESE ITEMS, SNINIONC j UWARRO AND - FAUCETS SHALL HAYS . MAX. FIMW' ux G, 2S - PER CADFOiMA ENCPSY UR016SOJ WATER GUGS,1S AND ASmOATED BUISIGIAITTER WLV S IF ANY 941E US IIG - MAN 1.1 - PER - ANG - MEET WNiMiYAHCE SUIX(AiGS BY AX.SILS. 1112.112 IMS GODS, SOCROM II.-M 11 - IS TO - - -.- FOR DRAINAGE OF LP GAS TO EXTERIOR (TYPICAL) wiLmN. =- ANA =U FIREPLACE NOTES IiF OEM 0340%1% W I ATTIC FURNACE REQUIREMENTS: • MINIMUM OF X')DO' ATTIC ACCESS MRNUMLM IICPA " PASSAGEWAY TO ME ME ATTIC AGGESS SHALL BE I`ROVGNED 0 OR NEAR 111E FURNACE. MINA - GN - IN ATTIC SOU COMRY WIN ... GEPY FOUNDA110N VENTILATION: CARON VENTS EVENLY SPACED AROUND PERIMETER OF FOUNDATION FOR CROSS VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS. 2,800 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE / 50 SQ. 18.67 SO. FT. 18.6] SQ. FT. . 144 = 2688 SQ. IN. 8".14• FOUNDATION VENTS - 89,0 50. IN. PER VENT 2.688 / 89 SO. IN. - 30.2 VENTS MIN REWIRED. PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF (34) 8".14" GO. FOUNDATION VENTS LOCATE VENTS AS INDICTED ON THIS PLAN. ',AN ILAN A IN-1 Pl- -R 26-D 'I 0; Si7i CT FXEtp APES' 'ANN k z u) II IY Z 00 Of M < 0 LLJ Of LL- Of -J 0 Z;7 LLI ul 0 (f) 0 Lf) Lr- Cf) V) Sill ,3 > T Q'I'l V 2 (3 5 EV DAIS: 1/11,1 EPA-i US 108 140, 2R4 --G1 A-2 I-111i"Ll IL TUR loiir� P. D Y-9" R, 1p"i U�i Cim ACE T, erb IT, II T'FiCA; ry M' W, ILLT- 6 '01T IJAI SMT A' NTFR -1"Fl". A4 DCl "Z, A -A. C1111 "'.0 n n f n RE _JU2 j 0 S110,VLB - - - -- L- fl,-'l IA F �r - - - - - - - - - i7 �r t T -T I 0 I 1 3•-10• I I 1 6*-6l 1 1 6. T TO- 3L,51 tt A_D, II II 051 er !!-n IF 'Lho' I 7 .1 Su� te t�) �R -U� - CZ LINE li� LP AT �2, Gd 1*1 " r DzrQ P (D IIAIAI E 1: 1. I. SIN� DR F ELWOOD T__ l= A. I ALAT cLl -9N. 1. p V- 10 �--oi HT --- 1OFF,1 D,1, TO i. NA - S-6- 4-- -4j'-6 4'- -10 3-6 )0 6-10- o "'OFF'I .As 0111f` I U CEII AD fiAr C AN l'y I .. ..... 6' AOV 4'-0' 2 I IIA-, FATING 34R Fill, U.J 10 q va! K HA / A' IC SIN, A71C jZ5 Ir-CAT, I B',IA im ST. n:S /C 2' 10" 1'tW ON. I IREPI AIE 6 'S El,a _SGFILT " 1D 0 CID I X111 A`.T 1.11 14 Div ic", 01111- AT IN, 101111". ?R . . . . . q-0: ABV CAR ADA�CG A-1 C i rn F; u, OUTSIDE A J - - - - - - 7721- 7.x -Fp- s IG-O' ML. IT T -1111 ;1 6'-Q' 6--0- -34" H-1 I SiNI, r - 1 curl d'. "I -G- Lill I IEG ARSE 1, TIlP I.J -ON LO, C- C, 7 T7 010 1 LEG 11; ;iT, - -1 I , A' HIT 71 < 5. 7--6- 5 8. IONRC- 12'-2- lo'-lo, -, Ip Z,G. 6'-0' T 4-6! 5-8 V, '� 4 ` r', 7CV- UWLI T 4'-0' , I � LITE, CAIINFI- A' ko /e S, OAlr - FUR CI �111 I SPACE 4CC 12 W6E �TIE� ON 1; GRADE AS RE T or- D cj'n i e �edro 10 0' 11ILUND HT, N 4'-10" 11-1- -6`.8''B x COH G "'I e. j N ,�BEAIA C !L S G ARih P, Y-0 A SEG. .-NION LE IS -AIR i -- IREA6DATA FT • 1 -- 1 '10 BOARD 5 '0" LN I,. & 8 -4- LEG Hr- G. ARCH. TrP!,AL IN C:NING ;s_,_R!3.7 3Z4 AX!, NT, lo' ?.-o-. PEON . 9,-., 1.9 TYR.' j, bedroo-T,. L-3-J th a.fl 1p. dinir g roorn 2- D' T 1'*-." COMING 4T, CLIL, 7 MLING 1, 1, AARarl- r- or LE 1,F. ARP- j FU 6 /I.' WO S-1, Cut. 4 TO !L 1'� IN NZO. ON, I,) --RADL PQRC C Q ERIN ED -A S -11T 1 -LOPING D D • 1. -G- CER-1.1 1�, --TtT PER WIT R I din 2C.D 1 !on R.- 7 SEC. PC U ITS 2"DG EI­G 11 TO CS.Ir. 2 -V AARFL 10 CFRPET `.F. 5060 L NC' �75 GALLON *AREI BI- M I P T FI ON, To I R FAII-1 (2) 111- AC Si : ._ I CAS SIRAIE ITY!" 9'--0' e R All 2C I'll LAT ISE I io J I e bc -r. . TF' 7- 6'-E4 • 2--1- G. 1 7-6- 6 -4� S-2• 6'-0• 6,-0" -6. N`I.P !A'-' 11 AWL V YR, ACC_ a, --�NDICI TES ANY Z4�1 --,/A' LIQ-7"EIL --s" ,G.-- _- PRECAST DIRC RAI NG -ecl �W.L. RE. . -.EUEE:/GAR1GE R IL WO 36" WiDE W.I. 'ADES 0 ENTRY roar, llRiO A, IC J1 TO DO RALST� GAE k ESCAr F DD: :R STAIRS j V-I N, FI 0 BAY -Zl AST GO- AD.[ I 6, CLEAT, NET 0 ENINC CONC, STAR AT LA DER TRILADI 2'- _D. 8' -0' 4'-6' GCt4C. STIRI P` "T ATTIC SCIV-DE CO.B. A.D -1 LL`OT3 I4' SS S-111PS I --1 s a AT Ill Ai A 'CISS I.-ATI(M'- ID IT INTL CIANICAL T!"t'AL 5/8 GYPS- -0 I GARAC�- C"ILING - Typ "'R T11 x GYPSUM OAP' 0 WALLS I 101"I TO Lill' G, AREA 1 -1- "011 A 11 TI A j 3 car garage 1-1E F. SLAB A: - - - f-h 14'-0" 21'- 4' 11 28' -0` 22 iS -0' -L-u I 1 I 89,-0, I AS METER ~ - -LO__ Entry Level Floor Plan 1)0 A.P VAIN ZCT. PA EL -ORC L -L fj- SEE OF TRELLIS 1 All, CAN- F.�. ELE�Iflol i sccle: 0" LANDING 0 GARAGE. I I HOUSE DATA: 30 �8' -o HAL SAS. 0 I I I 4769 sq. ft. Entry Level 856 ft. Garage/Mech. Rm. j. 6 1 sq. S i 40 sq. ft. Covered Entry Porch L BSA. S a 2A" O.C.- I 5,665 sq. ft. Total Floor Area o E EXT. ELEVATION I 1 5,766 sq. ft. Allowable Floor Area 1,750 sq, ft. Basement -R 26-D 'I 0; Si7i CT FXEtp APES' 'ANN k z u) II IY Z 00 Of M < 0 LLJ Of LL- Of -J 0 Z;7 LLI ul 0 (f) 0 Lf) Lr- Cf) V) Sill ,3 > T Q'I'l V 2 (3 5 EV DAIS: 1/11,1 EPA-i US 108 140, 2R4 --G1 A-2 0 • _ -sal; RY 60' -0" s/12/c, ._ ® PLAN ChE1. "12jOS .3/7 /07 2T -8" 11'_0^ 10•_6• AU A7 A7 GENERAL NOT .5 ( - - - - - - - - 1 flRfiF3 WNOOW O DOR2 -S SHOMN ARE 1. GESGN ID 4 PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL AIN- O DOOR SEES SNALL BE FAA M O SET PER MFG. S'ECM TIONS. ^ w - MANE k NpDEL NUMBERS SHALL BE CALRID OUT PER PPUER5 AND /OR ON ER'S SPECRICATONS. 1 `� f W e T B K ..-,T O BE DUAL PANED (UNO.) _ 6 1. R J b N V �/C ARVCTJ�Y ALL EXTERIOR HEADENS SHALL BE O B' -0' U.N,O. I Q' -'1Y"' ` IF W I I Or cAL \fY ALL EXTERIOR DOOR$ sF1- BE AT LEAST It. TMCX _I ®\�T ALL GLASS DGORS. GLASS MMIN 34' OF DOORS k IB- W FLOORS GLASS TO ) .. I FTEY T HUMAN IMPACT, ETC. SHALL BE SKEET TEMPERED PEA UBC 2406 a I .Y. _ I - i ' -CJ BEDROgA WINDOWS SHALL HAVE HIGH SILL di, W. zCT — OF 10^ < 3 2 - E- 9 ) U !N INNINGS OPENING OF 57 FEET PER UB.GN. �� 'R' "" `� 10' -6" 1 P0.0NDE MgSNRE RESISTANT UNOERLAWENT i0 J � ' A N. MflGHT OF 70- ABOY£ DRAW IN -0- P5 • /MTEMPERED — ENCLOSURE PER UBC .I.3 J - PRONDE TEMPFAANRf Y%ING VKYE O ALL SHOWERS PER UPC. 4 -2^ -0 - Lj WADER HEATERS k FURNACES TO BE GEC. 'T'1 ••() �'� GERTFlEp. WATER HEATERS r0 HAVE PRESSURE A: < I I ` L.� IEeBERATURE RELIEF DE 1 k DISMARGE TO BLUDGE Q r" F Qor i } -, ,o I ! MROMOE COM- ON NR FOR FUEL SURMNG PUANCES PER UuG CHAPTER 7 k UPI CHAPTER S • T -tDl L `, L 11 6" 10 WATER HEATERS SHALL BE STRAPPED M III ME UPPER O LOWER I/3 OF ME HEATER SNAPS SHALL BE LLOLATEO A MIN. OF �`- - _ 0 -� FROM AN —G. NA HEATER TO O N PIATFp2M 16 ` IN. A F - � CAL _ PER U.M.C. k U.B C OPENINGS AROUND GAS Yi 1Ts, BU- t PIPING O EACH FLOOR SHALL BE FIRE STOPPED 5 J • J r AIR DO OON N GARNEE MAT .. NRU UR GARAGE WALL SHALL BE 26 CA. STEEL OR rWCKER A I I - I_ -J-___ ____ —__ I 1J 1 PER UC PER UBC � - _ —_ _-__ ___ __ -____ —_ —_ _ —_ :.- � G DO INSTALL PRE FAB MIL FIREPIACEs PER MFG'S -- I -I II SPECS. PROPAGE 1C. B.0 APPRDVID NUMBERS TO BIALOING DEPT PWOR TO INSr ON - < 2 6" 6'-2" 6• 0" 4' -10" 22 0 i PROVOS FIRE STOPS IN OPENINGS O FLOOR k CEILINGS OF ALL FII2FPLACES PER U.B.G. I PROME AC/DC SMOK E DETECTORS MMN EACH SLEEPNO — k CENTRALLY LOCATED IN CORKS .._ AR _ OO I=Afl 1 L OR AREAS (RWNG ACCESS TD EACH SLEEPING AREA ALL DETECTORS TO K NTERCONNECTFD TYPICAL r7 ( 'I I: J JAM L CK 8 l S�7 bey! So _F _ •. L ( iD ��.\ - MAPALL EXTERIOFWALLSMMOTXPLYMVW TYPICAL THRWGHWi - o t - _ .. _ I -_. ^.__ -iF,E RVL HAw:'vGS PROV T6' DEEP x If TALL CYPSIAI BOARD IDE UPPER CABINETS O KITCHEN k LAUNDRY .... < ! _ I I �'? � I A Q r W Z ALL H09: BARBS 91ALL HAVE NIXI RELOVA&.E TYPE BAIT iF .- 6 0" : -U C 1 :: \.1 F- n Of .- -FLOW PRENENTaN DENCL CA P "_r_ I Q o .. 9' -10 4' 0 5 -10" 2' -4� 3• -0° -I PLUMBING CONIRACIOR SALL FRONDS Ei P VAff OI YATPR 05L IIrt M L %DERM U.B.0 -1 17'-2" ° < L�j,f O "EATER AND ROUTE IRD£ I �\ W SHOWERS O TUB /SNOMT:R I- IBINARONS, COIITH0. BE PRESSURE BAVNCED OR SU 4 HIGH 1 �J I VALVES MUST MERMOSTAAC MIXING VALVES PER UPC SECT 410.1 1 " .:IpFA!L :} PPET r�F. NO UNOERFUM I]LVIp 1 SHALL BE UDGATCD MORE 1HAN FEET ER01L AN ACS DOGE. TRIP DOOR . OR BUMIL FINE PER UPC SELTON 707.10. I .. _•.- .. . - L fl I A Q O Q - �\� 5. fi') i. 1O .TILE (- n1MBx4 ORA11 WASTE AW 6EHr ANO/d IEOINROK WCIIXG -- - -1 I IB EE wI TNEFmB eSEGRIT W 5• -7 5'-7" I I O NE� I i -O Q Q SWKE UVRAMD C -GETS A Mx noW RATE OF a S GRM PER CAU— ENERGY LDMMESON ^ I • I I I WSWL USE�NO MQIE MINI T.6 GN19N5 PFR Yi1USI AID 91.ML , �'t- _I_ ` -_ -'.. 1 I V ! Ln MEET PRCFORMANM STMOMOS BY ANL S A-1B.t HOPS GONE SECTOR 179313(8) CeJ S C9 -1. . r F HOUSE Is N HAVE PROPANE GAS PFONOE ' - S "E O 5 8 -.)e' CRAM PFO JF E' Y AO "E - T I- f O .TESL GYP BG. O N L ., 5 % - - W J FOR DRAINAGE OF LP. GAS TO Ex1EPo0l (TYPICAL) I tl.N OOM At._♦ k C G ':N C .. B_L F .A..NCL X C LAY I� ENC C ) SPA E UltER - h PER Lee 1611 1 t B ell', C \ E %1G°0R m x NA OE TOIIN � rt sVq��t s�itx n Ia -ARE T¢r. I n , -o- L Q / , O I( 16 7 onEE r.. <y flREPI.ACE NOTES: �M 20' -6" � -- -Ell A 5N7wx� "M§G^ 51o�7Y' : IpllM1.} 6`x3 i r LADG�R x9 x DPAM64MD I ON ATIiC FURNACE REWIREMEN75: I I Ac A.7 A' _ _ -_ A MINIMUM a 3D`x3o' ArM AccESS I I I _ __ _ _ -r_, v£3a A MINIMUM 30^X30' PASSAGEWAY TO ME NRNA. O CRITAOLS ME FURNACE LOCATED NOT MORE MAN 20 -0- FROM ME A- ACCESS I I _ _ A LEVEL NIXIXNG PLATFORM 30' IN OFPM N IN FRONT OF ME ENBRIC FIREBOX SIDE 1 I I A PERMANENT ELECTRICAL OUTLET O LIGxTNC Fl %NNE CONTF2IXlED BY A SMTCH LOCATED O ME ATM ACCESS STALL BE PROMDED O OR a O I I 7 NEM ME FURNA- eo 5 FWNAGE ARID IN ATRC S2ALL CCMPLT WTN U. I vlly<, 8' -0" I 43• -0" 60' -0" '' 111' - -0 JIo- I � I (nle'D I Basement Floor Plan 1,750 sq. ft. Bosment scale: 1/4";;' 1 —0' DA =: 1/19/05 i- - SCALE: 1 /e ", JOB N0. )K6 -., I A -3 DF SHEETS i • �110 13 ___ �_' BROOM- - ajT� -- sue! =; =iK ■ ' —, —ar s� � �°y- - �sc.Isra��. - :... I�� � • ���`ie''`�}�Iiy�i�7 l� -� "'�IF��.� -_ _ ,. �.. � �;1 I ?ES��� -.r ��II ln�- .�+= �'�'_�• ®_v.� b° s � "_- +t_a�'�oiR. -Qi #� �0: �=>�� - - //�/(���'�, 13 II ARRESTER OR CLASS "0" VENT CCRBEL6 . • EHdPED CLASS "A• CONCREr ROOFING BY BEAM I -2- BARGE - _ AUBURN TIIE" SLATE PPTT $' '. I(} COLOR BLEND) INSTALL PER RJIFTERB TER �! YA-F. SPECS o/ /FELT ® _ ,R / \ / PL-00O SNEATNING RIDGE HT. BE.T9' fS� ��4 A y�i NSCREEN D@CARATIVE 61. cXRNEY - -- ". DdP W dPPR w CP4RK - -� N (1/l4D S0. IN VENTILATDN EA.) RIP'iE NT. 01.16 - 12 RR@9TER OR CL4% D' VENT 2 13 ___ �_' BROOM- - ajT� -- sue! =; =iK ■ ' —, —ar s� � �°y- - �sc.Isra��. - :... I�� � • ���`ie''`�}�Iiy�i�7 l� -� "'�IF��.� -_ _ ,. �.. � �;1 I ?ES��� -.r ��II ln�- .�+= �'�'_�• ®_v.� b° s � "_- +t_a�'�oiR. -Qi #� �0: �=>�� - - //�/(���'�, ARRESTER OR CLASS "0" VENT D@CARATIVE 61. cXRNEY - -- ". DdP W dPPR w CP4RK - -� '- `/ 1 iv /STUCCO FNISN -T - RR@9TER OR CL4% D' VENT 2 � ' carrrcuRio Roan TRIn � ) W9TUCC0 RMISH -TYP. ...JJJ . _ SCA.4E0 °d° DGNC TB ATTUM BY 'AUBURJ TILE' SLAT@ PATTERN - l0 COLOR BLEND/ M9T4Li. PER nArv. BPED'O o/ ad RELT - , o/ PLYWOOD EME4THnJG •TYP. /��G'•I' R dBV. V M49T@R bU1T6 FP.— . I 9' 36 Gd. G.I. YY•EE' P40c1A Cd.1TTER oR� DP BPRUC@ RILGE HT. 029b' CLA98 'A• CONCRETE ROOFING BY D COOT C6'k7uV1 PL48TER u✓ ry 8'. R ABV A9c14 BO4RD -TYP. AUBURN TILE' L441E PATTERN C PER BnOOTH 6d1:✓ PM19H of M Y LEVEL RP. 0 GCB * I/ � K e GA G.I. PAPER BACK® W!RE LATHE W K•IATH / PLYWOOD SNEdTXMG -TYP. 'KwflC CORNERS' o/ lU 9' I0 GA 4L'WE' E' RABCIA LAYER GRd..'2 'D' P4P6R 6 GUTTER oGJ® DF BPM1YD$ (31 LAYER WHEN dF+FLIED o! CDX PLYWOOD SHEATHING . I E I I j Pd9Cld BOARD•TYP. TYPICAI- 6 P9 ITS MASTER 6 RP. • 4946'3 G RNaE 96• XRSH W.1. GUARDRAIL B W MM. 9O' CS LIGXTW6LLW GATE - _ _ _ 3 x0 DP 'HMG -HELLN' 411 - 6NTRT LEVEL FP. • A916'© 'Y 4 GUEST ITE F.F. O 691.00' XBdDER TRM _ _ _ _ ® l O1M. Z � STUCCO RP.EBS • �•�. 411 . I 1 CCNC. LdNGMG W Z 1 1 I 9reP9 TO GRADE R6CIL - I ARCXITEDTYRdL C4D@S ! W9 -O WINDOW 91 4RCHI1OCTUR4L PdCdDEB wll� au - I I I I I •�. ". f� �Z__ GIB IP�'BCREEJ ! I __ a 819cc0 WM.LB I! BAem'1@NT I,\ -... •.. .....'... BAGB— PF. R AE6.O'® L — J 7� left side elevatiol (south) N0,1 DATE/ REVISION 4 /)z /o5 4s� Io /t1 /o5 II IIlo7 TpIFE I yy °T m�iPVU i v' ice? �uclN4�lT 4clt� e m � cxx S 6 Wpbs al I�^ Q! (d )6 N O O � x L qV MICH GFiGrL 0 GVIS Brwvrta SET JOB HO DZ'303 eaEr A4 • CLAW 'A' CONCRETE RCCPING BY Q 'AUBURN TILH- SLAM PATTERN b TYP (3 COLOR BLSND) "I" MR MA , 0M. O/ D0� FSLT PLTVOOD WEATXWG •TYP. 5' 26 GA. G.I.'CGEC' PA9CIA GUTTER arZXO W &PRYG6 PdOC!A BOARD -TYP. - v I•U.9THR 9U1i8 FF. � \ `-1-, $ 3 CHAT DEFIENT Pu9TER ./ 1 �J100TN bdJD PM19H o/ A dll f I � � Ga. Gl, PAPER BACKED Z Z � _ WIRE LATHE u✓ K-LATX 1♦• p �� 1CW!K CORNESRS' o/ (D D LAYER GRADE 'D' PAPER << 21 LATER WHEN APPLI® o/ 1 I +_ CD %PLTVlOOD ONEaTXMG • `6 MIA6TSR bUITH FF. a {&.IA•Qi 61, DRIP 6CREED •TYPICaI • 61-6 Q 9TUCC0 —6 GONG. LANDW3 ev 6TEP0 TO GRADS AS REO'O w/ PAVER TREAD BY ARCHITECTURAL F 065 OR EOLLAL rear elevation (west) R p COPPER ftA ROC, • BAY I 4x90 z4 "o.�. —POAM TRIM w' LmE6TGNH PM16N a bTCNH -TYP. — =TRRED &TONE vSTPHR•TYP. ENTRY LEVEL PF. , 4910'© 1 XT. a MAW RlD 51{b' © I DECORATI VH G.I. CHmNSY CAP uV OR R CLA 0P W }..d —R TOTER OR CLA&6'D' VENT ccurouRED PDAri Tam PBTUCCO ,INI9H -iYP. Q X1- W.I. GUARDRAIL a /�) �'T -', I ®'• °BABY. / LIGHTYEiLL w/ MIN 36' WIDH OAT6 - GaR "- Pb OR 6dNDB RBS LEVEL ,F. • 891 m' FOOT wl VJRBEL9 310 W 'HAND-HEWN' OR 1 bdNDBLA &T HHADER TRIM - / I POAM eILL w/ LIME6TCNE FWI9i1 -TYP. I PRONDE vENiS, SEE A -2 DM. ; I ,I a 1 ,1 ,I BAs- -, pp. •{00.0'© _ I I/ 4 DECORATIVE 61. CRIB @Y DAP R R CLA OPaRK ARReb THR CR LA90 'B' vSTIT - CONTOURED FOAM TRIM FrBTUGCA FINI&M•TW. CLA88 "d° GOXICRETE ROOPING BY 'AUBURN TILH OLATH PATTERN (3 COLOR BL@:D1 W" PER MANW. OPEC'& o/ 30^ FEI-T o/ PLYWOOD 6M@ATHWG .TYP. - 10'•I' B ASV. 11ABTHR euiTB F� - D COAT CC WT P SMR w All - T M00,W "M PMIA4 e/ Il GA 6.1. PAPER BACKW WIRE THE I. -LATH V O a Q LA KYIIK CORNHR$. o/ 111 9 LAYER GRADE V. PAPER l31 LAYER WNHN 4PPLIED o/ _ _" 0, CDx PLYW�D6HE.OINING• rTPlcat Md6TER SUITE ,D. • {9{D'© GCNC. LMIDWG w/ 6TEP6 9 _ PAVER TREAD BY ARCHITECTURAL PACdDE9 G.I. DRIP BCRHED .TYPICAL a SILLS OP BTUCCo WALLS ..1 NO./ DATE/ REVISION re> Ay 1 Y 4 6 _35n r >'VVCt� AST e 1Fa CAL T tj c �B W "s F �g e Q� 0 Do W •� y� W v: ui E V Y PNO£CT LL�I MIC 0 HAEL DAVIS puvm 8EZ DM03 Bffr A5 Q b ttP 5' 36 GA GJ.'OGEE' 1A WTTER oP- W SPRUCE BOARD -TYP. AJI W 'HAND-HEWN' OR OR BANDBLAOT TRELLIS BT1 W 6146 W HAND -HEW4 ' . II TRELLIS BEAM9 aBY L I , WVf"TWN' 1 6I BdNDBLd9T P05T -TYP , CARRIAGE 6TYLE WCTIC GARAGE DOORS•TYP '1 R p COPPER ftA ROC, • BAY I 4x90 z4 "o.�. —POAM TRIM w' LmE6TGNH PM16N a bTCNH -TYP. — =TRRED &TONE vSTPHR•TYP. ENTRY LEVEL PF. , 4910'© 1 XT. a MAW RlD 51{b' © I DECORATI VH G.I. CHmNSY CAP uV OR R CLA 0P W }..d —R TOTER OR CLA&6'D' VENT ccurouRED PDAri Tam PBTUCCO ,INI9H -iYP. Q X1- W.I. GUARDRAIL a /�) �'T -', I ®'• °BABY. / LIGHTYEiLL w/ MIN 36' WIDH OAT6 - GaR "- Pb OR 6dNDB RBS LEVEL ,F. • 891 m' FOOT wl VJRBEL9 310 W 'HAND-HEWN' OR 1 bdNDBLA &T HHADER TRIM - / I POAM eILL w/ LIME6TCNE FWI9i1 -TYP. I PRONDE vENiS, SEE A -2 DM. ; I ,I a 1 ,1 ,I BAs- -, pp. •{00.0'© _ I I/ 4 DECORATIVE 61. CRIB @Y DAP R R CLA OPaRK ARReb THR CR LA90 'B' vSTIT - CONTOURED FOAM TRIM FrBTUGCA FINI&M•TW. CLA88 "d° GOXICRETE ROOPING BY 'AUBURN TILH OLATH PATTERN (3 COLOR BL@:D1 W" PER MANW. OPEC'& o/ 30^ FEI-T o/ PLYWOOD 6M@ATHWG .TYP. - 10'•I' B ASV. 11ABTHR euiTB F� - D COAT CC WT P SMR w All - T M00,W "M PMIA4 e/ Il GA 6.1. PAPER BACKW WIRE THE I. -LATH V O a Q LA KYIIK CORNHR$. o/ 111 9 LAYER GRADE V. PAPER l31 LAYER WNHN 4PPLIED o/ _ _" 0, CDx PLYW�D6HE.OINING• rTPlcat Md6TER SUITE ,D. • {9{D'© GCNC. LMIDWG w/ 6TEP6 9 _ PAVER TREAD BY ARCHITECTURAL PACdDE9 G.I. DRIP BCRHED .TYPICAL a SILLS OP BTUCCo WALLS ..1 NO./ DATE/ REVISION re> Ay 1 Y 4 6 _35n r >'VVCt� AST e 1Fa CAL T tj c �B W "s F �g e Q� 0 Do W •� y� W v: ui E V Y PNO£CT LL�I MIC 0 HAEL DAVIS puvm 8EZ DM03 Bffr A5 0 0 II 51G_ & staff_ ni 510, TIES 0� �AM 'A' 8� 509 TILE' ELATE PATTERol D' IBRAM (3 �OR BLEND) MTAi.L attic R-M, IK&L MANS. OPEC� 3V FELT 2. —SEE -SEE SW' I my� 16se-1,,a -TTP. TYPICAL I I 1. Ifl 502, %-- fl FP 0 10 n [1-1 R- S' 26 GA W. 'OGEE' 0 n n R n n b1'4' PLATE NE� SOU DVAL PANE Gl-A2 - iE Eli sue` - '"">P 4Q& 1 b' PAPER —Ai- 2 LAYERS II F MOO, PAIn", Y.- oor P ry LL 496 !family room Utcheri- L—J tr 494' r.ISTIJ,G AT EXTERI� TYP. Mal -j� 7 492' GRADE- g/ Ji FINIS" GRADE u u 490 u u u 9 u 9 u u 0 u 0 488' CEILING 486' 4" room theatre 13 game r I sp ki'1 '. CONCRETE SLAB -SEE { DRA. 482� 67R='t . . . . . . . . . . �IAJNI- 48CV 479 0-1 Q0 Ian 476 1 1P r 7. Cross Section DGE NE LIT 5 5' CLAM WTIGRERE ROOFING By -ATTE- TIM (3 � BLEND) Ml� PER 2ds M I", H-F. 9F005 0/ 30' F'cLT attic _T'P. E>�OMD BE REAR 2. �ILM JETS: 6EE OTRLJ,7T DRA,J` B u u COAT (It' 5o(y PLASTER 01 6 -G .G ED.. PAIM. BACKED STI-O NETTM Ot I LATER GRADE V'P�R (TOTAI- 2 LAYIERO 498' Y" -'s I hall 496' library kitchen T :FZ 7 fl GRADE J GRADE- 494' 4L PAVERO 492' TI M- F"wGRAoE 490' 488' WI r771 F77 T ...... . . . . . 486' 484' 7 482' Cross Section 480' - 4w== 478' Rrs - T= 476 r WATER HEATER DETAIL ,NO./ DATE/ PF"S[OV zsp� "r- 9FV 11-- J977 � I wn JAN. it. 2005 uR ecNE MICHAEL DAVIS 5z OZ2303 A6 0 • 0 h DF WrTERb -SEE 3X6 DF BRACES II p attic PICAL 154 �' porch f 'er o living room 41 I-WD MATFORi f! 1 A lt� I N T A Ak T-. '01 �311 1013R'. C Cross Section L T:,N� FTM�E ING b WU bath z-iTr 9 TKi PLTIWOD 2- DF —0 0.. AT EXTERIOR WALL9 .- 2.0 OF OT.R ..P ly Tom, /'D Cross Section A0 LEYA TYPICAL HANDRAIL DETAIL TYPICAL STAIR DETAIL 1/4".11.1.1 514' --------- - (N) TOPO 512' r514 _" 2 51C —ASS By- 1 "AUBURN T!Lf- S' ATE PATTERN ORIGINAL TOPIO 0 Ca-B BLEND) 50. -- - ------- ANUF. �Ee's /-"# FELT I PL�� SHEATBING TYP 506' ILL IXPO,E" RI-S Q RFAR �iRANIIA 504* -------- --- ----- -- - --- ------ (N) SEDIMENT 2': CONTROL- 0� ZOL -V�TAAT dflkp,54-�-'I -L 512 8 ------ EE111BRU-NA RAU-- 496 94 - ------------ ------ ------ - -- - r —A RED 492' (N) V DITCH Pr-A-Ift.- ------ -- --- ------ (N) 2'-0 DEEP KEY WAY 4LO' z >A- - -------- --- . ..... ---- -- 486' ...... 1/4". P-O' ram I�I =W= --,Tr. ==1=- .1 AT DY TILE' SLATE PATTERN (3 COLOR mfE ' wTd PER u MANW. BPE0 FELT GA. OGEs- 7Xp OPRIICE FA$CLA BOARD - TYPICAL bx DF—ER-WE 6TRIGT. PU L PN GLA ING- �C`L GWEATW-- III 2- O.C. � AT EXTE— WALLS -P. SEE 0.AN PIPER— INI� �E- V I' "M TF- R" R M 2. pF Br.00K M Mm "IST 21 DF ElLCCK OR RIM JOIST AREA r- RW -1 77, RELATED CODE GECTKW: G08. 100 174C?E L-B AN TYPICAL ATTIC FURNACE DETAIL �." 01 f. >s �.: -1 l'I +III T" -mil :7-- 1111 �--- "AM 11 l - 4"INI-58 =1 1 7- GEE —T AW -N, 2 1,05i STUCCO WEEP SCREED DETAIL CULTURED STONE WEEP DETAIL NO./ DATE/ REVISION IARN- % Q) yr LU M O 4) X0 U O Ev 0 to x u) MICHASI. DAVIS auwn OZ Ja Na tlEET A7 IL 4 mist o A0 LEYA TYPICAL HANDRAIL DETAIL TYPICAL STAIR DETAIL 1/4".11.1.1 514' --------- - (N) TOPO 512' r514 _" 2 51C —ASS By- 1 "AUBURN T!Lf- S' ATE PATTERN ORIGINAL TOPIO 0 Ca-B BLEND) 50. -- - ------- ANUF. �Ee's /-"# FELT I PL�� SHEATBING TYP 506' ILL IXPO,E" RI-S Q RFAR �iRANIIA 504* -------- --- ----- -- - --- ------ (N) SEDIMENT 2': CONTROL- 0� ZOL -V�TAAT dflkp,54-�-'I -L 512 8 ------ EE111BRU-NA RAU-- 496 94 - ------------ ------ ------ - -- - r —A RED 492' (N) V DITCH Pr-A-Ift.- ------ -- --- ------ (N) 2'-0 DEEP KEY WAY 4LO' z >A- - -------- --- . ..... ---- -- 486' ...... 1/4". P-O' ram I�I =W= --,Tr. ==1=- .1 AT DY TILE' SLATE PATTERN (3 COLOR mfE ' wTd PER u MANW. BPE0 FELT GA. OGEs- 7Xp OPRIICE FA$CLA BOARD - TYPICAL bx DF—ER-WE 6TRIGT. PU L PN GLA ING- �C`L GWEATW-- III 2- O.C. � AT EXTE— WALLS -P. SEE 0.AN PIPER— INI� �E- V I' "M TF- R" R M 2. pF Br.00K M Mm "IST 21 DF ElLCCK OR RIM JOIST AREA r- RW -1 77, RELATED CODE GECTKW: G08. 100 174C?E L-B AN TYPICAL ATTIC FURNACE DETAIL �." 01 f. >s �.: -1 l'I +III T" -mil :7-- 1111 �--- "AM 11 l - 4"INI-58 =1 1 7- GEE —T AW -N, 2 1,05i STUCCO WEEP SCREED DETAIL CULTURED STONE WEEP DETAIL NO./ DATE/ REVISION IARN- % Q) yr LU M O 4) X0 U O Ev 0 to x u) MICHASI. DAVIS auwn OZ Ja Na tlEET A7 IL 1/4". P-O' ram I�I =W= --,Tr. ==1=- .1 AT DY TILE' SLATE PATTERN (3 COLOR mfE ' wTd PER u MANW. BPE0 FELT GA. OGEs- 7Xp OPRIICE FA$CLA BOARD - TYPICAL bx DF—ER-WE 6TRIGT. PU L PN GLA ING- �C`L GWEATW-- III 2- O.C. � AT EXTE— WALLS -P. SEE 0.AN PIPER— INI� �E- V I' "M TF- R" R M 2. pF Br.00K M Mm "IST 21 DF ElLCCK OR RIM JOIST AREA r- RW -1 77, RELATED CODE GECTKW: G08. 100 174C?E L-B AN TYPICAL ATTIC FURNACE DETAIL �." 01 f. >s �.: -1 l'I +III T" -mil :7-- 1111 �--- "AM 11 l - 4"INI-58 =1 1 7- GEE —T AW -N, 2 1,05i STUCCO WEEP SCREED DETAIL CULTURED STONE WEEP DETAIL NO./ DATE/ REVISION IARN- % Q) yr LU M O 4) X0 U O Ev 0 to x u) MICHASI. DAVIS auwn OZ Ja Na tlEET A7 IL AREA r- RW -1 77, RELATED CODE GECTKW: G08. 100 174C?E L-B AN TYPICAL ATTIC FURNACE DETAIL �." 01 f. >s �.: -1 l'I +III T" -mil :7-- 1111 �--- "AM 11 l - 4"INI-58 =1 1 7- GEE —T AW -N, 2 1,05i STUCCO WEEP SCREED DETAIL CULTURED STONE WEEP DETAIL NO./ DATE/ REVISION IARN- % Q) yr LU M O 4) X0 U O Ev 0 to x u) MICHASI. DAVIS auwn OZ Ja Na tlEET A7 IL STUCCO WEEP SCREED DETAIL CULTURED STONE WEEP DETAIL NO./ DATE/ REVISION IARN- % Q) yr LU M O 4) X0 U O Ev 0 to x u) MICHASI. DAVIS auwn OZ Ja Na tlEET A7 IL E MIRRROR ARCH SOFFIT PEDESTAL - II 9--4^ INTERIOR @ POWDER RM. ARCH SOFFIT . RECESS PEDESTAL SINK 14 1 -­ ­ - 11- ­-Il YA \_INTERIOR @ POWDER RM. 1\� FINSH BASE BOARD TO - BE WHIIE6-1HER!5 1331 -5• I/V) OR JECAUL FINISH FLOOR 8 1 BASEBOARD DETAIL WHITE BROTHERS -1132 CROWN McLil­DlNG; -A RE WHITE BROTHERS • IS- TRIM LLA41TE 5Abrwr • 1112 CROWN MOULDING Ix TR." Wk! E rTWER9 • M20 Im 7 BOX BEAM DETAIL ­D A 41­ CEIL HIT SHD­R AREA ZED-" n n Lia - V I T-- ?r---- ,-t - -- V ­0 A .­' DETAIL VA6 t WE DETAIL VAB master TD suite .!L, WIT. WE— 0.- T 17 1 �Af'.RoW1 T 11 -OROW" HOW-DI- I SEE PAS A O SEE DETAIL 4 A A ook 77-7 //L,4 �IT 0' CEILIl- WT. kitchen Tamil y\ I'A '"" room Q'­ CEILING HT. D. WE DETAIL I FERMTER ­T TD WE DETAIL 2/A& ROW, ITIO,ILD I�R .11, N. S­ pant SEE DETAIL 2 /AB wi 0" CEI living roorn ei` HT. i - I ­­ CEIL. HT SE­­ V.- A­ I - - - - - - - - - - �IT DN. -olIW3 HT ESo MT TO SEG. -P -IT b.p LE. HT. LdcATI­i aundry I- ---------- -4- W'. 0 hall P WE DETAIL IAS 1 -4- HT, ­0- OEIL- AT. WE DETAIL I- wit T, I SEE DETAIL IIAS ­r' SEE DE-L. 21" `E- - V- - f OROW4 �D I- - ARCH Ell T, 1-1 foyer 4 V-4 LEG SeG - -ILI- 4T. A, - W. W. 1. CE IL. bedroom I-v . H� ath 4 5U. A- FERIIIETER I AS cEIL. .0--0' OrILI- HT- Lea I..- I' E L. HT. GYP911.1 ED. stairs 1. 1. I.E. AT. L- RE-$...­ 8 4 0­ 110JL- TTPiD,L iOA.DI- WE DETAIL 5LDF`11- DEIL E DETAIL 1, 11 CEIL I IT. dining room bedroom 3 ithi 3 attl 2 zl porch I SL­ CEIL, -T I OEII DEIL� TO IT ,. A5, 94�. iclZ ;;Al SO" D" la 371 Lt. T. _W ORDWR Al5v. SHOWER WE DETAIL TAIL guest bedroom room 9. BAT DUAL GLAZING 0. ARCH SOFFIT . RECESS PEDESTAL SINK 14 1 -­ ­ - 11- ­-Il YA \_INTERIOR @ POWDER RM. 1\� FINSH BASE BOARD TO - BE WHIIE6-1HER!5 1331 -5• I/V) OR JECAUL FINISH FLOOR 8 1 BASEBOARD DETAIL WHITE BROTHERS -1132 CROWN McLil­DlNG; -A RE WHITE BROTHERS • IS- TRIM LLA41TE 5Abrwr • 1112 CROWN MOULDING Ix TR." Wk! E rTWER9 • M20 Im 7 BOX BEAM DETAIL ­D A 41­ CEIL HIT SHD­R AREA ZED-" n n Lia - V I T-- ?r---- ,-t - -- V ­0 A .­' DETAIL VA6 t WE DETAIL VAB master TD suite .!L, WIT. WE— 0.- T 17 1 �Af'.RoW1 T 11 -OROW" HOW-DI- I SEE PAS A O SEE DETAIL 4 A A ook 77-7 //L,4 �IT 0' CEILIl- WT. kitchen Tamil y\ I'A '"" room Q'­ CEILING HT. D. WE DETAIL I FERMTER ­T TD WE DETAIL 2/A& ROW, ITIO,ILD I�R .11, N. S­ pant SEE DETAIL 2 /AB wi 0" CEI living roorn ei` HT. i - I ­­ CEIL. HT SE­­ V.- A­ I - - - - - - - - - - �IT DN. -olIW3 HT ESo MT TO SEG. -P -IT b.p LE. HT. LdcATI­i aundry I- ---------- -4- W'. 0 hall P WE DETAIL IAS 1 -4- HT, ­0- OEIL- AT. WE DETAIL I- wit T, I SEE DETAIL IIAS ­r' SEE DE-L. 21" `E- - V- - f OROW4 �D I- - ARCH Ell T, 1-1 foyer 4 V-4 LEG SeG - -ILI- 4T. A, - W. W. 1. CE IL. bedroom I-v . H� ath 4 5U. A- FERIIIETER I AS cEIL. .0--0' OrILI- HT- Lea I..- I' E L. HT. GYP911.1 ED. stairs 1. 1. I.E. AT. L- RE-$...­ 8 4 0­ 110JL- TTPiD,L iOA.DI- WE DETAIL 5LDF`11- DEIL E DETAIL 1, 11 CEIL I IT. dining room bedroom 3 ithi 3 attl 2 zl porch I SL­ CEIL, -T I OEII DEIL� TO IT ,. A5, 94�. iclZ ;;Al SO" D" la 371 Lt. T. _W ORDWR Al5v. SHOWER WE DETAIL TAIL guest bedroom room 9. BAT DUAL GLAZING WT. • ICE IECH. J -6. HEADER- SEE PLAN PULL DK STAIR I �-FWISH WALL AD=as F L 180 1 -50 OF I 1; -RADUSE DORNIEF L L SAW KERF- . FRAM E -WNDOW FRAME Entry Level Reflected Ceiling Plan WHITE BROTHER' , CROWN APN BEYOND 7 Scale: 1/4"= V-0" III 2102-5 (Y FINISHED WALL - DUAL GLAZING 3 car garage SILL DETAIL 5 WINDOW HEAD DETAIL CEILING HT. 1 --1 10 L 0 INDIRECT ROPE LIGHTING WHITE 11 OTJ�ERS �UJWITE BROTHERS 11113 ORIDUN MOULDING- 144ITE BROTHERS WHITE BROTHERS 913.11CROWA MOULDING- - WITH OWNER 1'1133 CROWN MOULDING 9B3 VVR PY WITH oWjffR WHITE BROTHERS 9241 EASE.VSRFY WITH �Rjpy WITH O�R oW4E WHIT BROTHERS 9241 BAW j, WHITE BROTHERS 9 BASE- VERIFY WITH OWNER 4 INDIRECT LIGHTING DETAIL 3 CROWN MOULDING DETAIL 2 CROWN MOULDING DETAIL 1 i CROWN MOULDING DETAIL NO./ DATE/ REMION flfl LIJ it wn C: co d: > 0 In fu 0 (J) Nn BONE MICHAEL DAVIS BUWN C.Z NOB 0. 0=03 A Q • i I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I ! I I I _ — —. _ _ --- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. 1 I I I i I I I ! i Basement Reflected Ceiling Plan I scale: 1/4"=V-0" 1 RF.N510!!5 .91_61 M. 0 C W U C, J L_ LJ 7 Q J z 2i w w o) cr 0 <z m -- Q z w z °— ° (n Q 0 w° Q U w z m �� o q H Q < U V) VNS� po w�W � `-u P-"M-Nv LL y Coo Cis w(" old" Cn DATE: ,/19/05 SCALE 1/4 - -1' -( DRAWN: MS JOO NO. 2k4 =05 A -9 OF SHEE' ! I ! I � i I I I I I i F i I I ! L I i I i I ' I J I l 4 1 I ,)I d �j 1 Basement Reflected Ceiling Plan I scale: 1/4"=V-0" 1 RF.N510!!5 .91_61 M. 0 C W U C, J L_ LJ 7 Q J z 2i w w o) cr 0 <z m -- Q z w z °— ° (n Q 0 w° Q U w z m �� o q H Q < U V) VNS� po w�W � `-u P-"M-Nv LL y Coo Cis w(" old" Cn DATE: ,/19/05 SCALE 1/4 - -1' -( DRAWN: MS JOO NO. 2k4 =05 A -9 OF SHEE' w V. " ° Ll • 0 Item 6 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: MOD 07 -0001; 18935 Hayfield Court Type of Application: Modification of Design Review Approval Owner /Applicant: Picetti / Cahoon r Staff Planner: Shweta Bhatt, Associate Planner'" Meeting Date: January 09, 2008 APN: 397 -24 -105 Department Head - a 2- John F. Livingstone, AICP cur:r:�NC:uN kt,(3 :, � •�:`. �-,i•, ;x '� �" ss ;',.'6 19 Subject: f Q ' P =; 18935 Hayfield Court t8 I �„ : ��` APN: 397 -24 -105 .. -��%95 :. /•. . � ct � ss. t;• _ ,.o.,e•y— 102`>.:ca.:. 15 10T rs t,� 08 ` -Py. 'c-'•G'-03 rn+. -u0. t �� , ir�...Ji� 37 a `. cv, cc �sJ >. D i N�••; y ^_PT„ t1 . S9 PG- +. _ � •'p 99 1C aT 1{.�.J ��/ NET `9,•P• ,. "'�'.`,.\ `- p�..,:a ncac ,� - �'i�:c�.C( s.;3 �c. •c86 4 rte:. `; ~ 704 a 8 2 80 f tS 12.90 '� o R`w.5�� °� \ 11.39 C. NET \ 8 4 83 1 a3 C. d Sao ° •..'ri: u s {• : « g 1 Il - b NET `4 `(( • ;y: , 1,1T tag !.0 NET`, 1. AC G4 ::^\ •y.•µ +,'l `�c,ae % °e 1 , �. 1.,2 AC 1.1 �' `>! '•• ° \7e I Yr �•. \°sue 18935 Hayfield Court Application No. MOD 07 -0001; 18935 Hayfield Court EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 09/06/07 Application complete: 12/12/07 Notice published: 12/25/07 Mailing completed: 12/15/07 Posting completed: 01/03/08 .PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests a Modification of Design Review. Approval to modify an application approved by the Planning Commission at the March 14, 2007 hearing. The original approval was for a new two -story single - family dwelli consisting of 6,184 square feet of floor area and a basement. The applicant is requesting Wadd stone to the front facade shift t ie home's placement on the site approximately 6 -feet to the south, notate the orientafimi zf the_ garaee, and add windows on the ri t eleva ' The gross lot size is approximately 62,726 eet and the site is located in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve this Modification of Design Review Approval by adopting the attached resolution with conditions. Staff is recommending one permanent condition of approval for the conservation easement on the southern area of the lot. • • C, • Application No. MOD 07 -0001; 18935 Hayfield Court STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 20,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LDR (Low Density Residential) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: Approximately 62,726 gross square feet and approximately 60,086 net square feet. Due to the property's slope, lot size of approximately 49,271 square feet was used to calculate allowable floor area. SLOPE: Approximately 13.79% GRADING REQUIRED: The modifications require minimal changes to grading quantities. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed new single- family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures ", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single - family residences. MATERIALS AND COLORS: No changes are proposed to the approved colors and materials that consist of deep beige stucco, tile roofing, wooden shutters, and windows in a deep brown color. The applicant proposes to add stone veneer to the front fagade. 