The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-08-2010 Planning Commission PacketTable of Contents Agenda 2 November 10, 2010 Draft Minutes 4 APPLICATION APPC10-0002(Lee),13012 Via Escuela Staff report 6 Resolution - Attachment 1 11 Appeal Application and Letters - Attahcment #2 15 Tree Removal Permit Application TRP10-0319 - Attachment #3 18 Tree Removal Permit Application TRP09-0316 - Attachment #4 20 Public Hearing Notice - Attachment #5 22 Addresses for mailing - Attachment #5 23 APPLICATION APPC10-0001 (Bogosian, Van Krieken, Clerkin, Rosenus, Darlington, McChesney, Scott, Wingerter, Holt, Katz, Rieken, Hunter)20610 Lomita Avenue Staff Report 26 Attachment 1: Resolution 36 Attachment 2: Appeal Application & Letter 48 Attachment 3: Notice of Approval 60 Attachment #4: Letter from Applicant 67 Attachment #5: Summary of Appellants Issues 69 Attachment #6: Letters from Neighbors 77 Attachment #7: Neighbor Notification Forms 87 Attachment #8: City Arborist Reports 97 Attachment #9: Green Point Checklist 114 Attachment #10: Public Notice 120 APPLICATIONS PDR09-0011, ARB09-0017, & GEO09-0007 (Appleby) 14720 Sobey Road Staff Report 124 Attachment 1: Resolution 132 Attachment 2: Project Description 144 Attachment 3: Site Photos 145 Attachment 4: Green Point Rated Checklist 146 Attachment 5: Neighbor Notification Forms 152 Attachment 6: Arborist Reports 156 Attachment 7: Public Hearing Notice 169 1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL Commissioners - Chair Mary-Lynne Bernald, Vice-Chair- Douglas Robertson, Joyce Hlava, David Reis, Linda Rodgers, Tina K. Walia and Yan Zhao PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 10, 2010 ORAL COMMUNICATION Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 2, 2010 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). 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. PUBLIC HEARING 1. APPLICATION APPC10-0002(Lee),13012 Via Escuela - The applicant is appealing the denial of a tree rmeoval permit application TRP10-0319, for the removal of one blue atlas cedar tree (Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca') growing in the back yard of the property next to the fence/wood retaining wall. (Kate Bear, Arborist) 2. APPLICATION APPC10-0001 (Bogosian, Van Krieken, Clerkin, Rosenus, Darlington, McChesney, Scott, Wingerter, Holt, Katz, Rieken, Hunter)20610 Lomita Avenue - Appeal of Administrative Design Review approval of a new one story single-family home - ADR10-0002 (Christopher Riordan) 3. APPLICATIONS PDR09-0011, ARB09-0017, & GEO09-0007 (Appleby) 14720 Sobey Road - Design Review for a New Two Story Single-Family Residence with an Attached Secondary Dwelling Unit (Christopher Riordan) 2 DIRECTORS ITEM COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, December 22, 2010 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). POSTING 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 December 2, 2010, at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda’s via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us 3 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL Commissioners - Chair Mary-Lynne Bernald, Vice-Chair- Douglas Robertson, Joyce Hlava, David Reis, Linda Rodgers, Tina K. Walia and Yan Zhao PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 27, 2010 (Approved, 7:0) ORAL COMMUNICATION Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 4, 2010 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). 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. PUBLIC HEARING 1. PDR10-0005; 14091 Quito Road (403-22-004); T-Mobile (Sutro Consulting) / PGE - The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a wireless telecommunication antenna on a wood utility pole. An existing 29.7’ pole would be replaced with a 45’ 5” pole. The pole would be similar in height to other poles in the vicinity. The facility is considered a “micro site” because the antennas and associated equipment are smaller in size than a standard wireless facility. The antennas would be placed at the top of the pole and the associated equipment would be placed on the ground. City Code Section 15-12.020 states any antenna facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone and other wireless communications, is subject to design review under Article 15-46. The proposed wireless facility therefore requires Planning Commission review. (Cynthia McCormick) (Approved, 7:0) DIRECTORS ITEM 4 COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, December 8, 2010 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). POSTING 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 November 4, 2010, at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda’s via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us 5 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./ Location APPC10-0002; 13012 Via Escuela Type of Application: Appeal of the denial of a Tree Removal Permit Application to remove one blue atlas cedar Appellant: David Lee Staff: Kate Bear, City Arborist Meeting Date: December 8, 2010 APN: 393-46-023 Department Head: John Livingstone, AICP 13012 Via Escuela Page 1 of 5 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Tree Removal Permit Application (TRP10-0319): 10/20/10 Application Denied: 10/26/10 Denial Appealed: 11/2/10 Notice published: 11/ 23 /10 Mailing completed: 11/24/10 Posting completed: 12/2/10 APPEAL DESCRIPTION: The property owner, Mr. David Lee, is appealing the Community Development Director’s denial of an application for a Tree Removal Permit. The Tree Removal Permit application is for one blue atlas cedar tree located in the back yard next to a wood fence and retaining wall on the property line. Both the owner and the back yard neighbor, Dr. Ralph Wood, want to replace the fence and retaining wall with a new one and state that in order to do so, the tree must be removed. There is about a two foot difference in elevation between the two properties, with the back yard neighbor having the lower property. In addition, the owner is concerned that the tree’s roots will uplift the back yard patio between the tree and the house. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the removal of the blue atlas cedar tree. STAFF ANALYSIS BACKGROUND: In October of 2009, the appellant applied for a tree removal permit application to remove three redwoods on the property, and the blue atlas cedar tree in this permit application. One redwood had failed and damaged the house. The other two redwoods grew on the sides of the drainage culvert that runs along one side of the property, and were approved for removal and replacement due to the risk of failure. The back yard neighbor (Dr. Wood) has indicated that when the house was constructed, a drainage swale along the back fence was put in. According to Dr. Wood, the property owner previous to Mr. Lee filled in the drainage swale and then planted the blue spruce. No documentation of this has been provided. TREES Page 2 of 5 7 The appellant has requested that the Planning Commission consider the removal of one blue atlas cedar tree so that the retaining wall and fence along the back yard property line can be replaced. Criteria for the Removal of a Protected Tree Pursuant to City Code Article 15-50.080, there are criteria that must be met “overall” for the issuance of a Tree Removal Permit. They are listed below. The Planning Commission is to consider each criterion below and determine whether a tree meets them, overall, and therefore qualifies for removal. Sometimes a tree needs to meet only one criterion to qualify for a removal permit, such as when it is diseased and cannot be restored to good health. More often, several or many of the criteria listed below must be met to make the findings overall, allowing a tree to be removed. It is significant to consider whether there are alternatives to the removal of the tree in question. Following are Staff’s findings with respect to each criterion. Criterion #1: The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures, and interference with utility services. The blue atlas cedar tree does not meet this criterion, in that it is not diseased or unhealthy, is not in imminent danger of failure, is not too close to existing structures, and does not interfere with utility services. Criterion #2: The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. The blue atlas cedar tree does meet this criterion in that the tree’s roots are threatening damage to the fence, retaining wall and patio. However, there are alternatives to removing this tree. Criterion #3: The topography of the land and the effect the tree removal would have upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes. Both properties are flat, but there is approximately two feet difference in elevation between the appellant’s property (higher) and the back yard neighbor’s property (lower). Tree roots hold the soil in place and prevent erosion, especially on hills. Dr. Wood claims that in this situation, the tree’s roots are blocking the flow of rainwater into the storm drain and diverting it onto his property. It is possible that this criterion has been met, if the tree is diverting storm water onto the neighbor’s property. Criterion #4: The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. Removal of the blue atlas cedar tree does not meet this criterion, in that it would have an effect on shade, privacy and scenic beauty. This is the only large tree on the property. Criterion #5: The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. Application No. APPC10-0002/ TRP10-0319; 13012 Via Escuela Page 3 of 5 8 Removal of this tree does not meet this criterion, in that there is enough room on the property for it, and it is not crowded by other trees. Criterion #6: Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. Removal of the blue atlas cedar does not meet this criterion, in that there are alternatives to removing it. The retaining wall along the property line can be reconfigured around the tree to allow more room for it. The patio can be removed near the tree to give it more room. Drainage can be installed along the rear of the property to keep rainwater on the Lee property and maintain the flow of water towards the storm drain, while allowing the retention of the tree. Criterion #7: Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. The proposed tree removal does not meet this criterion, in that approval of the request to remove the blue atlas cedar is in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article, which is to preserve and protect healthy, mature trees in the City. Criterion #8: Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010. Removal of the blue atlas cedar does not meet this criterion, in that no information about public health or safety with respect to the removal of this tree has been provided. Criterion #9: The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. Removal of the blue atlas cedar does not meet this criterion in that there is an alternative that allows the retention of this tree. In summary, removal of the blue atlas cedar is not adequately supported by Section 15-50.080 of the City Code. Criteria #2 and 3 do support the removal of the tree, but Criteria #1 and 4 – 9 support the preservation of the tree. Alternatives exist (Criterion #6) so that removal of the tree is not required. Overall, the Appellant has not met the burden of proof for the removal of the blue atlas cedar. NEIGHBOR CORRESPONDENCE City staff has denied a Tree Removal Permit Application and received an appeal from the property owner, and a letter of support from the back yard neighbor. GROUNDS OF APPEALS The Appellant is concerned that the roots of the tree are damaging the fence and retaining wall along the back property line as well as his back yard patio. His back yard neighbor is concerned that water drains from the higher property onto his property and that the roots of the tree have cracked the concrete near his pool. