Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-02-2007 Supplemental Council AgendaEXHIBIT B 1 to Communications Site Lease Agreement Site Name Congress Springs Park Site I. D. fs06xcl 32 Sketch of Site: STATE OF 4 4 h'l y s O RN/ A IDOSTINC MET NG�TO AND Site Description Site situated in the City of Saratoga County of Santa Clara State of California commonly described as GRAPHIC SCALE SITE PLAN Owner Initials SSLP Initials 9 W N OUTING SSWN WALL O MOUNTED ON D A MONOPOLE WTh NAS FIBERGLASS SCREEN n.USN WIN POLE PROPOSED 8' H. CHAN -UNK CAGE WITH REDWOOD SLATS ON FOUR SIDES PROPOSED CONCRETE PROPOSED EQUIPMENT LOCATION Aygnisiming SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPOR TA TION COMPANY Qj SCALE, 1/18 Note: prrope� on Site Ss located and/or an as built drawing d depicting Site9 forth the legal description of the Facility Owner Location Lease Amount Global Signal /Crown Castle Congress Springs Park $1,423 /month T- Mobile Congress Springs Park $1,800 /month Nextel Congress Springs Park $1,483 /month MetroPCS Main Library $1,800 /month Current Cellular Facility Leases City of Saratoga Barbara Powell From: Richard S. Taylor [RTaylor @smwlaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 12:20 PM To: Barbara Powell; Kathleen King; John Cherbone; Dave Anderson; Ann Waltonsmith Subject: Spam: RE: Rem #6 Kathleen State law allows the City to enter leases up to 55 years without any special procedural requirements. Leases can be longer than 55 years (up to 99) but only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the lease is subject to periodic review by the city and takes into consideration the then current market conditions; (2) the lease is authorized by an ordinance adopted by the city council; (3) the council holds a noticed public hearing on the lease (notice given with Cal. Gov't Code 6066 plus to all owners of land adjoining the property); and (4) after a notice inviting competitive bids is issued, the lease is awarded to the bidder who offers the greatest economic return to the city. (See Cal. Gov't Code 37380.) Richard S. Taylor Shute Mihaly Weinberger LLP 396 Hayes Street San Francisco, CA 94102 415/552 -7272 415/552 -5816 (fax) CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this email message is privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message in error, please email the sender at rtaylor @smwlaw.com or telephone at (415) 552 -7272. From: Barbara Powell [mailto:bpowell @saratoga.ca.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 12:15 PM To: Kathleen King; Richard S. Taylor; John Cherbone; Dave Anderson; Ann Waltonsmith Subject: RE: Item #6 Kathleen, We are receiving $1,800 /month for the cell site leases we have negotiated in recent years, including the library site (I provided these rates in the staff report). Is there a reason you would advocate a site inspection? Barbara Powell Assistant City Manager City of Saratoga (408) 868 -1215 (408) 867 -8559 (fax) From: Kathleen King [mailto:kk2king @comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 12:10 PM To: Richard S. Taylor; Barbara Powell; John Cherbone; Dave Anderson; Ann Waltonsmith Subject: Fw: Item #6 Dear Richard, 5/2/2007 Page 1 of 2 Barbara Powell From: Mary Furey Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 1:40 PM To: Barbara Powell Subject: Future Value 5/2/2007 Barbara, Page 1 of 1 The straight average of quarterly LAIF interest rates over the last 20 years is equal to 5.34% Applying this to a beginning amount of $230,000 times this annual effective rate of 5.34% for 5o years compounds into $3,100,227. Mary To commemorate the 50 Anniversary of Saratoga Little League, we will be creating a special sign to hang at the batting cages. Support the league and be a part of this momentous occasion. All donations will be used for field improvements. Sample of the sign: The Robinson Family The Ripken Family The Aaron Family Sata94 4 4eae ,50' Sea 4apt ri 195 2007 Grautil Siam Group The Mantle Family The Mays Family Houle Run Club The Pujols Family The Williams Family The Ott Family The Jeter Family Donate today! Name: Email address: Home Donation amount (check one): Grand Slam Group: $500 Homerun Club: $250 How you'd like your name listed (max. of 28 letters including spaces) Please include this form and your check, made payable to: Saratoga Little League and mail to: Debbie Hanks, 12943 Pierce Road, Saratoga 95070 May 2, 2007 By personal delivery (10 copies to the Council) TO: Honorable Members of the Saratoga City Council FROM: Alan and Meg Giberson RE: lZ Guidelines and Standards for Land se Nea Streams as recommended by the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative should be mandatory for Saratoga controlled streamside projects We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the City of Saratoga's proposed adoption of Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams (G &S) as recommended by the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative. The proposed adoption should reflect mandatory adherence to the G &S regarding land use projects adjacent to certain watercourses in the City of Saratoga (City), rather than mere use of the G &S as a "reference tool" as recommended in the staff report. The City should amend the City Code and General Plan to require application of the Guidelines so that all streamside development will comply with all portions of the Guidelines; such streamside development should also comply with standards previously required by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District), if stricter than the G &S. CEQA ANALYSIS NEEDED The City has declared this action exempt from CEQA, which declaration is improper, as discussed below. The City cannot proceed with staff's recommendation to use the G &S as a discretionary reference tool without conducting at least an Initial Study (IS) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, Public Resources Code 21000 et seq. City has a discretionary decision before it: it could make the G &S mandatory, discretionary, or decline to adopt. This is clearly an agency action, and has potential to cause either a direct physical or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, as discussed below. It is thus a "project" under CEQA. The City staff report claims the project is exempt from CEQA review under the "common sense" exemption to CEQA, Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) and under Guidelines Section 15308, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment, yet offers no substantial evidence in support of this claim. Formerly the "District reviewed permit applications and imposed conditions on proposed development that would protect the adjacent watercourse in accordance with District standards." (Staff report, page 1). Saratoga proposes henceforth to "assume the responsibility for implementing stream protection programs..." for parcels adjacent to certain watercourses in the City— taking over this responsibility from the District. Staff report, page 2. The City's staff report contains a bald statement that "[t]he measures and policies contained in the Guidelines are consistent with and in some cases build upon what the City currently requires of project applicants who request permits for development near streams." Yet, there is no substantial evidence of this purported consistency, nor is there any discussion of specific sections of General Plan, Specific Plan, Zoning and/or Design Guidelines (Saratoga "rules that are allegedly consistent with the G &S. Saratoga has not presented to the public any reasoned justification for its proposed decision.' The "preexisting standards" that the City purports to uphold are those of the District. There is no substantial evidence in the record that Saratoga standards can adequately take the place of either District standards (which formerly controlled land use near designated streams) or the new standards, which are community -wide standards, agreed upon by the members of the Collaborative. Yet, the City would, as stated in the staff report recommendation, substitute its own "existing General Plan policies, Residential Design Guidelines standards, and zoning ordinance requirements" for both the District's and the new Collaborative standards. At the very least, the City must prepare an Initial Study (IS) pursuant to CEQA to address the effect of loss of District oversight and failure to adopt the G &S as mandatory. Here, it is clear that there is a potential for one or more significant effects on the environment. The streams and creeks at issue represent areas of particular environmental sensitivity. A number of the affected waterways have been designated sensitive and /or critical. See, also, reference to Saratoga Creek in the SCVURPPP Workplan for Conducting Watershed Analysis and Management Practice Assessment in Other Creeks Potentially Impaired by Sediment from Anthropogenic Activities. The Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program's (SCVURPPP) January 2006 brochure "Sediment Impact and Management Practice Assessments" —notes that sediment impacts can be severe to habitat and to animal populations, as well as to creek form. 1 In contrast, Palo Alto, a sister city in the Collaborative, has adopted the G &S as mandatory, discussing the reasons for and importance of the years -long study and resulting standards. 2 Note, e.g., the SCVURPPP Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) for Saratoga which lists Saratoga Creek, Wildcat Creek, Vasona Creek, Sobey Creek and San Tomas Aquino Creek (inter alia) among those where an HMP is encouraged (or required on projects over 50 acres). 