4 Application No. MOD 07 -0001; 18935 Hayfield Court PROJECT DATA R -1- 20,000 Approved Proposed Required Zoning Site Coverage Residence: 4,069 SF (6.8 %) 4,120 SF (6.9 %) Driveway and 2,570 SF (4.3 %) 2,570 SF (4.3 %) Motor Court: Maximum Allowable = Other 1,250 SF (2.08 %) 1,250 SF (2.08 %) 27,039 SF (45 %) Impervious Areas: TOTAL Site 7,889 SF 7,940 SF Coverage (13.1 %) (112 %) Floor Area First Floor 3,259 SF 3,257 SF Area: Second Floor 1,950 SF 1,899 SF Area: Double 165 SF 164 SF Maximum Allowable = Counted Area: 6,200 SF Garage Area: 810 SF 863 SF Basement Area [1,859 SF] [2,351 SF] ,(not FA): TOTAL Floor 6,184 SF 6,183 SF Area Setbacks First Second First Second First Floor Second Floor Floor Floor Floor Floor Front: 67 Feet 67 Feet 54 Feet 54 Feet 30 Feet 30 Feet Rear: 60 Feet 64 Feet 66 Feet 66 Feet 35 Feet 45 Feet Left Side: 30 Feet 55 Feet 33 Feet 59 Feet 15 Feet 20 Feet Right Side: 70 Feet 85 Feet 56 Feet 70 Feet 15 Feet 20 Feet Height Lowest 473.66 466 Elevation Point: Highest ' 479.31 484 Elevation Maximum Height = Point: 502.48 (26 Feet) Average 476.48 475 Elevation Point: Proposed 500.79 (24 Feet 4 500 (25 Feet) Topmost Point: 1 ches) • • • Application No. MOD 07 -0001; 18935 Hayfield Court PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a modification to the Design Approval granted by the Planning Commission on March 14, 2007. City Code Section 16- 05.035(c)(2) requires modifications to plans approved by the Planning Commission return to the Commission for review. The applicant proposes to add stone to the front facade, shift the home's placement on the site approximately 6 -feet to the south, rotate the orientation of the garage, and add windows on the right elevation. Neighbor Review Staff has not received any comments as of the date of the writing of this staff report. When the original project was noticed to neighbors, one neighbor commented about the conservation easement along the southern border of the parcel. The neighbor wanted to ensure that the conservation easement would be maintained in a manner consistent with the requirements of subdivision. Therefore, staff has added a permanent condition of approval relating to adherence to the conservation easement requirements on the tract map. Trees An arborist report with an inventory for sixteen trees was prepared for this project. Two Mof the sixteen trees were approved for removal with the original application. No additional trees need to be removed or will be impacted due to the proposed modifications. The property owner will be required to install tree fencing and post a tree bond equal in value to the protected trees ($72,470) prior to issuance of City permits. Geotechnical Clearance Geotechnical Clearance was granted for this project as required for the proposed basement. The proposed modifications do not require additional geotechnical review. General Plan Findings The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: • Application No. MOD 07- 0001 ;.18935 Hayfield Court Conservation Element Policy 6.0 - Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The proposed modifications will not create a significant visual impact to the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. The home will be earth tone in color and will be well accentuated with architectural features such as the proposed stone veneer on the front facade. 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 Approval. The home is well designed with detailed architectural features. 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 with proposed modifications meets this finding in that the house substantially exceeds the required setbacks. Additional windows are proposed on the south facade of the home; however this side is bordered by a tributary. The home is well screened with dense vegetation along the Eastern property line. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The proposed modifications do not involve changes to the previously approved grading plan. Of the sixteen ordinance size trees on the parcel, two are approved for removal. The modifications do not require the removal of additional trees. Other ordinance size trees will be protected throughout the construction process with fencing. Additionally, native species of trees (Coast Redwoods and Coast Live Oaks) are proposed to mitigate the removal of a dawn redwood. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage. Trees. The project meets this finding in that all Arborist report recommendations have been made conditions of approval of the project to ensure a -high degree of survival for all trees retained on site. These trees will be protected during the construction process with tree fencing and the Applicant will be required to post a tree bond prior to issuance of City permits. There are no heritage trees that will be impacted. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is below the maximum height requirement for the zoning designation which the parcel is located. The design is consistent across each facade and incorporates various architectural detailing such as shutters, rafters, and wrought iron railing. Additionally, the home has been designed to follow the topography of the site in order to minimize excessive bulk. ` The proposed changes do not affect the project's ability to minimize perception of excessive bulk. Application No. MOD 07 -0001; 18935 Hayfield Court (e) Compatible bulk and height. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the structure is well - designed and is overall compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal sits away from an adjacent one -story home and there is a large two -story adjacent the to subject parcel. The home is comparable to other homes in the neighborhood that are newly constructed in regards to overall style and appearance. The proposed changes do not affect the project's ability to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. The applicant is required to maintain stormwater on site where feasible and therefore this finding may 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. Conclusion Staff finds that the Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Modification of Design Review application MOD 07 -0001 with conditions by adopting the attached resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Affidavit of mailing notices, public hearing notice, copy of mailing labels for project notification, and proof of newspaper noticing. 3. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." • Attachment 1 • 0 I APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. MOD 07 -0001 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Michael and Kristi Picetti; 18935 Hayfield Court Approval of modifications to an approved two -story home with basement. This resolution supersedes Resolution 07 -040 for application 06 -213. WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Modification of Design Review Approval to construct a new two -story 6,184 square foot home and 1,859 square foot basement. The new home will be less than 26 feet in height and will be situated on a 60,086 (net) square foot lot. The lot is situated in the R -1- 20,000 zoning 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 to construct a new single - family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures ", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This Class 3 exemption applies to construction of a single family home in an urbanized 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 City Code Section 15- 45.080 and the City's Residential Design Handbook have been determined: NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project with proposed modifications meets this finding in that the house substantially exceeds the required setbacks. Additional windows are proposed on the south fagade of the home; however this side is bordered by a tributary. The home is well screened with dense vegetation along the Eastern property line. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The proposed modifications do not involve changes to the previously approved grading plan. Of the sixteen ordinance size trees on the parcel, two are approved for removal. The modifications do not 40 require the removal of additional trees. Other ordinance size trees will be protected throughout the construction process with fencing. Additionally, native Application No. MOD 07 -0001; 18935 Hayfield Court species of trees (Coast Redwoods and Coast Live Oaks) are proposed to mitigate the removal of a dawn redwood. 40 (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The project meets this finding in that all Arborist report recommendations have been made conditions of approval of the project to ensure a high degree of survival for all trees retained on site. These trees will be protected during the construction process with," tree fencing and the applicant will be required to post a tree bond prior to issuance of City permits. There are no heritage trees that will be impacted. r (d).Minimize perception of excessive bulk. fi This nding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is below the maximum height requirement for the zoning designation which the parcel is located. The design is consistent across each fagade 'and incorporates various architectural detailing such as shutters, rafters, and wrought iron railing. Additionally, the home has been designed to follow the topography of the site in order to minimize excessive bulk. The proposed changes do not affect the project's ability to minimize perception of excessive bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the structure is well - designed and is overall compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal sits away from an adjacent one -story home and there is a large two -story adjacent the to subject parcel. The home is comparable to other homes in the neighborhood that are newly constructed in regards to overall style and appearance. The proposed changes do not affect the project's ability to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. The applicant is required to maintain stormwater on site where feasible and therefore this finding may 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. Section 1. After careful consideration of -the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number MOD07- 0001 for Modification of Design Review Approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PERMANENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Owner/ applicant shall abide by conditions set forth in approved tract map for subdivision, including but not limited to requirements for conservation easement. Application No. MOD 07 -0001; 18935 Hayfield Court COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The proposed home shall be constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this signed Resolution and Arborist Report dated January 13, 2006 shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for permit plan check review. 3. Final landscape, irrigation and utility plans shall be incorporated into the construction plan set and shall take into account the following requirements: • 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. • . Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. • Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. • 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. . • Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. • A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. 4. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection. 5. Any changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. No downgrading in the exterior 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. Application: No. MOD 07 -0001; 18935 Hayfield Court 6. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 7. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained.on -site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction — Best Management Practices, shall be submitted along with the complete construction drawings. 8. Water and/or runoff from the project site shall not be directed toward the adjacent properties. 9. The grading and, drainage plans shall be modified to reflect arborist and initial neighbor comment. 10. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the community development department, shall be reconciled with a minimum $500 surplus balance at all times. In the event that the balance is less than $500, all staff work on the 0 project shall cease until the kalance iiss{�r\estored to a minimum of $500. CITY ARBORIST 11. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Report dated January 13, 2006 shall be followed. 12. Tree _protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist, shall be installed and inspected by Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. 13 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 100 % of the total appraised value of trees to be retained to guarantee- the maintenance and preservation of trees. 14. The City Arborist. shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall. be released after the planting of required replacement trees, -a favorable. site inspection by the City Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. GEOTECHNICAL 'CLEARANCE 15. The Project Geotechnical Engineer 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. building foundations, and driveways) to ensure, that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the Application No. MOD 07 -0001; 18935 Hayfield Court consultants' recommendations. Specifically, the Consultant shall consider the following: ■ For compliance with the Uniform Building Code, consideration shall be given to minimum 15 -inch wide foundation footings. • Consideration shall be given to utilization of minimum two #5 bars (top and bottom) in foundation footings. • Groundwater fluctuations could occur at the site with potential impacts to the proposed basement. The Consultant shall consider the use of an axial sub -drain beneath the proposed basement floor to mitigate shallow groundwater. • The Consultant shall also evaluate the location and design of the proposed energy dissipaters with respect to slope stability and erosion impacts. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of permits. 16. 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, and excavations for fill keyways, 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 geotechnical consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final Project Approval. 17. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 18. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities. caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. FIRE DEPARTMENT 19. The applicant shall comply with all Fire Department (Saratoga Fire District) conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 20. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Application No. MOD 07-0001; 18935 Hayfield Court Section 2. Construction -must commence within thirty-six (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, the 09th day of January 2008 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: i Joyce Hlava Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John F. Livingstone, AICP Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is herebyaccepted 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 • r� u 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 IS years; that acting for the City, of Saratoga. Planning Commission on the 15`h day of December , 2007, that I deposited 46 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: 397 -24 -105 Address: 18935 Hayfield Court that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. rt r r � ' Ne'nise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services 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 9th day of January, 2008, 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,xw.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION /ADDRESS: MOD 07 -0001 / 18935 Hayfield Court APPLICANT /OWNER: Cahoon / Pichetti APN: 397 -24 -105 .DESCRIPTION: 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. 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 Thursday January 03, 2008. 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.sarato ag 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. Shweta Bhatt Assistant Planner sbhatt(_&saratopa.ca.us (408) 868 -1266 December 12, 2007 500' Ownership Listing Prepared for: 397 -24 -105 . MICHAEL & KRISTI PICETTI 18935 HAYFIELD COURT SARATOGA CA 95070 397 -17 -060 CHERYL GUMMOW OR CURRENT OWNER 19901 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5522 397 -17 -063 WILLIAM P & LINDA SULLIVAN OR CURRENT OWNER 19964 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5522 397 -20 -032 WILLIAM A & SARA STUART OR CURRENT OWNER 14538 HORSESHOE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -59.19 397 -24 -037 HAI WANG OR CURRENT OWNER 14257 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5535 397 -24 -081 RAKESH & DIPTI MATHUR OR CURRENT OWNER 20020 SPAICH CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5.992 397 -24 -084 WILLEM P ELFRINK OR CURRENT OWNER 18921 HAYFIELD CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5990 397 -17 -061 JIM HUR OR CURRENT OWNER 19933 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5522 397 -17 -064 JAMES F & ELIZABETH MARTIN OR CURRENT OWNER 19932 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5522 397 -20 -034 FRANK R & LUCIA GRENGO OR CURRENT OWNER 14551 HORSESHOE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5967 397 -24 -055 WARREN W & MARY ZODROW OR CURRENT OWNER 14254 BARKSDALE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5901 397 -24 -082 LISA A FRY OR CURRENT OWNER 20034 SPAICH CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5992 397 -24 -086 HAYFIELD HOUSE LLC 14510 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6090 397 -24 -090. 397 -24 -091 LEONARD J & NANCY ROSENTHAL JANICE BATTISTELLA OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER . 18913 HAYFIELD CT 20051 SPAICH CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5990 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5992 397 -24 -097 397 -24 -098 KURT M &.EMILY GARBE WILLIAM A & BARBARA GRANT OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14278 BARKSDALE CT 14266 BARKSDALE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5901 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5901 397 -17 -062 JOSEPH H & SHARON SCHAUF OR CURRENT OWNER 19965 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5522 397 -17 -065 ALBERT & LESLYE FAZIO OR CURRENT OWNER 19900 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5522 397 -24 -036 HYUNG HAN OR CURRENT OWNER 14231 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5535 397 -24 -075 CARLOS J & MARIA DESOUSA 4209 CHABOYA RD SAN JOSE CA 95148 -3708 397 -24 -083 SHAMIK & PARUL MEHTA OR CURRENT OWNER 20040 SPAICH CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5992 397 -24 -089 DELOISE A JORDAN 20026 HERITAGE OAK SARATOGA CA 95070 -5565 397 -24 -096 ROBERT A & LYNNE ARCHER OR CURRENT OWNER 14251 JUNIPER LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5902 397 -24 -099 RAMAH SUTARDJA OR CURRENT OWNER 20063 SPAICH CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5992 • • 0 397 -24 -101 TODD M JACKSON OR CURRENT OWNER HAYFIELD CT TOGA CA 95070 -5990 397 -24 -105 MICHAEL & KRISTI PICETTI 11557 UPLAND CT CUPERTINO CA 95014 -5157 397 -37 -019 ALCARIO CASTELLANO OR CURRENT OWNER 14547 CARNELIAN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5966 397 -42 -003 PETER & ROSA SUN OR CURRENT OWNER 19951 DURHAM CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5539 397 -42 -006 ROBERT S & ANNETTE WOOLSEY OR CURRENT OWNER 19952 DURHAM CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5539 0-42-009 MING C & LEE TANG OR CURRENT OWNER 14322 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5538 397 -42 -012 SPENCER & SUSAN OZAWA OR CURRENT OWNER 19897 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5521 Advanced Listing Services P.O. Box 2593 Dana Point CA 92624 • 397 -24 -103 JUNG -HERNG CHANG OR CURRENT OWNER 20075 SPAICH CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5992 397 -37 -016 GEORGE WELLS OR CURRENT OWNER 14580 CARNELIAN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5966 397 -37 -020 RONALD L & JANICE NAYMARK OR CURRENT OWNER 14550 CARNELIAN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5966 397 -42 -004 JOHN D & CELIA TETER OR CURRENT OWNER 19931 DURHAM CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5539 397 -42 -007 SHANTA LOOMER OR CURRENT OWNER 19974 DURHAM CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5539 397 -42 -010 DAVID L & BARBARA ROBERTSON OR CURRENT OWNER 14350 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5538 397 -42 -021 SCVWD 5750 ALMADEN EX SAN JOSE CA 95118 397 -24 -104 DAVID C & ROXANNE PETERSCHMIDT 14510 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6090 397 -37 -018 BOWMAN TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER 14545 CARNELIAN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5966 397 -42 -002 EDWARD & ELAINE MCGINNIS OR CURRENT OWNER 14250 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5561 397 -42 -005 .JADE Y & SITYUR CHIEN 78 MEADOWLAND DR MILPITAS CA 95035 -4415 397 -42 -008 BAHAR NEHAWANDIAN OR CURRENT OWNER 14300 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5538 397 -42 -011 JAMES M KELLEY OR CURRENT OWNER 14390 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5538 CITY OF SARATOGA ATTN: Shweta Bhatt 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CA 95070 LegalAdver #isingblicNotices � Gooeral No�ces NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF ROSEMARY C. RUDDY CASE NO. 1-07-PR-162393 To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent credi= tors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ROSEMARY C. RUDDY A PETITION has been filed by PAUL). RUDDY in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. THE PETITION requests that PAUL I. RUDDY be appointed as personal representatm to administer the estate of the decedent. THE PETITION requests the decedent's WILL and codicils. If any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court. THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed' action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interest- ed person files an objection to the, petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority. A HEARING on the .petition will be held on JANUARY 16, 2008, 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 15 located at 191 North First St., San Jose, CA 95113. IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or rile written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney. IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the deceased, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal repre- sentative appointed by the court within four months from the date of first issuance of letters as provided in section 9100 of the California Probate Code. The time for filing . claims will not expire before four months from the hearing date noticed above. YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a formal Request for Special Notice of the Filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any peti- tion or account as provided in section 1250 of the California Probate Code. A Request for Special Notice form is avail- able from the court clerk. Attorney for petitioner: PETER BA)OREK HALES & GEORGE 19040 COX AVENUE, SUITE 3 SARATOGA, CA 95070 408 - 255 -6292 (Pub SN 12/26, 112, 119) NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF LOLS O. SHERRY CASE NO. 1- D7-PR- 162271 . To - all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent credi- tors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of LOIS O.SHERRY A PETITION has been Fled by JAMES B. PITKIN in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. THE PETITION requests that JAMES 8. PITKIN be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent. THE PETITION requests the .decedent's WILL and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the fide kept by the court. THE. PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act: (This authority will allow the personal repre- sentative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the person at representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interest- ed person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority. A HEARING on the petition will be held on JANUARY 7, 2008, 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 15 located at 191 North First 51.. San lose, CA 95113. IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should Important Informations No refunds after submission. Canceled ads will receive credit for future advertising, or a ,fsnd. Ads must 6e canceled before dead- line for chat issue. Ad—werri arc ..q,ed upon the rcpresednsion that the advertiser and/or its U.,y hart the sight co publish shemnsents thereof. In consideration of such publication, advertises and its •genq agree to indcmmify and hold the publisher harmless against any -pens, or loss by season of any claims arising out of pub8n- on. The psd,lislier reserves the right so edit, alter, omit, or rcFuse m• ad -6tifig submitted. - For policies concerning sped[ - a,%.riss, please refer m the Para- graph as she beginning of the ategaq us all us ac 408.200.1025 or email us . elassifiedsC eommunisy- nnwpapen.mm. appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before .the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney. IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the deceased, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal repre- sentative appointed by the court within four months from the date of first issuance of letters as provided in section .9100 of the California Probate Code. The time for filing claims will not expire before four months from the hearing date noticed above. YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a formal Request for Special Notice of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any peti- tion or account as provided in section 1250 of the California Probate Code. A Request for Special Notice form is avail - able from the court clerk Attorney for petitioner: JAMES B. PITKIN P.O. BOX 2453 SARATOGA, CA 95070 408- 345 -2387 (Pub SN 12/12, 12119, 12/26) NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF ALFRED JOSEPH MERNONE, aka ALFRED J. MERNONE, deceased CASE NO. 1-07-PR-161970 To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent credi- tors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ALFRED JOSEPH MERNONE, aka ALFRED 1• MERNONE, deceased A PETITION has been filed.by DOROTHY MERNONE in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. THE PETITION requests that DOROTHY MERNONE - be appointed as personal repre- sentative to administer the estate of the decedent. THE PETITION requests the decedent's WILL and codicils, if any. be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court. THE PETITION . requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very S ilicon Valley Community Newspapers accepts no lia- bility for its failure, for any cause, to insert an advertise. ment liability for any error appearing in an advertisement is limited to the cost of the space actually occupied. No allowance. however, will be granted for an error that does not materially affect the value of the advertisement. To quali• fy for an adjustment, any error must be reported within 15 days of publication date. Credit for errors is limited to firs) insertion. important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interest- ed person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority. . A HEARING on the petition will be held on JANUARY 17, 2008. 