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Application No. APPC10-0002/ TRP10-0319; 13012 Via Escuela Page 4 of 5 9 Application No. APPC10-0002/ TRP10-0319; 13012 Via Escuela Page 5 of 5 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find this application exempt from CEQA and deny the Appeal by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution denying the Appeal and the removal of one blue atlas cedar tree 2. Appeal application and letters from Mr. David Lee, 13012 Via Escuela and Dr. Ralph Wood, 19661 Junipero Way 3. Tree Removal Permit Application TRP10-0319 4. Tree Removal Permit Application TRP09-0316 5. Public Hearing Notice, List of Addresses for mailing 10 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.10-030 FOR DENIAL OF APPEAL Application #APPC10-0002/TRP10-0319 Lee / 13012 Via Escuela The City of Saratoga Planning Commission finds and determines as follows with respect to the above-described application: I. Project Summary The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an appeal of the denial of an application for a Tree Removal Permit (TRP10-0319) for the removal of one blue atlas cedar tree at the address listed above. The owner and back yard neighbor want to remove and replace a wood retaining wall and fence along the property line, and contend that this tree must be removed in order to complete the project. II. Right to Appeal City Code Sections 15-90.010 allows an appeal of an administrative determination or decision made by the Community Development Director to be taken to the Planning Commission by the applicant or any interested person pursuant to any of the provisions of the City Code. III. Planning Commission Review On December 8, 2010, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the Appeal of the denial of the Tree Removal Permit Application, at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and argument. The Planning Commission considered the Tree Removal Permit Application, the Appeal, the Staff Report on the Appeal, correspondence, and presentations from the Appellant and the public, and all testimony and other evidence presented at the Public Hearing. IV. Environmental Review The Appeal is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guideline Article 18 - 15270(a), which provides that CEQA does not apply to tree removal permit applications which a public agency denies. V. Criteria for the Removal of a Protected Tree Pursuant to City Code Article 15-50.080, there are criteria that must be met “overall” for the issuance of a Tree Removal Permit. They are listed below. The Planning Commission is to consider each criterion below and determine whether a tree meets them, overall, and therefore qualifies for removal. Sometimes a tree needs to meet only one criterion to qualify 11 or a removal permit, such as when it is diseased and cannot be restored to good health. More often, several or many of the criteria listed below must be met to make the findings overall, allowing a tree to be removed. It is significant to consider whether there are alternatives to the removal of the tree in question. Following are Staff’s findings with respect to each criterion. Criterion #1: The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures, and interference with utility services. The blue atlas cedar tree does not meet this criterion, in that it is not diseased or unhealthy, is not in imminent danger of failure, is not too close to existing structures, and does not interfere with utility services. Criterion #2: The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. The blue atlas cedar tree does meet this criterion in that the tree’s roots are threatening damage to the fence, retaining wall and patio. However, there are alternatives to removing this tree. Criterion #3: The topography of the land and the effect the tree removal would have upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes. Both properties are flat, but there is approximately two feet difference in elevation between the appellant’s property (higher) and the back yard neighbor’s property (lower). Tree roots hold the soil in place and prevent erosion, especially on hills. Dr. Wood claims that in this situation, the tree’s roots are blocking the flow of rainwater into the storm drain and diverting it onto his property. It is possible that this criterion has been met, if the tree is diverting storm water onto the neighbor’s property. Criterion #4: The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. Removal of the blue atlas cedar tree does not meet this criterion, in that it would have an effect on shade, privacy and scenic beauty. This is the only large tree on the property. Criterion #5: The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. Removal of this tree does not meet this criterion, in that there is enough room on the property for it, and it is not crowded by other trees. 2 Application No. APPC10-0002; 13012 Via Escuela 12 Criterion #6: Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. Removal of the blue atlas cedar does not meet this criterion, in that there are alternatives to removing it. The retaining wall along the property line can be reconfigured around the tree to allow more room for it. The patio can be removed near the tree to give it more room. Drainage can be installed along the rear of the property to keep rainwater on the Lee property and maintain the flow of water towards the storm drain, while allowing the retention of the tree. Criterion #7: Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. The proposed tree removal does not meet this criterion, in that approval of the request to remove the blue atlas cedar is in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article, which is to preserve and protect healthy, mature trees in the City. Criterion #8: Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010. Removal of the blue atlas cedar does not meet this criterion, in that no information about public health or safety with respect to the removal of this tree has been provided. Criterion #9: The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. Removal of the blue atlas cedar does not meet this criterion in that there is an alternative that allows the retention of this tree. In summary, removal of the blue atlas cedar is not adequately supported by Section 15- 50.080 of the City Code. Criteria #2 and 3 do support the removal of the tree, but Criteria #1 and 4 – 9 support the preservation of the tree. Alternatives exist (Criterion #6) so that removal of the tree is not required. Overall, the Appellant has not met the burden of proof for the removal of the blue atlas cedar. VI. Appeal Determination Section 1. After careful consideration of the tree removal permit application, the appeal and other exhibits and evidence submitted in connection with this matter, the statutory exemption from CEQA is approved and the appeal (APPC10-0002) is denied. Section 2. The Planning Commission upholds the decision of the Community Development Director’s denial of Tree Removal Permit Application TRP10-0319, to remove one blue atlas cedar tree in order to replace a fence and retaining wall. 3 Application No. APPC10-0002; 13012 Via Escuela 13 4 Application No. APPC10-0002; 13012 Via Escuela Section 3. This determination may be appealed to the City Council, by filing an appeal application along with a $600 filing fee with the City Clerk. The appeal application and fee must be filed within 15 days of this hearing; the deadline to file is December 23, 2010. APPEAL DENIED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 8th day of December, 2010 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _______________________________ Mary Lynn Bernald Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: ___________________________________ John F. Livingstone, AICP Secretary to the Planning Commission 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 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 a public hearing on an appeal of a Tree Removal Permit scheduled to be considered on Wednesday, the 8th day of December, 2010, 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 #: TRP10-0319 APN: 393-46-023 APPELLANT/ADDRESS: David Lee, 13012 Via Escuela DESCRIPTION: The appellant is appealing the denial for a permit to remove 1 blue atlas cedar tree in the backyard. . 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 5 pm, Monday, November 29, 2010. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor’s office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of-date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Kate Bear City Arborist (408) 868-1276 22 11/15/2010 City of Saratoga Page 1 of 3 Radius Notification Parcel Report 13012 Via Escuela Ct TRP10-0319 (500’ FOR PLAN. COM. APPEAL) GEO10 SARATOGA, CA 9507019737 JUNIPERO WYLEE SEUNG B AND IN S19737 JUNIPERO WY 39318047 SARATOGA, CA 9507019765 JUNIPERO WYJONES RONALD H AND ROSALIE H19765 JUNIPERO WY 39318046 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054632 LAURIE AVOH DAL S 19724 JUNIPERO WY 39318017 , 39318017 CUPERTINO, CA 95015P.O. BOX 351CHAN ZITA Y AND CHEN HOWARD H19710 JUNIPERO WY 39318016 , 39318016 SARATOGA, CA 9507019700 JUNIPERO WYHWANG YAW-JENG AND CHEN JENG-Y19700 JUNIPERO WY 39318015 , 39318015 SARATOGA, CA 9507019680 JUNIPERO WYGREEN ROBERT M19680 JUNIPERO WY 39318014 , 39318014 SARATOGA, CA 9507019660 JUNIPERO WYGUERRA MARIA R AND PARKER REED19660 JUNIPERO WY 39318013 , 39318013 SARATOGA, CA 9507019640 JUNIPERO WYVUTZ PETER AND DORIS J TRUSTEE19640 JUNIPERO WY 39318012 SARATOGA, CA 9507019661 JUNIPERO WYWOOD RALPH H AND FRANCES L19661 JUNIPERO WY 39318011 SARATOGA, CA 9507019681 JUNIPERO WYSAADAT HAMID R AND MINA19681 JUNIPERO WY 39318010 SARATOGA, CA 9507013020 LA VISTA DRHERNANDEZ PAUL S AND DONNA D13020 LA VISTA DR 39318009 SARATOGA, CA 9507013030 LA VISTA DRLIU JIM JING AND WANG YONG-JIA13030 LA VISTA DR 39318008 SARATOGA, CA 9507013040 LA VISTA DRKIM JAE HWAN AND CHOI MOON SOO13040 LA VISTA DR 39318007 SARATOGA, CA 9507013050 LA VISTA DRNAGEL MARILYNN D AND DOUGLAS O13050 LA VISTA DR 39318006 SARATOGA, CA 9507013060 LA VISTA DRRUDIGER CARL E JR AND JEANNE K13060 LA VISTA DR 39318005 SARATOGA, CA 9507013070 LA VISTA DRMENON, KRISHNA & SATHYA13070 LA VISTA DR 39318004 SARATOGA, CA 9507013080 LA VISTA DRTANG RICHARD XIAODONG AND ZHAO13080 LA VISTA DR 39318003 SARATOGA, CA 9507013090 LA VISTA DRGEORGE BERT L AND CYNDIE A TRU13090 LA VISTA DR 39318002 SARATOGA, CA 9507019720 VIA ESCUELA DRPARKER GERALD L AND DIANA F TR19720 VIA ESCUELA DR39318001 SARATOGA, CA 95070COX AVPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COCOX AV 39317006 , 39317006 SARATOGA, CA 95070SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATIO38903001 , 38903001 SARATOGA, CA 95070SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATIO38901022 , 38901022 SARATOGA, CA 95070PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO38901020 , Owner City, State ZipOwner AddressOwner NameParcel Address Parcel Number 38901020 23 Parcel Address Parcel Number Owner Name Owner Address Owner City, State Zip 39318048 13027 LA VISTA DR 13027 LA VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070ZIPP JOHN E TRUSTEE & ET AL 39318049 13039 PALERMO CT 13039 PALERMO CT SARATOGA, CA 95070PETERSEN ROBERT A AND CAROL TR 39318051 13049 PALERMO CT 13049 PALERMO CT SARATOGA, CA 95070THOREN PHILLIP J AND PAULA C 39318052 13055 LA VISTA DR 13055 LA VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070CONE JAMES D AND LISA A TRUSTE 39318053 13063 LA VISTA DR 13063 LA VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070GOYAL RAVENDER AND POONAM 39318054 13067 LA VISTA CT 13067 LA VISTA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070AMBEKAR VINAY R AND PARVATHY V 39318056 13079 LA VISTA CT 13079 LA VISTA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070KIM YOO HUN AND CHUNG S 39318057 13081 LA VISTA DR 13081 LA VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070CHEN FUSEN AND YIJEN 39318058 19740 VIA ESCUELA DR SARATOGA, CA 9507019740 VIA ESCUELA DR PARSONS STUART O JR AND HARRIE 39318059 19760 VIA ESCUELA DR SARATOGA, CA 9507019760 VIA ESCUELA DR FREITAS ROBERT A TRUSTEE & ET 39319062 19701 VIA ESCUELA DR SARATOGA, CA 9507019701 VIA ESCUELA DR HEINRICH BARBARA F TRUSTEE 39319063 19685 VIA ESCUELA DR SARATOGA, CA 9507019685 VIA ESCUELA DR MU XIAO-CHUN AND YAN PEI-YANG 39319064 19661 VIA ESCUELA DR SARATOGA, CA 9507019661 VIA ESCUELA DR LAPUZ EMERITA A TRUSTEE 39319065 19645 VIA ESCUELA DR SARATOGA, CA 9507019645 VIA ESCUELA DR CARLSON VINCENT P AND ROBERTA 39319066 19623 VIA ESCUELA DR SARATOGA, CA 9507019623 VIA ESCUELA DR LEE AI HUA AND CHUNG CHING YU , 39320045 39320045 19529 VIA REAL DR 19529 VIA REAL DR SARATOGA, CA 95070RANGANATHAN KOTHANDAPANI 39320046 13000 GLEN BRAE DR 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CA 95070CITY OF SARATOGA , 39320046 39320046 13010 GLEN BRAE DR 13010 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070GUPTA RAJEEV K AND SUSHMA , 39320046 13000 GLEN BRAE DR , 39321006 39321006 13000 GLEN BRAE DRIVE SARATOGA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO , 39346001 39346001 19568 CHARDONNAY CT 19568 CHARDONNAY CT SARATOGA, CA 95070SIMMONS JOHN M AND ROSE P , 39346002 39346002 19546 CHARDONNAY CT 19546 CHARDONNAY CT SARATOGA, CA 95070CHAN ANDY PENG-PUI TRUSTEE & E , 39346003 39346003 19538 CHARDONNAY CT 19538 CHARDONNAY CT SARATOGA, CA 95070CHENG STEPHEN S AND NANCY C , 39346004 39346004 19542 CHARDONNAY CT 19542 CHARDONNAY CT SARATOGA, CA 95070BRACHER ERIC A AND VIVIAN M TR 39346005 19548 CHARDONNAY CT SPEARS 19548 CHARDONNAY CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 39346006 19560 CHARDONNAY CT 19560 CHARDONNAY CT SARATOGA, CA 95070LARSEN REED W AND ROSHON-LARSE 39346007 19574 CHARDONNAY CT 19574 CHARDONNAY CT SARATOGA, CA 95070CHUNG NOEL R AND TAEIM 39346008 19582 CHARDONNAY CT 19582 CHARDONNAY CT SARATOGA, CA 95070ARUNKUMAR NAGARAJ AND GEETANJA GEO10 24 Parcel Address Parcel Number Owner Name Owner Address Owner City, State Zip 39346009 19577 CHARDONNAY CT 19577 CHARDONNAY CT SARATOGA, CA 95070LEE SHAWN AND JANE TRUSTEE 39346010 19569 CHARDONNAY CT 14067 APRICOT HILL SARATOGA, CA 95070BITTNER GERALD L TRUSTEE 39346011 19551 CHARDONNAY CT 19551 CHARDONNAY CT SARATOGA, CA 95070JOSHI SUNIL P AND SHAILA S 39346012 19567 CHARDONNAY CT 19567 CHARDONNAY CT SARATOGA, CA 95070CHEN HOREN AND JENNY TRUSTEE 39346013 13049 GLEN BRAE DR 13049 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070AN BYOUNG EUN AND SANGMI 39346014 13073 GLEN BRAE DR 13073 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070GROTZINGER WILLIAM G AND BARBA 39346015 13097 GLEN BRAE DR 13097 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070HUNG JACK S D AND SHU GUZ TRUS 39346016 19588 VIA ESCUELA DR SARATOGA, CA 9507019588 VIA ESCUELA DR YIU KAI P AND MARIA W TRUSTEE 39346017 19606 VIA ESCUELA DR SARATOGA, CA 9507019606 VIA ESCUELA DR GOU STEPHEN AND HEIDI 39346018 19628 VIA ESCUELA DR SARATOGA, CA 9507019628 VIA ESCUELA DR YANG HENRY M AND ELLEN L 39346019 13096 VIA ESCUELA CT SARATOGA, CA 9507013096 VIA ESCUELA CT WEINZIMMER SOPHIE E TRUSTEE & 39346020 13078 VIA ESCUELA CT SARATOGA, CA 9507013078 VIA ESCUELA CT RHEE HYOP S AND YOON JI-YOUNG 39346021 13056 VIA ESCUELA CT SARATOGA, CA 9507013056 VIA ESCUELA CT CHEN YAO-CHING S AND JANET H 39346022 13034 VIA ESCUELA CT SARATOGA, CA 9507013034 VIA ESCUELA CT WANG ALEXANDER C AND LING-RU C 39346023 13012 VIA ESCUELA CT SARATOGA, CA 9507013012 VIA ESCUELA CT LEE DAVID A TRUSTEE 39346024 13095 VIA ESCUELA CT SARATOGA, CA 9507013015 VIA ESCUELA CT LIN LYON T AND ANNE J 39346025 13033 VIA ESCUELA CT SARATOGA, CA 9507013033 VIA ESCUELA CT WU YU S AND CHAO P CHUN ET AL 39346026 13055 VIA ESCUELA CT SARATOGA, CA 9507013055 VIA ESCUELA CT SHIVJI SHIRAZ M AND MUMTAS S 39346027 13077 VIA ESCUELA CT SARATOGA, CA 9507013077 VIA ESCUELA CT DHOLAKIA SURESH AND ANJANA 39346028 13095 VIA ESCUELA CT SARATOGA, CA 9507013095 VIA ESCUELA CT SHYH JEFFREY AND SALLY TRUSTEE Affected Parcels 87 GEO10 25 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. & Location: ADR10-0002 – 20610 Lomita Avenue Type of Application: Appeal of Administrative Design Review Appeal No. APPC10-0001 Property Owner: Charles Tsai Appellants: Stan Bogosian, Roeland Van Krieken, Tom Clerkin, Alan Rosenus, Beverley Darlington, Michael McChesney, Aida Scott, Sue Wingerter, John Holt, Darrell Katz, Keith Rieken, Dennis Hunter Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan, AICP Meeting Date: December 8, 2010 APN: 517-14-012 Department Head:_____________ John F. Livingstone, AICP 20610 LOMITA AVENUE 26 Application No. APPC10-0001- 20610 Lomita Avenue 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT HISTORY ADR Application filed: 01/27/10 ADR Application Deemed Complete: 08/19/10 ADR Application Neighbor Review period: 08/25/10-09/08/10 ADR Approved: 10/05/10 Appeal Filed: 10/18/10 Notice published: 11/24/10 Mailing completed: 11/22/10 Posting completed: 08/04/10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Appeal of an Administrative Design Review approval for a proposed new 3,367 square foot single-family home located at 20610 Lomita Avenue. The maximum height of the proposed structure would be approximately 17.9 feet. The maximum impervious coverage would not exceed the allowable 60% of the net site area (38.7% impervious coverage is proposed). The net lot size is approximately 10,634 square feet and the property is located in the R-10,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution denying the appeal and approving application ADR10-002. The decision on this appeal is final and not subject to further appeal to the City Council. 