3 The SCVURPPP Workplan for Conducting Watershed Analysis and Management Practice Assessment in Other Creeks Potentially Impaired by Sediment from Anthropogenic Activities (Dated August 30, 2002, "Submitted in fulfillment of NPDES Permit Provision C.9.f.iii notes that the "Regional Board staff submitted comments on the sediment report "Identification of Creeks Potentially Impaired by Sediment from Anthropogenic Activities as part of their July 8, 2002 letter to SCVURPPP stating the report was conditionally acceptable to the NPDES Permit Provision C.O.f.iii...." One of the conditions in that letter included the addition of Saratoga Creek to the "list of high priority streams for analysis." 2 Yet, the City's proposed Resolution (No. directs only that the G &S "be applied to streamside developments...to the extent feasible and appropriate, and to the extent that the Guidelines and Standards are consistent with Saratoga's General Plan, Specific Plans, Design Guidelines and Zoning Ordinance...." [Emphasis added] The City has not demonstrated that its General Plan, Specific Plans, Design Guidelines and Zoning Ordinance (collectively, "City rules would provide the equivalent protection for streams and creeks under its jurisdiction, as would be provided by mandatory application of the G &S or even by adherence to the District's policies and regulations. The City has not even discussed the extent to which its rules offer equivalent or greater protection. Clearly, City is proposing that its rules would govern in the case of a conflict. (The G &S are only to be "applied ...to the extent...that the [G &S] are consistent with Saratoga's [rules]." Application of the G &S would necessarily involve —under the discretionary status proposed by City —an ad hoc balancing of City rules with the G &S for each project before the City, with the City rules to control. This does not provide the "clear, consistent guidance to property owners and developers" that is purportedly provided under the proposed staff report, Resolution, and City action; nor does it provide the Collaborative's suggested protections. Similarly, it fails to provide the "commitment by the City of Saratoga to make best efforts to incorporate the Guidelines and Standards and associated implementation tools into appropriate land use review processes..." that the City ratified in its 7 December 2005 Resolution No. 05 -074. City's failure to mandate compliance with the G &S fails to implement the District's goals of "standards to accomplish District purposes described in the ...Act and in Ordinance and to facilitate the implementation of District policies of providing a reliable supply of healthy and clean water; reducing the potential for flood damages; protecting and when appropriate enhancing and restoring natural resources of streams and watersheds when reasonable and appropriate." (Water Resources Protection Manual, August 22, 2006) Further, exemption under Guideline 15308 is improper where, as here, there is a reasonable possibility that a project or activity may have a significant effect on the environment. Wildlife Alive v. Chickering, 18 Cal. 3d 190, 195 (1976). This is especially pertinent where the G &S will not be mandatory, but will function merely as a reference tool. Saratoga's history of allowing development that has devastating effects on one or more streams demonstrates that the City rules (General Plan, zoning, etc.) and its general oversight of stream -side projects have been insufficient to protect streams under its jurisdiction from degradation. Demonstrably, the City's past practices have resulted in the sort of severe environmental damage to one or more streams under its jurisdiction that the G &S are meant to avoid. (See, e.g., the color photos of damage to Willow Creek from several previous Saratoga- monitored projects, a Mandatory G &S adoption might, arguably, fall within Guideline 15308's ambit. The use of the G &S as one mere tool among many does not. 3 including a sewer installation along and through Willow Creek in 1985, water pipe installation through the creekbed in 1986, and the destructive Birenbaum development project in 1991 -92.) Saratoga, similarly, has failed to adhere to its own Design Review regulations that mandate inclusion of riparian corridors on a project's site plan in recently processing the significant development at 19930 Sunset Drive in 2006. In that project, design review was approved without the site plan's showing the mandated riparian corridors, despite that issue having been brought to the City's attention multiple times. Partially as a result, drainage from that project to Willow Creek, and the non extant sewer connection that may impact the creek, were never property considered. INITIAL STUDY NEEDED Under the proposed resolution, City has an expanded role and powers under, in that it would "assume the responsibility for implementing stream protection programs." (Staff report, page 2) Yet it