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 15 located at 191 North First St., San lose, CA 95113. IF YOU OBJECT to the granting ,of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney. IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the deceased, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal repre- sentative appointed by the court within four months from the date of first issuance of letters as provided in section 9100 of the California Probate Code.. The time for filing claims will not expire before - four months from the hearing date noticed above. YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a formal Request for Special Notice of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any peti- tion or account as provided in section 1250 of the California Probate Code. A Request for Special Notice form is avail- ' able from the court clerk. Attorney for petitioner: JENNIFER H. FRIEDMAN. SBN 195475 JOHN L. FLEGEL, SBN 57010 '1100 ALMA STREET, - SUITE 210 MENLO PARK, CA 94025 650- 324.9300 (Pub SN 12/12, 12/19, 12/26) - LEGAL NOTICE Notice of Provisional Appointment Process West Valley-MLssion Community College District Trustee Area l Due to the passing of Trustee Don Cordero, the Board of Trustees announces that it will fill his seal until the next general election in November 2008 through a provisional appointment process in accor- dance with Education Code Sections 5090 and 5092. Interested candidates must meet the following minimum qualifications in order to be considered forthis provisional appointment: • Must be 18 years of age Must be a registered.vater • Must reside within the West Valley-Mission Community College District, Trustee Area 1 (Saratoga /Los Gatos /Monte Sereno /por- tions of San Jose and Santa Cruz). Please call the Registrar of Voters Office to confirm (408.299- 8683). Interested applicants should submit a resume and a letter of interest that includes why Illy are seeking appointment APPLICATION #MOD07 -0002 feet to the existing upper floor 829.63 Feet to t. I. the WVMCCD Board of (397 -08 -091) Shadman,15219 and /convert 1,707 square feet Intersection of Said Easterl Trustees; what skills, abilities, Sobey Road - The applicant to the existing basement cre- Line of the Land Conveyed to and experiences they would requests a Modification of ating a lower Four. The total Markulin with the Southerly bring to the Board to assist in Design Review Approval to floor area of the new house Line of That Certain 4 Foot - carrying out its responsibili- modify an application will be 5,677 square feet. The Strip of Land Conveyed to ties; and a description of their approved by the Planning maximum height of the pro- the County of Santa Clara by base of community support Commission at the October posed building will not exceed Instrument Recorded May and /or their unique under- 13, 2004 hearing. The original the 26 -foot height limit. The 28 1924 in Book 89 Of standing of the community, which would widen the com- approval was for a new single- story dwelling consisting of maximum impervious cover- age will not exceed the allow• Official Records At Page g munity outreach of the Board. 5,677 square feet of floor area able 25% of the net site area. 17B; Thence South 89 Deg Submit letter and resumb to and a partial basement. The lot size is approximately 31' 00" West along Said the Office of the Chancellor, Proposed changes include, 53,562 square feet, and the Southerly Line 33.29 Feet to West Valley- Mission CCD, but are not limited to: elimi- site is located in the HR zon- the Intersection Thereof with 14000 Fruitvale Avenue, nating shutters, eliminating ing district. Design Review the Northerly Prolongation Saratoga, California 95070. divided lites on some win- approval is required pursuant of the Easterly Line of Lot 1 Applications must be received dows, relocating chimneys, to Saratoga Municipal Code of Tract 5288 above Referred in the Office of the Chancellor relocated fireplaces, and mod- Section 15- 45.060, lo; Thence South 0 Deg 09' by 5:00 p.m. on January 16, ifying a trellis on the rear (Pub SN 12126) 56" East along the Last Said 2008. No facsimiles will be facade. The gross lot size is Northerly Prolongation and accepted. Finalists will be interviewed approximately 46.082 square _ '�; of January 21, 2008. The the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Jj Trustee Sales f Said Tract co Board will make ag provisional APPLICATIONS #MOD 07 -0001 587.08 toot52 he appointment on or before (397.27 -010) Pichetti/ Southeasterly Corner of Said February 7, 2008. Cahoon, 18935 Hayfield NOTICE OF TRUSTEE'S SALE Lot 3; Thence North 89 Deg The appointed Trustee shall Court: - The applicant NO. 07-261 50' 04" East along the hold office through November requests modifications to an YOU ARE IN DEFAULT Northerly Line of Said Lot 4, 2008, when the next general approved Design Review UNDER A DEED OF TRUST 25 Feet to the Intersection election takes place. approval. Modifications DATED 12/26/03. UNLESS Thereof with a Line That Is For further information, include, but are not limited to, YOU TAKE ACTION TO PRO- Parallel with and 10 Feet please call the West Valley Mission Community the addition of stone to the front facade, the alteration of TECT YOUR PROPERTY, IT Westerly (Measured at Right College District Chancellor's, proposed home's placement MAY BE SOLD AT A PUBLIC SALE. If YOU NEED AN Angles) from the Easterly Line of Said Lot 4; Thence Office at 408.741 -2011. (Pub SN 12/26,1/2) on the site, the rotation of the garage, and additional win- EXPLANATION OF THE South 0 Deg 19' 57' East dows on the right elevation. NATURE OF THE PROCEED- along Said Parallel Line The property is zoned R•1- ING AGAINST YOU, YOU 249.10 Feet to . the l City Legals /CATION SHOULD f with TLine oof APP #PDR Khou001 (510.01.016) 1 / On E16 2008 atA100 AM , Southeasterly Said Lot 4;.Thence North 55 Deg Ramirez, 15211 Hume Drive - of said day, at the entrance to THE FORECLOSURECOM- 47' 39" East along Said NOTICE OF HEARING BEFORE PLANNING The applicant requests Design Review and Conditional Use f ANY 3001 Winchester Blvd., Southeasterly Line 12.04 Feet to the POINT OF BEGIN - COMMISSION CITY OF SARATOGA'S Permit approval to demolish the existing home and con. Ste. A ". Campbell, Cal. 95008 THE FORECLOSURE NING. The street address PLANNING COMMISSION struct a new two -story home. COMPANY INC. as Trustee, or Substitute Trustee will sell at and other common designa- Lion, if any, of the real prop - announces the following pub- lic hearings on Wednesday, The proposed structure will be two -story with a full basement a public auction to the high- erty described above is pur- the 9th day of)anuary 2008 at and require a height exception est bidder for cash (payable ported to be: VACANT LAND 7:00 p.m. in the City Council to allow for adherence to the at the time of sale in lawful APN No.: 517-22.110. Th Chambers located at 13777 Queen Anne architectural money of the United States) undersigned Trustee d' Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, style. A detached pool house the .following described claims any liability for a CA 95070. Details and plans is also proposed at a height of properly situated in the incorrectness of the stre- are available at the Saratoga approximately 18 -feet 9•inch- County of SANTA CLARA, address and other common Community Development es. The gross lot size is State of California, and designation, if any, shown Department, Monday through 55,503 square feet, and the described more fully as: See here. Said sale will be made Thursday, 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 site is zoned R -1- 20,000. "EXHIBIT A" attached hereto without covenant or warran- p.m. If you have questions, APPLICATION #07.029 (397- and made a part hereof. Will "AS ". "A" ty, expressed or implied, Planners are available at the 25.009) Maesumi, 13921 be sold IS EXHIBIT regarding title, possession re re public counter between the River Ranch Circle:• Theappli• LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real encumbrances, to satisfy hours of 7:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon. cant requests Design Review approval to demolish the Property in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa the obligations 5 secured b g y All interested persons may existing home and shed and Clara, State of California, and pursuant to the Power of appear and be heard at Ile construct a new two -story Described as Follows: Being Sale conferred in a certain ahove time and place. If you home. The total floor area of a Portion of Section 12 in Deed of Trust executed by challenge a decision of the the proposed residence and - Township 8 South, Range 2 Noorudin A. Billawala, as Planning Commission pur. garage will be approximately West, Mount Diablo Successor Trustees of the suant to a public hearing in 4,355 square feet. The net lot Meridian, as Shown on That Billawala Revocable Trust court, you may be limited to size is approximately 18,839 Certain Parcel Map, Which UTA Dated June 7, 1999 as raising only those issues you square feet and the site is Map Was Filed for Record in Trustors, Recorded 12/31/03 or someone else raised at the zoned R•1. 10,000. Book 501 of Maps at Page 52 as Instrument No. 17553729 public hearing(s) described in this notice, or in written corre- APPLICATION If PDR07 -0017 (503- 68 -007) Miller; 14098 in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, in the office of the County spondence delivered to the Palomino Way -The applicant State of California, and as Recorder of SANTA CLARA County.At the time of the Saratoga Planning request Design Review Shown on That Certain Map . initial ublication of this Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be approval to remove an exist- ing 1,320 square foot second Entitled "Tract No. 5288 ", Which Map Was Filed for p Notice, the total amount of . included in the Planning story of an existing two -story Record in Book 348 of Maps - unpaid balance of the oblig- Commission's information single - family residence and at Page 14 in the Office of ation secured by the above packets, written communica- replace it with a new 1,690 the Recorder of the County described Deed of Trust and tions should be filed on or square foot second story addi- of Santa Clara, State of estimated costs, expenses, before the Tuesday, a week lion in approximately the California, and Being More fees, and advances is before the meeting. A site visit will be held on the same location.. The project also includes demolition of an particularly Described as $81,207.28: To determine day preceding the hearing garage and carport, Follows: BEGINNING at the . Southeasterly Corner of Lot the opening bid, you may call the day before the sale date listed above it part it the standard Site Visit construction square foot detached garage square etc new 4ge 4 as Said Lot Is Shown on at: (408) 374 -7204. The Committee agenda. Site visits and a 370 square foot addi- Tract No. 5288, Which Ma P Was Fled for Record in Book Foreclosure Company, Inc., So. occur between 3:30 and 5:00 p. m. The site visit is open to lion to the existing lower Foot The residence will not exceed 348 of Maps at Page 14 in as trustee 3001 Winchester Blvd., Suite A. the public. The Site Visit 26 feet in height. The net lot the Office of the Recorder of Campbell, California 95008, - committeewillconveneatthe size is 54,075 square feel. the County of Santa Clara, State of California; Thence Dated: Dec. 17 2007, By: City Hall parking lot at 3:30 p.m. on the day preceding the The site is zoned R -1. 40,000. Design Review approval by along the Easterly Line of Sharol Lang, President. This office is attempting to collect hearing and visit the site list- the Planning Commission is Said Lot 4 and its Northerly Prolongation, Said Line Also , a debt and any information ed above and may visit other sites as well. For more infor- required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- Being the Easterly Line of obtained will be used For mation please contact the 45.060. That Certain Parcel of Land that purpose; whether that information is obtained oral. Community Development Department at 408 868.1222 APPLICATION #07.366 (503• 69 -012) Keyashian; 21818 Via Conveyed to John Markulin by Deed Recorded August ly or in writing. or review the Site Visit Agenda Regina - The applicant 16, 1974 in Book 8044 of NPP0124454 on the City Website at requests Design Review Official Records at Page 425. (Pub SN 12/26, 1/2/08, www.saratoga.ca.us. approval to add 1,977 square North 0 DEG 19' 57" WEST 119/08) • Attachment 3 • • 0 ) New Family Home for: Mike. &Kris ........... !INDEX a � %\ t 2Gt1 GENERAL TITLE & COVER SHEET INDEX, PROJECT DATA, . &VICINITY MAP T • CIVIL DRAWINGS GRADING &DRMNAGECOVE, I PICEI GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN 2 ' SITE SURVEY and TOPo GRAPMC MAP S ARCIi17'EC - WINGS sffEPLAN C�� BASEMENT FI;LOOR LAN MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN UPPER LEVEL,fI,(jQ�PLAN L�J iO O ti jROOF PLAN �uw'7 � PROFILE SECTIONS co - • ' NS as EXTERIOR E I O EXTERIOR AREA, CALCULATIONS DIG LAND CA INGP18935 Hayfield Court Saratoga, California 95070 U O � .. p^ W Ia i = N 7i to Ll �o j vadt " - - IFIRE DEPT. NOTES _SLOPE CALC'S. it. Property is not located in a designated hamrdaus fire a-t- Slone Calculations: _ i Content Line Lacph _ I2. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed 1445 101' 223' ZONING DIST'RICP- R- 1 -2010M and maintained. The Alarm Conractar shall submit three (3) copies cf working drawings to the fire district 450_. 455... 139' for review and approval. The alarm system must be 460... 159' installed by a licensed contractor. The fire district must i 465... 188' 470... 218' ssue a permit p o to the installation of the EWAS 1 475... 245' AVG SLOPE 13.3% system (City of Saratoga Code 16-60). 13, 1480 - Automatic sprinklers stall be histalled for the new I 6,640 sq.tt dwelling, including any Garage, workshop, 485. 164' storage areas end Basements. An NFPA 13D sprinlcier Total ............... 1,663' . - system with FDC is required (— S &R SP -1 for 49,270.70 -40k= 9.27k/ k= 9.27:20 = ISSAI requirements). The Designer / Architect is to contact 00229(51)(1,663) = 19,04 = 13.79% the appropriate water company to determine the Sim of 1.38 1.38 the service meter needed re, meet suppression and STRUCTURE SIZE PROPOSED: 6,183 —ft domestic requirements. The suppression contractor, ' Use 14 %(A whole Number) - shall submit three (3) copies of working drawings and 't 10e / +(2 %x4)= 18 %Reduc1ion calculations to Saretoge Fire District for approval. The sprinkler system and underground water supply Property Siu: 60,086.22 x.18 = 10,815.52 _ must be installed by a licensed contractor (City of 60,086.22 Sutirvslnme '64 *q Saratoga Code 16- 20.150,16- 20.160 for fire tlow> 10,815.52 2+000 8Fr°)' 49,270.70 sq.ft. . i 14. Driveways: All new or improved driveways shall be a imminent oftourteen 1141 feet wide with oar four of jAllowable Floor Area: 6,000 +165 =6,185 N.A. shoulder on each side (City of Saratoga Code 166 49,270.70 - 15.200, as requred by Saratoga Fire District), An �. O4 -00000 mwbstmeted vertica clew . shall be nm less th>N 91270.70 / 1,000 = 9.2707 x 20 q.ft. = 185.41 q.ft. 13'6 "(CFC 9022.2.1). IMPERVIOUS SITE COVERAGE: 7, .990 eqR S. Premises Identification: Approved numbers or ' Driveway & Motor Coon 2,570 aq.ft. addresses shall be provided for all new and existing buildings in such a position w to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road Imnting the property Reside... Footprint 4,120 aq.R. (CFC 901.4.4). I, 1: I !PROTECT DATA PROJECT ADDRESS: 18935 Hayfield Cone OWNERSNAME: Mike &Krises P10ETT1 EXISTING USE: VACANT'(Resideatial ZONING DIST'RICP- R- 1 -2010M LOT SIZE (GROSS) 62,726,10 sq.R. (L44 acre) (NET) 60,086.22 aq.R. (138 atrt) AVG SLOPE 13.3% Lat slope deduction 60,08622 - 10,81552 (I8 %)= LOT SIZE (NE'I) for RA31.! 49,270.70 aq.tt (.965 acre) 49,270.70 -40k= 9.27k/ k= 9.27:20 = ISSAI ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: 6.0110, IR&4= 6,ISS sq -fl. STRUCTURE SIZE PROPOSED: 6,183 —ft Main Level Living area 3,257 sq./L G. ge area 863 eq.a Upper Level Living area 1,899 xq.ft Sutirvslnme '64 *q Basement am (es..pt from F.A.R.) 2351 q.ft -FLOOR AREA RATIO PROPOSED (oo NET): 103% .ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO 103% ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: 6,185.sq.ft> 6,183 q.TL IMPERVIOUS SITE COVERAGE: 7, .990 eqR ' Driveway & Motor Coon 2,570 aq.ft. G Walkways, Pmchm & sloops 1,250 q.IL Reside... Footprint 4,120 aq.R. ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 35.0•A PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 13:1% AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 13.8% 'SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 11.0% LOWEST ELEVATION.. . ..... .`_. —..... —466.( . HIGHEST ELEVATION—_.._ ........__..__........_..A84.00 o AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT. _475.00 ,. S TOP- MOST ELEVATION POINT _.._...__.500.00 r� __ F PROJECT DESCRIP`fI61Y A new Sinek Family Residence with Garage & Basement 5 Bedroom, W . 5 Bathrooms aad 2 Powder Rooma T 1 333 SETBACKS: REQUIRED PROPOSED I P'••I FRONT 30' 67' •+s.i SIDE RT. 15/20' 70'/85' SIDE LT. 15'20' 30'/55' qq ' REAR 35'145' 60/64' W q (VICINITY MAP eras A If eras • • GRADING PLAN NOTES PICETTI PLAN FOR RESIDENCE AT 18935 HAYFIELD COURT SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA ABBREWAT70NS 1. PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY EARTHWORK /GRADING ACTIVITIES, THE AB AGGREGATE BASE RIND REDWOOD S= SLOPE PERMITTEE SHALL ARRANGE A PRE - CONSTRUCTION MEETING. THE MEETING SHALL AC ASPHALT CONCRETE GND GROUND SSCO SEWER CLEANOUT INCLUDE THE CITY OF SARATOGA GRADING INSPECTOR (408 -868- 1201), THE AD AREA DRAIN GM GAS METER SO STORM DRAIN GRADING CONTRACTOR AND THE PROJECT SOILS ENGINEER, JERRY FREEMAN BLDG BUILDING GT GRATE SDCO STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT (408- 867 - 6321). THE PERMITTEE OR REPRESENTATIVE SHALL ARRANGE THE BS BOTTOM OF STEP HC HANDICAP RAMP SDE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT PRE - CONSTRUCTION MEETING AT LEAST 48HOURS PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY BIN B/W BASE OF WALL BACK OF WALK HP ICV HIGH POINT IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE SS SSE SANITARY SEWER SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT EARTHWORK /GRADING ACTIVITIES CB CATCH BASIN INV INVERT ELEVATION STA. STATION C CENTERLINE JP JOINT UTILITY POLE T TELEPHONE 2, APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN APPLIES ONLY TO THE EXCAVATION, PLACEMENT AND CL CENTERLINE JT JOINT TRENCH TEL TELEPHONE COMPACTION OF NATURAL EARTH. THIS APPROVAL DOES NOT CONFER ANY RIGHTS OF DO DECK DRAIN LF LINEAR FEET TB TOP OF BANK ENTRY TO EITHER PUBLIC PROPERTY OR THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OF OTHERS. DI DROP INLET LT. LEFT TC TOP OF CURB APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE APPROVAL OF ANY IMPROVEMENTS. DIN DRIVEWAY MIN A41NIMIJM IS TOE OF STEP ANY PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO RENEW AND APPROVAL BY THE E ELECTRICAL MH MANHOLE TW TOP OF WALL RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITIES AND ALL OTHER PERMITS APPROVALS SHALL BE OBTAINED. / ELEC.- EP ELECTRICAL EDGE OF PAVEMENT OG OH OUTSIDE GRADE OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE VG VALLEY GUTTER EUC EUCALYPTUS TREE PSE PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT W WM WATER WATER METTER 3. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERMIT7EE TO IDENTIFY, LOCATE AND EX. EXISTING PVC POLYVINYL CHLORIDE WV WATER VALVE PROTECT ALL UNDERGROUND FACILITIES. FG FINISH GRADE P PAVEMENT FF FINISH FLOOR RCP REINFORCED CONC. PIPE 4. THE PERMITTEE SHALL MAINTAIN ALL STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND OTHER PUBLIC FH FIRE HYDRANT P.L. PROPERTY LINE RIGHT -OF WAYS IN A CLEAN, SAFE AND USABLE CONDITION. ALL SPILLS OF SOIL, FL FLOWLINE PP POWER POLE ROCK OR CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM PUBLIC PROPERTY. ALL FS FINISH SURFACE RT. RIGHT ADJACENT PROPERTY, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A G GB GRADE BREAK R/W RIGHT OF WAY CLEAN, SAFE AND USABLE CONDITION. 5. ALL GRADING AND EARTHWORK ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO COMPLY WITH STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR AIRBORNE PARTICULATES. 6. ALL KNOWN WATER WELL LOCATIONS ON SITE SHALL BE MAINTAINED OR ABANDONED ACCORDING TO CURRENT REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT. CALL 408- 265 -2600 X2660 TO ARRANGE FOR o SAME DIAMETER DISTRICT OBSERVATION OF WELL ABANDONMENT. Jo SOR 35, ml CONTOUR 7. THIS PLAN DOES NOT APPROVE THE REMOVAL OF ANY TREES. APPROPRIATE - 1 8 TREE REMOVAL PERMITS SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. ANY REQUIRED TREE PROTECTION MEASURES SHALL BE MAINTAINED PERF I THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. B 8. THE PROJECT CIVIL ENGINEER, GIULIANI AND KULL, INC. HAS DESIGNED THIS PROJECT TO COMPLY WITH THE RECOMMENDAT70NS OF THE GE07ECHNICAL REPORT 60' MINIMUM PREPARED BY JERRY FREEMAN AT JF CONSULTING. 9. ALL GRADING AND EARTHWORK ACTIVITIES SHALL CONFORM TO THE APPROVED PLAN PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. ALL GRADING AND EARTHWORK AC77071ES SHALL BE OBSERVED AND APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY GRADING OR EARTHWORK ACTIVITIES. 1 6 UNOBSERVED OR UNAPPROVED WORK SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED UNDER OBSERVATION OF THE PROJECT SOILS ENGINEER. CONTACT JERRY FREEMAN AT 408 - 867 -6321. N 10. ALL CONSTRUCTION SITES ARE TO BE WINTERIZED WITH APPROPRIATE EROSION P LQ CONTROL MEASURES IN PLACE FROM OCTOBER 15TH TO APRIL 15TH OF EACH YEAR. 2 11. GRADING ACTIVITIES ARE ONLY ALLOWED MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, 7:30 AM (D o. 3 TO 6: 00 PM. l P 12. 'ALL KNOWN EXIS77NG UTILITY LINES ARE SHOWN FOR INFORMATION ONLY. ° 4 ° p4io ° CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE ALL NECESSARY CAUTION TO AVOID DAMAGE TO ANY ° P 5 4 ° °W moo, EXISTING UTILITY LINES OR FACILITIES TO REMAIN IN PLACE, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH �A�OO ��o Plo FACILITIES APPEAR ON THESE PLANS, AND SHALL BEAR FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGE THERETO. 13 CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT 807H UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (800- 227 -2600) AND THE AFFECTED UTILITY COMPANY PRIOR TO STARTING WORK TO REQUEST AND 08TAIN THE MARKING OF EXIS77NG UNDERGROUND FACILITIES 14. ENGINEER SHALL BEAR NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR METHODS AND PROCEDURES OF WORK ESTABLISHED BY CONTRACTOR, JOBSITE CONDITIONS, JOBSITE SAFETY OR CONFORMANCE WITH SAFETY PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS. 15. A . REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL BE ON SITE DURING GRADING OPERA77ONS AND SHALL PERFORM SUCH TES77NG AS DEEMED NECESSARY. THE REPRESENTATIVE SHALL OBSERVE THE GRADING OPERATION FOR CONDITIONS THAT SHOULD BE CORRECTED, AND IDENTIFY THOSE CONDJ770NS WITH RECOMMENDS CORRECTIVE MEASUR DETAIL A DETAIL B DRAINAGE OUTFALL DETAIL N.T.S. 1. 2 LAYER 3" TO 6" COBBLES WELL LAID -LEVEL 2. MIRAFT 140 NC. 3. PERF. PVC SDR -35, OR BETTER, SAME DIAMETER AS SUPPLY UNE. 4. 1 112" DRAIN ROCK, HARD, CLEAN, DURABLE. 5. 24" WIDE BY 36" DEEP TRENCH. 6. GRATED, REMOVABLE CAP 7. 4874" REDWOOD MARKER POST - PAINTED WHITE. 8. CHRISTY BOX WITH REMOVABLE SOLID LID. RQ,pFESSTOA, N0. C49168 * E%P. 9 -00 -08 9TB OF CA�YNp4 ¢ 85 2 OGP ALLENDALE AV J P� sBAUOw Q yP� AI(S wr POLLARD J RD SITE �OS C9T OS Q� C)� P� 4 VICINITY MAP QUANTITIES N.T.S. 1,150 CY. BASEMENT CUT LEGEND PROPOSED EXISTING EXPORT 1,230 CY. ENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROPERTY LINE ACTUAL EARTHWORK QUANTITIES MAY VARY _`..;,_..�;7..,..,.., SPECIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE INDEPENDENT ESTIMATE PRIOR TO BIDDING. BUILDING FOOTPRINT g AC PAVEMENT FIRE HYDRANT C= WATER VALVE WATER METER JOINT POLE L; -�, SANITARY MANHOLE STORM DRAIN MANHOLE O SANITARY CLEANOUT ,.� -..; TREE EX TREE TO BE REMOVED ,. -- ;.. CONTOUR LINE .. ®' r" CATCH BASIN APO C5� AREA DRAIN — — — — -'- -- -- -- EASEMENT LINE BUILDING SETBACK LINE Mti OR— DRAINAGE FLOW .__,..�_-..._._... RETAINING WALL ,. .. �.- FENCE LINE -- --- `::': % -- -- STORM DRAIN LINE - -- - -5 - --- SANITARY SEWER UNE _.., ._._;.f... _...__ WATER LINE -- -„ - - -- GAS LINE EARTHWOR QUANTITIES CUT 1,150 CY. BASEMENT CUT 1,030 CY. FILL 950 CY. EXPORT 1,230 CY. ENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ESTIMATED EARTHWORK. ACTUAL EARTHWORK QUANTITIES MAY VARY DUE TO SITE CONDITIONS AND MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE INDEPENDENT ESTIMATE PRIOR TO BIDDING. s ° fir- ,9rc °d �IJ 60 60 N S VO D Y �I nM Nap � p� a x O d ' a0U y Yo � dc, L � F.. Z �.% O Q LL J a W v 0 Q 0 � Q M W V_ V_ Q 4Z Z J Q a ,,nn Z V Q Q Z V Q SHEET 1 OF 3 DATE 3 -17 -05 .YOB N0. 04198 • I II jl III I it II I Ij �I I I� I I t II j I I I Ij I I+ D i r sz \\ 9• .,6' f t a d ��y a a Sy Li• uF``, wAa t / e % p z i • al �--� s VA TE STREET — y. w -. �"' w X�— _ ww.,pti,.,�� -.n� t ss ss ` ss s �a ? -sue- t mac= `�- �1_r -Y : k� /� j ":...Ee_- DOU,GLASS VIM L— \ ✓� 3� / I I I l I — — — — — — — — — — r / I , a N P P/ �y��,kRE0lsreRBA , r ��4'xBSflNl9a'N n DATE RECISIONS SCALE o ° 18935 HAYFIELD COURT Giuliani & Kull, Inc. - DRAWN BY 41 `+ GRADING AND _ E.T. walut � N 4880 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 205, San J. CA 95129 DESIGNED BY °° o DRAINAGE PLAN (408) 615 -4000 Fax (408) 615 -4004 S.R. v SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA Auburn • San Jose • Oakdale CHECKED BY S.R. I S. z . w �7 al �--� s VA TE STREET — y. w -. �"' w X�— _ ww.,pti,.,�� -.n� t ss ss ` ss s �a ? -sue- t mac= `�- �1_r -Y : k� /� j ":...Ee_- DOU,GLASS VIM L— \ ✓� 3� / I I I l I — — — — — — — — — — r / I , a N P P/ �y��,kRE0lsreRBA , r ��4'xBSflNl9a'N n DATE RECISIONS SCALE o ° 18935 HAYFIELD COURT Giuliani & Kull, Inc. - DRAWN BY 41 `+ GRADING AND _ E.T. walut � N 4880 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 205, San J. CA 95129 DESIGNED BY °° o DRAINAGE PLAN (408) 615 -4000 Fax (408) 615 -4004 S.R. v SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA Auburn • San Jose • Oakdale CHECKED BY S.R. • 0 �J v > \ A / 35. «z. / i GRAPHIC SCALE / /1 � I IIh IN PEFT 1, c _20 1t. /�� [� •rz'oaK �. , . � /� I C ORIGINAL �L, uw BETWEE L0'S 7 & 9 WAS A11171 E A JUS IENT I a�•� M I� � I I ,'iIT f I�rl I I'WI I I 1'I JI i - }2 I 1n j / \ co co �jn � / iM/.,R Sn,EEi FES ZAI ro�' -URT �,i� i — HAYFIELD C� �, —_ i� f % — • no -- \ 6 Io" \ JP `r THIS DRAWING REPRESENTS A SITE AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND SURVEYORS ACT. THE PROPERTY LINES SHOWN HEREON ARE COMPILED FROM RECORD DATA AND REPRESENT THE BEST GRAPHICAL FIT BETWEEN RECORD INFORMATION AND THE SURVEY MONUMENTATION FOUND IN THE FIELD. PURSUANT TO THE CLIENT'S DIRECTION PERMANENT SURVEY MONUMENTATION WAS NOT PLACED AT THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY CORNERS, THIS SURVEY IS BASED UPON A PRELIMINARY REPORT PREPARED BY FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY (DATED 2 -7 -06, ORDER p 06- 6014994 -DT). IRON PIPES WERE FOUND IN HAYFIELD COURT, AS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP N0. 9074, FILED FOR RECORD IN BOOK 703 OF MAPS, AT PAGES 12 & 13, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS, 6� LAND rG r9 g A. 8,}• ?P a * N0. 27878 M. 12 -31 -88 A�'`o 8P CALY��4 w o Z g I� N Q �a FM c¢i °o '—moo � Y N C 0 • p� 1 N v N o °o 0 N � if E z 0 o w v LL Q o � a M U) 00 V >- IW D � Q U) N � V Q = o a Z O m 0 n. O SHEET 3 s 0 OF 3 x DATE 5/6/04 'a JOB N0. 04198 -SITE PLAN m sre ors ................... SITE PLAN NOTES I 1. 1— INDICATES MAIN FLOOR FOOTPRINT (BOLD LINE) INDICATES UPPER FLOOR FOOTPRINT I (SEMI- BOLD - DASHED LINE) 3. 7/,7 j7 INDICATES BASEMENT FLOOR FOOTPRINT (BOLD DOTTED LINE w! - HATCHING AREA locludes'Li& W.11 ") - -- INDICATES STEPS IN MAIN FLOOR ReRr to GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN for El —liom (LIGHT DASHED LINES) 15. ® INDICATES RETAINING WALLS. Refer w GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN f Elevedom 6. INDICATES' HARDSCAPEDAREAS' Refer -LANDSCAPE PLAN f Materiels � o M � F � V P w I H�� r tat m� E i l a Ws U' I A I � m •^1 y v "V °a .so. ,�, �.°",.. �., �....;... a,,.. a ......., ®..... e . t :� ...,...a uwa� dwii°n°�rumwvwa.aam' °°'• � a nmd+4.. re pro ttOq. 'R. r.p. ®m .. =rrr�a...,.m®.a4e.ma.e'�p.aae.z r..nrs+.�. b.b..mae�rrmuer.um rrs� - Pox�w.y�.e: 4�, ema I a.r crdm i.. m w-•s. w. tam air � w) w. w..a w �,..r�mmaaeserwsar rr ammy.w,ma.e.m.�m,. •. nrw .r�raawwr..nb..�.wn.mwaamm•d•e+ �oaor.e'.a..a,m .moms. :m,mam �..mwm.�aw�mme.mm..•�.rr � - I r m r ma.mr+wm.maw.r.1 i. imyru n�ao.w.. remu.e.e... ®m®mr ®ar.mmm u.aa'w.arorw(..mwr�..•....m >s�.r.rrma u. ' �>un vc.r cvr ..mmWem m..m•.�. mor®.or urn. m,�xr,ra..mm,m.mmm,wr Am�.wmm.+ w... mw.w eme ( �' ow r�� b..aF�� rHieoimlvw wp.�sa . Y � mm�.mym�s nwd*m�e.r�m,...ur rsru.PMmW^wse.�i) Fn ' � TRflB1NVEM'ORY TwaL6 i sm {ff j4 sy m� -SITE PLAN m sre ors ................... SITE PLAN NOTES I 1. 1— INDICATES MAIN FLOOR FOOTPRINT (BOLD LINE) INDICATES UPPER FLOOR FOOTPRINT I (SEMI- BOLD - DASHED LINE) 3. 7/,7 j7 INDICATES BASEMENT FLOOR FOOTPRINT (BOLD DOTTED LINE w! - HATCHING AREA locludes'Li& W.11 ") - -- INDICATES STEPS IN MAIN FLOOR ReRr to GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN for El —liom (LIGHT DASHED LINES) 15. ® INDICATES RETAINING WALLS. Refer w GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN f Elevedom 6. INDICATES' HARDSCAPEDAREAS' Refer -LANDSCAPE PLAN f Materiels � o M � F � V P w I H�� r tat m� E i l a Ws U' I A I � m •^1 y v "V °a .so. OEM rrA O I., U. . Mike & Kristi PICETTI ------- alim 18933 Hxyfldd Court Saratoga, C.Hfami. 