27 Application No. APPC10-0001- 20610 Lomita Avenue 3 PROJECT DATA ZONING: R-1-10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M-10 (Medium Density Residential) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: Approximately 10,640 square feet (net) / 12,160 square feet (gross) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Approximately 9.2% GRADING REQUIRED: 40 cubic yards of cut and 60 cubic yards of fill (total of 100 cubic yards) for construction of the proposed project. This calculation does not include 560 cubic yards of cut for construction of the basement. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures,” Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is located in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists of the construction of one single-family residence. PROPOSED EXTERIOR MATERIALS AND COLORS The proposed colors include white colored horizontal wood siding, wood windows, and a charcoal colored asphalt shingle roof. A color and material board will be available at the public hearing. Detail Colors and Materials Mfg. & Specification # Windows Vinyl Clad Wood Windows / Light Grey Powder Coated Finish Jeld-Wen Casement Windows Front Door Double Sash Custom Made Wood Door / White Borano Co. / Bedollino Garage Door Wood Carriage Door / White Carriage Door Co. / Model 301-G Building Ext. Wood Siding / Light Grey Wolverine Siding System Roof Asphalt Shingle – Black – 30 Year Weight Presidential Shake LT 28 Application No. APPC10-0001- 20610 Lomita Avenue 4 PROJECT DATA: R-1-10,000 Zoning Net Site Area: 10,640 sq. ft. Existing/Proposed Allowable/Required Proposed Site Coverage Building: Driveway: Walkways: Total Proposed Site Coverage 3682.80 SF 256.40 SF 193.50 SF 4,132.70 SF (38.84 %) 6,383.98 SF Floor Area First Floor Attached Garage: Total Proposed Floor Area 2,936.56 SF 430.55 SF 3,367.11 SF (99.9%) 3,370 SF Basement 1,494.73 SF Not included in total floor area Code Section 15-06.090 Grading House/Garage: Site Totals: Cut 10 CY 30 CY 40 CY Fill 50 CY 10 CY 60 CY Total 60 CY 40 CY 100 CY Grading Limits Not Applicable to R-1-10,000 Zone District Height (Main Residence) Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: 106.75 FT 109.50 FT 108.13 FT 126.00 FT Maximum Height = 126.13 (18 Feet) Setbacks Front: Rear: Left Side: Right Side: First Floor 27’-0” 37’-4” 7’-8” 7’-9” Second Floor N/A N/A N/A N/A First Floor 25’ 25’ 7’-6” 7’-6” Second Floor N/A N/A N/A N/A PROJECT DISCUSSION The appellant’s are seeking to overturn the Community Development Director’s approval of the applicants' request for Administrative Design Review approval for a new 3,367 square foot single-family home located at 20610 Lomita Avenue. The existing one story single-family home located on the site and all existing impervious coverage would be removed. The maximum height of the proposed structure would be approximately 17.9 feet. The maximum impervious coverage would not exceed the allowable 60% of the net site area (38.8% impervious coverage is proposed). The net lot size is approximately 10,640 square feet and the property is located in the R-10,000 zoning district. Project Background On January 27, 2010 the applicant submitted an application for Administrative Design Review for a proposed single story home. During the nine month time period between the project application date and the date it was deemed complete, the Applicant redesigned the project to address both the Staff’s and the adjacent neighbors concerns about the project impacts on an existing 44” Oak tree located on the common property line between the subject property and the adjacent neighbor to the west. On numerous occasions during this time the applicant and staff met with adjacent neighbors, both at the site and in the Community Development Department, to 29 Application No. APPC10-0001- 20610 Lomita Avenue 5 discuss their concerns about site drainage and the perceived height and bulk of the projects’ design. On August 19th, 2010 the project was deemed complete. On August 24, 2010 a “Notice of Intent to Approve” was mailed to all neighbors within 250 feet of the project providing 15 days to review and comment on the plans. Many neighbors commented on the project, focusing primarily on the projects potential impact on the adjacent Oak tree, the bulk and mass of the proposed design, and site drainage. Staff and the applicant again met with neighbors on more than one occasion to discuss their project related concerns. After carefully considering the plans, neighborhood compatibility, and letters from neighbors, staff concluded that all of the findings necessary to support the Administrative Design Review findings could be made. Staff approved the plans on October 5, 2010. The notice of approval is included as Attachment #3. The project was appealed on October 18, 2010 (Attachment #2). Architectural Style The applicant has stated that the design of the project was inspired by the Craftsman architectural style. This proposed architectural style will be compatible with the design of adjacent homes and those in the immediate neighborhood. The Craftsman style home was a revolution in American architectural design, and they were built all over the nation between 1905 and 1930. In the late part of the twentieth century, the Craftsman home became popular again, with architects restoring older Craftsman houses and building new replicas. Like many design elements of the Arts and Crafts period, the Craftsman home is a work of art as well as a functioning dwelling. The Craftsman style is defined by its low-pitched gabled roofs with broad eaves, large front porches, and exposed wooden structural elements. Houses were typically 1-1½ stories and of wood construction. These homes were originally popularized by the design firm of Greene & Greene and influenced by existing California board and shingle buildings. What most distinguished the Craftsman home was its philosophical foundation that was predicated on a more functional aesthetic, natural materials, and a greater degree of craftsmanship, which Art & Crafts proponents believed to be missing from the more ornate or traditional styles of the period. Arts and Crafts architects and designers believed that a return to a simpler, less pretentious style would lead to a healthier, more comfortable and productive life. The Craftsman bungalow adapted the large porch and practical floor plan seen in earlier homes built by British colonists in India. The style proved incredibly popular and the bungalow style evolved into a simpler version for the broader market as building plan books and pre-cut home kits became available. The Craftsman style is distinguished by its many fine details and excellent workmanship. The typical Craftsman home usually has a low-pitched roof, deep eaves with decorative exposed rafters, 1–1½ stories, large, covered front porches with massive, battered column, and double hung windows. Appeal The appellants submitted a letter and petition signed by several neighbors along with the appeal application. The appeal focused on the following issues: 1) Bulk and Mass The finished floor starts eight feet above the street (at setback) and two thirds of the front wall is approximately the same distance from the street which creates a massive, bulky appearance that is inconsistent with homes in the neighborhood. 30 Application No. APPC10-0001- 20610 Lomita Avenue 6 • Finished Floor (FF) is eight feet above the street and 26.5 feet back from the street (25’ minimum setback). - Natural grade does not seem to be considered in this design. • Front Elevation misrepresents the actual elevation as seen from the street. - Starts more than 5 ½ feet above the street level. • Maximum Building Height - Approved drawings (date stamped October 4, 2010) allow 26’ maximum building height which exceeds the 18’ maximum height required for an Administrative Design Review per Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC). The portion of Lomita Avenue in front of the project is a private street. The site measures 160 feet in length as measured from the rear of the site to the center line of Lomita Avenue. The City has a 20 foot wide right-of-way (ROW) easement for Lomita Avenue located across the front of the site. As per SMC Section 15-06.587, “where a street line is located within the boundaries of a site, the required setback line shall be measured from such street line instead of the lot line.” Therefore, the edge of the ROW (and not the property line) is considered the line from which the front setback is measured. The average height of the existing grade at the ROW is approximately 104.3 feet. The site increases in slope from the ROW line to a point along the rear property line with a maximum elevation of 115.1 feet (an increase in elevation of 10.8 feet). The proposed 109 foot finished floor height daylights with existing grades at the rear of the residence. The applicant would like to eliminate steps on the main level of the house so therefore, the building pad height is a consistent elevation as measured from back to front. The height of the building pad as measured from the front is approximately three feet higher than adjacent grades due to the change in slope. A front porch with a finished floor height of 107 feet makes the transition from the height of the building pad to lower adjacent grades thereby helping to diminish the grade change. Building height is measured from the average height of existing grades at the building corners and the height of the finished floor does not affect how building height is measured. The maximum residential building height in the R-1-10,000 zone district is 26 feet. A building with a height of 18’ is the threshold that can be approved by the Community Development Director with an Administrative Design Review application. New buildings exceeding 18 feet are referred to the Planning Commission for review. 2) Public Safety issues due to driveway location and length Driveway is 14 feet 3 inches in length and located on a shared driveway with three neighbors. • Pedestrians and vehicle safety due to impaired visibility caused by the proposed fence. • Most cars will not fit in the driveway (Toyota Prius is too long) • Safety vehicles (police, fire, ambulance, etc.) access for neighbors on shared driveway is inhibited. Per Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-35.030(a) (Schedule of off-street parking spaces), single-family dwelling units are required to provide two covered parking spaces within a garage. The Municipal Code does not include development standards pertaining to the minimum length of a residential driveway. The project is in conformance with the municipal code in that it provides two covered parking spaces within a garage and this garage is setback 14’-3” feet from the side property line (a setback of 7’-6” is required). To help alleviate some of the neighbors’ 31 Application No. APPC10-0001- 20610 Lomita Avenue 7 concerns with respect to the driveway length, the applicant has agreed to modify the design of the garage to increase the driveway length from 14 feet to 16 feet. Increasing the length of the driveway by two additional feet has been added as a condition of approval. Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-29.010(f) pertains to the height of fences near the intersections of driveways and streets which limits to three feet the height of fences within a triangle having sides twelve feet from either side of a driveway where it intersects with the street. This regulation is not applicable to the project as the driveway easement is not a “street” however; the applicant has agreed to a condition of project approval to redesign the fence to be in conformance with this code section. 