offers no clear protection equivalent to the deleted District protection or the discretionary Collaborative G &S. The G &S are not "standards" where their application is only discretionary and is limited by overriding Saratoga General Plan, Specific Plan, Zoning and Design Guidelines (Saratoga "rules In conclusion, City rules and implementation will not supply the equivalent protection that would be afforded by the Guidelines and Standards. Until City either adopts the G &S as mandatory, or considers the effects of G &S's mere use as a reference tool in an Initial Study, the proposed Resolution should not be adopted this evening. The City needs to show how existing GP, specific plans, zoning are equally protective of, or more protective than, equivalent provisions of the protection manual's G &S, or adopt the G &S as mandatory parts of City rules. 5 Section 15- 45.070 of the Saratoga Zoning Code states: (a) Application for design review approval shall be filed with the Community Development Director on such form, as he shall prescribe. The application shall include the following exhibits: (1) Site plan showing (i) property lines, (ii) easements and their dimensions, (iii) underground utilities and their dimensions, (iv) structure setbacks, (v) building envelope, (vi) topography, (vii) species, trunk diameter at breast height (DBH as defined in Section 15- 50.020(g)), canopy driplines, and locations of all heritage trees (as defined in Section 15- 50.020(1), trees measuring at least ten inches DBH, and all native trees measuring at least six inches DBH on the property and within one hundred fifty feet of the property, (viii) areas of dense vegetation and (ix) riparian corridors. [Emphasis added] 4 Comprehensive Operations Abrogyeis What is a Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA)? The COA is an effort to analyze VTA's existing transit services, identify under served markets and ultimately restructure and improve VTA's bus transit services based on the findings of the COA. Phase One of a new Service Operating Plan is scheduled to begin in January 2008. Why is VTA undertaking a COA? VTA's existing bus service structure has been in place since the 1980's. Although the system has gone through significant expansions and reductions in recent years, there has not been a comprehensive effort to analyze overall system performance and better understand the market condi- tions for transit in Santa Clara County. The COA recommendations will therefore address system inefficiencies and identify market opportunities for improvements in transit service. How will the COA affect VTA riders? Most VTA bus routes will be affected. For the majority of VTA bus riders, the changes will result in more frequent and faster service, particularly during off -peak hours and weekends. When the new Service Operating Plan is implemented, bus service will be enhanced on lines with the potential for increased ridership, while service on under performing lines with poor ridership will be candidates for consolidation into other lines or deletion. Despite the many changes, the overall level of bus service system -wide provided by VTA will remain the same. The chang- es are being proposed to increase ridership and the agency's farebox recovery ratio. For more information on the COA, or the meetings, please visit: www.vta.org/coa or call (408) 321 -2300. Los Altos Hills Lockheed Martin Transit Center 1pitas Main Ha .,,.,Hama Center Evergreen vall.v CoMege To Morgan MI 8 Gilroy Grear.Mali [Proposed vs. Existing VTA Network PA Em E amadem Palo Alto N. Transit ik IC 11 Mountain uView 4 151kh 44* "a Downtown is i• San Francisco Bay Proposed vs. Existing VTA Networks 1 0 Date April 5, 2007 Proposed Route Existing VTA Network Transit Centers Light Rail Stations Light Rail Freeway Expressway Major Road 0 Light Rail Shuttles Sam Trans Routes Palo Alto Shuttles ACE Shuttles Caltrain Shuttles ACE Caltrain 0 1 2 Iles 111 Fremont BART Station Fremont 120 Los Gatgs 12o To Fremont 168 Mor Hill 0 1 2 Gilroy Morgan Hill Gilroy 18 /e S A N T A C l A R A Valley Transportation Authority 1'ui.l n/ rr(T.i It'll) grit lol;r" 168 07/04 -5887 Name Signature Address Comments .rirh al/ 3e, Ate- tt hG �ftr.�GE1e1 1 Id �ecsa -YS ;sl/ �/s o old -del/ Rom 4t.Q6�h-� f f LlfJLtl Q✓»► /27 A vo d �rL L JItt... A Ns.., /Zoq� Wf[ c Dna,r.u S,..CAL L £1.Jro�u F�r..n AA/ 4 .2.i4,? LI vfrN.s 44 /11L45 of_ /r ,p tt{ .��i 10111111r oli I -1- West- XJ ii �p v b v 4fLKuYv ye A ►EU.v C,,/ c (do i (Z7zf o col vdie /,fit' cnei -moo 1 aitAs LtiDer(- We, the undersigned residents of Wardell Road and Arroyo de Argeullo in Saratoga, respectfully ask the City Countil of the City of Saratoga to overturn the design review approval for the proposed house to be built at 20865 Wardell Road on the following grounds: 1. At over 6000 total square feet, the proposed home is much larger than the average 1500 2500 square foot home size in this neighborhood, negatively impacting the look and feel of the neighborhood. 