9507 ' 41469 Millennium Terrace Fremont California 945381 Phone(510)623 -7896 Fax(510)573 -0529 E -mail: glemwahoon@comcastw • l r w o IU d w w N O i vaw a� I V s _ _ wmpaw Norio:_ �Prcerri IA-2 • New Family Home for Mike & Kristi PICETTI 18935 Hayfidd Court Saratog Cafiorois 95070 - Vlenn l� t'f1ur N 38 441469 Millennium Tmace Fremon t Califoi 95 09 )�2 Phone (510)623 -7896 Fax (510) E -mail: glenneahoon@comeast.net < • ci �J H� a I y� � w z s �y U ....................... s>.,,�toat. D. I. CLASS A`BARREL I7I.R ROOFING ROOFING APPLIED AS PER MANUFACTURES SPECS. OVER AN 3:12 PITCHED FRAMING COLOR: TERRA -COTTA MIX TYPICAL. . ICBON . LESS THAN 12UL PER SQUARE FOOT - 2. INSTALL TWO LAYERS 3ON FELT UNDER- . - LAYMENT FOR TILE ROOFING 3. CLASS A'MB7ieh— ogv'TORCH -DOWN BUILT -UP ROOFING APPLIED AS PEA MANUFACTURES SPEC' &FOR UL APPROVED CLASS A ROOFINGASSEMBLY Referto � au cbed AMrevf;fe fSp- #kade- LESSTRAN �..... M N SIG PER SQUARE FOOT. APPLIED OVER 1/41:12^ MIN. SLOPE ^ 'O lO Obi C A ropy of the UL report (or equal) for the root O r. covering shall be present at the time of inspection. - - - I.- ROOF - RAFTER FRAMING AT MIN. SLOPED p AREAS TO BE INSTALLED WITH 114":12" v SLOPE FRAMING U PAINTED (26 p-g.L) GRAVEL STOP & FLASH'G _ & PAINTED S" (26 g".L) CURVEDFASCIA GUTTER OVER 2.8 PRE•PRIMED SPRUCE FASCIA BOARD al3 ^DIA. DOWN- SPOUTS 7. SKYLIGHTS BRISTOLIGHT OR EQ. SIZE _ NOTED ON PLAN & WROUGHT IRON GUARDRAIL AT TILE (� FINISHED DECK- BALCONY 9. PAINTED SHROUDS OVER SPARK (� _ I ARRESTER CHIMNEY. { 8 c; o I I ' I I I yaw � �J H� a I y� � w z s �y U l 0 : sA o� 'i ' N em,W Home for. - -__ Mike & Kristi PICETTI Glenn CAHOON -18935 Hayfield Court SUMAW, CsOforais 95070: . 41469 Millennium Terrace Fremont California 94538 Phone(510)623 -7896 Fax(510)573 -0529 E -mail: glenncahoon @comcast.net IE ��il • r • n w ..___ �s.. Mike &.Kristi PICETTI lenri CAHOON i _ : p ta9ss esyeda CONK so-tem C.U.M.. vsmo.. G t�ti G 41469 Millennium Terrace Fremont, California 94538 a J Phone (510) 623 -78% Fax (510) 573 -0529 $ -. E -mail: glemcahoon@comcast net a • • 0 i Olillll • New Femil Home for - - !Mike & KrisN PICETTT Glenn CAHOON 18935 Hayfield court Saratoga California 95070 41469 Millennium Terrace Fremont, California 94538 Phone(510)623 -7896 Fax(510)573 -0529 - E -mail: glenncahoon @comcast.net S ' { 0 0 20 ft. 01 General Legend P 2 Ad Ad .19 a— .1 A -- ma- 484 ly 10) STONE -- -7 4-79" - �"tl WALL P, amw- ma— —.p,— ma� wmp- 47 OE 76 My Planfing Legend Wr -/� 2.0 KEY CITY. SIZE 50TANiCAL NAME 00MMON NAM FREMAWS 479 TWEES 60 0 A11 2 24' ba Alb.t. H�brfd Mad— stamd.'d - --- --- 4 7 LM . 2 24' b L.9--11 �9—' Crap. Mqrfla, bijmd,rd OE 24. L. 01" a, Islam Hill, ottva, FIE 2 24' bl.. Sq— Cva,t Kad—d 2 ; CIA 3 4' �- Ouarcua lgllfoll. C—:1 L�— Oak 013 1 So- IV—. aue,— Coa t L v. aa�k 3 112' �Ilj Oak G Wk FLNU LM t FF1 "73 �75\16 4, A INV, H MELD CE -PASE al, COUR T D 17 't F A6 Ad IS 5 Gal. Ar—taptgllm d. McMImm' M—ml. n 019.1 Am'..domt- . NP—rd.— Cap. �Wow St a b gal Bebarl, t, 'At,*pwpww' Purpi. Eutrb—� I 0 MI- b 22 1 C.I. su" J. �—~ ibeauq J.P.— 5—d 5 C—ma� to L111. rF'4"5 , 6 \ \ �L- -9 15all.' 6, C, 14 59.1 � P. "-, UN su, " F. 22 5 gal E.-IL-. N-p— D-rr' �,r ShIN E.-ii—la aff 5 t ARCH. JP 59' 1 is— olqam� Mnk J.-i-- Q I I . I 7' 0066 L. 10 9i I . . . . .. U]". T— M111— r @ t Lr 0 5 gal L-.p..I- .. 15urq-ld�r Fr(rj. ft— a 59.1 Mv— -I'r— P—M. il)a. My'l. MP 'jab Fla. P 10 5 gal F�J- Duad. L 3 1 sa� F�l— Jadk So,..' Fla. Ls ft 13 D 9.11 P. a Do. PVC 24 P— Ft— Ca'�— Ft— carpet Rose- Dart, f�mk P, 41 R—rim, COlrg� Jr4yal' R.—V 10 IV Y-A R d ow w NSER Go! 30 1 soll�. hA—PNII. Blue"11 w w C 456 Tj 5 b& T.o-a�-Pa—ut, J.-ro'dea I!Wal J...— 4 Is 5 Q.1 vi� t. *P-0 5—q-- vfkl- C 24 Wei—Sia f- UV.0b. C—' Co-t R-9 452 — — ----------------------- c Ad___ 450 EP a I �j rurjp. p.'—dW �ldam Se-b Dal"' 0-91—at. D-91.. 1". 12 1 S.: I-alardi Ergilal, L—�� P 12 to-, LI—kti P-11 &HltT� MP mu�pvrta, Trallf'o Mvop� Sc I 9JI N-11 Fe, Ft— 30' pactre 71 Sod Lautm 'Medallom'Dwarf Fasoub b�j paclrlc Sod or approved equal Li2' .4-1bmd a lb—d'" Epic or approved equal Landscape Plan 1 0 10, 20' (j :3 M U) 0 0 �O :Z cc CIT M 13) Lo OCY) 00 Co ------ Bar— L 1 • • 0 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. /Location: Type of Application: Owner: Staff Planner: Meeting Date: APN: Item 7 PDR07- 0001 -15211 Hume Drive Design Review New two -story Queen Anne style home Khouja Shweta Bhatt, Associate Planner January 09, 2008 510 -01 -016 Department Head Z _ John Livingstone, AICP Subject:15211 Hume Drive APN: 510 -01 -016 e, 500' Radius vuxo — .ura . p y n 1 ♦ • S 4 C11N (y V J .l EE W d CLU � � � " Y • _ _�.v___. Me zi pan � 1 H C � • jN S014 �jj/ . "ti rx0 Imo• as (D 1 i AYM ... "04 $I 4 is =1 � vuxo — .ura . p y n 1 ♦ • S 4 C11N (y V J .l EE W d CLU � w e r> o O.' �q y if e 15211 Hume Drive Me zi H C � • jN S014 �jj/ . "ti rx0 Imo• w e r> o O.' �q y if e 15211 Hume Drive EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 06/27/07 Application complete: 12/17/07 Notice published: 12/25/07 Mailing completed: 12/21/07 Posting Completed: 01/03/08 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to demolish the existing home and construct a new two -story home. The proposed structure will be two - story with a full basement and require a height exception to allow for adherence to the Queen Anne architectural style. A detached pool house is also proposed at a height of approximately 18 -feet 9- inches. The gross lot size is 55,503 square feet, and the site is zoned R-1-20,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the PDR07 -0001 with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. Staff is not recommending any permanent conditions of approval. Page 2 of 10 • • w • Application No. PDR07 -0001; 15211 Hume Drive STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 20,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential (RLD) MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: Gross: 55,503 square feet; Net: 51,131 square feet due to City right -of- way SLOPE: Approximately 3.21 % average site slope and no slope at building site GRADING REQUIRED: 260 cubic yards of cut and 50 cubic yards of fill. This calculation does not include cut for the proposed basement. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed new single - family residence and attached deed - restricted second unit are Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures ", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single - family residences. MATERIALS AND COLORS: Materials and colors include cream and pale yellow siding, river rock detailing, cedar shake roofing and wood windows. The proposed pool house will have redwood siding on the exterior. A colors and materials board is available on file with the Community Development Department and will be presented at the site visits and public hearing. Page 3 of 10 Application No. PDR07 -0001; 15211 Hume Drive PROJFC:T DATA- R-1-20,000 Zoning; Proposed Required 51,131 SF Net Site Area Site Coverage Residence: 3;513 SF Driveway: 3,022 SF Walkway(s): 3,18.7 SF Maximum Allowable Patios /Terraces: 824 SF = 23,009 SF + 2,301* Lightwells: 553 SF SF (45% + 4.5 % *) _ Pool Houser 376 SF 25,310 SF (49.5 %) Dining Porch: 377 SF Pool House Patio: 608 SF TOTAL Site Coverage 12,460 SF (24 %) Floor Area Proposed First Floor Area: 3,017 SF Proposed Second Floor Area: 1,918 SF Proposed Garage Area: 496 SF Maximum Allowable Proposed Accessory Structure(s): 376 SF = 6,000 SF + 600* SF Proposed Double- Counted Area: 60 SF = 6,600 SF TOTAL Proposed Floor Area 5,806 SF Proposed Second Unit (in basement) 692 SF Proposed Basement: 2,820SF TOTAL Basement Area: 3,512 SF Setbacks for Main House First Second First Second Floor Floor Floor Floor., Front: 89 Feet 93 Feet 30 Feet 30.Feet Rear: 161 Feet 175 Feet 35 Feet 45 Feet 10 10 Inches Inches Left Side: 40 Feet 48 Feet 15 Feet 20 Feet 6Inches 6Inches Right Side: 46 Feet 50 Feet 15 Feet 20 Feet Height Lowest Elevation Point: 603.96 Maximum Height Highest Elevation Point: 605.04 630.5 (26 Feet) ** Average Elevation Point: 604.5 634.5 (30 Feet) Proposed Topmost Point (Main Roof): 631.33 (26 Feet 10 Inches) Proposed Topmost Point (Tower): 634.5 (30 Feet) * 10% increase due to deed restricted second unit ** 30 Feet for adherence to specific architectural style 'Page 4 of 10 • • Application No. PDR07 -0001; 15211 Hume Drive . PROJECT DISCUSSION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS The project site is an approximately 51,131 (net) square foot parcel with direct access from Hume Drive. The rectangular parcel is relatively flat and is surrounded by other parcels of similar size. Mature trees are located near parcel boundaries. The single family home existing on the property will be de- constructed and the remains will be recycled. The project consists of a new single - family dwelling and a detached pool house (that will exceed the 15 -foot height limitation for accessory structures and thus require findings for additional height). The new two -story main dwelling will have a full basement and an approximately 3,017 square foot first floor and an approximately 1,918 square foot second floor. Heritage Preservation Commission The existing home appears to have been constructed in the mid -1940s with many of the original materials intact. Thus the applicant submitted for review by the Heritage Preservation Commission and the proposed demolition was reviewed and discussed at the August 14, 2007 hearing. The Commission determined the existing structure was not of historic significance by a 6 -0 vote. Architectural Style and Building Height Exception The architectural style of the home is identified as Queen Anne. Staff finds that the home is carefully designed and incorporates many of the elements for a Queen Anne style home, including: an asymmetrical fagade, a wrap- around porch, spindlework porch supports, sunburst detailing, and wood shingle gable detailing. City Code Section 15- 12.100 requires staff and the Planning Commission to use the book, "A Field Guide to American Houses ... to assess the purity of architectural design." The book, authored by Virginia and Lee McAlester, describes defining features of various architectural styles, including those of Queen Anne. Identifying features of the style include: "steeply pitched roof of irregular shape, usually with a dominant front - facing gable; patterned shingles, cutaway bay windows, and other devices to avoid a smooth- walled appearance; asymmetrical fagade with partial or full -width porch which is usually one story high and extended along one or both side walls" (page 263). The tower is a common feature used in the Queen Anne style to break up fagades and act as a decorative element. The owners have secured the services of Virginia McAlester for her opinion on the architectural purity of the home and have increased the interior ceiling height of the first floor to ten feet and increased the porch width to incorporate Ms. McAlester's recommendations. Her letter is attached to this staff report, in addition to a letter prepared by the owners relating to the project. Pool House Height and Findings The owners propose a pool house at 18 -feet 9- inches at the rear of the parcel. Accessory structures are limited to 15 -feet in height; however, City Code Section 15- 12.100 permits Page 5 of 10 Application No. PDR07- -0001; 15211 Hume Drive the Planning Commission to grant approval of accessory structures up. to 20 -feet in height, subject to making the following findings: 1) The additional height is necessary in order to establish architectural compatibility with the main structure on the site; and (2) The accessory structure will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff finds that although the structure is not identical in architectural style to the main structure, the rustic design of the pool house adds to the overall rural feeling that the Queen Anne style main home brings to the site. Additionally, the pool house is compatible and is complimentary to the overall rural nature of the street and surrounding area. Given these reasons, staff is in support of the findings necessary to grant the additional height. Trees A total of twenty -three trees were inventoried for this project. Of these, three trees will require removal to accommodate the new home and pool house [ #10, 11 (Monterey pines), and 17 (avocado)]. The arborist has found that an additional six trees ( #2, 3,173 % 13 and 15) are in poor health and should be replaced. The total value of all nine trees is $6;750 and trees equal in value will be required to be planted. The remaining trees. will be protected - through the construction process with fencing and a security bond. The bond amount will be equal to 100 % of the total appraised value of trees to be retained. Geotechnical Clearance Geotechnical Clearance has been granted for this project as required for the proposed basement. Energy Efficiency Both the main house and the. pool house have been designed to incorporate photovoltaic panels into -the design. The site. is heavily shaded by mature landscaping and the owners hope to install energy efficient appliances and heating/cooling systems to maximize the efficiency of the structure. Secondary Unit The project scope includes a secondary dwelling unit, which the owners propose to deed- restrict. Second dwelling units have specific development standards; the proposed project compliance with these standards is outlined below. (a) Lot size. The minimum net site area of an interior lot in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district is 20,000 square feet. The subject property has a net site area of 51,131 square feet. (b) Unit size. The proposed second dwelling unit is approximately 692 square feet, which meets the minimum size of 400- square feet and is within the maximum size of 1200- square feet. (c) Building codes. As conditioned, the second dwelling unit will comply with applicable building, health and fire codes. Page 6of10 Application No. PDR07- -0001; 15211 Hume Drive (d) Zoning regulations. The second dwelling unit is located within the proposed basement and complies with zoning regulations. (e) Parking. Since the second dwelling unit is proposed to be deed - restricted, a parking space in a garage is not required. As required, an open parking space will be provided. (f) Access. The second dwelling unit is served by the same driveway access to the street as the existing main dwelling. (g) Common entrance. The second dwelling unit is attached to the main dwelling. The unit has an entrance on the side of the main dwelling. (h) Limitations on number of bedrooms. The code requires that the unit have no more than two bedrooms. The proposed project has one bedroom. (i) Appearance. The second dwelling unit has been integrated into the basement of the proposed home and will not be apparent from the exterior. Neighbor Correspondence Prior to application submittal, the applicant informed neighbors of the proposed project and obtained notification templates; no concerns were raised. One neighbor has submitted a letter in regards to the proposal in response to a study session the Planning Commission held on November 13, 2007. The concerns are in regards to the proposal being two -story and in regards to the tower element. In response, the applicant has provided a vicinity map identifying other two -story homes within the neighborhood of the project site (attachment 3). Since the elevations have been changed to reflect Virginia McAlester's comments and include the second dwelling unit, the applicant has spoken to neighbors again. These notification letters are also attached — no concerns have been raised as of the writing of this staff report. General Plan Findings The proposed project is consistent with all of 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. The project meets this finding in that it is a home that is Queen Anne architectural style. The project substantially exceeds required setbacks and is designed to blend in with the rural character of Hume Drive. 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 Approval. Conditional Use Permit Findings City Code Section 15- 12.100(b) requires the filing of a Conditional Use Permit in order to allow for the height of a structure to exceed twenty -six feet (up to a maximum height Page 7 of 10 Application No. PDR07 -0001; 15211 Hume Drive of thirty feet) for purposes of architecturally pure design. Discussed below are the findings for conditional use permits. (a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in. accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project meets this finding in that the project scope consists of a single family dwelling, a. deed - restricted second dwelling unit, and a detached pool house, all of which are permitted uses in- the zoning code. The main ridge line of the roof is ten inches above the twenty -six foot maximum required is to adhere to the Queen Anne architectural style. The proposed tower element is 4 -feet above the 26 -foot height limitation. (b) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions. under which it. would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The additional height of ten inches will not be detrimental to the public health, welfare. or safety or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Chapter. As conditioned, the project will meet all code requirements. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all of 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 the proposed residence substantially exceeds required setback requirements. .The lot is currently flat and will remain flat with the project. Much of the mature, existing screening that lines the perimeter of the parcel will remain. Additionally, the project will be located -in a similar. location to the existing home and the street provides additional buffer between the project and properties across the street. (b) Preserve, Natural Landscape. Three trees are required to be removed in conjunction with ihis.project and an additional six are in poor health. Trees equal in value to these_ will be required to be planted. The site is currently flat and will remain flat after the construction of the project. This finding may be made in the affirmative. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. None of the trees proposed for removal are 10 native species and there are no heritage trees that require removal. All other trees Page 8 of 10 Application No. PDR07 -0001; 15211 Hume Drive potentially impacted by the project will be protected through the construction phase with fencing and a security bond. This finding may be made in the affirmative. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed home is very well detailed with features characteristic of the Queen Anne architectural style. These features, combined with architectural elements such as spindlework porch detailing, horizontal siding, varying rooflines, and building articulation, minimize perception of excessive bulk. This finding may be made in the affirmative. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The home is in an area where other two -story homes exist. The proposed home will be constructed of high quality materials and will be in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. The additional height requested to adhere to the Queen Anne architectural style is ten inches above the maximum allowable height. Given the parcel size and substantial setbacks, the additional height will not be ascertainable from a streetscape view and will fit in with the neighborhood. This finding may be made in the affirmative. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. Since the building site is relatively flat and the proposed addition is in the general area of the existing residence, no grading is proposed. In addition, the project is conditioned to conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. The project is also conditioned to require detention of stormwater on site, to the maximum extent reasonably feasible. This finding may be made in the affirmative.. (g) Design policies and techniques. As conditioned, the proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook. The proposal will feature photovoltaic panels, energy efficient heating and cooling systems, and is located on a parcel that is heavily shaded and screened with mature trees. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find this application exempt from CEQA and approve the application for Design Review and Conditional Use Permit with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Neighbor notification templates date - stamped June 27, 2007, letter from neighbor date - stamped November 01, 2007, neighbor notification templates date - stamped January 02, 2008 3. Vicinity map from applicant, identifying other two -story homes within project site neighborhood date - stamped November 07, 2007 • 4. Arborist Reports dated January 18, 2007, August 2, 2007, and October 18, 2007 Page 9 of 10 Application No. PDR07 -0001; 15211 Hume Drive 5. Affidavit of mailing notices, public hearing notice, mailing labels for project notification, and proof of newspaper publishing 6. Letter from Virginia McAlester date - stamped November 26, 2007 7. Letter from propertyowners date- stamped December 17, 2007 S. Letter from project architect date - stamped January 02, 2008 9. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A ". Page 10 of 10 • Attachment 1 • • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. PDR07 -0001 and CUP07 -0006 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Khouja; 15211 Hume Drive New -two story Queen Anne style home with basement, second unit, and detached pool house WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review. to construct a new two -story home approximately 5,490 square feet in size, a 2,820 square foot basement, and a 692 square foot basement second dwelling unit. The home will be constructed to adhere to the Queen Anne architectural style and will be 30 feet in height at the top -most point. The lot is situated in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district. and is approximately 51,13 1. net square feet in size; 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. to construct a single family dwelling and second unit 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 Class 3 exemption applies to construction of a single family home in an urbanized 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 City Code Section 15- 45.080 and the City's Residential Design Handbook have been determined: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 - Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The project meets this finding in. that it is a home that is Queen Anne architectural style. The project substantially exceeds required setbacks and is designed to blend in with the rural character of Hume Drive. 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 Approval. Accessory Structure Height Findings The project is consistent with all of the findings stated in City Code Section 15- 12.100 for additional - height of accessory structures: Application PDR07 -0001 and CUP07 -0006 15211 Hume Drive Khouja 1) The additional height is necessary in order to establish architectural compatibility with the main structure on the site. Although the structure is not identical in architectural style to the main structure, the rustic design of the pool house adds to the overall rural feeling that. the Queen Anne style main home brings to the site. (2) The accessory structure will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The pool house is compatible and is complimentary to the overall rural nature of the street and surrounding area. Conditional Use Permit Findings The project is consistent with all of the Conditional Use Permit findings stated in City Code Section 15- 12.100: A a (a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project meets this finding in that the project scope consists of a single family dwelling, a deed - restricted second dwelling unit, and a detached pool house, all of which are permitted uses in the zoning code. The main ridge line is ten inches above the twenty -six foot maximum and the additional height is required to adhere to the Queen Anne architectural style. The proposed tower element is 4 -feet above the 26- foot height limitation. (b) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The additional height of ten inches will not be detrimental to the public health, welfare or safety or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Chapter. As conditioned, the project will meet all code requirements. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all of 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 the proposed residence substantially exceeds required setback requirements. The lot is currently flat and will remain flat with the project. Much of the mature, existing screening that lines the perimeter of the parcel will remain. Additionally, the project will be located in a similar location to the Application PDR07 -0001 and CUP07 -0006 15211 Hume Drive Khouja existing home and the street provides additional buffer between the project and properties across the street. . (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Three trees are required to be removed in conjunction with this project and an additional six are in poor health. Trees equal in value to these will be required to be planted. The site is currently flat and will remain flat after the construction of the project. This finding may be made in the affirmative. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. None of the trees proposed for removal are native species and there are no heritage trees that require removal. All other trees potentially impacted by the project will be protected through the construction phase with fencing and a security bond. This finding may be made in the affirmative. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed home is very well detailed with features characteristic of the Queen Anne architectural style. These features, combined with architectural elements such as spindlework porch detailing, horizontal siding, varying rooflines, and building articulation, minimize perception of excessive bulk. This finding may be made in the affirmative. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The home is in an area where other two -story homes exist. The proposed home will be constructed. of high quality materials and will be in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. The additional height requested to adhere to the Queen Anne architectural style is ten inches above the maximum allowable height. Given the parcel size and substantial setbacks, the additional. height will not be ascertainable from a streetscape view and will fit in with the neighborhood. This finding may be made in the affirmative. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. Since the building site is relatively flat and the proposed addition is in the general area of the existing residence, no grading is proposed. In addition, the project is conditioned to conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. The project is also conditioned to require detention of stormwater on site, to the maximum extent reasonably feasible. This finding may be made in the affirmative. (g) Design policies and techniques. As conditioned, the proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook. The proposal will feature photovoltaic panels, energy efficient heating and cooling systems, and is located on a parcel that is heavily shaded and screened with mature trees. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: • Application PDR07 -0001 and CUP07 -0006 15211 Hume Drive Khouja to Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number PDR07 -0001 for Design Review Approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The proposed home shall be constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. 2. The applicant/owner shall record a deed restriction limiting rental of the secondary dwelling unit to below market rate households prior to issuance of final Zone Clearance. 3. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for permit plan check review. 