3) Tree protection and safety Arborist requirements are ambiguously represented on the proposed plans. • “Shall” requirements are stated as “Should” on the proposed plans. • Three trees being removed along eastern property line. Two or three may be trimmed and saved. • Proper protection of 44” heritage oak tree on western property line. The three trees proposed for removal along the eastern property line are as follows: #1 – An 8.8” diameter Coast live oak in good condition #2 – An 11.4” diameter Black walnut in fair condition #3 – A multi-trunk (6.6” & 8.4”) Coast live oak in good condition The December 23, 2009 (Attachment #8) report from the City Arborist stated that the above mentioned trees would most likely not survive the impacts from construction and the plans were to clearly indicate whether these trees were to be removed or retained. Revised plans indicated these three trees were to be removed. The March 8, 2010 report from the City Arborist approved the removal of these three as they are in conflict with the proposed project. These three trees are to be replaced with new trees equaling $2,780.00. A 44” Coast live oak with a 60’ canopy spread straddles the front portion of the western property line which is shared with the adjacent neighbor. The house proposed for removal is located approximately five feet from the tree and the neighbor’s driveway touches the base of the tree. The City Arborist originally disagreed with the proposed location of the new residence as it was too close to the tree and recommended that the house be redesigned to be at least 11 feet away from the trunk. The applicant redesigned the house and submitted revised plans which indicated that the proposed house would be greater than 11 feet from the base of the tree. The City Arborist is also requiring, and made a condition of project approval, that all demolition of the foundation under the tree be done by hand to avoid damage to the roots. The tree will be protected by fencing during demolition and construction. 4) Drainage Storm runoff (and/or basement pump(s) outflow) will puddle in the street in front of the house. Moderate to heavy accumulation will flow to multiple properties across the street. • Basement design should prevent need for pumps (for sub-terrain water) • Access to public storm drain is less than 30 feet away but not being used. • Current plan indicates water will flow uphill and flow across a slope (instead of down the slope). 32 Application No. APPC10-0001- 20610 Lomita Avenue 8 The portion of the Lomita Avenue from address 20600 – 20655 is a private street of which the City does not have jurisdiction. All street maintenance is the responsibility of the adjacent property owners. While it is true that a public storm drain is located near the property, this storm drain is located on the portion of Lomita Avenue that is a public street. The City does not have the authority to force the applicant to connect to this storm drain. The Grading and Drainage Plan (Sheet C-1 of Attachment #11) indicate a “flow line” near the existing edge of pavement in front of the site that is an existing swale with a high point of 101.88 and low point of 100.76. These existing elevations will divert storm water in a positive flow southeasterly direction across the front of the site while directing it to the existing curb and gutter on the opposite side of the shared driveway. In the Geotechnical Report prepared by American Soil Testing, dated November 10, 2009, groundwater was indentified at a depth of 11 feet. The report requires that all basement walls be fully back drained and all water carried to a discharge point beyond the walls of the basement. The Grading and Drainage Plan indicates that this groundwater is to be discharged directly to the street. A Condition of Approval has been added requiring this groundwater to be initially directed into the proposed detention basins. Groundwater that exceeds the absorption rate of the detention system can then be diverted off site. 5) Misrepresented property lines and street right of way (ROW) Drawings do not show property lines per the legal description. Front (north) property line is 20 feet south of actual property line. This distorts actual heights in the elevation views. • Misrepresents the Right of Way (ROW) as the property line. (Sheet A-4, A-5, A-7) • 2 to 3 foot (height varies along ROW) of elevation change at ROW is not addressed in the current plan. • This causes the front elevation heights to be misrepresented from the street by several feet. • Proper protection of 44” heritage oak tree on western property line. The legal description from the title report states that the property line is 160’ in length and extends to the center line of Lomita Avenue. The property line dimensions as shown on the project plans indicate that the length of the site is 160 feet as measured to the street center line. The City has a 20 foot wide right-of-way (ROW) easement for Lomita Avenue located across the front of the site. As per SMC Section 15-06.587, “where a street line is located within the boundaries of a site, the required setback line shall be measured from such street line instead of the lot line.” Therefore, the edge of the ROW (and not the property line) is considered the line from which the front setback is measured. The length of the site not including the ROW is 140 feet. For the purposes of measuring setback the term ROW and Property Line are used synonymously. The protection of the 44” Oak tree located along the western property line was discussed earlier in this report. Trees and landscaping A significant feature of the site is an existing 44” inch Oak tree located on the northwest property line. This tree will be maintained and protected during construction and the design of the house has been altered to reduce impacts on this tree. Three smaller trees located along the eastern property 33 Application No. APPC10-0001- 20610 Lomita Avenue 9 line have been recommended for removal by the City Arborist as they are in conflict with the proposed project or would be significantly damaged by the construction and meet the findings for removal. These include a ten inch Coast live oak, and two 15-inch Black walnut trees. An existing 40-inch Coast live oak located in the rear half of the lot will be preserved and protected during construction. New trees are to be planted to replace those removed. Energy Efficiency The applicant submitted a GreenPoint Rated Checklist (Attachment #9). Article 16-47 (Green Building Regulations) Section 16.47.040 of the City Code requires all new residential projects to meet the minimum GreenPoint Rated requirements of 50 points. The “green features” proposed for the project would earn a score of 62 points and would exceed the minimum in each category to be considered GreenPoint Rated. Some of the proposed green features would include: • Drought tolerant landscaping, minimum use of turf, and drip irrigation to reduce water use; • The use of engineered lumber; • Maximizing the use of Low Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) paints, adhesives, and finishes; • Energy star rated appliances; • High efficiency plumbing fixtures; and • Energy efficient ductwork. Fireplaces Saratoga City Code Section 15-48.030 establishes a limit of one wood burning fireplace per structure. The project would have one gas burning fire place located in the living room. Air Conditioning / HVAC City Code requires air conditioning condensers to be located outside required setbacks. The proposed air conditioning condensers would be located adjacent to the rear outside wall of the garage and would not be located within a required setback. Geotechnical Clearance American Soil Testing prepared a Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed project, dated November 10, 2009. On February 25, 2010, the project received geotechnical clearance to proceed with special conditions from Cotton Shires and Associates (the City’s Geotechnical Consultant) and the Public Works Department. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant showed the plans to and submitted neighbor notification forms with the project application that had been signed by adjacent property owners (Attachment #7). During this initial neighbor comment period only the neighbors at 20601 and 20610 Lomita Avenue had project related comments and both of these neighbors are project appellant’s. Their comments were consistent with their concerns that were included in the appeal letter and which were addressed earlier in this report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution denying the 34 Application No. APPC10-0001- 20610 Lomita Avenue 10 appeal and approving application ADR10-002. The decision on this appeal is final and not subject to further appeal to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution denying the appeal 2. Appeal application and accompanying letter (dated October 18, 2010) 3. Notice of Approval (dated October 5, 2010) 4. Letter from Applicant (dated December 1, 2010) 5. Summary of Appellants Issues (prepared by Appellants, dated November 30, 2010) 6. Letters from Neighbors 7. Neighborhood Notification Letters 8. City Arborist Reports 9. Green Point Checklist (prepared by Applicant) 10. City of Saratoga Notice, Noticing Affidavit, and Noticing Labels 11. Applicant’s Plans, Exhibit "A" 35 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO: 10-031 FOR DENIAL OF APPEAL OF ADMINISRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION NO. APPC10-0001 Charles Tsai, 20610 Lomita Avenue (Owner) Stan Bogosian, Roeland Van Krieken, Tom Clerkin, Alan Rosenus, Beverley Darlington, Michael McChesney, Aida Scott, Sue Wingerter, John Holt, Darrell Katz, Keith Rieken, Dennis Hunter (Appellants) The City of Saratoga Planning Commission finds and determines as follows with respect to the above-described application: I. Project Summary The appellants are seeking to overturn Planning Staff’s approval of the applicants’ request for Administrative Design Review approval for a proposed new 3,367 square foot single- family home located at 20610 Lomita Avenue. The existing one story single-family home located on the site and all existing impervious coverage would be removed. The maximum height of the proposed structure would be approximately 17.9 feet. The maximum impervious coverage would not exceed the allowable 60% of the net site area (38.8% impervious coverage is proposed). The net lot size is approximately 10,640 square feet and the property is located in the R-10,000 zoning district. On January 27, 2010 the applicant submitted an application for Administrative Design Review for a proposed single story home with a Craftsman architectural style. During the nine month time period between the project application date and the date it was deemed complete, the Applicant redesigned the project to address both the Staff’s and the adjacent neighbors concerns about the project impacts on an existing 44” Oak tree located on the common property line between the subject property and the adjacent neighbor to the west. On numerous occasions during this time the applicant and staff met with adjacent neighbors, both at the site and in the Community Development Department, to discuss their concerns about site drainage and the perceived height and bulk of the projects’ design. On August 19th, 2010 the project was deemed complete. On August 24, 2010 a “Notice of Intent to Approve” was mailed to all neighbors within 250 feet of the project providing 15 days to review and comment on the plans. Many neighbors commented on the project, focusing primarily on the projects potential impact on the adjacent Oak tree, the bulk and mass of the proposed design, and site drainage. Staff and the applicant again met with neighbors on more than one occasion to discuss their project related concerns. After carefully considering the plans, neighborhood compatibility, and letters from neighbors, staff concluded that all of the findings necessary to support the Administrative Design Review findings could be made. Staff approved the plans on October 5, 2010. The project was appealed on October 18, 2010. 36 II. Design Review Requirement City Code Section 15-45.065(a)(1) requires Design Review Approval for a single-family main structure project by the Community Development Director for any new single-story structure greater than 250 square feet in floor area. This Design Review Approval requirement implements the Saratoga General Plan, including, but not limited to: (1) Land Use Goal 13 which provides that 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; (2) Open Space Element Policy 11.a which provides that the City shall ensure that projects are designed in a manner that minimizes disruption to important wildlife, riparian and plant habitats; (3) Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits; and (4) Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. III. Appeal of Administrative Design Review City Code Section 15-45.065(c) requires Planning Commission review of all appealed Community Development Directors decisions of Administrative Design Review applications. IV. GENERAL PLAN FINDINGS The appellants’ have not met the burden of proof required to support approval of application Number APPC10-0001, overturning approval of application Number ADR10-0002 for Design Review approval. The approval of the proposed project would be consistent with the following General Plan Goals and Policies as discussed below: • Conservation Element Policy 6.0 – Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The proposed one story single-family home will be in keeping with the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga in that; the project will have a Craftsman architectural style which is a traditional residential style that would complement the older homes, some of which are historic, that are located in this area of Saratoga. The height of the proposed one story home would be less than 18 feet in height and would be compatible with respect to height and bulk as adjacent one-story homes and shorter than adjacent two story homes. Proposed exterior materials would be composed of natural materials and would include horizontal wood siding and wood windows. • Land Use Element Policy 5.0 – The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The project will be compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings in that all of the following Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative. 