2. At (actual) 29' in height, the proposed home towers over all homes on adjacent lots. There are no adjacent 2 -story homes. 3. The "Italian Renissance" design of the home is in stylistic conflict with all the neighboring homes, which are nearly all ranch style. 4. The proposed driveway creates a safety hazard for existing residents. We respectfully ask that the City review the proposed design of the house and suggest scaling back the size of the home and relocating the driveway so the neighborhood is not so drastically impacted by this project. We thank you for taking into consideration the opinions of our neighborhood and community. To: Saratoga City Council: I was told that during the planning commission public hearing on February 28 on the house at 20865 Wardell, a letter was presented, signed by me, that said I had no objection to the proposed house. I did not sign any such letter to my knowledge. Mr. Aggarwal did ask me to sign a letter which he said was so that "my kids could go to school in Saratoga but he said nothing about the letter indicating my approval of his house. Charles Maridon 21085 Wardell Road 7)7 21085 Wardell Rd Saratoga, CA 95070 April 30, 2007 Matt Christiano 21120 Wardell Road 7n Charles Maridon 20085 Wardell Road amen Torre 21680 Wardell Road Attachments: Signed Hardcopy to City Clerk, Saratoga cc via email (excluding attachments 2 -5) to: Saratoga City Council: council @saratoga.ca.us Jack Chevlen: jackchevlen @comcast.net Hilda Pecsar 20880 Wardell Road 1. Letter from neighbors to Planning commission dated 2/27/07. 2. Letter from Pang Engineers dated Feb 26, 2007 (also attached to 2/27 letter to planning commission). 3. Page 1 of two (2) page Intersection Plan Review dated December 18, 2006 prepared by TS Civil Engineering (also attached to 2/27 letter to planning commission). 4. Public Notice and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration; Public Review. August 16 through September 18, 2006; 5. Letter from T/S Civil Engineers and Alok Aggarwal, forwarded by Saratoga Planning Department, dated 9/1/06. 6. Photos of adjacent homes. 7. Photo of trash pickup area at end of Wardell Road. „1 Mayor Aileen Kao and Members of the Saratoga City Council Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Kao and Council Members: The Law Office of the below signed represents the Appellant, Matt Christiano, with respect to the above referenced matter. The purpose of this letter is to briefly respond to a portion of a letter dated April 23, 2007 from Barton G. Hechtman, Attorney for the property owner, as it relates to the parameters of your allowed de novo review of my client's Appeal, and to direct the City Council to certain incorrect conclusions stated in the Report Summary prepared by your staff. Sections 2- 05.030(f) and (g) of the Saratoga City Code grants authority to the City Council to conduct a de novo review on an appeal to the City Council of an administrative determination or decision made by a commission, committee, or official of the City of Saratoga. As part of the City Council de novo review "...the City Council shall have authority to review the entire matter (emphasis added) and may affirm, reverse or modify all or any other portion of the determination or decision notwithstanding the fact that no appeal has been taken therefrom.” Saratoga City Code §2- 05.030(g). By this Appeal the Appellant contends: 1) Law Offices of S. JACK CHEVLEN May 2, 2007 Re: Appeal of Design Review Application No. 07 -017 20865 Wardell Road; Item 4 on 5/2/07 Calendar My Client: Appellant, Matt Christiano My file no: 2960 The de novo review should necessarily include a review of the proposed driveway /roadway to the proposed residence especially given the fact that: (a) As currently designed the proposed driveway /roadway to the contemplated residence will create an unsafe vehicular traffic operational condition at the western end of Wardell Road as more fully set forth and described in a letter dated February 26, 2007 addressed to Matt Christiano from Gay Lawrence Pang, CE, TE of Pang Engineers, Inc., Traffic and Transportation Consultants, a copy of which is attached hereto for your review; 5902 Deerland Court, San Jose, California 95124 -6575 (408) 369 -8000 Fax (408) 369 -8200 r Mayor Aileen Kao and Members of the Saratoga City Council May 2, 2007 Page 2 (b) The applicant is one of the principals for whom Terrence J. Szewczyk, P.E. made Application No. 06 -017 Grading Permit for Private Access Road; (c) Paragraph 14 of the Recommendation of the Planning Commission's Staff Report states "Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for improvements in the City right -of -way prior to commencement of the work." It appears the Planning Commission's