4. Final landscape, irrigation and utility plans shall be incorporated into the construction plan set and shall take into account the following requirements: • 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. • Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. • Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. • 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. • Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. • A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. • Impervious coverage to be removed from the corral area shall be indicated on the landscaping plan. Application PDR07 -0001 and CUP07 -0006 15211 Hume Drive Khouj a • Trees providing privacy screening shall be shown on the landscaping plan. 5. Any changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. No downgrading in the exterior 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. 6. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 7. A storm water retention plan indicating how storm water will be retained on -site to the maximum extent feasible, and incorporating the New Development and Construction — Best Management Practices, shall be submitted along with the complete construction drawings. 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. 8. Water and/or runoff from the project site shall not be directed toward the adjacent properties. 9. All processing fees; in the form of deposit accounts on file with the community .development department, shall be reconciled with a minimum $500 surplus balance at all times. In the event that the balance is less than $500, all staff work on the project shall'cease until the balance is restored to a minimum of $500. GEOTECHNICAL CLEARANCE 10. The project shall comply with all geotechnical clearance conditions as outlined in memorandum dated July.25, 2007. FIRE DEPARTMENT 11. The applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 12. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's' fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any, State or, Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. • Application PDR07 -0001 and CUP07 -0006 15211 Hume Drive. Khouja Section 2. Construction must commence within thirty -six (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, on the 9th day of January 2008 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 c City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form C. DRESS: PROJECT AD Dear Neighbor, I am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. I ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the project. These plans are PRELIMINARY ONLY and may be changed as the project moves forward. You may contact the City of Saratoga's Planning Division at any time to review any changes that. may occur. The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary of Saratoga at 08- 681222 and speak with the the project, you may contact the City g assigned project planner. Mygn signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. t J�� Neighbor Name: ate: Signature: Neighbor Address: / Neighbor Phone 4: ~ ✓ �r 1 9 If I have any initial concerns with the project I'may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Applicant Name: Date: I*-. - Application Number: City of Saratoga Planning Department Revised 10124106 P:1Forms & Proceduresineighbor notification.doc City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form r1 PROJECT ADDRESS: C7's 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 anytime to review any changes that may occur. The City of Saratoga as that this form and a reduced set of plans b signed Please ach neighbor to indicate that they have had an opport unity to review proposal. advised'that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga at 408 - 868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name: 'z Date: d 7 Signature: Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone #: 4b U If I have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Applicant Name: Date: .Application Number: Planning Department City of Saratoga Revised 10124106 P: (Forms & Procedureslneighbor notification.doc • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form �, PROJECT ADDRESS: 2 i i� Dear Neighbor, I am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. I ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the project. These plans are PRELIMINARY ONLY and may be changed as the project moves forward. You may contact the City of Saratoga's Planning Division at any time to review any changes that may occur. The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be .advised that these plans are preliminary of Saratoya at 08- 8681222 and interest in the the project, you may contact y g assigned project pjanner. M signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed proj Y ect and have:reviewed >� the preliminary project plans. L . Date: ; Neighbor Name: Signature: Neighbor Address: / C Neighbor Phone #: If I have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Applicant Name: Date: Application Number: City of Saratoga Planning Department Revised 10129106 P: (Forms & Proceduresineighbor notification.doc City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form - i i7 i �ti ill, :/ rz f Ik � PROJECT ADDRESS: Dear Neighbor, I am P roposing a project at the above stated address and would like to pro with an opportunity to review the proposal. and provide comments. All o the adjacent across the street from the property are being provided this neighbors and the neighbo rs 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 ome to review any changes that f Saratoga's Planning Division at any ti may occur. - The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced .set of pas be signle Plea each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review o p P be terest in advised that these plans are preliminary and maychange. a 08 86801222 and speak the the project, you may contact the City of. Saratoga assigned project planner.. aware of the proposed project and have reviewed My signature below certifies that I am the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name :C- 'L IH R 96 Date: --P Signature: Neighbor AM 7/ /� n/' +C Neighbor Phone. #: `" / !6 l If I have any.initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets ifnecessary): Applicant N Application Number:_ City of Saratoga Revised 10124106 P: (Forms & Procedureslneighbor notification.doc Date: Planning Department • • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form a _ �r- PROJECT ADDRESS: l iJ 2��zlu� J • Dear Neighbor, r "j ter.' . , :;L . DEVELORVEHT 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. 1 ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the project. These plans are PRELIMINARY ONLY and may be changed as the project moves forward. You may contact the City of Saratoga 's Planning Division at any time to review any changes that may occur. The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary of Saratoga at 08 86801222 and speak with the the project, you may contact the y g assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name: �a� r. poo— Date: signature: Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone #: If I have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Applicant Name: Date: Application Number: City of Saratoga Revised 10124106 P: (Forms & Procedureslneighbor notification.doc Planning Department JUIN r "j ter.' . , :;L . DEVELORVEHT 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. 1 ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the project. These plans are PRELIMINARY ONLY and may be changed as the project moves forward. You may contact the City of Saratoga 's Planning Division at any time to review any changes that may occur. The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary of Saratoga at 08 86801222 and speak with the the project, you may contact the y g assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name: �a� r. poo— Date: signature: Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone #: If I have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Applicant Name: Date: Application Number: City of Saratoga Revised 10124106 P: (Forms & Procedureslneighbor notification.doc Planning Department Barbara and George Roupe 19921 Park Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 Ms. Shweta Bhatt. Associate Planner Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Ms. Bhatt; November 1, 2007 The purpose of this letter is to submit our comments to the Planning Commission regarding the proposed structure to be built at 15211 Hume Drive. We regret that we will not be available to attend the Study Session to be held on November 13, but would appreciate you making these comments available to the participants at that time. Our first observation relates to the two -story element of the proposed structure. It should be noted that the existing houses in the immediate neighborhood are single story structures with the exception of the home at 19921 Park Drive (where we live). This house was a two -story structure when we purchased it in 1970 and had that configuration for the two prior decades. For some time this neighborhood takes its character from being an understated quiet community and even the more recent structures built have been single story buildings. We do not believe the proposed structure blends in with the character of the existing neighborhood. We have serious objection to the tower appendage on the proposed structure. As we understand it this tower has no functional purpose and has been included in the design as an'architectural element. The objective is to achieve supposed compatibility with the "Queen Ann" style architecture. This would allow the building to exceed the two -story building height limit without compliance with the City requirements for a variance. Under the existing rules of the City.the excessive height would most probably not comply with the requirements of granting a variance. We urge the owners and the architect to take these concerns under consideration. and make the adjustments in design to accommodate them. Sincerely, %�fM 44C George and Barbara Roupe Telephone: 408- 353 -7736 Cell Phone: 408 -529 -4939 • • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form PROJECT ADDRESS: �� 7 u'n L Dear Neighbor, GM 0 S�WC) p 0� MEN, GOMMUN�T'! I am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. I ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the project. These plans are PRELIMINARY ONLY and may be changed as the project moves forward. You may contact the City of Saratoga 's Planning Division at any time to review any changes that may occur. The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga at 408 - 868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. -7 77 Neighbor Name: ` rv't= Vv Date: ;_T `7 Neighbor Signature: s Neighbor Address: c� ' 2-0 7111,r Neighbor Phone #: ( V �^ �J --�1 y r If I have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): V Applicant Name: 0 Application Number: Date: City of Saratoga Planning Department Revised 10124106 P: IForrns & Procedureslneighbor notifcation.doc City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form C O PROJECT ADDRESS: I / ti l - j WoGk Dear Neighbor, MU GOM I am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. . I ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the project. These plans are PRELIMINARY ONLY and may be changed as the project moves forward. You may contact the City of Saratoga 's Planning Division at any time to review any changes that may occur. The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may-contact the City of Saratoga at 408 - 868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner.. My signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name: % d ;ho inli Date: S' nature ` ! � Ali Z!/( 4)'/ / t/✓�j�Vh . • • Neighbor Address:,�1.�t,r G' h /G�'^ s" Gl, GLiG�- -f f h� 7 w 9 Neighbor Phone #: _�l A� If I have any initial concerns with the project I may list them.below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Applicant Name: Application Number: Date: Ciry of Saratoga Planning Department Revised 10129106 P: IFornds & Procedureslneighbor nwif:cation.doc • • Attachment 3 C �OaM1PVh4'A�ti��.- •. N!.4� ^AMR .... � ., - .:1� ■ T -fib' ahtnoa► -}� rva-�s�sd 01* • MR w.ww/1:.mYnn .`V 7 t' y :a za L6091 fin'. .S 1 —�--� AGIs I 'f • Attachment 4 • • 15211 Hume Drive Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ARBORIST REPORT APN 510 -01 -016 Owner: Adel and Maria Khouja INTRODUCTION Application #: 07 -193 January 18, 2007 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arbonst Phone (408) 868 -1276 The property owner of 15211 Hume Drive has submitted plans to the city to demolish their home and build a new single family home on the property. A total of 17 trees protected by City Ordinance 15 -050 were. inventoried for this project. They include two stone pines ( #1 and 12), twelve Monterey pines ( #2 —10 and 13 —15), one madrone ( #11), one black walnut ( #16) and one avocado ( #17). Each tree was marked with a numbered aluminum tag for ease of identification. Data for each inventoried tree is compiled in a table at the end of this report. Tree locations are noted on the attached copy of the Site Plan. The plan reviewed for this report includes the Site Plan by Sergio Erick Ramirez -Batiz and Associates, dated December 8, 2006. SITE OBSERVATIONS, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION No trees are proposed for removal on the plans; and revised plans should designate which trees are to be removed and which will be retained during construction. Only trees within the vicinity of construction were inventoried for this report. As information on grading, utilities and landscaping is provided, it may be necessary to inventory additional trees on the property and if so, this may affect the value of the tree protection bond and the required value of replacement trees. Trees #10, 11 and 17 will require removal to construct the house as designed. This is acceptable as proposed. In addition, a number of trees inventoried are in poor health and the site may be better served -by -their removal and replacement. They include Monterey pines #2, 3, 7,'9, 13 and 15. The total appraised value of these nine trees is $6,750. These trees should be replaced with new trees equal in value to their appraised value following construction. Replacement values for trees can be found at the bottom of the Tree Inventory Table. Two trees, Monterey pine tree #10 and madrone #11, are within the footprint of the proposed design and would require removal in order to construct the home. The pine is in fair health, but I do not recommend redesigning the project around this tree as it is susceptible to many diseases and pests and is relatively short-lived in the Saratoga microclimate. The madrone is a very attractive tree, but is leaning and heaving the soil on one side; an indication that it may fail during a high wind storm. The proposed driveways potentially affect. eight trees. They include stone pines #1 and 12 and Monterey pines 4 — 6 and 13 — 15. It would be appropriate to remove trees #13 and #15 order to construct the Page 1 of 3 • f _ i I . .. driveway as designed. Tree #13 is in poor health, has poor structure and is crowded by trees 12 and 14, and tree #15 is infested with pine beetles and in poor health. The remaining trees should be retained and protected during construction. To protect the trees and avoid impacting their root systems, the driveway should remain at least 10 feet from the trunks of trees #1, 4, 5, 6 and 12. Because trees #2 and 3 are in poor health, perhaps the design can be altered so the driveway enters the property where these two trees currently grow and therefore remain farther away from the other trees. Any portion of the driveway within ten feet of a tree's trunk must be constructed entirely on top of grade with pervious materials. Tree #16 may be adversely affected by the construction of the swimming pool, as walnut trees cannot stand disturbances to the root system very well and it may not survive construction. If that occurs, it should be replaced with a tree equal to its appraised value. Tree #17 is within the footprint of the pool house and would require removal in order to build the house as designed. It is acceptable to remove the avocado and replace it with a new tree equal in value to its appraised value. The remaining trees can be adequately protected with fencing as detailed below and shown on the attached map. Should any problem arise with the proposed locations of fencing, the owner should contact the City Arborist and arrange a meeting on site to discuss the situation prior to installation of fencing, or prior to relocating fencing from original specified sites. A grading and drainage plan, a utility plan and a landscape plan need to be submitted so they can be evaluated for impacts to trees during construction of the new home. Per City Ordinance 15- 50.080, a bond amount of $59,500, which is equal to 100% of the total appraised value the trees potentially impacted by construction, is required. This bond amount is based on the appraised value of trees #1, 4 — 6, 8, 12, and 14. Appraisal values are calculated according to the Guide. for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. This entire report, including the Tree Inventory Table and the 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. 3. Owner shall provide a tree protection bond, in the amount of $59,500, which is equal to the value of trees #1, 4 — 6, 8, 12, and 14. 4. Replacement trees equal to the value of removed trees shall be planted in the new landscape. Replacement values for trees can be found at the bottom of the Tree Inventory Table. 5. Unless otherwise app , roved all construction activities must be conducted outside the designated fenced area (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not necessarily Page 2 of 3 f - � . 1. limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation andparking. 6. Any approved grading or trenching beneath the trees' canopies shall be manually performed using shovels. 7. A grading and drainage plan and a utility plan shall be submitted for review of impacts to trees and must show the ,following: a. Design drainage outlets to remain outside tree canopies. b. Design drainage swales and piping so that no trenching is necessary underneath tree canopies: c. Design grading to avoid excavatiori or adding fill soil under tree canopies. A. Design trenches for utilities to stay outside of tree canopies. 8. A landscape plan shall be submitted for review. 9. The landscape plans must show the following: a. Design irrigation so that it does not spray trunks of trees. Valve boxes and controllers must be installed outside of drip lines of tree canopies. b. No more than 20% of the area under the tree canopies may be planted. Plant selection must have similar water. requirements to the trees under which they will be placed. c. Lawn must not be installed up to the trunks any tree; it must be confined to the outside 20% of the area under the. canopy. No lawn may be planted within the drip line of any oak . tree on the property. I recommend placing mulch under the canopy instead of a lawn. d. Design topdressings so that stones or mulch remain at least one foot from the trunks of retained trees and 6 inches from the trunks of new trees. e. Do not allow tilling or stripping of the topsoil beneath the trees' canopies, including for weed control f.- " Bender board or other edging material-proposed beneath the trees' canopies must be established on top of existing.soil grade (such as by using stakes). 10. Any pruning.oftrees on site must be performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according'to ISAstandards. 11. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath tree canopies or anywhere' n site that allows drainage beneath tree canopies. Additionally, fuel shall not be stored nor shall any refueling or maintenance of equipment occur within 20, feet of the tree's trunks. 12. Herbicides shall not be applied beneath the tree canopies. Where used on site, they must be labeled for safe use near trees. Attachment: Tree Inventory Table Map Showing Tree Locations and Protective Fencing Page 3 of 3 • LJ TREE INVENTORY TABL`f • Address: 15211 Hume Drive January 18, 2007 Stone pine II c g C b 1 Pinus pinea 30.5 45 75 25 Good Moderate 3 $12,200 Monterey pine 2 Pinus radiata a Q a 0 v Poor � a C* ' $0 Monterey pine z m � c a°n o b a � v, —Cd 3 Pinus radiata a U a 3 3 a 4° 4, > Monterey pine b O II II U '�, c ° 3 4 Pinus radiata Aw °i (�o cl �o Fair Moderate �� C~ ° co Monterey pine U ti. ca O O p V� s. TREE NO. TREE NAME E- 0 w .. x .O a� � ,a > O � x -. ° A ° Z a • Address: 15211 Hume Drive January 18, 2007 Stone pine 1 Pinus pinea 30.5 45 75 25 Good Moderate 3 $12,200 Monterey pine 2 Pinus radiata 25 30 0 0 Poor Low 5 $0 Monterey pine 3 Pinus radiata 17.5 25 0 50 Poor Low 3 $530 Monterey pine 4 Pinus radiata 38 45 25 25 Fair Moderate 2 $4,150 Monterey pine 5 Pinus radiata 30.5 40 50 50 Good Moderate 2 $9,500 Monterey pine 6 Pinus radiata 29.5 40 50 25 Good Moderate 2 $4,450 Monterey pine 7 Pinus radiata 21.5 15 25 10 Fair Low 5 $780 Monterey pine 8 Pinus radiata 45.5 45 25 25 Fair Moderate 5 $8,800 Monterey pine 9 Pinus radiata 14.5 15 25 25 Fair Low 5 $800 Monterey pine 10 Pinus radiata 35 45 25 50 Fair Moderate 1 X $1,810 Madrone 11 Arbutus menziesii 13, 11 25 75 10 Fair Low 1 X $500 Stone pine 31, 1 12 Pinus pinea 20 35 75 25 Good Moderate 2 $10,500 Monterey pine 13 Pinus radiata 43 40 20 25 Fair Low 2 $750 Monterey pine . 14 Pinus radiata 40 40 50 50 Good Moderate 2 $14,900 Monterey pine 15 Pinus radiata 25 30 25 25 Fair Low 2 $960 • Address: 15211 Hume Drive January 18, 2007 -REE INVENTORY TABLE 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. Address: 15211 Hume Drive January 18, 2007 • • Black walnut 16- Ju lans hindsii 17.5 25 25 o Fair Moderate 2 Cn $1,050 Avocado Cd ss a. CIO o ° v ^ 3 3 n o 0 o . 17 Persea Americana 12 35 _ 25 Fair Moderate 2 X $620 0 En �a U �° � o b c II II U o o b TREE 0 90 W 26 N 1 U NO. TREE NAME a F� C7 w a x ,fl v, .°JO > O i q o Z a ¢ 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. Address: 15211 Hume Drive January 18, 2007 • • Black walnut 16- Ju lans hindsii 17.5 25 25 25 Fair Moderate 2 $1,050 Avocado 13,12 17 Persea Americana 12 35 50 25 Fair Moderate 2 X $620 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. Address: 15211 Hume Drive January 18, 2007 • • t• ' i/ ON AA A to foG IN I �Lai.� ,� . � i P�� %tea '',,, ■ a, _M AA A to foG Community Development Department City of Saratoga. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Califomia 95070 15211 Hume Drive ARBORIST REPORT APN 510 -01 -016 Owner:. Adel and Maria Khouja INTRODUCTION Application #: 07 -193 August 2, 2007 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Phone (408) 868 -1276 The property owners of 15211 Hume Drive have submitted revised plans addressing the previous abori st report. The plan reviewed for this report includes Sheet A -1, Cover Sheet; Sheet A -2, Existing and New Site Plan; Sheet A -3, Grading Plan; Sheet A -4, Drainage and Utilities; by Sergio Erick Ramirez -Batiz and Associates, dated June 2007, Sheet L -1, Landscape Plan by Michael Rosenberg Lan dscape Architecture dated March 5, 2007 and Sheets C -1, C -2 and C -3, Grading and Drainage by Robert W. Steuer, Civil Engineer, dated April 10, 2007. SITE OBSERVATIONS, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION All inventoried trees should be clearly identified on the plans and trees proposed for removal should be clearly designated as to be removed. Trees #10, 11 and 17 will require removal in order to construct the house and pool house as designed. Since the first report tree #2 has died and another pine at the north side of the house that was not inventoried has died. Both should be shown on the plans as to be removed. Replacement trees equal in value to the appraisal value will be required for trees #.10, 11 and 17, and any other tree that is impacted by construction. The total appraised value for trees #10,11 and 17 is $2,930. This is equivalent to 2 trees of 36 inch box size. In a site meeting with the architect on July 31, he stated that the wall and columns at the front of the property would be replaced with a low fence on four -inch posts. This will minimize impacts to the trees along the front of the property. There will be no soil cut or fill within ten feet of trees. #4 — 6 to construct the driveway. According to the architect, the swales in the front yard will be hand dug to a depth of approximately six inches. The overflow bubble box will be deleted from the project. There will need to be two locations for fencing around the 14 inch oak tree at the south side of the property. The fence should be installed just outside of the asphalt during demolition of the driveway, and then relocated to the edge of the canopy prior, to start of construction of the new house. The water line should be relocated farther from tree. #4 and closer to tree #3 so that it remains at the drip line of the canopy for tree #4. The utility trench in the back yard should be relocated so that it remains Page 1 of 3 • • • 15211 Hume Drive farther from the two pines and the cedar tree. A proposed location has been noted on the attached utility plan. Per City Ordinance 15- 50.080, a bond amount of $59,500, which is equal to 100% of the total appraised value the trees potentially impacted by construction, is required. This bond amount is based on the appraised value of trees #1, 4 — 6, 8, 12, and 14. Appraisal values are calculated according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 91h Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. This report, as well as the report dated January 18, 2007, including the Tree Inventory Table and the map showing locations of trees and protective fencing, shall be incorporated into the set of final building plans. Both the mapwith this report and the map from the January 18 report shall be included in the final plan set. 2. Final building division plan set shall show two locations of tree protective fencing around 14 inch oak tree at south of property where driveway will be demolished. One location shall be just inside asphalt for demolition. Following demolition and prior to construction, fence shall be moved to drip line of tree canopy. 3. 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. 4. Owner shall provide a tree protection bond, in the amount of $59,500, which is equal to the value of trees #1, 4 — 6, 8, 12, and 14. 5. Replacement trees in the amount of $2,930, which is equal to the total appraised value of for trees #10, 11 and 17, shall be planted following construction. This is equal to 2 trees of 36 inch box size. Show new trees and locations on landscape plan. 6. Number trees on at least one sheet of the plan set, preferably the Site Plan. Trees that are to be removed shall be clearly marked on plans. 7. See attached copy of utility plan for adjusted locations of water line and utility trench. 8. Revise plans to reflect change from front wall with columns to low fence with posts and deletion of bubble box. 9. Unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist, 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. Page 2 of 3 • 15211 Hume Drive 10. Any approved grading or trenching beneath the trees' canopies shall be manually performed 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. Attachment:. Map showing proposed locations for utility lines • �A Page 3 of 3 15211 H �_Y Hume Drive 'e: ' - LEGEND '•;``��.:. __— �.^_:- . .�� Tree Protective` Tree Canopy ^ Jy . / 'eT Fencing for Demolition k`',` r�, '; f if�`t ,• NU . 0 %cI ! Vi,. Of JaWr iMurl T gN.cGsL rC 7 f• �.1c '� � {•— �:[SiE�orcu?IWcE'::.7t2:, ; � ----- - -a � . � .. ( I l- Fxoac�2 v¢aiA� �v. / OECr6. 7 .s"e �..._.,� -, may. �i"`t- •�__i _31t .� i ,, �: •.% kk �i�• , . � � � �..�� , .� .o , �, ter` ' H. Proposed location for utility trench r A--- •11• 1_..._. /.._ �. �t ...-Ai+GFtFNIGI.i: EN. .ELE. .o.iJ:n AWE¢ _ I &uw pump �'..� `�.. 1 slam- •''( r \�7� � �,�i.';�' qr ' oo t: � i ,�o • ,�.r .ate?' WE�tZA, �-�. ( 1 Proposed locations for water line 1 J ! ( t3' ��•�. �� % `.� � /f - • A.— Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 15211 Hume Drive Application #: 07 -193 ARBORIST REPORT October 18, 200 APN 510 -01 -016 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist .Owner: Adel and Maria Khouja ' Phone (408) 868 -1276 SITE OBSERVATIONS, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION • On October 16, 2007, I visited the site to inspect the trees because the architect had mentioned that some of the pines have died since- my original inventory. Trees #2, 13 and 15, as well as one pine that had not been inventoried are now dead. Following construction the owners should plant four 24 inch box trees to replace the dead trees. These replacement trees are required in addition to replacing the trees in conflict with construction with trees, having a replacement value of $2,930. All inventoried trees should. be clearly numbered on the plans and trees proposed for removal should be clearly shown to be removed. The utility trench in the back yard should be relocated so that it remains farther from the two pines and the cedar, tree. The drawings should be revised to reflect the location proposed in the August 2, 2007, report. RECOMMENDATIONS 1: This report, as well as the reports dated January 18, 2007 and August 2, 2007, shall be incorporated into the set of final building plans. 2. Number trees on at least one sheet of the plan set, preferably the Site Plan. Trees that are to be removed shall be clearly marked on plans.. 3. Four trees of 24 inch box size .shall be planted following construction to replace the pine trees that have died. These replacement trees are in addition to replacement trees for trees to be removed because they are in conflict with project. 4. Drawings have not yet been revised to reflect recommendations for pool utility trench and shall show utilities in location proposed in August 2, 2007 report. • Page 1 of 1 Attachment 5 • • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES . I, Denise Kaspar being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United-States, over. the age of IS years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 21" day of December, 2007, that I deposited 45 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: 15211 HUME DR APN: 510 -01 -016 that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. , r P se Kaspar Advanced Listing Services 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 09th day of January 2008, 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: #PDR07-0001 — 15211 Hume Drive APPLICANT /OWNER: Ramirez / Khouja APN: 510 -01 -016 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to demolish the existing home and construct a new two -story home. The proposed structure will be two -story with a full basement and require a height exception to allow for adherence to the Queen Anne architectural style. A detached pool house is also proposed at a height of approximately 18 -feet 9- inches. The gross lot size is 55,503. square feet, and the site is zoned R -1- 20,000. 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 Thursday January 03, 2008. 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.sarato ag 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. Shweta Bhatt Associate Planner sbhattra: %sari toga. ca.us (408) 868 -1266 December 20, 2007 500' Ownership Listing Prepared For: 510 -01 -016 MARIA D & M KHOUJA 15211 HUME DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6415 510 -01- 013,517 -22 -036 510 -01 -015 FRANCIS L & EDYTHMAE STUTZMAN ELIZABETH P SPEER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 15195 PARK DR 15181 HUME DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6421 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6464 510 -01 -017 510 -01 -018 GEORGE A & BARBARA ROUPE ALLEN & PATRICIA DON OR CURRENT OWNER - OR CURRENT OWNER 19921 PARK DR 15150 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6445 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6463 510 -01 -020 510 -01 -021 ROBERT G & BERNADINE LARSON DONALD C & MAUREEN LIGHTBODY OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 15070 PARK DR 15060 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6422 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6422 510 -01 -028 HAROLD & BETTY HODGES OR CURRENT OWNER 19875 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 - 6445 510 -01 -029 JOHN M & LORI WORTLEY OR CURRENT OWNER 49897 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6445 510 -01 -031 510 -01 -032 JAMES A & HEIDI GRASSMAN ERIC & LISA WARMENHOVEN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19874 PARK DR - 19852 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6444 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6444 510 -01 -035 510 -01 -036 IRA B & REGINA OLDHAM MOHSEN S & BEHNAZ SALEK OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19861 ROBIN WAY 19891 ROBIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6428 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6428 510 -01 -038 - 510 -01 -043 ANDREW LINDSAY HOWIE H & TERESA WANG OR CURRENT OWNER 1043 PARK DR 19920 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6421 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6444 510 -02 -005 510 -02 -006 FREDERICK W & REGINA SCHWERTLEY VAHID & MARITA LAHIJANIAN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 15300 HUME DR 19910 ROBIN WAY SARATOGA'CA 95070 -6417 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6429 • 510 -01 -016 MARIA D & M KHOUJA OR CURRENT OWNER 15211. HUME DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6415 510 -01 -019 BETTY CHRISTIAN OR CURRENT OWNER 15100 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6463 510 -01 -027 HUGH B UNDERWOOD OR CURRENT OWNER 19853 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6445 510 -01 -030 DAVID S & BARBARA SILVERSTEIN 1479 BULLION CT SAN JOSE CA 95120 -1745 510 -01 -034 DOUGLAS & MICHELE HELMUTH OR CURRENT OWNER 19831 ROBIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6428 510 -01 -037 LEON RABINOWITZ OR CURRENT OWNER 19921 ROBIN WAY . SARATOGA CA 95070 -6428 510 -01 -044 J & BEVERLY POELLOT OR CURRENT OWNER 15177 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6421 510 -02 -007 PARTHA SRINIVASAN - OR CURRENT OWNER 19880 ROBIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6429 510 -02 -008 BYRON J & LYNDA ANDERSON OR CURRENT OWNER PEPPER LN TOGA CA 95070 -6425 510 -52 -002 JOHN R & JANICE TRAVIS OR CURRENT OWNER 15245 HUME DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6415 510 -52- 007,008 PARK OR CURRENT OWNER 15269 HUME DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6415 517 -22 -011 BARRY L & LYNDA FORD OR CURRENT OWNER 20100 BONNIE BRAE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6331 517 -22 -037 W HACKETT 15400 SUVIEW DR LOS GATOS CA 95032 -5762 4 5I 22 -093 ALI SOOZANI OR CURRENT OWNER 15180 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6451 517 -22 -122 CLYDE R WALLIN OR CURRENT OWNER 15288 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6448 • 510 -02 -009 RICHARD E BOCKS PO BOX 2130 SUNNYVALE CA 94087 -0130 510 -52 -003 MARTIN C ROBINSON OR CURRENT OWNER 15281 HUME DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6415 510 -52- 009,010 MICHAEL S PLINER OR CURRENT OWNER 15257 HUME DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6415 517 -22 -035 BERNICE K & FRANK GIANSIRACUSA PO BOX 2430 SARATOGA CA 95070 -0430 517 -22 -047 SHOOR 2007 OR CURRENT OWNER 15177 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6452 517 -22 -094 HARLEY B & JUDITH NEGIN OR CURRENT OWNER 15172 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6448 Advanced Listing Services P.O Box 2593. Dana Point CA 92624 510 -52 -001 DANIEL J & CHARMAINE WARMENHOVEN OR CURRENT OWNER 15223 HUME DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6415 510 -52 -004 DAVID A & JOAN DRENNAN OR CURRENT OWNER 15365 HUME DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6416 510 -52- 011,012 GEORGE W & GEORGETTE LAMPROS OR CURRENT OWNER 15168 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6451 517 -22 -036 FRANCIS L & EDYTHMAE STUTZMAN 15195 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6421 517 -22 -055 S & CAROLE HORINE OR CURRENT OWNER 15250 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6448 517 -22 -112 DAVID J & TERESA CAREY OR CURRENT OWNER 15320 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6448 CITY OF SARATOGA ATTN: Shweta Bhatt 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CA 95070 es, di- lay :he of by for of tat ed to .he he its, te. ire in As he :nt ct. he to ut al. !ry er, ve ce ss or ed nt rill st- to od dd on .6, 15 .L, n dd id He he ur k four months from the hearing date noticed above. YOU MAY EXAMINE the File kept by the court. If you area person interested in the estate,, you may file with the court a formal Request for Special Notice of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any peti- tion or account as provided in section 1250 of the California Probate Code. A Request for Special Notice form is avail- able from the court clerk. Attorney for.petitioner. PETER BAJOREK HALES & GEORGE 19040 COX AVENUE, SUITE 3 SARATOGA,CA 95070 408 - 255.6292 (Pub SN 12126,1/2, 1/9) NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF LOIS.0. SHERRY CASE NO. 1-07-PR-162271 To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent credi- tors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of LOIS 0.5HERRY ATETITION has been filed by JAMES B. PITKIN in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. THE PETITION requests that JAMES B. PITKIN be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent. THE PETITION requests the decedent's WILL and codicils, p robate. to admitted if any, be t The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court. THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal repre- sentative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the person- al representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interest- ed person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority. A HEARING on the petition will be held on JANUARY 7, 2008, 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 15 located at 191 North First St., San lose, CA 95113. IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should [nfonnation: Canceled ads will receive credit for d. Ads must be canceled before dead- upon the representation that the ave the right to publish the contents such publication, advertiser and its I hold the publisher harmless against of any claims arising out of publica- he right to edit, alter, omit. of refuse is categories, please refer to the para- category or call us at 408 200.1025 munity-nesyspapers.com. appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney. IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the deceased, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy - to.the personal repre- sentative appointed by the court within four months from the date of first issuance of letters as provided in section 9100 of the California Probate Code. The time for filing claims will not expire before four months from the hearing date noticed above. YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a .person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a formal Request for Special Notice of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any peti- tion or account as provided in section 1250 of the California Probate Code. A Request for Special Notice form is avail - able from the court clerk. Attorney for petitioner: JAMES B. PITKIN P.O. BOX 2453 SARATOGA, CA 95070 408 - 345 -2387 (Pub SN 12/12,12/19,12/26) NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF ALFRED JOSEPH MERNONE, aka ALFRED J. MERNONE, deceased CASE NO. 1-07-PR-161970 To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent credi- tors; and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ALFRED JOSEPH MERNONE, aka ALFRED J. MERNONE, deceased A PETITION has been filed by DOROTHY MERNONE in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. THE PETITION requests that DOROTHY MERNONE. be appointed as .personal repre- sentative to administer the estate of the decedent. THE PETITION requests the decedent's WILL and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicits.are available for examination in the file kept by the court. THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions.without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very Slicon Valley Community Newspapers accepts no lia- bility for its failure, for - a ny. cause, to insert an advertise- ment. Liability for any error appearing in an advertisement is limited to the cost of the space actually occupied. No allowance, however, will be granted for an error that does not materially affect the value of the advertisement. To quali- fy for an adjustment, any error must be reported within 15 days of publication date. Credit for errors is limited to first insertion. important actions, however, .the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interest- ed person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority. A HEARING on the petition will be held on JANUARY 17, 2008, 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 15 located at 191 North First St., San Jose, CA 95113. IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by youcattorney. IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the deceased, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal repre- sentative appointed by the court within four months from the date of first issuance of letters as provided in section 9100 of the California Probate Code. The time for filing claims will not expire before four months from the hearing date noticed above. YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the t a formal Request for court q Special Notice of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of. any peti- tion or account as provided in section 1250 of the California Probate Code. A Request for Special Notice form is avail- able from the court clerk. Attorney for petitioner: JENNIFER H. FRIEDMAN, SBN 195475 JOHN L. FLEGEL, SBN 57010 1100 ALMA STREET, SUITE 210 MENLO PARK, CA 94025 650 -324 -9300 (Pub SN 12/12,12/19,12/26) LEGAL NOTICE Notice of Provisional Appointment Process West Valley- Mission Community College District Trustee Area 1 Due to the passing of Trustee Don Cordero, the Board of Trustees announces that it Will fill his seat until the next general election in November 2008 through a provisional appointment process in accor- dance with Education Code Sections 5090 and 5092. Interested candidates must meet the following minimum qualifications in order to be considered for this provisional appointment: • Must be 18 years of age • Must be a registered voter • Must reside within the West Valley- Mission Community College District, Trustee Area 1 (Saratoga /Los Gatos /Monte Sereno /por- tions of San Jose and Santa Cruz). Please call the Registrar of Voters Office to confirm (408 -299. 8683). Interested applicants should submit a resume and a letter of interest that includes why to the WVMCCD Board of Trustees; what skills, abilities, and experiences they would bring to the Board to assist in carrying out its responsibili- ties; and a description of their base of community support and /or their unique under- standing of the community, which would widen the com- munity outreach of the Board. Submit letter and resume to the Office of the Chancellor, West Valley - Mission CCD, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070. Applications must be received in the Office of the Chancellor by 5:00 p.m. on January 16, 2008. No facsimiles will be accepted. Finalists will be interviewed during the week of January 21, 2008. The Board will make a provisional appointment on or before February 7, 2008. The appointed Trustee shall hold office through November 2008, when the next general .election takes place. For further information, please call the West Valley - Mission Community . College District Chancellor's Office at 408 - 741.2011. (Pub SN 12/26,1/2) * civ LugalS NOTICE OF HEARING BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SARATOGA'S PLANNING COMMISSION announces the following pub- lic hearings on Wednesday, the 9th day of January 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details and plans are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Thursday, 7:30. a.m. - 5:00_ p.m. If you have questions, Planners are available at the public counter between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pur- suant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this notice, or in written corre- spondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communica- tions should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. 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 list- ed above and may visit other sites as well. For more infor- mation please contact the Community Development Department at 408 868.1222 or review the Site Visit Agenda on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us. (397.08 -091) Shadman,15219 Sobey Road — The applicant requests a Modification of Design Review Approval to modify an application approved by the Planning Commission at the October 13, 2004 hearing. The original approval was for a new single- story ry d e Ilin g consisting of 5,677 square feet of floor area and a partial basement. Proposed changes include, but are not limited to: elimi- nating shutters, eliminating divided lites on some win- dows, relocating chimneys, relocated fireplaces, and mod- ifying a trellis on the rear facade. The gross lot size is approximately 46,082 square feet and the site is located in the R -1. 40,000 zoning district. APPLICATION #MOD 07 -0001 (397.27 -010) Pichetti/ Cahoon, 18935 Hayfield Court: - The applicant requests modifications to an approved Design Review approval. Modifications include, but are not limited to, the addition of stone to the front fafade, the alteration of proposed home's placement on the site, the rotation of the garage, and additional win- dows on the right elevation. The property is zoned R -1. 40,000. APPLICATION #PDR07.0001 (510 -01 -016) Khouja/ Ramirez, 15211 Hume Drive — The applicant requests Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to demolish the existing home and con- struct a new two -story home. The proposed structure will be two -story with a full basement and require a height exception to the n t o allow f or adherence Queen Anne architectural style. A detached pool.house is also proposed at a height of approximately 18 7feet 9 -inch- es. The gross lot size is 55,503 square feet, and the site is zoned R -1- 20,000. APPLICATION #07 -029 (397- 25 -009) Maesumi, 13921 River Ranch Circle: -The appli- cant requests Design Review approval to demolish the existing home and shed and construct a new two -story home. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage will be approximately 4,355 square feet. The net lot size is approximately 18,839 square feet and the site is zoned R -1- 10,000. APPLICATION # PDR07 -0017 (503.68 -007) Miller; 14098 Palomino Way -The applicant request Design Review approval to remove an exist- ing 1,320 square foot second story of an existing two -story single - family residence and replace it with a new 1,690 square foot second story addi- tion in approximately the same location. The project also includes demolition of an existing garage and carport, construction of a new 466 square foot detached garage and a 370 square foot addi- tion to the existing lower floor. The residence will not exceed 26 feet in height. The net lot size is 54,075 square feet. The site is zoned R -1- 40,000. Design Review approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060. APPLICATION #07.366 (503- 69.012) Keyashian; 21818 Via Regina - The applicant requests Design Review approval to add 1,977 square and /convert 1,707 square feet to the existing basement cre- ating a lower Floor. The total floor area of the new house will be 5,677 square feet. The maximum height of the pro- posed building will not exceed the 26 -foot height limit. The maximum impervious cover - age will not exceed the allow - able 25% of the net site area. The lot size is approximately 53,562 square feet, and the site is located in the HR zon- ing district. Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060. (Pub SN 12/26) �* trustee Sales NOTICE OF TRUSTEE'S SALE NO. 07-261 YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST DATED 12/26/03. UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION TO PRO- TECT YOUR PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT A PUBLIC SALE. IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEED- ING AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWYER. On Jan. 16, 2008 at 11:00 AM of said day, at the entrance to THE FORECLOSURE COM- PANY 3001 Winchester Blvd., Ste. "A ", Campbell, .Cal. 95608 THE FORECLOSURE COMPANY INC. as Trustee, or Substitute Trustee will sell at a public auction to the high- est bidder for cash (payable at the time of sale in lawful money of the United States) the following described property situated in the County of SANTA CLARA, State of California, and described more fully as: See "EXHIBIT A" attached hereto . and made a part hereof. Will be sold "AS IS ". EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real Property in the. City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California, Described as Follows: Being a Portion of Section 12 in Township 8 South, Range 2 West, Mount Diablo Meridian, as Shown on That Certain Parcel Map, Which Map Was Filed for Record in Book 501 of Maps at Page 52 in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and as Shown on That Certain Map Entitled "Tract No. 5288", Which Map Was Filed for Record in Book 348 of Maps at Page 14 in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and Being More Particularly Described as Follows: BEGINNING at the Southeasterly Corner of Lot 4, as Said Lot Is Shown on Tract No. 5288, Which Map Was Filed for Record in Book 348 of Maps at Page 14 in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California; Thence along the Easterly Line of Said Lot 4 and its Northerly Prolongation, Said Line Also Being the Easterly Line of That Certain Parcel of Land Conveyed to John Markulin by Deed Recorded August 16, 1974.in Book 8044 of Official Records at Page 425, North 0 DEG 19' 57" WEST Interset Line of Markuli Line of Strip o the Cob Instrun 28, 19 'I Swie the Intc the No of the I of Tract to; The 56" Ea! Northei the Eas and 3 o 58708 Southe, Lot 3; 1 50' Or Northei 25 Fee' Thereof Paralle Westerl Angles; Line of South along 249.10 Interse Southe; Lot 4;.- 47' 39 Southe Feet to NING. and otf tion, if erty de ported 6 N( i address designi here. 5 without ty, exf regardi or enu the ob and pui Sale cc Deed c Noorud Succes: BJllawa UTA Da Trustor. as Insti in the Recordi County. initial Notice, unpaid ation s describ estimat fees, $81,20 the op calf the at: (4( Foreclo as tr Winche Campbi a debt obtaine that PL informa ly or in NPPOl: (Pub 5 1/9/08, • Attachment 6 • Q VIRGINIA SAVAGE MCALESTER 5703 SWISS AVENUE DALLAS, TEXAS 75214 GIl �r �rM10GA 214- 707 -7728 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN November 11, 2007 Dear Mr. Khouja, How refreshing and wonderful it is to have a town like Saratoga that takes its design standards seriously. Sometimes.that is not the case here in Texas —I envy you and your neighbors for being able to build and live in a place that truly cares. You sent me a set of plans for your new. home and asked me if it appeared to me to be a Queen Anne house: To me it looks like a -late Queen Anne home, built in the early 1900s as roof pitches were dropping. Please see the illustration Typical Roof Pitch Chronology on page 266 of A Field Guide to American Houses (AFGTAH). One of the things I like the best about your plan is the way is carefully avoids flat wall surfaces. Instead your design has a lot of movement in and out with the bay windows and tower. Very often I see new Queen Anne homes that have simply pasted the identifying features of porches, asymmetry, irregular shaped roof and areas of textured shingles on an otherwise squared and boxy body of a house. This is missing the point of how important the imaginative use of balloon framing is in Queen Anne —the first widespread style to really exploit its properties. This is discussed under Devices for Avoiding'a Flat Wall Surface on page 264 of AFGTAH. You asked about the flat portion of the roof. This does not bother me as similar flat areas a,e found on original examples of.the style "see photo 3 on page p. 269 photo 9 on p. 270). In the example on p. 269 you can barely make out the presence of a slight molding placed around that flat deck. You also asked about the placement of the' gable. While it is most typical to have the gable placed at the side of the roof, front - facing gables can occur on different parts of the facade as seen in photograph 16 on page 272, and photograph 17 on page 273. There are a few things about the design as it currently stands that I think offer the opportunity for improvement, in order to be more consistent with the Queen Anne style. One is the distance between the porch balustrades. These are slightly more widely spaced than would have been typical of the Queen Anne. y Second, I think you should at least explore slightly different ways of modifying the front - facinggable /Palladian.window detail. The exact way the front - facing gable is designed is not very typical of the style. While Palladian windows occur in Queen Anne homes, it is relatively unusual to have a Palladian window set entirely in the main body of the house with only an arched top extending into the gable (photo 2 on page 277 is the closest thing in AFGTAH to your design). You might explore separating the arched portion from the main window, creating a gable design more akin to photo 16 page 272 or photo 15 on page 278. It could well be that after exploring this, the current design would seem preferable to alternatives. But I think it is at least worth looking at slight modifications. Third, I personally prefer a deeper porch. While five feet is often found in California examples, Queen Anne's across the south and southeast tend to have deeper porches that act as very active living areas. Were it possible to get the porch depth up to 6 feet or even 6 1/2 feet it would look more commodious, be more in scale with the house and also, I believe, would better serve your family. Finally in the Queen Anne style ceilings tended to be ten feet high or more, particularly on the first floor. Making the first floor ceiling heights ten feet high would, I believe, be a good reason to very slightly exceed the 26 -foot height. This would also have an additional bonus making it easier to extend the porch and still keep a reasonable slope on the porch roof. I understand that you could build the tower at the same height as the house roof, but in my opinion it is very important for the tower to be higher than the main roofline. I realize this requires the very top portion of the tower to exceed 26 feet and be about 30 feet high. In short, I believe your home is a nice example of a Queen Anne style home, and that the addition of less than a foot in height for the main body of the house, and allowing the tower element to be thirty feet high is a reasonable request that I would be inclined to support if I were on the Design Review Board, which I am not. They have a very hard, unappreciated and tedious job that I do not envy. I actually find it amazing that you and others are able to build two -story homes withit or very close to, the 26 -foot height limit. I have just finished a book for Abbeville Press on Highland Park and University Park in Dallas. One of the things that most interested me was the Mansard style (see page 488 of AFGTAH) that was found so frequently in the 1970s. I interviewed George Lewis, who is a very respected builder here and has been building houses in the Park Cities since the early 1970s, and asked him about this. I am simply attaching the section I wrote for the Highland Park book based on his oral interview. I find it quite wonderful that you and others are able to build styles other than Mansard with this height limitation! All the best, Virainia McAlester I* Excerpt from Early American Suburbs: The Homes of the Park Cities, Texas (Abbeville Press, Spring, 2008) "The Highland Park building code was revised around 1970 to include a maximum roof height of 26 feet. During the. early 1970s, the township interpreted this height as being to the peak of the roof, I height limit that made the construction of a two -story house next to impossible. Those who wanted to construct a home in an older traditional style, rather than in the more contemporary mid - century modern styles, were challenged. Architects and builders responded with the. Mansard French style, characterized by the second story. concealed under a steeply pitched mansard roof. When that interpretation of the height limit was finally contested, the author of the code, Marvin Springer, clarified that the height should be measured to the mid -point of the roof, not to the peak. Now two-story.. homes of Colonial Revival and other styles could be built. "' i Interview with George Lewis by co- author, Virginia McAlester, Dallas Texas, July 2006. Lewis served 2002 -2003 as president of Greater Dallas Home Builders Association, 2005 -2006 as.president of Texas Association of Builders and built.numerous Park Cities homes from 1373 to the.present. • • • 171 Attachment 7 • From: M. Adel & Maria Khouja (owners) To: Saratoga City Staff and Planning Commission Re: Use permit for height exception per 15- 12.100 15211 Hume Dr. (Application #PDR07- 0001) Date: December 17, 2007 DEC 1 I ZO07 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT This letter is intended to give a quick summary of our project to augment the full description listed in the application packet and accompanying plans. L Brief background When this project started in the summer of 2005, we had asked Sergio Ramirez, our architect, to "design a house that would have fit in this location 100 years ago ". The plans /design that we are submitting are the results of many meetings, field trips (as far away I as Albany, Oregon), and extensive research. Sergio has successfully combined our requests with city code requirements in a charming yet modest Queen Anne. • Earlier this year, we visited our 5 adjacent neighbors (Mrs. Speer, Mr. Lindsay, Mr. and Mrs. Rabinowitz and Wilson, Mr. and Mrs. Warmenhoven, and Mrs. Lampros). All were very positive towards the project and signed the neighbor notification forms. We value i our relationships with our neighbors and intend to quickly respondto any concerns that our neighbors might raise in the future. H. November 13 Study Session We had a successful (public) study session with City Staff and the Planning Commission on Tuesday 11/13 after a site visit. At that meeting, Mr. Ramirez and we discussed Mrs. McAlester's letter and some of her suggested enhancements. The main topic of -discussion at the study session was conformity to "architectural purity and consistency ". One of the.requests raised at the study session by Commissioner Capello was a list of architectural elements that makes our design a Queen Anne. At the meeting, Mr. Ramirez listed a number of those elements including: • wrap - around porch (with generous depth) • distinctive tower - anchoring the left -side of the house • porch stairs, columns, railing, and spindlework • large front - facing gable with Palladian window and distinctive shingle siding • eyebrow dormer with fan design • mini- gable above the porch entrance • loft. ceilings throughout the first floor dentils above all windows • stonework and wrought iron around parts of the exterior bay windows in upstairs bedroom facing front and back of the house • 1 real and 2 false chimneys with appropiate brick facades • 4 protruding hexagonal sections to give the house more "movement" and "dimensionality" bow window in dining room and basement sitting room below • significant "movement and dimensionality" throughout the roof and around all sides of the house In the study session, we explained that the tower is a critical architectural element. To be clear, it has no functional purpose as it has no access from either the first or second floors, and no future access is possible from either floor. Mr. Ramirez had drawn multiple drawings of the tower with different heights to illustrate the importance of the 30" height that we are requesting. Note that this is not a variance, and we are filing the necessary use - permit application for this. We also explained that there is a section of the main roof that also extends beyond 26' (raised to 26'10" per Mrs. Virginia McAlester's suggestion of raising the main floor ceiling to 10') which contains the solar- generation panels (discussed more later). This section has been designed in such a way as to maximize the number of solar panels while making them completely invisible from the ground. Finally, the footprint of the new house has been reduced as compared to existing house. The frontage "span" of the house has been reduced by a third (from 11 7f to 78ft). This lets us emphasize the landscaping around the house while highlighting many of the unique features of the house. III. Mrs. McAlester 's letter To support the architectural purity argument, we contacted Mrs. Virginia McAlester, co- author of A Field Guide to American Houses. We had originally asked her to address some of the concerns that had been raised around the flat section of the roof (where the solar panels are), center gable, and steeply pitched roof. She reviewed our entire project and wrote a very favorable letter that is attached. The following is an excerpt from her letter: "In short, I believe your home is a nice example of a Queen Anne style home, and that the addition of less than afoot in height Ito 26'10" J for the main body of the house, and allowing the tower element to be thirty feet high is a reasonable request that 1 would be inclined to support if I were on the Design Review Board, which I am not. They have a very hard, unappreciated and tedious job that I do not envy. " In addition, Mrs. McAlester highlighted two valuable modifications that we have incorporated (e.g. widening porch to between 6'6" and 8'0" and raising the main floor ceilings to 10'). She also recommended that we try to avoid having the Palladian window "intrude" into the main gable. We discussed many alternatives with Mr. Ramirez but felt strongly that we wanted to maintain the additional sunlight entering into the top -floor without further raising the gable (and raising the roof height). In addition, we found 3 -4 • similar Palladian window designs in A Field Guide to American Houses. IV. Secondary Dwelling Unit At the request of City Staff and the Planning Commission we considered and decided to add a secondary dwelling unit (with a below - market - rental deed restriction). We understand that this can help the city meet some of its state - mandated requirements. V. Trees We are fortunate to have many trees (65 in total) on our lot with a rich variety of tree types including 11 mature redwoods, .5 mature Monterey pines, 2 mature Aleppo.pines, 5 mature cedars, and 32 mature fruit or ornamental trees. We love our trees and.intend fully to maintain the wooded feel of the lot. We intend to replace some of the dying pine trees (it's been a tough year-for-them) and augment the orchard in the rear of the lot as well as adding more large plants/trees as landscaping for the new house and entrance. Kate Bear (Saratoga City. Arborist) has visited the property at least 3 times and approved the removal of the two trees affected by the main house (pine and Madrone) and the one avocado affected by the pool- house/shed. VL Solar Panels To reduce the reliance of the new house on traditional energy sources, we intend to utilize as -much solar generation capabilities as possible. Mr. Ramirez has designed' enough space to accommodate 24 panels in the main house roof "indentation" and 36 panels on the pool -house roof. Solar generation technology is rapidly advancing at present, and the generation capabilities will likely be improved in 2 years when we expect to install the system. Nonetheless, I was able to get current numbers from the spec. for the SunPower 210 Solar panel (from sunpowercorp.com). Based on that information (194 Watts per panel), the 50 panels in our design should generate 9.7kW when the sun is strongest. All electricity.beyond the needs of the house will be "sold back to the grid." We appreciate all of the time that City Staff and the Planning Commission have put into reviewing our project. Every effort has been taken to make this a unique design witht minimal impact on our neighbors. M. Adel Khouja & Maria Khouja C__ • • • 0 Attachment 8 • • December 31, 2007 TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION . CITY OF SARATOGA Ref: 15211 Hume Drive. Adel and Maria Khouja. 0 E C F � V E 0 JAN 0 Z 2008 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT In response to your request for a summary of characteristics of the Queen Anne style, the following has been prepared for your perusal. In an effort to ensure authenticity of design and adherence to detail, extensive consultations were held with Ms. Virginia McAlester, author of the book "Field Guide to American Houses" approved by the City as a source book for authentication of architectural styles. Ms McAlester was kind enough to write a letter stating her opinion of the project, which is part of the record. After the Summary and at your request, we have briefly outlined how the Khouja House. meets the exigencies and characteristics of the style. Should you have any questions or comments, please fell free to call CHARACTERISTICS OF QUEEN ANNE STYLE.. The Queen Anne style of architecture has distinguishing characteristics that can be summarized as follows: ENTRIES: Entries are generally through a porch that runs along the front of the house, and sometimes "wraps around" one or more sides of the house. The ample porch, facing the street,is a social as well as an architectural device where families would congregate and sit to chat and sip tea or lemonade especially in hot Summer afternoons. The porches are generally elevated from the street level by a few feet, and provide shade for the front doors and typically double hung windows. The front door was generally surrounded by decorative glass panes, or by decorative glass insets, aimed to gather the softened light provided by the use of the porch. The windows were generally double hung, so that by partially opening the top and bottom of the windows, hot air would tend to escape through the top, while cool air was allowed in the house through the bottom. INTERIOR HEIGHT: The design of the interior of the, houses obeyed both to practical as well as aesthetical considerations. Since heat rises and cool air stays at the bottom of rooms, a high ceiling was a useful way to keep the hot air high enough to provide a more comfortable environment: It also allowed the use of oversize mouldings. and decorative woodwork in the ceiling, as well as enough distance from the eye to provide adequate perspectives for the enjoyment of the woodwork. The typical height of at least the first floor of these houses was ten feet. ROOFS: The Queen Anne, house typically had moderate to steep roofs that had resolved a. number of practical considerations. Heavy accumulations of snow are less likely, heavy rains run off quickly, attic, space provides both storage space and an insulating layer of air between roof and the ceiling below, which is an effective way to control temperature both in the Winter and Summer months. The roofs were a combination of hips and gables in different designs, intended to provide an interesting roof line as well as accommodate additional ventilating and storage space. GENERAL EXTERIOR APPEARANCE: The use of advanced framing techniques made it possible to offset different planes throughout the exterior of the house to provide "movement ": the avoidance of long, tall and flat surfaces. To further enhance the different planes of a house, different types of siding were used as well as different colors. The use of Bay windows is prevalent, and ornamental woodwork is used profusely throughout. This woodwork is commonly known as "spindle work and includes turned posts and railings, dentils in both porches and windows, decorative scrolling or detailing at gable ends, and small turned railings at "widow walks" in examples of houses terminating in flat roofs. TOWERS: The Tower is a distinctive architectural element of this style, and in the Queen Anne it is used almost • • • . exclusively as an anchoring element at one of the front corners of the house. The Tower typically has a steeper p[itch in the roof than the rest of the house, and the use of a double pitch (one section of the tower roof steeper than the other), is common in the style. The use of a decorative detail at the tip of the roof is generalized throughout the range of variations of the style, and it can be made out of wood, or it can be a copper weathervane emblematic of location of the house (a farm would have a rooster for example, a stud farm a horse, etc.). COLORATION: Color is an integral element of the style, and it is used to enhance details of the woodwork. The coloration can vary in range from a modest use of different shades of the same color, to the prolific and exuberant use that characterizes the "Painted Ladies" of San Francisco, one of the areas of the country where prime examples of the townhouse form of the style are extant. THE KHOUJA HOUSE: As has been detailed on sheets one and two of the drawings, the house was conceived in response to requests made by the Khouja family in the architectural program presented to us. At the completion of the project in preliminary form, consultations ere held with Ms. McAlester, as described above, who made a number of suggestions as to how the design could be enhanced to meet more closely the characteristics of the Queen Anne. These included most prominently, the widening of the porch from five feet to six and a half feet, and the increase in the height of the first floor ceilings from 9' -6" to 10' -0 ". The house has a long porch across the front facade that wraps around the Tower, and is now as wide as Ms. Mc Alester suggested. The front doors have decorative glass insets, and are surrounded by decorative glass panels. All the fenestration throughout the house is entirely in keeping with the style. All windows have either dentils, or are true divided lights. (And all are double pane, low a glass). The siding on the first floor is different from the second. Narrower grooving below and wider grooving above. There is scalloped siding at the main gable, and extensive detailing in the woodwork. All railings under cover are turned wood, and fully weather exposed railings are wrought iron. The tower is designed as an anchoring architectural element, is octagonal in shape, has a wrap around porch, a double pitched roof, and there is a copper weathervane at the tip of it. The "movement" has been achieved by the frequent use of different planes in relation to a front line in the first floor, and different planes in the upper floor as well. There are a number of bay windows to further enhance the effect, as well as full framing that has been designed to give the house the Queen Anne look not only in the front but the back as well. Please note the design of the kitchen and master suite above, as well as Mr. Khouja's office. The Dining Room has a Bow window that extends to the basement, which allowed for the construction of a curved basement wall which is used to enhance movement in an otherwise long basement well. The coloring chosen for the house is modest, with soft and mellow yellow / beige background, and offf white trimwork. The color palette will be carefully tuned to provide as soft and old look. The house has a trellis at the back terrace, and extensive planters both on the first and second floors. These planters are designed to have old fashioned plantings, like climbing roses or similar, to further enhance the old look of the house and soften the elevations. However, at the Commission's request, plantings have largely been omitted from these drawings. Chimneys, a functional part of Queen Annes, have been used in this project mostly as decorative elements given that most fireplaces run on natural gas, are very efficient, and are vented through sidewalls. As much as practically possible, these chimneys will gather the plumbing and heater vents to avoid the look of roof jacks on the roof. Every effort has been made to make this project an authentic period piece, first through research and I y ve ' the design through Ms. McAlester. n Respectfully sub ` l% rgi . Ramirez - Sergio E. Ramire tiz &associates Principal • • • Attachment 9 • • • 51 41 =I DODGE a ASSOCIATES SURVEYING TIW- M -Tuif 1, 2007 ?-)oUtfDARY S L) R\65 AT L^h ()s. o;- P%IIEL 4 MAMA K-400 YA py IC211 HJAC bZ., -S ft &ATO 6 A G. to ?t t t o • A W 2BO, le'l C0 'f" I ve J�P sue, I c ':'Piop �p� � oLp 0 eA ST LAND 6. No. i SD Pat, DODGE & ASSOCIATES SURVEYING fn A]AtT11 Lo - 0(. -0-7 Al, i Mm AoeL KHQ%3SA QA! 1621 I Hdit D9. Reiff �o.l�C•o7 -07 q f9t 7'WC A`VZA&f ILC)ff- ov rAE &otsfea ftperzry As co�La,Jg: A ARIA, X Co.J't.JL L-' Cu Toot L9(00rW,BMi..6'r, mob C4 9% AJff 2li62 Sin PE 10 T*--- S 00 L31 • L A 00 e3. L 8t0 1.04 5 -7. k. .4 �x TN ;:RA, —PF lsf -xr �7� zti19AbQ- N IT AW, -r- XV-146 -,7 3 a�i�cca�wc�r�+scttiyc 24" —17 Dow - - - - - - - - - - - - T Is- t MA A --M -Alt IAJJ?60� ff�NJ2�, I K -- ----------- - LAIRI &JP•/Fla(L Wa.3V(S' LA k. .4 �x TN ;:RA, —PF lsf -xr �7� zti19AbQ- N IT AW, -r- XV-146 -,7 3 a�i�cca�wc�r�+scttiyc 24" —17 Dow - - - - - - - - - - - - T Is- t MA A --M -Alt IAJJ?60� ff�NJ2�, I K -- ----------- - o ca RO Allo, el - - Ifla. m,.- I At"is ---------- VfA ITO nvit,4�— la 4yk, if -;FAE-LA�FA lw w in _wz --4vw%.oq dro E97-- VI-WA=2 aii- Tv?,vn-W= UrXf �-w=s:L----V-Wjf ��A. Az 4/0 -ASA rV WRU, ;St Ire Ch co !, 41 no'st mg • ti -114,7KTU __x I TIAIG TO, PO —"Owe ------ ----------- ----------- . ... ...... II Av4 �n sand �� iIII� 1� i,, ' iJ,j'I �� I I -f _TiO .. t!L- Tr- 6o h L7 r,2 C 5ZZ; 6gefT Crr:2) __x I TIAIG TO, PO —"Owe ------ ----------- ----------- . ... ...... II Av4 �n sand �� iIII� 1� i,, ' iJ,j'I �� I I -f _TiO .. t!L- Tr- mo 0\ O 2 g O Pl? A 0 in qs cc as Cl L7 r,2 C 5ZZ; 6gefT Crr:2) mo 0\ O 2 g O Pl? A 0 in qs cc as Cl o-+ N o-+ CD m z R7O !• Y�wi jail f�D L.i ii OVVVO s � lfD �Ha�• U V, w N O � . e rA rD rD a 4 1 _ I_ uF 4 .:: •4.jY0 f'4K3W1YQ9dE1 Ty aKy saa¢� �Bi;QV�1;adV JrA J.'IdYRa1 '1tfiCi �?dDLf 3HL da! 2lt�LtM1�W?yd3] �Stl .�abna 6t�'i b� 4 - .:.'H7iMYi_0[alfM .Yd'A3�6 3N18C NP_i�71�1A. M°r�-' m. =r�lw v adv�±:�uh �a'!NOaN�a xz�a 31vMf%_D,9 curl 3?1C�i�y1[fl� 4TL��!K YM.N�'31�— kiM1vd� m �-iae'rem 'n3�c::twna a�+s aamac�tra . �YN++ova c,�k�Jre sa�,� alma�D��tt_x.�? 1+0 S3fr s a1 7 b Oil NL CJ71Y16Nt 'E8.'Yt�NC_91Y101�.' -tlf� -- .. ,�ralln�,lti�r otrro�c���+sN�il�r�_� ..; :dWh1 dtvil4'tSY.m- �xZca� - 4 Ana.. �tt�l:aZNi- n�rvnl arn�dltmtm rst+��,reD��et l _ — E ' io Opt lerrwa4v0.�ann�v+ns -:woox � aara�a H. — vaAn3 7aian •J.iNVlNarr�Sao aoda�v�ia I 2 �� NI III Ii1�lll I�I � i III II Ii N I.III�t ItlllI'' �I �t., P•m Nre�., kll70S' ,pe•bEE � t .. �4 1 I - - - - - -- .�2oM- 1Wi1v6Ym3YU- eMati�.o. s,pv -. at_�lot�ld ::_ .. ___- s�uriun nM•±rnl�aaaem: �o c�icr�'I.i?s>� - _ a151ND- :t133?V=an�a:r;- dt�rtmot.oz2a N(1� :, � l� /' Y•S'(1 .YTCLM/7'tTIHL �YJCYO7 i`1?'.t2Y32 - - NY-A4 3i' -Tall -►Ll 0 N v ' -. 1 - ri -.: v/li�.n �Y'1f _ - (( GI •1- �F1• U �° NDdY tt—, B�l .TYI. ow r b "" �e•': I 1 +)/ I � I � ,.` Y �" - ht �I �j N0H�1 r31' �� � e �• n' q \ I tv 5v� � °•>e0.- � , pi —arrJ wna':. ;i \t.``:l /° � �t�a -- 1� , I � \\ \ \�� {'da\ as��\ / /.. f' { —d -, j I _� � t ' � \ I � � i v °n• j . �1/ , � 9 �v \ \d' 1 '�,ydY �' xT•ar9 =� -��.�` ,I � �' � I i � -.1 �� �° � }i � � �, ��•��4Citf ilzHL_, .h \ ,�' w WON J?4�. fj/ �„ � m,�f •rv: �- ` roa � �J.Milili0?N.IfA23'H'Q9GK l � � ;: N� . � j rN ;� I i VP t1� k*�(%aui>nuR :Srane_ p C IWA I66 r ! �" /o-4" •,( •'°'� �{�". I- � -- -- - - -�" — - - -- —,-'` - — --� i'0� : � ate. \: � � _ JJ y . t- . 4�,0 °' _ '1N3wdfaYrL3aD7 ' u \ , p : 4�•4 °` ° � i -\ °•dl ^' 6'�% \ \P a • N M � bi Q o mq2 � nn o m o � N A CO q o�i O a, � 1 to CO 0 x o, o a 500 w con ..° m > ao v co a�i '� W 0 y p 0 — a4 CO oco �la cla O Cd q co cd �C\2 CO N • r � J [, Adel & Maria Khou'a 'r 16%chemutstreet Sergio erick ramirez -batiz & associates J New Residence los gatos, ca 95030 15211 Hume Drive, Saratoga, CA 95070 ph (408) 395 -0139 fax (408) 395 -0159 h T M bin � 4 a w i•1 V � M y $ O a i V Q�z- h a I ILI - ol e 4 d !I � I __ / \ ❑!a / �I -e �. 1' -e �d-a. it V® /2' / __- I T — " 8• �. ill �� \ S ,r I I 1j 1 I I s n . TAB I s 1 I �2U6CSN � : P AA I 9 b I OF -7d_: - p ' _— �lc�_Lh1G-_tZMQ TRY 7_4066 I N N j I i S _ I b' — - —. t li' -6• 13'-0' i� -b• 40 i — b• -d h T M bin � 4 a w i•1 V � M y $ O a i V Q�z- h --jr Tk I '\ III i .. t. I I I I I; z I � I. re i . IN i .j I I ) I I Adel & Maria Khouja�i Sergio erick. ramirez -batiz & associates New Residence 16'h chestnut street 15211 Hume- Drive, Saratoga, CA 95070 A los ptos, ca 95030 0 . ph (408) 395 -0139 fax (408) 395 -0159 IL 4%0. 91ppXp .0 I PI s .Y, Q r 9NIH?'/Il 71O,140� AAVH., TYN4 tom. Aom-- d,,o ". 4'ssl5' 9'IY _ • 7 7s6��iaa -nt7+s S�DtJi 1Y'i� Na y ?_� ,k 3 � -- — . � � . .. i - TT-of 4N6- 71Yd7s'Y�Tilwalvf-- l s ': :' ,: , A 8 b _. _k2l 913A- 1y3t3_ 3f:tK. fLi[ad J�ax r_ �al]a�_�a w rala�ss'�sna _friln w- —r s 1 t - r. � ySQ� -n�lrm�- _`H3A7- .}+1"'�(671Id_9 _-ZNINtp .42?64 - - _ ^_— (f1'd14d�N�a��Fl lYY Sc�413� -f+1- i - . '. ... _ _."3�1��' �itl 71�-- 4h_�Fi .1rz. sTdi'A •� '3�Ab3�— .,.... -.. 1NVJaryYait- �-73nTil-7a�riy3f4_33dIQN: 3141.- �d�i?DX��9'�A3,3'FGj�..- _VYdI�?++Qa AalcnYa' ednmeavtL2!�ZJHIBP J s[lLL, -34 C1YN4 .. � _ M+, 3s, e5Y_ Aa1��� *LYiriie_M2Eaa�S7:�4s1d..�v �a�^i1S- G�_sl!w.n:w —, YIPlAd �ai!d5 34n'�10'13 aAY+i 'Yl�l'1 s37v1A�ALh WogA_`ridA '+WSd4 ���IiYW__- , �. +t�AKS v�Id b 9t11.W+iv�llavdxdu i111T� 1�NK1 av ,�nHO. s }aNWN+� anudaoiaD = 8 i - .. �. • �rjgaa�dv�. k�' t5! t_ at' rr ��xa'.„ en�r��e.- rNa>;=�±ou+v�'.e�.w� -� � �p : 3 Mol �p1A01N `M'1 NI4 $+f �BNYa a't9t�oa oovM ."�d:'r17Hc. 4flIOAKI> =+1 �Yi'— . • x — LYddA9�1yi�a4f JliiC9N1a15t3,tJ11aA1 6.Q �1d�1bY'1111+i 3A.?2?AI,7 /I /N'- .+Xk -0QdAV -'Ar �9 '1TA +s �Ma 'l�ka1.MYW.= P � B �soad�abr�nndw 4 A c _ 1sr�m�a��Yrn �. -xaim- eeds,Y�_aN� -- ,Nd -vw9N n-rMw woe NWw �H1JN :oaE 1y I� Nd'vtb � S -. ti iI}AR4 rl.�'IV!^p8S d YrDa� 2s G. rwv v,-,W vwu-e m b bMIAI C11751 ..m_ 9611 10,16 2 fi/ 075 WAYIIMW VVYN MI'1 ''AR72 ' - 1r .:(31IAtPMtSlitfo ( a- T7?.[!iHS PlU9A{WO?'d2'ClYH�2icrrd:A o2'xNV!PL4 � ... _• _ pupil 011 ji IIIII �� '~ � �,;�III ! ;,;; �� % �' i�� -io ili�: ,,; I i, ll l rill ; ���Ill��������� � i i I jIs ii ��III �! ►�II1. 111111111�� III I1 �.�hiiii� �_ ; ;,, ,,,��I it ��� � L�I� I i l I I Il� I, �� � ;lllll�ll��� � '� I�`� pl�l ; �, ,ill►. Ihlll II'I;1 �I , -III, 1�I= �IIII! °wl�'� lli> ill � I � I� , Il� it lip I � � �� I ! �I �[_ - ? ��- ��i , �' llll�l I�!IIIIL.�1 , � 1� �a.� � I�� FI -i� I Ii� I L:— '; � 15 11111 tw/a N+ e �jp a~• p A� A �r A � s � O ow r 0 eD M x b� � � N N R� b � U b y O n t+• a•� _I /6 fri.SfaGU■ � 1 ! ���� Gl -v: GJ..V u .t -fi(.I.S 1lLIi% 1 •.L�r q� _ _ �� \\ - ■ ac . -s . u r i = .._ aa�.L [ ,h�3 , ��7I� _ -��� ��� Es I "III t 010'a il; ! ! .�1T•l�3i=liGY L'17ri�Y�'�AAr -r -ra rl7FGl v ��� -.. - G4PIi.f•L" �%2'ii �7i ,r_. SYi1FP. - � !2 � i�i�-,�,�� - pp I.`.�:— !!��i. %E�•11�itell �[�iVLf I7 —I�� -T L-.. i•D V �J '� ti .c xv d4.a <.>nec:a. ��rr. �. ir., - i� ��r • .carne era ® I �i�������� %���i/` C 0 OEM No 11�ii 91011 REMEMENEW I, Wulllllllllllilllh\ ON O o� II � o� alb y tii, Will" — — — — - � � I I'I -;n7 1 1® - ��1 iii o�! ■��s�� -R • N" N H ow A It f�D th Zi L. Pi Grp• 13• GS p ►��y O o� �1CD Qy gW w N b ��•' . � �j, •I �A '"- �-tt4�- rA 0 F11 i'l I �- p•,oz � I A' c -909 '3'd •p __. "3f1�i(t2lrz- '•14LL dlTt] tl e - ... _- "_. - :. - - _ _ ._._ d - .- _.ASr�.- 2J- Y9...C�iHtll- ��iinlnemne3� '3e•Tv7- �vaT�sn7aa'rev��- 36?JAIY -L -- ;41N;�..LM�WJ]d.Yrm_. - -. :.- ,... _ :.. N. _ _tq -dwnSY J!�Ija Aar= 4 �'lYtlti i��t�.4 - sTanrrn �,g .i_xitSY zfOd IIySAPI kI -_, p - df33��1�d-WwW4 Na: G.1b2 NWls. aaar/ _vY4.lF2� 39.7LYns WtN1lb - 41arfloy -• _ =_ _ . - ___ -._ _ .. ..__ _ _ - - -_.: -- -- sirwra , k .�an2 .- tittslj�t _. - . - - -- - - -- _ -: - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - -TWA rnr(�x4- -- -_ -- - •' .(l _ NC�01ir.:4' WJ b�'4'.C% - ev.a��t1.1i19. `'. d2�G2'3{it'Val•'P iA� ftiv- - E2wwbl- 1'I�gd �L�7aPN6'. 00 S'1aiiNd.2 i.3N'YC1d ' -spa 1.9. -- - .._ _ - ....� t., _ - - 2M�d•- - -O* Ym to "�ivlit-1�fW AI�3+L.__ 'Yiiid .t4L lY� • _ _ _. ____ _ _ -- _ ___ _____. _. ._.._._. _ _._- _.._-- CI���•_ .'�T•9'•471� T�19 �9. -7F91e �Aell7S..1!3471•��._CGU"r1 �'�A'lo'°SI %- �fi1R7d ??3�Li1_.. _'a3L1.. _'di2� - __ -__._ -___ _____.__ _. __.__ _ _ ___- a - �P L- 52(�07� - '3- Y- �Tla 40 J- ?4f5 amm:ol 'S'+tl0!9 NG'�'� _'?1N�..'�'2fLhIN OL s1iW�GMMM1T1tCN09 I1�{•o'� AO •M•W "A'JYNd Y .Npn7115Na9 -~ �'I a i,71+n1�3._�53i�aii::;1N1 flfil''CKk19:..LM3W�fn�[3. �a2� Yimt6m- �.41."1�:5>x LMV2a -d "32:n �41AOdd 7710'IC7 __ -_. _ . _. -" - 17 �tv�atr' iaIr�x + MI ar�cnByNbtLsadwo� nvNo ;lmtrrdanaa?aaan'3ooit.�ormi•. - - _ . dY Herr. ._.._.__ {namamv�al!3�2Srt:lM aL1- 'Y_Y1� ��Y) 3111Y3a11 _�Sb�]I^��t+i/l/lskad-�- _ -__. ._. sbtQl �Yu% v�2-: ��3$t3�331.:.3it�- r[F,�1��tiMil altsa�lY� _._'A3f�'im3 ,t31'�2�ID+- ��i--- '63lriri sl- i1���41I1pLA� ?d�t+�.4;'_lFEi -7F1-I-� EIL�'£..H`mOL: �2Lx.C.�. =riytiG SIG Mlaa"Iii3_ - - .7713Ae_�'3S91t 7!•1AA_'%�1'��_9� i� �'119'1i2 �z�_�4�41.11Y%dN39 _ _ -.- - '�LY�O. L��Y .��?A(i7�dP�- �PZ3ifilts(ilaal�. bV�il?M. 'IN_]'._ • ! ._���oS�4aoad?a may- �lP �� •Y9YL1Y S}MW�'f�.1 'L(2�1�5/'�� d'Litl -ate y�2L'�l� -•� �_ -- - _._ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . = �n,.17�s4 . - - - _. ika '.. - _ - - lCtlslLnHlleLiaiAiT4/LS1rYawaYl __ _ - wTP�dd'. t�" 21. 4��116' �ET9 ?�RC-pJro_Fe�T7�0- ',Pf�LMa'PW e,,k - N�fil� Isa r�tI"�'f 5591 SJ_1M21�@ =LOy N 416 772 a�O1H 919N �� zl9j 10F1�y_T -Q _ " -- ` -- }i- 1t_1J -Y - .. --- •ofx 99:irrdG -i: 67d'7Ydlt� i1fkS 6.'1��.2.N1.- 3111PL_. - _. . 4g11ya�{y� 9NISLL3xis 311Y1 ti.¢P191a3Na.Nd>?21f? .36f1AMi�l!_9t'1WOY7 NmtitiL 9.1YfY dNM 191J1d-1M5'1'3H1�o'13tw�aa OL 9111' �ltt�" 3fi1. �' u4r' i. 13J7 :- :.�1��A2•r+T�'YV"JlLN.'li' I .. _. _ .. Jit1Y1L?�tt2 S'fLd�IN(LQcTY(o•?- 3�.L . la �" i� 1 � � r :_I�AL�Gk107�.OL�F- qY2�`(? .H7P3�v''��4N14��Ck17i1L.�O.N �lrs�S�:e4Y•}1D_7 � � ' '.' k � � I % I. - , ;,'��211�4iC�Td�1�IR @171- •b- i/1i�r4 }a' -�� 31'1I.- GIM.�3S "eI.L511athL !dam • :.:. j -, �- !I '� r A�Arml- -- - 7T- ;III I I - - ansirneri § b7nLl- arr- �laulrr�Tr���a�IZsT_ ='. •te=a � 1 �.. a� •, T �'+ -� - _�..... _... .� I� ,� !I i � � � P?L�(LLN]2 Y_f2X3! G1itL�Q ?t!t'133d._'6bHL'� 1 nN� -dais 32i .321N�'1- 6T3M- ].�I411 -L�,. . I ^..M1.. R,. � �,.. ;;._ {•. I II it I,� 4 ;,n';g, �i✓ A'. �d- Kd�P_ 4' 1? �LiB' T• ��IW'I��d)�P- �.]�.s�if_..d'�i1S ?��.44R51�61�..�_ Nj kw , s7%W -• yo a -•��- __ _ .- _- rte$ �A '"- �-tt4�- rA 0 F11 i'l I I •a �- p•,oz � I A' c -909 '3'd •p tl e 0 d - p - pv_;6 p_ y g a a. ❑_ _ I •a �- p•,oz d 7 • • GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1. In noes where Wadhp la to Dome all oWrJc material covering the see stall be cblpped and sbdoled. The stdppings shall be used to beddlli landscape seas, Excess .slo ppings will accevaled matedal shall be removed from Ma aft by the grading mbac4o. 2. B shell be the respormaluity d the contractor to wanury, looeb and potact as underground laalNes. 3. The types, koatlons, site and/or depths of edatlng underground uUMIse a shown.were obadnsdfrom apnoea ofvaykg refabn5y. The . mrtherbu a caWoned that my, cabal asaavetion will reveal the types, wheat, straw, locatione and dept he al such urdargiou 1 W4tles, A reasmatrle aRoA has tsar made to acpfe will delineate all known adergrourd utilities. However the an~ sea asrme no respomblly, for the complah- «accuracy of the delineation d ash underground uases which m y.be sawedeaQ brdwNdr are not shown m Mesa dnavdngw Aa mrtrecbrs will be responsible far Mlkdlon allocation d aN adding W titles In the field. An owdr -b sshall cal U.SA (Underground Alert) at (SIXIMT -2500 48 ham before dipping, and obtain er kardNratlar number peraealim 4210.1 clans . 4. Contractor to ventfy all adsdrg roved daratbra for atom dap and sennsry sewer construction prior to any ant wodr. All work for Worm awl saNary, installation shall begin at the dowrobeem connection point This will allow for any nwaseay, a*Wma to to be. aft prior to Be Installation of Be aura Ihe. B the contractor fails to begin at to downstream co mow point ad waft upcbean, he shall proceed sit Ne own rak and be responsible fa arty adfahrienta necessary. S. Should diacrepe naee adat between the adurt devafibrs and locations of widig sewer mianatlo s and does w shown on these Pont, Ell curbaclor shah rbiiy Robert W. Starer Cain Engfw at (408) 881-SW bear. a hang wAwN desigm . 8. Contractor shall server and axposs all "m udry and sower 11- where theyaa b be crossed above or below by 0. new, fadlity bean wnatruoted In enter to verify the grade and to witur s had Men Is adfldend clearance. 5gn contractor nequ►es acistaoe he shall cal . Robed W. Sauer CNN Engineer at (408)981-SW and requests summy crew, b rnahetin deten. narb Pipe shdi not be strnrp nor handing commenced until all toss ngs have bet vemad far clearance. Bane mrNalafala 1Dtocow the proceM, )e will be adny . responsible far any aria work a material required if onodilloatio s b the design are necessary. 