2 Application No. APPC10-0001- 20610 Lomita Avenue 37 V. Planning Commission Review On December 8, 2010 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the Project at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and argument. The Planning Commission considered the Project, the Staff Report on the Project, CEQA documentation, correspondence, presentations from the Applicant and the public, and all testimony and other evidence presented at the Public Hearing. VI. Design Review Findings The appellants’ have not met the burden of proof required to support approval of application Number APPC10-0001, overturning approval of application Number ADR10-0002 for Design Review approval. The approval of the proposed project would be consistent with Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: 1. Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the site placement of adjacent residences and the existing privacy afforded by their respective windows and outdoor living spaces is not unreasonably affected or reduced by the location of the proposed one story single-family home. The proposed new home will not have second story windows or balconies to reduce the privacy of adjacent lots. An existing wood fence reduces privacy impacts from side facing windows on the site to the northwest. The proposed structure will be placed in the approximate location as the existing residence to be removed so therefore the existing neighborhood view shed of a one story single-family home will not be significantly altered. 2. Preserve Natural Landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the site is characterized by a gentle slope that drops in elevation approximately 10.8 feet from the rear property line to the street right-of-way and the project will not significantly alter this existing topography. The new house will be located in the approximate same level area as the existing residence so the existing contours will not be significantly modified. The site is void of formal landscaping with the exception of six trees of which five are near the area of construction. A significant feature of the site is an existing 44 inch Oak tree located on the northwest property line. This tree will be maintained and protected during construction and the design of the house has been altered to reduce impacts on this tree. Three smaller trees located along the eastern property line have been recommended for removal by the City Arborist as they are in conflict with the proposed project or would be significantly damaged by the construction 3 Application No. APPC10-0001- 20610 Lomita Avenue 38 and meet the findings for removal. These include a ten inch Coast live oak, and two 15-inch Black walnut trees. An existing 40 inch Coast live oak located in the rear half of the lot will be preserved and protected during construction. New trees are to be planted to replace those removed. 3. Preserve native and heritage trees. All heritage trees will be preserved. All native trees designated for protection pursuant to Section 15-50.050 will be preserved, or, given the constraints of the property, the number approved for removal will be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist will be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that there are no heritage trees on the site and there are three native Coast live oaks located on the property of which one will be removed. The ten inch Coast live oak tree to be removed is outside the building footprint but located close enough to the house so as to be damaged during construction of the basement. Due to the relatively small size of the tree and the likelihood that it would be harmed during construction the City Arborist recommended that it could be removed and replaced with a new tree in a different location on the site. No other native trees are proposed for removal. 4. Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots and to the surrounding region will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the environment. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the overall design, height, materials, and location of building features will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and the Craftsman architectural theme of the home and the use of architecturally true elements helps unify the façade. This is achieved by locating the detached garage to the rear of the house footprint to reduce its prominence and focal point as compared to the house. The overall appearance of the facades is consistent with the use of elements such as horizontal wood siding to increase horizontal proportions and to reduce vertical massing. The front façade is well articulated with jogs in the building lines with varying height of roof elements and rooflines. The elevations are softened by the use of varying materials to include the wood siding, cultured veneer for the fireplace chimney, and stucco for the building base. The front porch and balustrade are integral to the design of the front façade and are proportional to neighboring homes. 5. Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (iii) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the design of the home is compatible in bulk and height as neighboring homes within the immediate environment and the R-1-10,000 zoning district. The existing neighborhood scale is acknowledged by the use of a one-story design with a broad porch with a low eve line. The receding roofline redistributes volume away from street thereby reducing visual mass. The Craftsman themed design is a compatible 4 Application No. APPC10-0001- 20610 Lomita Avenue 39 architectural style to existing homes on Lomita Avenue and the surrounding neighborhood. The new home will not cast shadows on the adjacent properties that could impair the adjacent property owner’s opportunity to utilize solar energy. 6. Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposal will conform to the City’s current grading and erosion control methods. 7. Design policies and techniques. The proposed main or accessory structure will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15-45-055. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above. VII. Environmental Review The Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines - 14 C.C.R. Section 15303- “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. This exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures and no exception to that exemption applies. VIII. Project Approval After careful consideration of the application, site plan, architectural drawings, plans, CEQA documentation, and other materials, exhibits and evidence submitted to the City in connection with this matter, the exemption from CEQA is approved, the required findings are made, and Appeal Application #APPC10-0001 is denied and Application No. ADR10- 0002 for Administrative Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth below. The decision on this appeal is final and not subject to further appeal to the City Council. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. GENERAL 1. ALL CONDITIONS BELOW WHICH ARE IDENTIFIED AS PERMANENT OR FOR WHICH AN ALTERNATIVE PERIOD OF TIME FOR APPLICABILITY IS SPECIFIED SHALL RUN WITH THE LAND AND APPLY TO THE LANDOWNER’S SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST FOR SUCH TIME PERIOD. NO ZONING CLEARANCE, OR DEMOLITION, GRADING, OR BUILDING PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BE ISSUED UNTIL PROOF IS FILED WITH THE CITY THAT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL DOCUMENTING ALL APPLICABLE PERMANENT OR OTHER TERM-SPECIFIED CONDITIONS HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE APPLICANT WITH THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY 5 Application No. APPC10-0001- 20610 Lomita Avenue 40 RECORDER’S OFFICE IN FORM AND CONTENT ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. 2. IF A CONDITION IS NOT “PERMANENT” OR DOES NOT HAVE A TERM SPECIFIED, IT SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL THE ISSUANCE BY THE CITY OF SARATOGA OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR IT’S EQUIVALENT. 3. CONDITIONS MAY BE MODIFIED ONLY BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNLESS MODIFICATION IS EXPRESSLY OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY THE CITY CODE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SECTIONS 15-80.120 AND/OR 16-05.035, AS APPLICABLE. 4. The Community Development Director shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice in writing, on or after the time the Resolution granting this Approval is duly executed by the City, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). THIS APPROVAL OR PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE SIXTY (60) DAYS AFTER THE DATE SAID NOTICE IS MAILED IF ALL PROCESSING FEES CONTAINED IN THE NOTICE HAVE NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the Community Development Director certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 5. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or the Design Review Approval will expire unless extended in accordance with the City Code. 6. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference. 7. Prior to issuance of any Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit to implement this Design Review Approval the Owner or Applicant shall obtain a “Zoning Clearance” from the Community Development Director by submitting final plans for the requested permit to the Community Development Department for review to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this Resolution. 8. Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend City as to Action Challenging Approval of Application and as to Damage from Performance of Work Authorized by Design Review Approval. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: 6 Application No. APPC10-0001- 20610 Lomita Avenue 41 a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the Community Development Director. B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans dated November 24, 2010 denominated Exhibit "A" and the Color Board received January 27, 2010 denominated Exhibit “B. All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with Condition A.3, above. 10. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted per habitable structure (e.g., main house or guest house). All other fireplaces shall be gas burning. 11. The fence to the southwest of the proposed driveway shall be redesigned so as to have a triangle of visibility three feet in height having sides twelve feet in length from either side of the project driveway where it intersects with the driveway easement. All other fences and walls shall comply with City Code Article 15-29. 12. The length of the driveway shall be no less than 16 feet in length. 13. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment shall comply with City Code Section 15-80.030(l). Air conditioning condensers shall not be installed within any required setbacks. 14. Groundwater from the basement sump pumps shall be initially directed into the proposed landscape detention basins. Groundwater that exceeds the absorption rate of the detention system can then be diverted off site. 7 Application No. APPC10-0001- 20610 Lomita Avenue 42 15. All building exterior lighting shall be on a timer or motion detector to ensure that the lights do not remain on during the evening when the building is not in use. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit a final exterior lighting plan that complies with Section 15-35.040(i) of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the plan shall indicate that no exterior lighting fixtures shall allow direct light rays to leave the project site, or allow direct light sources (incandescent, fluorescent, or other forms of electric illumination) to be directly visible from off-site locations. The plan shall also show that light levels will not exceed 100 foot lamberts anywhere on the property. The plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division of the Community Development Department prior to building permit issuance 16. Front yard landscaping. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or a bond satisfactory to the Community Development Director for 150% of the estimated cost of the installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City. 17. Landscape installation and replacement for screening or ornamentation. A landscaped area required as a condition of any Design Review Approval shall be planted with materials suitable for screening or ornamenting the site and providing erosion control on all cut and fill graded areas, whichever is appropriate. Plant materials shall be replaced as needed to screen or ornament the site. Landscaping shall be installed to provide erosion control on all graded areas. All landscaping shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 18. Landscape maintenance. Landscaped areas shall be watered, weeded, pruned, fertilized, sprayed or otherwise maintained by the Owner as may be prescribed by the Community Development Director; 19. Plumbing. All plumbing fixtures or irrigation systems shall be water conserving and otherwise comply with City Code Section 16-75.030. 20. Construction truck routes. Construction trucks shall only use designated truck routes. 21. Noise limitations during construction. The noise level at any point twenty-five feet from the source of noise shall not exceed 83 dBA during residential construction, and residential construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid City permit, or do not require the issuance of a City permit, may be conducted only between the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Saturday. Residential construction shall be prohibited on Sunday and weekday holidays, with the exception of that construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid City permit and which do not exceed fifty percent of the existing main or accessory structure may be conducted between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Sunday and weekday holidays. A notice of applicable construction hour restrictions shall be posted conspicuously on site at all times for all exterior residential construction activity requiring a City permit. 