Staff considers the driveway /roadway a part of the matter before you today since the improvements to be made by the applicant in the City's right of -way will be made adjacent to where the contemplated driveway /roadway intersects with Wardell Road. This is the same location identified in the attached report of Mr. Pang, which concludes the proposed placement of the driveway /roadway to the applicants home will create an unsafe vehicular traffic operational condition at the western end of Wardell Road. Paragraph 1 of the Report Summary states, in part "...As the subject of an approved separate application by separate applicants under provisions of the City Code that are independent of the design review requirements that are the subject of the Planning Commission action being appealed the earlier driveway approved cannot be modified or rescinded as part of this appeal." This statement is factually incorrect on two (2) grounds: (a) The previous application was made on behalf of the applicant in Application No. 07 -017; (b) Saratoga City Code §2- 05.030(g) allows the City Council to review the entire matter. There appears to be no factual dispute Alok and Sangeeta Aggarwal, the applicants for the Design Review (Application No. 07 -017) are one and the same as the applicants for the Grading Permit for Private Access Road (Application No. 06 -017) contrary to the conclusion of the Staff Report Summary. Atty. Hechtman's letter of April 23, 2007 directed to you states, in part, "Last summer, the Aggarwal's and their three (3) neighbors (Lim, Cheadie and Lim) applied to the City for a Grading Permit to construct a common driveway that would serve all four (4) of their lots." This was Application No. 06 -017 (Grading Permit for Private Access Road). The project applicant identified on Application No. 06 -017 was Terrence J. Szewczyk, P.E.. Mr. Szewczyk is not an owner of any of the parcels contemplated to be developed. Rather, he is Civil Engineer acting as an agent on behalf of the property owners. Mayor Aileen Kao and Members of the Saratoga City Council May 2, 2007 Page 3 CONCLUSION The purpose of the Saratoga City Code in granting the City Council the power to conduct a de novo review of the entire matter (emphasis added) even when an appeal has been filed pertaining to only a portion of a determination or decision is to allow, as in this case, a review of the entire project of the applicants and not a review narrowly limited to a Design Review of only the family residence portion of the project. The applicants project is the building of a family residence and a driveway /roadway to access the family residence. As currently designed the driveway /roadway will create an unsafe vehicular traffic operational condition at the western end of Wardell Road for not only the applicants neighbors but also for the applicants. Based upon the foregoing it is requested you continue this matter to a date uncertain to allow the applicant time to redesign the proposal to address the issues and concerns of the Appellant. Thank you for your consideration. SJC: db Very truly yours, S ack 6'henlen S. Jack Chevlen Encl.: 2/26/07 Letter to Matt Christian from Gay Lawrence Pang, CE, TE of Pang Engineers, Inc. Cc w/o encl.: Client Linda R Rodgers Attorney at Law May 2, 2007 Hon. Mayor Aileen Kao and City Councilors City Hall Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Kao, et. al.: As Chair of the Planning Commission, I wish to report to you that the Planning Commission approved Application 07 -287, Approval 07 20865 Wardell Road on February 28, 2007. I have read the appeal of our decision and address the following grounds of appeal. 1. The Planning Commission did not discuss or address any issues conceming the common driveway to the parcel. 2. The Planning Commission found that the design was compatible in both bulk and height with the existing neighborhood and the new neighborhood as proposed for all the currently vacant parcels. We discussed the texture of the trim around the bottom of the structure, the colors of the stucco and the roof, the architecture and its articulating design. We asked the applicant to address the efforts they had made to make the structure energy efficient. The applicant preferred to have stucco in the 3.5 to 4 feet high horizontal band around the bottom of the house and the Commission agreed to allow that change from stone. 3. The Planning Commission follows the City Ordinances in calculating height of structures. In hillside areas, this means that structures can appear appreciably larger on the downhill side than on the side that faces uphill. We consider this effect in our decisions. The Commission voted 5-0 to approve the project as amended. Sincerely, 1_C Linda R. Rodgers 21359 Toll Gate Road Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 741 -2282 FAX (408) 741 -2283 LindaRodgers@msn. com