7. All areas to be goaded shall have a mirdnsn dopo a2%. S. Contractor shaii grade evenly between spot fnfah eavation stows m the pan. . 9. Proposed spot grades (elevations) shown hereon are 9nlsind eaface grade% 16. When a grading pwn* is awed On this project the agency approval applies only to grediog: Tleoaribsclor is responsible for wouri g all other necessary permits ta aamplah proposed abew000 - 11. NI work shall be pnfonned in acooamm with applicable O.S.HA rapWasom. - 12. Contraction contractor agrees that in woordance with generally acoepled mmtrudlm peck:", comblydlon 000bscbrwil be requred In aeauma ode and complete responsibility far job site conditions during the cdsrae of tab ction of the poled, Including wedely of all persons and be UW bNW .agrees adad, IMemmfy and IoW design professional hamrnlea rot be firriftect had my and all "billy In mwedlm wIM the portion anus alwom on this poject. .. 13. All grading shall oompty with Chapter 33 and Section IWBA5 titre 1997 Uniform Building Code. . • 14. The pemd8es shall maintain the strata, sidewalks ad all of public rigWo wsy in • dear, ode; ad ramble co ci tlon. Ali spills of eel, . rod., or construction debris shell be removed from the publicly -owned property oahg construction and upon omplabon of he project. All adjacent property, private or public, shall be rnalnde iv d In a tins, ode, end usable condom. 15. An grading shall be performed b such a manner as to campy with the standards esadistM by the Air Quality Maintenance Okadfor airborne pamadeaa 19. in the event had human remains anNor cultural materials the food, an project- related waMrclm should wass within a 100 -foot radius. The contractor shad, pu mewd b Section 6087.94 of the public reaurces coda of the Sato or California, ably, the Sera Cant Canty coroner ' Immediately - 17. The plan noes not approve the hemoval d base. Appopriate tae removal perm%and rneMOde dbee p vs& -iMm shm O bs obtahed ban the Town Planning Department and the Town Arb&A . 18. Gmdhg will riot be allowed behvaas October 15th and April 15th deny year. "wpm 16 by Do City of Saratoga. 18. The loading contrator shall furnish an labor. matelots, tools. equOrenL and Incidentals mq=W to grade the age as the pea irmNcels. The grading cmlraclor stall Mandan dust control to the sebsadion of the City of Serabgm and Ma dW engineer, Robert W. Sauer. - 20. An aggregate base meters shall be Cass 11 or better as defined by the standard spetlflra9prs or the Spa of California, Department of Public Works: All aggregate base well be spread in one Ayer. AN ban slag be competed to a compaction of 96%. Th . base material - .. Warrants, sell be no moot tiara 0.061eet . . 21. All roof drainage down spouts shag be connected to the of drainage systan *w dadwge to Be propoead a8esanm water deladion areas. 22. All retalnlr. watt dais Man be connected to the site drainage system fordisches b.Me 1noPCSas ells storm water detention seas. NOTE . M oonloectore wiNberapaeideforveh CndbmbmsdabndaNrn WIMmateflail. An contracba shell call U.SA, (Underground Service AIM) at (800)-227 -26W 48 hours bd«e dIWpinp, and obtain an Id-I flcalon number per section 4210.1 of tie pvvmmnd ode. SHEETINDEX COVER SHEET GRADING RAN .. . DPA14AGE AND UTILITY RAN SITE CROBS-SEC IONS - .. DETAILS . REVISIONS. w x W 0 U. a GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN i w. I z h. LANDS OF KHOUJA l� z T z:" HUME DRIVE E 'a if RLASSOWN chat .15211 h a ROAD U n a 0 '^ an SARA TOGA - CALIFORNIA y^ � 00 w ry$ > a Q Rf v y C. In v 3 r'+ O EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES F- -- NORTH .z a a. rn LOCATION MAP 1. It shall be On contractors responsibility to maintain corntrd of ft entire constnnclarn operation and b keep tae wtheale in complamwlBi down O Notion mmrd plan. 2. The plan is Intended to be used for imwrirn notion and sediment mntol only and Is not to be used for foal eleve600a a pormanad 3. The contractor shall be responsible fa monflo 8 scion and sediment mnhol measures prior. during and after storm everts. 4. Reasonable core shall be taken when healing any earth, send, gravel, stare, deeds, papa a any paw vibaiar m over any pIDee ahwel, any SITE. DATA . or OMer Public place. Should arty blow, spin. or took over and uFon sect Pubiloa etljeconl P - property. hrnrhedbeta remedy she! scar. I' _ . 5. SaMtary facnlas elan be maintained on the oft _ owNFJ, A17EL AND h,LAWA g10lAN S, During the reins teason, en Penrod areas shad be kepi clear of earth mateiel and debris. The ens tail be maintained treat b mk knize 16211 HUME DRIVE . SARATOGA, CA WM ' sediment Man runoff b any storm dope system, Including edstlnldraage swalss and water comes. 7. Construction operations shall be carded old in such a manna Bret aroalan and water pdiubm will be minimized Stan and low tare I - omoenirhg polubM abeenlard shag be oomoied wtih. - SITE ADDRESS: 15211 HUME DRNE SARAT0GA,CA9M . 8. Contractor Shell provide dust nobol.as required by the appropriate, federal, seta end bed agency nggmnada . . SURVEYOR, ROGER E. DODGE, LS. 9. The fadiibet shown on this plan are designed to central Bosom and sediment Bang to many wwon, October 15 to April l5. PNdnbeaaeb - DODGE ASSOCIATES SURVEYING .. be operable per b October 1 of any yew. Grating operations doing the rainy season which awsdemded slopes than be prdectsd with -20852 CHAPARRAL CIRCLE eroebn corbst neaanfea amnsdiataly tdlowing gading m the slopes. PENN VALLEY, CA 96848 - phone: (630) 432-W2 10. The pan covers only Me find winter fdlowirg grading with assumed age condition as shown on the F_raeim Control Plan., Prior to tars (530) 4325443 . .Sepamber 16. the completion of alb. Improvement shall be evaludad and revisions made to else plan w neceesarywnh to appravN cl tie City ' E gins er. Pam are to be rasubodned for asy approval prior to September 1 of can subsequent year urn see hpnoamena are a cepted by WIL ENGINEER, ROBERT W. STEUERZ P.E. the Cly. - - - 1133FAIRV1EWAVENUE SAN JOSE, CA 95125 11. Caretrrrdlm erdranne shall be Installed prior to em"aneemenb of Wading. AN aantrudimbdfic wish g one tine pared robe new raw, . - ph-n (4,08) 981 -6844. " Bn atabllizco ap,waatian ensada ways .. - - _ fac (408) M1976 . 12. Contrachor shall maintain stabgbnd entrance at each vshfole wan" Prim b e>dsbn9 paved streets. Arry mud a debris backed Onto "10 ahasa stall be Iarrloved daily asst tie requhea by Me Chy. - SITE ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: 610-01 -18 13. This erosion and cammad control pan may amt cover all Bur sibssens gat may ad. oubg ocwtrrrdbn due b urensdpabd field corrdicora . Varlatims and additias may be made to Brit plan in the had. No ft the City Representative dory field changes, - TRACT AND LOT NUMBER: TRACT NO. 129 LOT AREA 51,129 S.F. S.F. GROSS - MAINTENANCE NOTES EARTHWORK VOLUME .1. Maintenance is to be perforrmd as blows:' - - BASEIAEM B SU MG PADS: a Repair damages caused by all erosion or construction at the old of each woddrp day. CI7f FILL IMPORT EXPORT b. Swalas when be Impeded palodirany and maintained a needed. _ ' 1388 CU: YDS. 0 0 - -1338 CU. YDS. e. Rills end gullias mud be repdrad. SITE GRADING: .. CUT FILL IMPORT EXPORT 260 M YDS. 50 CU. YDS. 0 210 CU. YDS. 'I TOTAL cur .. F61 IMPORT EXPORT - 15M CU. YDS. 50 CU. YDS. 0_ 1548 CU. YDS. NOTE . M oonloectore wiNberapaeideforveh CndbmbmsdabndaNrn WIMmateflail. An contracba shell call U.SA, (Underground Service AIM) at (800)-227 -26W 48 hours bd«e dIWpinp, and obtain an Id-I flcalon number per section 4210.1 of tie pvvmmnd ode. SHEETINDEX COVER SHEET GRADING RAN .. . DPA14AGE AND UTILITY RAN SITE CROBS-SEC IONS - .. DETAILS . REVISIONS. w x W 0 U. W Q Z UI D Q Q ui Z W O U- 0 D t} Q Q W D 0 Z = =OE- N 0 O r cl) JOB NO.: 40-M DATE:4.104l/ SHEET NO. a w. I z h. � w z T z:" 'a h a U n a 0 '^ an y^ � 00 w ry$ > a Q Rf v y C. In v 3 r'+ O F- -- .z a a. rn to O ai W Q Z UI D Q Q ui Z W O U- 0 D t} Q Q W D 0 Z = =OE- N 0 O r cl) JOB NO.: 40-M DATE:4.104l/ SHEET NO. r r, TREE PROTECTION NOTE: _ V - _ 11 REVISIONS PRIOR TO ANY GRADING, ALL SIGNIFICANT TREES ARE TO BE FENCED AT THE DRIP LINE THE FENCING.SHALL CLEARLY DELINEATE THE DRIP LINE. CITY STAFF MUST INSPECT - - GEO- FABRIC SILTATION FENCING .. - - F THE FENCING AND THE TREES TO BE FENCED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF GRADING 714E PROPERTY OWNER SHALL CALL FOR SAND /NSPEC77DN AT LEAST THREE DAYS W ADVANCE 1 " 0 POKES I O '48' o.a I �' OF THE INSPECTION.` THE FENCING MUST REMAIN THROUGHT THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION. PLOW ' NO STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT, VEHICLES OR DEBRIS SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DRIP LINES OF THE TREES EXIS77NG PERIMETER PLANTING. SHALL BE FENCED AND RETAINED THROUGHT UNDISTURBED GROUND.. THE EN77RE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. INSTALL FENCING O DRIP I I LINE OF TREE' EMBED GEO- INTO EXISTING FABRIC 4" MIN. I \� SOIL LS' 6 FENCE POSTS O 6' as 6' HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCING NOTE IF DIKE IS CONSTRUCTED AT THE TOP OF SLOPE PUKE IT 6' MINIMUM AWAY OM 714E SLOPE IF POSSIBLE. MAINTENANCE - INSPECT Y. AND AFTER EACH RAIN. - REMOVE SEDIMENT BEHIND THE BARRIER 'WHEN IT REACHES A DEPTH OF 6 INCHES. W 0P71ONAL FILTER FABRIC EROSION CONTROL FENCING DETAIL TREE PROTECTION DETAIL NOT TO SCALE. ' O NOT TO SCALE .. O NO' 37257 Elq. 1r3f1.Oti' INSTALLATION: cx 1. Fine grade the subgrode by hand dressing where necessary to remove local deviat Ions and to remove 1 e stones or debris W that will Inhibit Intimate contact of the fiber roof with the subgrode. z - 2 Prior to Installation,. contour a concave trench 2 to 4 inches deep along the installation. route- 314- X 314' WOOD STAKES O 314" X 314' WOOD STAKES ® FIBER R9LL 48 as MAXIMUM SPACING FIBER ROLL A Sall excavated In trenching should be placed on the uphill or flow aide of the roll to prevent water fromundermining 48' am MAXIMUM SPACING - the so#. W ,� z � o, UNDISTURBED GROUND - 4. Place fiber rolls Into the key trench and stake on both- sides of the roll within B feet of each end and then stakes or as suggested by manufacturer. 3 "max. - 3-5 feet with 1'x2' a -W d_ gyp. "mox. Y Q 5. Stakes are typicbily driven In on alternating elder of the roe's - When more than one fiber roll is placed 1n a row, the rolls . h aG oo - UNDISTURBED GROUND should be abutted securely to one another to provide 'a tight Joint. not overlapping.. U ^ a O �^ - eri Wi w x o0 1:4 P4 0 INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE: O ti. P4 U a^o w ENTRENCHMENT DETAIL ENTRENCHMENT DETAIL 1. Repair or reploce.aplit, tom, unraveling or slumping fiber rolls W tr. - IN SLOPE AREA - IN FLAT AREA 2. Inspect fbe rills when coin Is. kl' the foroosL following min events and at least dopy during prolonged rainfall. Perform required � � 0 `4 � � - maintenance. 3. In most cases, fiber rolls do not require removal and can' be abandoned In plots If not excessively soRhd rolls may be removed, F -,Z replaced and reused. pq h . �q O a STRAW WATTLES EROSION CONTROL ONOT TO SCALE SOUD LID FLUSH WITH FINISH GRADE . FINISH GRADE - - W .O .. _ a. Z CHECK I i 1 -112" 0 P.V.C. - DISCHSRGE W W W Q ATE VALVE TO RETENTION BASIN Z W �0 22 I i UNION �% O TTT S Q . O p U 12' P. VC. OR R. C.P � - � . - � - - X W Q 0. W O Z Z = 1 I 4' 0 P.V.G INLET LINE O F'" r � 1 OR MECHANICAL ROOM O - 1 i SUMP PUMP DISCAHRGE PIPE 1 .. I 1 - .. JOB NO.: 4ti-08 I I " D -4.1f}Qf SCALE: AS NOTED 1 - - - - SHEET NO. I I UNION. LIBERTY SUMP PUMP —.A MODEL N0. 237 OR EQUAL C3) - NO. 4 BARS EACH WAY �F O SUMP DETAIL 24 X24'X72' THICK CONCRETE 7" - 1� -O' Z SUMP BASE - - - . OF �i i raa•are. s•`jAB"C°o FINE DEPARTMENT`` SANTA CLARA COUNTY t. ocated in the hazardous fire area. 14700 Wad 0 - (08) 3 Ins Cetus. -95032-1818. 1408) 378-0010 • (40� 378 -9342 Oazl • —fd.org 1.;,,,✓ y„•my„m,a„s tv+ ruaaerevsneu 07 1924 1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTSra �i i raa•are. n FIRE DEP .a atauraear Review site plan fir a new proposed 8,211 square foot single family residence with basement an attached garage and a 784 square foot pool house. This properly is ocated in the hazardous fire area. COUNTY & Lc4 Gabs, CA 95032- 1818.ra &9342 Oast • sww.sald.org 1. y�,,,d . 1 'ew let COMMENTS of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review, to determine compliance with adoppred model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make am -al.on to, and receive from the Building Department all applicable U construction permits. UPC Acct 1- Required Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 2500 gpm at 20 psi residual As fire be installed, has A pressure. an automatic sprinkler system will the fire flow been reduced by 50yo establishing a required adjusted fire flow of 1225 at 20 Wpm Pat residual The adjusted fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrae s) which are spaced at the required spacing. UPC 9033. 2' 'nkl r d: Buildings requiring a fire flow in A.—dad excess of 2,000 GPM or, is (3) or more stories in h 'Rttt or, m excess of 10,000 smC square feet or new homes located within the hazardous free area shall be protected 16-20.150 throw bout b an automatic fire sprinkler st g ➢ sprinkl �y em, hydraulically designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #t13. The sprinkler requirements includes the pool house. A State of California licensed fire protection contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work ep rn4 �s src ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ sexclo ERI« RAnaReasBATlz X119 12rm 3 secrvnaa asxarnoa . Reidentlal Development n AmadkanL Fred asses SFR - ADEL & MARIA KHOUJA ]Sall Hume Dr Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protmilon District rater Aln M � Mona Sr�is�a. eafasan-MlY, a�.,asaroWyn� " FIRE DEPARTMENT t; ` SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Wmcheder Md., I. Gatos, CA 95032 -1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342lle4 • — cdd.ag d . ayq rwsieseriuswus 07 1924 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS �OOa- earrn,s eater -a �t.e,aar sMC 3. Fa in WA g Eire Alarm System Required: Provide an approved Early Warning 14- 25.110 Eire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, installed per City of Saratoga Standards. Prior to installation, a licensed C -10 contractor shall submit to the five departarent Flaps, specifications & listings, a completed permit application and applicable fee's for review and approvaL UP 902.2.4.1 4• Fire Apparatus tEnViie)Accesa Drivew0y squired_ Provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14 feet paved and 2 feet unpaved, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 13%. for installations refer to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-1. X141 5. Emerged Gate /Access Cate Requirements: Gate installations shall conform with Pin Department Standard Details and Specification Gl and, when open shall not obstruct any portion of the required width (16 feet) for emergency access roadways or driveways. Locks, if provided, shall be fire department approved prim to installation. 910 4 a. Fire Deoa_rtment Key Box Required: The building -hall be ognipped with a p� entry installed emergency access key lock box (Knox), conforming to Fire 9P —ant Standard Detail and Specification sheet K -1. At time of fmal mspectian, access keys shall be prov�'tied to the fire department This requirement applies only if a gate is installed. 901.4 4 7• Premises Identi ficltiom Approved members or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and 1 ble from the street m road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. .,. .,ar�er. Nc 11 El o SBRGIO ERICK RAMBiEZBATIZ x/19/207 r 2 t 3 Residentlal Development 6-n Amadkani, Fred SIR - ADEL & MARIA KHOUJA 15211 Hume th Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District 6-J "7000 n FIRE DEP RTMENT SANTA CLARA 14700 WnxJsester (908) 378-4OSO.140f�37 COUNTY & Lc4 Gabs, CA 95032- 1818.ra &9342 Oast • sww.sald.org 1. y�,,,d . starm 07 1924 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS 9C ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ p SIR - ADEL & MARIA KHOUJA Organised w the Santa Srmay Sa"a Cbm Caunry lw Aav Mat ire i apection delays, the above noted Developmental (dressed u "notes" on all pending and future plan diagrams to be reproduced onto the future plan - i i SERGIO ERICK RAMIREZ -BATIZ 7/19/2007 r 3 _3 Residential Development n Amadk -L Fred env. � 15211 Hume Dr i a County Central Fire Protection District o. a a M FFyy�aFa��7 � � M eW �q o rn ti3 rr � `Y e� a O U u •o � N h ti 0 ffTfM—IT-flFnT3T-UW.M Sm a • • Item 8 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No.: ZOA07 -0003 Type of Application: Prohibit Neglected Property Conditions Location: Citywide Applicant: City of Saratoga Staff Planner: Jana Rinaldi, Code Compliance Specialises Meeting Date: January 9, 2008 Department Head: John F. Livingstone, AICP, Community RECOMMENDED ACTION: Make a recommendation to the City Council concerning adoption of the attached ordinance prohibiting neglected property conditions. REPORT SUMMARY: At its April 18, 2007 meeting the City Council directed staff to seek the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding an ordinance that would require property owners to keep their property free of neglected conditions. The City Code currently prohibits nuisances that create clear risks to public health and safety or that violate specific provisions of the Code. The attached ordinance enhances the City's ability to enforce with regard to conditions which result in a nuisance or substantial adverse impact on the welfare of a considerable number of other residents of Saratoga. Since April the Planning Commission has conducted one public hearing and four study sessions on the topic. During the process the Commission listened to people who attended the study session and made several modifications to the proposed ordinance incorporating some of the comments made from the public who attending the meetings. 1 DISCUSSION: Background City Code Enforcement staff receives numerous complaints from City residents regarding conditions of neglect or deterioration on various properties in the City. Residents complain of overgrown weeds, dead or dying landscaping, abandoned or poorly maintained homes, and similar issues. The City Code provides the City with tools to address conditions that present a fire hazard or other clear threat to health or safety. The City works with the Fire District for weed abatement matters that pertain to potential fire hazards. If a complaint is received for weeds the Fire District performs an inspection of the property and determines if there is a fire code violation. This procedure is the same for the County Vector Control except the issues deal with rodent, mosquito and vermin problems at residences. Often, however, when conditions of concern to residents are referred to fire protection or vector control officials the investigation concludes that while the conditions may present legitimate concerns, they do not present a level of public health or safety risk sufficient to warrant action. Draft Ordinance The attached draft ordinance would require properties to be maintained to avoid conditions such as: Buildings that are vacant and unsecured that could harbor animals or intruders or otherwise serve as an attractive nuisance; 0 Buildings in a state of significant disrepair. (e.g., building exteriors, walls, fences, retaining walls, driveways, or walkways that are broken or deteriorated to the extent that the disrepair is visible from a street); and Overgrown, diseased, dead or decayed landscaping, weeds or other vegetation that meets specified standards and results in a nuisance or substantial adverse impact on the welfare of a considerable number of other residents of Saratoga. The ordinance strives to be as specific as possible in order to provide clear guidance to residents regarding the minimum requirements for building and property maintenance. This will also assist code enforcement staff in responding to complaints and ascertaining whether conditions on a given property qualify it as a neglected property. Enforcement The ordinance would be enforced in the same manner as other City ordinances. In cases where the violation is not immediately corrected a notice of abatement and notice of intent to record notice of violation may be sent to the property owner. The notice of abatement requires corrective action by the landowner by a date certain. The period to bring the property into compliance is based on the time reasonably required to cure the violation and the effect of the violation on public health, safety or welfare (e.g., the more significant the threat the more quickly the violation must be abated). If the • 2 . notices are not successfully appealed and corrective action is not completed, a notice of violation is recorded against the property and the City Manager may order that abatement work be performed by the City with the costs of that work, administrative and legal time charged to the property owner either directly on the tax bill or as a lien on the property. In most of these types of circumstances the City would generally be required to first obtain court approval for entry on to private property. The City could also elect to prosecute violators of the ordinance under the criminal enforcement provisions of the City Code. This allows fines of up to $1000 per violation prosecuted as a misdemeanor or of $100 to $500 (depending on circumstances) for violations prosecuted as an infraction. FISCAL IMPACTS: The ordinance could lead to an increase in complaints to the City's Code Enforcement staff. This would not have a direct fiscal impact but could result in a longer response times. If the number of complaints increases considerably the City could elect to increase the number of Code Enforcement staff in order to maintain current response times. To the extent that enforcement efforts lead to legal proceedings (e.g., appeals of enforcement decisions, requests for court orders authorizing the City to enter on private property to undertake direct abatement actions) there would be additional costs incurred by the City Attorney's office. These costs would depend on the number and nature of the legal proceedings and could range from approximately $1,000 for a straightforward appeal to $15,000 or more for a direct abatement action. In some cases the City maybe able recover a portion of these costs from the property owner found to be in violation of the Code. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Inform the City Council of the Commission's recommendation. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice of this meeting was properly posted and published in the Saratoga Newspaper on November 28, 2007. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance • 3 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 any health, safety, or welfare hazard that results- 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 -1- 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 is visible from a public street, right -of -way or other public property open to public use and such condition is found to exist thereon for a period of more than sixty days after written notice of same has been given by the City Manager. Neglected property means any privately or publicly owned, property which as a result of insufficient maintenance has deteriorated so as to harbor a health or safety hazard or has resulted in a nuisance or substantial adverse impact on the welfare of a considerable 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 this paragraph if the situation presents a danger or emergency that warrants an expedited abatement. 7- 50.020 Exemptions (a) 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. The City Manager is authorized to grant an extension of time under this exemption for good cause as determined by the City Manager. (b) Other Legal Authorization Exemption. Violation of this Article shall not be based on a condition of property expressly allowed by any other provision of law, including other provisions of this Code 0 7- 50.030 Standards • The following conditions qualify as neglected property in a residential zoning district: (a) 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 considerable number of other Saratoga residents; (b) 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: (1) Unauthorized persons (including, but not limited to, children) can readily gain entry to the building or structure without the consent of the owner or an agent of the owner; or (2) 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, 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. -2- (c) 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: (1) 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 thereby exposing wood, stucco, brick, cement or a prior paint color; or (2) 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, or buildings subject to demolition pursuant to applicable provisions of this Code or other authority, for which demolition has not been diligently pursued. (d) The property (regardless of its size) contains overgrown weeds (as defined in 7- 15.030) or other vegetation or garbage or debris that: (1) Harbors rats, structure destroying insects, vermin, vector, or other similar nuisances; or (2) Is overgrown onto a public right -of- -way more than 12 inches; or (3) 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.. (e) The property contains a hazardous condition consisting of items being present that are inadequately secured or protected, which items are, visible and/or accessible to the public, including but not limited to the following: (1) Abandoned wells, shafts, or basements; (2) . Fences, gates. or structures which have collapsed or extend into the public street, right of way or other public property open to public use or are in any other type of unsafe condition; (3) Lumber, or accumulations of lumber or other construction materials; or (4) Chemicals, motor oil, or other hazardous materials. (f) The accumulation visible from a public street, right -of -way or other public property open to public use 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 considerable number of other -3- residents of the City of Saratoga. • (g) The 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 a public street, right -of -way or other public property open to public use, or which could potentially be discharged into a storm drain system. (h) Materials or other items stacked in a manner as to be visible from a public street, right -of -way or other public property open to public use, above any fence or in a manner which could potentially result in discharge into a storm drain system. (i) 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 a public street; right -of -way or other public property open to public use; or which are left parked or stored in violation of applicable zoning designation, rules or regulations. 0) The accumulation of packing boxes, pallets, lumber, junk, trash, salvage materials, or other debris kept on the property and visible from a public street, right -of -way or other public property open to public use. If the foregoing materials are accumulated pursuant to a valid and active building permit issued by the City, such accumulation shall not qualify as a condition qualifying the property as a neglected property. (k) 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. (1) Any condition determined by the City Manager to be substantially similar to any of the conditions listed in this Section 7- 50.030. 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 ofhuman 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 • Any 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 and/or attorneys fees and the collection thereof for any abatement performed by-or on behalf of the City are authorized to be recovered by the City in accordance with the Nuisance Abatement provisions of Article 3 -15 or 3 -20 of Chapter 3 of this Code. 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 safetyshould such 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, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA). Section 3. Publication. This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. The foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the _ day of , 2008, and was adopted by the following vote following a second reading on the _ day of , 2008: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: Ann Waltonsmith, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: Richard Taylor, CITY ATTORNEY ATTEST: Cathleen Boyer, CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga, California