8 Application No. APPC10-0001- 20610 Lomita Avenue 43 22. Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Plan. Because this Design Review Approval authorizes a construction, remodeling, or demolition project affecting more than two thousand five hundred square feet of floor space the Applicant is required to provide to the Building Official a construction and demolition debris recycling plan prior to the issuance of any Demolition, Grading or Building Permit. 23. Maintenance of Construction Project Sites. Because this Design Review Approval authorizes a project which requires a Building Permit, compliance with City Code Section 16-75.050 governing maintenance of construction project sites is required. 24. Stormwater. Disposition and treatment of stormwater shall comply with the applicable requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit issued to the City of Saratoga and the implementation standards established by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (collectively the “NPDES Permit Standards”). Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Demolition, Grading or Building Permit for this Project, a Stormwater Detention Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval demonstrating how all storm water will be detained on-site and in compliance with the NPDES Permit Standards. If not all stormwater can be detained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, and if complete detention is not otherwise required by the NPDES Permit Standards, the Project shall be designed to detain on-site the maximum reasonably feasible amount of stormwater and to direct all excess stormwater away from adjoining property and toward stormwater drains, drainageways, streets or road right-of- ways and otherwise comply with the NPDES Permit Standards and applicable City Codes. 25. Landscape and Irrigation Plan. The Landscape and Irrigation Plan required by City Code Section 15-45.070(a)(9) shall be designed to the maximum extent reasonably feasible to: a. utilize efficient irrigation (where irrigation is necessary), to eliminate or reduce runoff, to promote surface infiltration, and to minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that have the potential to contribute to water pollution; b. treat stormwater and irrigation 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 in the Plan, installed and maintained; c. be comprised of pest resistant landscaping plants throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area; d. be comprised of plant materials selected to 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; e. protect the roots of Ordinance-protected trees from any proposed or required undergrounding of utilities; 9 Application No. APPC10-0001- 20610 Lomita Avenue 44 f. retain and incorporate existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover into the Plan; and g. comply with Section 16-75.030 of the City Code to the extent applicable. h. to minimize erosion during construction all slopes within 20 feet of the building pad shall be planted with natural vegetation. This landscaping shall be planted prior to issuance of a building permit and shall remain in place for a minimum of one year after building permit final. 26. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department Director or designee prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. B.1 above; b. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall be parked or stored within the root zone (five feet beyond the dripline (the area under the canopy) or a greater distance as determined by the City Arborist) of any Ordinance-protected tree on the site; c. 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 comply with the Approved Plans,” which note shall represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance with this Design Review Approval; d. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages; e. A boundary survey, wet-stamped and wet-signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying. The stamp shall reflect a current license for the land surveyor/engineer, the document shall be labeled “Boundary Survey,” and the document shall not contain any disclaimers; f. City Arborist Reports dated December 23, 2009, March 8, 2010, May 4, 2010, and July 16, 2010, printed collectively onto separate construction plan pages; g. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building Division. 27. 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 approval in compliance with condition A.3 above. 10 Application No. APPC10-0001- 20610 Lomita Avenue 45 28. Project shall comply with the State of California “Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance” pursuant to State Law AB 1881. C. PUBLIC WORKS 29. Geotechnical Clearance. a. All geotechnical aspects of the Approved Plans (including but not limited to the site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for the building foundation and driveway) shall be reviewed and approved by the Project Geotechnical Consultant to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the Project Geotechnical Consultants’ recommendations. b. The results of the review of the Approved Plans shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to and subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any Building Permit or Grading Permit related to this Design Review Approval. In carrying out the aforementioned City Engineer review, the City Engineer may obtain the advice of experts such as Geotechnical (or Soils) Engineers and/or Engineering Geologists, at the expense of the Applicant. c. The Project Geotechnical Consultant 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. d. The results of the Project Geotechnical Consultant’s inspections and the as-built conditions of the Project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to and subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the City’s final Building Permit inspection for the completed Project. e. Prior to the City’s inspection for final approval of the completed Project, the property owner shall enter into an 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. Such Agreement shall be substantially in the form approved by the Public Works Director. D. CITY ARBORIST 30. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Reports dated December 23, 2009, March 8, 2010, May 4, 2010, and July 16, 2010, shall be followed. 31. Tree protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist, shall be installed and inspected by Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. 11 Application No. APPC10-0001- 20610 Lomita Avenue 46 12 Application No. APPC10-0001- 20610 Lomita Avenue 32. 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 $41,080 to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees. 33. 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. E. FIRE SAFETY OR FIRE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS 34. Fire Agency Conditions. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Agency conditions as specified in Exhibit “C” attached. 35. Fire Hydrants and Water for Fire Flow. Installation of fire hydrants and/or improvements to water delivery systems to ensure adequate fire flow shall be provided as required by the Fire Agency, whether on-site or off-site. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 8th day of December 2010 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ___________________________________ Mary-Lynne Bernald Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: ___________________________________ John F. Livingstone, AICP Secretary to the Planning Commission ACCEPTANCE BY APPLICANT AND OWNER 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 time required in this Resolution by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. __________________________________ ____________________________ Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 To the Planning Committee, In July 2009, we were very excited to purchase this piece of property in the city of Saratoga. At the time we were expecting our second child, and had decided this city is the right place to raise our family. We were so looking forward to design and build our dream home. Though we have been warned by friends and family regarding the permit process especially in the city like Saratoga, we never expected it to be both painful and costly. From the very beginning, our intent has always been to build a house that is within the city guideline so it would avoid the additional hearings. Since this is our first experience building a house, we seek advice from friends, families, and professionals to ensure the process goes smoothly. Based on their feedback, we were committed to keep neighbors engaged throughout this process. Even before the sales transaction was closed, we visited each adjacent neighbor to communicate our plan and gather their inputs. We gave out our contact information to each of them to ensure they have ways to provide feedback at each stage of the process. To ensure we minimize potential issues, we designed the style of the house (a single story craftsman house with wood siding) based on neighbors’ requests instead of what we would have wanted. We also tried to incorporate as many changes as we could to relieve neighbors’ concern on privacy, safety and convenience. And as we made progress, we make sure to keep neighbors updated. Throughout the process, we also had regular meetings with Christopher Riordan, our assigned planner, and Kate Bear, the city arborist to discuss city guidelines and recommendations. However, as we learned by now, the city guideline for construction is only the minimum set of bars to meet. Neighbors can demand and set bars that are much higher. We also learned that it is impossible to meet every neighbor’s requirements especially when they are inconsistent and come in at different times. We tried to be as flexible as possible to meet neighbor’s demands. When the neighbor would like the shared Oak tree to be pruned, we agreed and went with the certified tree company they preferred. When neighbors had questions, we had the architect, civil engineer, and contractor onsite several times to answer them. When a neighbor questioned the accuracy of the survey performed by a certified civil engineer, we granted access to the property should they want to hire their own surveyor to perform the measurement. When neighbors cannot understand design plans, we created 3D conceptual drawings to clarify. When neighbor requested to have a local resident builder (Bill Brown) be brought in and facilitate discussion, we also agreed. This is in addition to having several meetings with Chris, John Livingstone, and Kate Bear. However, despite of all that we have done, it does not seem as though it is good enough. After almost a year and a half into this process, we are very disappointed and disheartened. Our budget for this phase of the project has already doubled and additional cost of continual rental for longer time than expected. All of that not only placed a tremendous strain on us financially, it also put a tremendous stress in our marriage. While we do like to meet all neighbors’ requests, we simplify do not have more resources or time to do so. Based on Chris and John’s recommendation, we submitted our plan. While we are sure each appeal has its merit but we just ask that you would consider each of them against the basic right of an owner to have some inputs into our own home that is within the city guideline. 67 Here is a chronicle of communications that we have had with our neighbors since we purchased the property in July 2009. July 2009 – When contract was signed on the house Immediately after we purchased the property, we visited each adjacent neighbors to gather input. We had to made several trips as neighbors were out of town. We also attended a block party in August and met more neighbors and passed out our contact info again. 1. Learned about the bad experience with the previous owner 2. Items neighbors wanted (which we all met) ‐ craftsman design house ‐ wood siding instead of stucco ‐ warm color scheme ‐ one floor design Dec 2009 to Feb 2010 – First Draft of Design complete up to city permit submission After initial design, we reviewed plans with neighbors and made changes several more times including: 1. changed driveway as not to face neighbor’s driveway (privacy concern) 2. agreed to have fence line inside of property line to allow for ease of turning 3. evaluated different foundation designs to alleviate stress on tree (suggestion from city arborist) 4. moved the side of the house further away from the tree (guidance from city arborist) 5. reduced exterior elements to simplify design 6. added different depth to the front exterior walls to reduce bulkiness 7. reduced the pitch of the roof to stay underneath city guideline Feb ‐ Oct 2010 – After permit submission During permit application process, we had the civil engineer, architect, and general contractor come by the property several times to answer questions/concerns. 1. had several meetings in the city with planner and neighbors 2. agreed to request to access property by neighbor’s certified surveyor 3. agreed to have a local resident expert act as an arbitrator (Bill Brown) – he agreed design is fine – he hosted meetings in his house to review plans Thank you, Karen & Charles Tsai 68 Appeal for 20610 Lomita Ave Appeal to the Approval of Application No. ADR10-0002, Administrative Design Review 20610 Lomita Avenue, Saratoga, CA APN517-12-012 69 Appeal for 20610 Lomita Ave •Appellants: Multiple families on Lomita Ave including: –Bogosain, Clerkin, Darlington, Himel –Holt, Hunter, Katz, McChesney, Reiken, Rosenus, –Scott, Van Krieken, Wingerter •We support a home at this location. •We respectfully request a Continuation to address issues with the proposed design as summarized herein. 20610 Lomita Ave Appeal 270 Key Issues and Requested Outcome •Bulk and Mass –Continuation to: reduce finished floor height, redesign front wall, redesign front roof line •Public Safety Issue -driveway location and length –Continuation to: resolve driveway length, review detailed plan to provide safety vehicle access and parking during construction •Tree protection and Safety –Continuation: no building, trenching, grading or filling under oak tree canopies , review detailed foundation plan near trees. •Drainage –Continuation to: review detailed drainage control plan, (basement effluent, storm runoff, etc. ) •Process Issues (code sections 15.045.055, 15-45.080, 15-45.070, et. al.) –Request a Working Session with the Planning Commission and/or Planning Staff to consider process improvements 320610 Lomita Ave Appeal71 Bulk and Mass •Continuation to: reduce finished floor height, redesign front wall, redesign front roof line •Comparisons to close properties –house size to lot size ratio, depth ratio of front wall, ratio of distance from street to width of lot, split level design, etc •Westfall Engineering survey (consistent with Geotechnical Report) shows fill ranging up to 2.3 feet at front wall of new home •Request: –reduced finish floor height to 107’ or less –redesign front wall, redesign roof –Right of review to address bulk and mass (code section 15.045) issues. Neighbors will reply within 30 days. 420610 Lomita Ave Appeal72 Public Safety Issues -driveway location and length •Continuation to: resolve driveway length, review detailed plan to provide safety vehicle access during construction and parking •Define fencing near driveway.Provide minimum 25’ clear line of site to bottom of garage doors from both directions. •Address excavation, material loading, liability, parking, road damage, –only one large vehicle loading or unloading at a time, –parking restriction for vehicles over ¾ ton gross weight (use public streets) –restoration of street to a condition to pre-construction condition or better •Request: –Require minimum 18’ driveway –Construction vehicle parking on public streets only –Right of review of detailed plan to address driveway/access issues •with defined penalties, agreed to in writing by applicant, for violation backed by performance bond. Neighbors to review and assess adequacy of response, or escalate. Neighbors will reply within 30 days. 520610 Lomita Ave Appeal73 Tree protection and Safety •Tree protection and Safety –Continuation: no building, trenching, grading or filling under oak tree canopies , review detailed foundation plan near trees. –Compliance to •California Civil Code sections 834 and 3346 •California Penal Code sections 384a and 622 •City of Saratoga Codes •Request: –Build a new foundation outside tree canopy in compliance with codes or use existing foundation (under tree). –Right of review of foundation design. Neighbors will reply in 30 days. 620610 Lomita Ave Appeal74 Drainage •Continuation to: review detailed drainage control plan, (basement effluent, storm runoff, etc. ) –Public Safety issues due to standing water –Elevation data at Swale indicate water flowing up hill and across grade (hill). Water will actually flow across street onto neighbors property. •Existing storm drain on adjacent property to handle overflow •Request: –Right of review of detailed drainage control plan (may require engineering consultant for neighbors). Neighbors will reply, or escalate within 45 days of receiving the engineering study. 720610 Lomita Ave Appeal75 Appeal of 20610 Lomita Ave Thank you for your consideration and time. 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: PDR09-0011, ARB09-0017, & GEO09-0007/ 14720 Sobey Road Type of Application: Design Review for a New Two Story Single-Family Residence with an Attached Secondary Dwelling Unit Applicant/Owner: Christine Appleby Staff Planner: Christopher A. Riordan, AICP Meeting Date: December 8, 2010 APN: 397-04-067 Department Head: John Livingstone, AICP 14720 SOBEY ROAD 124 Application No. PDR09-0011, ARB09-0017, & GEO09-0007/ 14720 Sobey Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT HISTORY: Application filed: …………………………………… 04/23/09 Application complete: ………………………………. 10/22/10 Notice published: …………………………………… 11/24/10 Mailing completed: …………………………………. 11/15/10 Posting completed: ………………………………….. 12/02/10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a new two story single- family residence on an approximately 1.25 acre (gross) lot located at 14720 Sobey Road. The project site is located within the R-1-40,000 zone district. The existing two story home would be removed. The proposed replacement structure would include a 6,349 square foot “Spanish Mediterranean” designed two story home with an attached three-car garage. A proposed 717 square foot attached secondary dwelling unit would be located on the first floor in the southwestern corner of the house. The applicant has agreed to a deed restriction thereby limiting its rental use to below market rate households. This restriction would provide the project a 10% increase in allowable floor area and impervious site coverage. The project is not proposing to remove any protected trees however, there are trees potentially impacted during construction. These include four Redwood trees (#’s 6-8, 12) and a Coast live oak (#9). A total of 12 trees within proximity of construction, including those listed above, would require tree protection fencing. The applicant would be required to submit a $78,050 security deposit for the protection of these trees prior to issuance of a building permit. Zoning Code Section 15-45.060 states that for any new single story structure over eighteen feet in height, or whenever, as a result of proposed construction, reconstruction or expansion, the gross floor area of all structures on a site will exceed 6,000 square-feet, Design Review approval is required by the Planning Commission. The proposal consists of a new 26 feet tall structure and the combined project floor area would exceed 6,000 square- feet; therefore, Planning Commission review is required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposed Design Review application with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. Staff is recommending a permanent condition of approval requiring the property owner to record a deed restriction for the second dwelling unit so that it may only be rented to below market households. Page 2 of 8 125 Application No. PDR09-0011, ARB09-0017, & GEO09-0007/ 14720 Sobey Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLVD (Very Low Density Residential) MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: Gross: 54,342 square feet. Net: 48,798 square feet SLOPE: Approximately 10.8 % average site slope. GRADING REQUIRED: A total of 115 cubic yards of combined cut and fill. This includes 80 cubic yards of cut and 35 cubic yards of fill. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The project 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 exterior finish of the proposed residence would feature a white colored “smooth troweled” stucco. Balconies would include black colored wrought iron railings. The vinyl covered wood casement windows would be brown in color. The double sash, arch shaped, custom manufactured wood front entrance door would have clear class and decorative wrought iron details between the panes of glass. The three garage doors would be made of wood and stained brown to match the doors on the residence. The windows and doors would be inset two inches into the exterior wall in keeping with the Mediterranean style of the residence. The fire place would be covered with a stone veneer with a copper chimney cap. The roof would be covered in irregularly laid straight barrel mission tiles with a custom blend of both “S” and Mission tiles with an “old world” color palette. Details of the materials are included in the below table. A colors and materials board is available on file with the Community Development Department and will be present at both the site visit and public hearing. Detail Colors and Materials Mfg. & Specification # Windows Vinyl Clad Wood Windows/Powder Coated Finish - dark brown color. Jeld-Wen Casement Windows Front Door Custom Wood - dark stain Custom Design by “Grand Entrances” Garage Door Wood Carriage Door with a Dark Brown Color Northwest Door Building Ext. Smooth Troweled Stucco Stone Veneer Stucco Supply Roof Irregularly Laid Straight Barrel Mission and “S” with and “Old World” color US Tile Page 3 of 8 126 Application No. PDR09-0011, ARB09-0017, & GEO09-0007/ 14720 Sobey Road PROJECT DATA: R-1-40,000 Zoning Net Site Area: 48,798 sq. ft. Existing/Proposed Allowable/Required Proposed Site Coverage Buildings: Driveway/Motor Court: Portico, Balconies, Stoop: Pool, Pool Deck, Equip, Stairs, Walls Patio, Walkways: Total Proposed Site Coverage 4,418 SF 3,299 SF 520 SF 3,736 SF 3,644 SF 15,617 SF (31.98 %) 18,787 SF (17,078 + 10% increase for inclusion of a deed restricted secondary dwelling unit) Floor Area Residence Attached Garage: Attached Secondary Dwelling Unit Total Proposed Floor Area 4,862 SF 770 SF 717 SF 6,349 SF 6,666 SF 6,060 + 10% (606 SF) increase for inclusion of a deed restricted secondary dwelling unit Basement None Proposed Not included in total floor area Code Section 15-06.090 Grading House Crawl Space: Driveway: Backyard Patio: Totals: Cut 80 CY 0 CY 0 CY 80 CY Fill 0 CY 22 CY 13 CY 35 CY Total 80 CY 22 CY 140 CY 115 CY Grading Limits Not Applicable to R-1-40,000 Zone District Height (Main Residence) Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: 339.50 FT 343.67 FT 341.60 FT 367.60 FT (26.0 FT) Maximum Height = 367.60 (26 Feet) Setbacks Front: Rear: Left Side: Right Side: First Floor 88’- 8” 96’- 0” 34’- 4” 27’- 4” Second Floor 120’- 0” 96’- 0” 65’- 11” 27’- 4” First Floor 30 FT 50 FT 20 FT 20 FT Second Floor 30 FT 60 FT 25 FT 25 FT PROJECT DISCUSSION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS Existing Site Characteristics The approximately 54,342 (gross) square foot project site is a “flag lot” located at 14720 Sobey Road with an average slope of 10.8%. The site is currently improved with a 2,940 square foot two story single-family home. Additional buildings on the site include a 240 square feet pool house and a 55 square foot shed. All existing buildings are proposed for removal. Page 4 of 8 127 Application No. PDR09-0011, ARB09-0017, & GEO09-0007/ 14720 Sobey Road Proposed Project and Architectural Style The proposed project would consist of a new 6,349 square feet approximately 26.0 feet tall two story single-family dwelling which includes a 717 square foot attached secondary dwelling unit. No additional accessory buildings are proposed. The maximum allowable floor area is 6,666 square feet. The applicant has identified the architectural style of the proposed residence as “Spanish Mediterranean”. This style is more commonly referred to as “Spanish Eclectic”. Spanish Eclectic homes in America are primarily located in the southwestern states and in Florida. Homes in the Spanish Eclectic style borrow architectural elements from the Moorish, Byzantine, Gothic, and Renaissance styles as well as the Mission style. These homes often have low-pitched red tile roofs with few or no eaves, ornate front entrance doors, stucco exterior walls, courtyards, carved doors, and patterned tile floors. Other details include windows and balconies with elaborate ironwork, arches above doors and windows, arcaded walkways leading to a garden, decorative chimney tops, spiral columns, bell towers, and a fountain or some other type of water feature. Decorative tiles are also frequently used around doors and windows. Of the five principal subtypes of roof forms that can be found on homes of this style (side- gabled, cross-gabled, combined hipped-and-gabled, hipped, and flat) the proposed roof design most closely resembles the combined hipped-and-gabled roof type with a rambling, compound plan in which different units have separate roof of forms of varying heights arranged in an irregular pattern. The combined hipped-and-gabled roof design is meant to mimic the varied roof forms of Spanish villages. The proposed architectural details to support the Spanish Eclectic style include a smooth trowel stucco exterior finish, both arched fixed windows with adjacent columns and rectangular shaped operable wood casement windows and an ornate double-sash entrance door opening into a large interior hall. Other features include two story architectural projections, balconies with decorative iron railings, and decorative tiles used as wall accents and on the floor, treads, and risers of the front entrance. The multi-level roof would be composed of irregularly laid straight barrel mission tiles and the chimney would have a decorative top. The fireplace would have a stone veneer. While the use of stone as an exterior element is not commonly used on Spanish Eclectic homes it sometimes is found as an exterior accent on some homes of this subtype. The existing pool could be considered as the water feature that is a common feature of Spanish Eclectic designed homes. The site does not have much formal landscaping as many Redwood, Pines, Amber, and Oak trees dominate the site. All the trees on site will be preserved and protected during construction. The existing pool and decking will remain. The existing concrete patio located behind the existing house would be removed and replaced with new concrete. Secondary Dwelling Unit The proposed project would include an attached 717 square foot, one bedroom; secondary dwelling unit located on the first floor in the western corner of the house. The applicant has agreed to file a deed restriction with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office Page 5 of 8 128 Application No. PDR09-0011, ARB09-0017, & GEO09-0007/ 14720 Sobey Road restricting its rental use to below market rate households. Saratoga City Code Section 15- 56.030(d) allows a one-time ten percent increase in site coverage and allowable floor area if an applicant agrees to a deed restriction that would restrict the rental of a second unit to below market rate (BMR) households. A condition has been added to the project requiring this deed restriction be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. The provision of the BMR second unit would allow the applicant to construct an additional 606 square feet of floor area on the site above the maximum allowable floor area of 6,060 square feet for an allowable floor area of 6,666 square feet. The proposed house would have a floor area of 6,349 square feet. In addition, the 17,078 square foot maximum site coverage can also be increased by ten percent a for total allowed site coverage of 18,787 square feet. 15,607 square feet of lot coverage is proposed. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) publishes an annual list of income limits for Santa Clara County households that would qualify as lower (80%), very-low (50%), or extremely-low (30%) income households that would be eligible to rent a BMR housing unit. All percentages are based on the 2010 Santa Clara County median income level of $103,500. As an example, a couple with a combined yearly income of $82,800 (80% of the median) would be eligible to rent the proposed secondary dwelling unit. Saratoga City Code Section 15-56.030 contains Development Standards applicable to Second Dwelling Units. The 512 square foot Second Dwelling Unit would be deed restricted thereby requiring that it be rented to Below Market Rate households. The Unit complies with the Development Standards by: • Exceeding the minimum lot size required for a Secondary Dwelling unit in the R-1- 40,000 zone district. • Being larger than the minimum size of 400 square feet, not exceeding the maximum size of 1,200 square feet, and not exceeding two bedrooms. • Providing one off street parking space located in either of the two two-car garages. The parking requirements for a secondary dwelling unit are a minimum of one off-street parking space within a garage. The garage requirement may be waived if the second dwelling unit is deed restricted. Nonetheless, the project will include three garage spaces thus meeting the parking requirements for both the main and the secondary dwelling unit. • Providing access by a common driveway. • Having a common architectural appearance as the main residence. Fireplaces Saratoga City Code Section 15-48.030 establishes a limit of one wood burning fireplace per structure. The project would have three gas burning fire places. These would be located in the family room, living room, and the second story covered deck adjacent to the master bedroom. Page 6 of 8 129 Application No. PDR09-0011, ARB09-0017, & GEO09-0007/ 14720 Sobey Road Air Conditioning / HVAC City Code requires air conditioning condensers to be located outside required setbacks. The plans do not indicate the presence of an air conditioner therefore a condition of approval has been added to the project which states that air conditioning condensers cannot be located within setback areas. No generators are being proposed. Geotechnical Clearance American Soil Testing prepared a Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed project, dated July 2, 2009 with supplemental data dated August 9, 2010 and September 8, 2010. On October 20, 2010, the project received geotechnical clearance to proceed with special conditions from Cotton Shires and Associates (the City’s Geotechnical Consultant) and the Public Works Department. Trees The project is not proposing to remove any protected trees. There are trees potentially impacted during construction. These include four Redwood trees (#’s 6-8, 12) and a Coast live oak (#9). A total of 12 trees within proximity of construction, including those listed above, would require tree protection fencing. The applicant would be required to submit a $78,050 security deposit for the protection of these trees prior to issuance of a building permit. Energy Efficiency The applicant submitted a GreenPoint Rated Checklist (Attachment #3). Article 16-47 (Green Building Regulations) Section 16.47.040 of the City Code requires all new residential projects to meet the minimum GreenPoint Rated requirements of 50 points. The “green features” proposed for the project would earn a score of 152 points and would exceed the minimum in each category to be considered GreenPoint Rated. Some of the proposed green features would include: • Drought tolerant landscaping, minimum use of turf, and drip irrigation to reduce water use; • Locating windows to increase ambient light into the structure; • Maximizing the use (25 percent) of fly ash in the concrete. Fly ash is a fine, glass- like powder recovered from gases created by coal-fired electric power generation. U.S. power plants produce millions of tons of fly ash annually, which is usually dumped in landfills. Fly ash is an inexpensive replacement for portland cement used in concrete and actually improves its strength; and • Wiring for a future Photovoltaic. Other “green features” include installation of efficient ductwork and appliances to minimize energy waste, exceeding Title 24 energy requirements by 15%, the use of low VOC (volatile organic compound) adhesives and paint, low flow plumbing fixtures, and energy star appliances. Page 7 of 8 130 Application No. PDR09-0011, ARB09-0017, & GEO09-0007/ 14720 Sobey Road Page 8 of 8 Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has shown the proposed plans to all adjacent neighbors and had each one sign the City’s Neighbor Notification Form. No public comments, either positive or negative, have been received at the time of the writing of this Staff Report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staffs recommends the Planning Commission find this Application exempt from CEQA and approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval for Design Review. 2. Project Description Letter (prepared by Applicant) 3. Site Photos (prepared by Applicant) 4. GreenPoint Rated Checklist for Single-family Homes (prepared by Applicant) 5. Neighbor Notification Forms. 6. Arborist Reports. 7. Public hearing notice and and copy of mailing labels for project notification. 8. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." 131 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO: 10-029 FOR APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW Application Numbers: PDR09-0011 Christine Appleby: 14720 Sobey Road The City of Saratoga Planning Commission finds and determines as follows with respect to the above-described application: I. Project Summary The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review Approval for the Project shown in Exhibit "A" including the Color Board denominated Exhibit “B”, incorporated by this reference. The proposed project would consist of a new 6,349 square feet approximately 26.0 feet tall two story single-family dwelling with an attached three car garage. The maximum allowable floor area is 6,666 square feet. The proposed project would consist of a new 6,349 square feet approximately 26.0 feet tall two story single-family dwelling which includes a 717 square foot attached secondary dwelling unit. No additional accessory buildings are proposed. The maximum allowable floor area is 6,666 square feet. The applicant has identified the architectural style of the proposed residence as “Spanish Mediterranean”. This style is more commonly referred to as “Spanish Eclectic”. Spanish Eclectic homes in America are primarily located in the southwestern states and in Florida. Homes in the Spanish Eclectic style borrow architectural elements from the Moorish, Byzantine, Gothic, and Renaissance styles as well as the Mission style. These homes often have low-pitched red tile roofs with few or no eaves, ornate front entrance doors, stucco exterior walls, courtyards, carved doors, and patterned tile floors. Other details include windows and balconies with elaborate ironwork, arches above doors and windows, arcaded walkways leading to a garden, decorative chimney tops, spiral columns, bell towers, and a fountain or some other type of water feature. Decorative tiles are also frequently used around doors and windows. Of the five principal subtypes of roof forms that can be found on homes of this style (side-gabled, cross-gabled, combined hipped-and- gabled, hipped, and flat) the proposed roof design most closely resembles the combined hipped-and-gabled roof type with a rambling, compound plan in which different units have separate roof of forms of varying heights arranged in an irregular pattern. The combined hipped-and-gabled roof design is meant to mimic the varied roof forms of Spanish villages. The proposed architectural details to support the Spanish Eclectic style include a smooth trowel stucco exterior finish, both arched fixed windows with adjacent columns and rectangular shaped operable wood casement windows and an ornate double-sash entrance door opening into a large interior hall. Other features include two story architectural projections, balconies with decorative iron railings, and decorative tiles used as wall accents and on the floor, treads, and risers of the front entrance. The multi-level roof would be composed of regularly laid straight barrel mission tiles and the chimney would have a decorative top. The fireplace would have a stone veneer. While the use of stone as an exterior element is not commonly used on Spanish Eclectic homes it sometimes is found as an exterior accent on some homes of this subtype. The existing pool could be considered as 132 the water feature that is a common feature of Spanish Eclectic designed homes. The existing concrete patio located behind the existing house would be removed and replaced with new concrete. The proposed project would include an attached 717 square foot, one bedroom; secondary dwelling unit located on the first floor in the western corner of the house. The applicant has agreed to file a deed restriction with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office restricting its rental use to below market rate households. Saratoga City Code Section 15-56.030(d) allows a one-time ten percent increase in site coverage and allowable floor area if an applicant agrees to a deed restriction that would restrict the rental of a second unit to below market rate (BMR) households. A condition has been added to the project requiring this deed restriction be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. The provision of the BMR second unit would allow the applicant to construct an additional 606 square feet of floor area on the site above the maximum allowable floor area of 6,060 square feet for an allowable floor area of 6,666 square feet. The proposed house would have a floor area of 6,349 square feet. In addition, the 17,078 square foot maximum site coverage can also be increased by ten percent a for total allowed site coverage of 18,787 square feet. 15,607 square feet of lot coverage is proposed. The project is not proposing to remove any protected trees. There are trees potentially impacted during construction. These include four Redwood trees (#’s 6-8, 12) and a Coast live oak (#9). A total of 12 trees within proximity of construction, including those listed above, would require tree protection fencing. The applicant would be required to submit a $78,050 security deposit for the protection of these trees prior to issuance of a building permit. The net lot size is 48,795 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in this Resolution. II. Design Review Requirement City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(2) requires Design Review Approval for a single-family main structure project by the Planning Commission for any new single-story structure over eighteen feet in height or whenever, as a result of proposed construction, reconstruction or expansion, the gross floor area of all structures on a site will exceed 6,000 square-feet. This Design Review Approval requirement implements the Saratoga General Plan, including, but not limited to: (1) Land Use Goal 13 which provides that 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; (2) Open Space Element Policy 11.a which provides that the City shall ensure that projects are designed in a manner that minimizes disruption to important wildlife, riparian and plant habitats; (3) Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits; (4) Land Use Element Goal 10 which minimizes the impact of development proposals in hillside areas by requiring visual analyses and imposition of conditions to prevent or reduce significant visual impacts; and (5) Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. 2 Application Numbers: PDR09-0011 / 14720 Sobey Road 133 III. Planning Commission Review On December 8, 2010 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the Project at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and argument. The Planning Commission considered the Project, the Staff Report on the Project, CEQA documentation, correspondence, presentations from the Applicant and the public, and all testimony and other evidence presented at the Public Hearing. IV. Environmental Review The Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines - 14 C.C.R. Section 15303- “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. This exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures and no exception to that exemption applies. V. Design Review Findings The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Section Article 15-45.080 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: (a) The project avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy. For the following reasons, the height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main structure, when considered with 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. The maximum height of the proposed two story dwelling is approximately 26.0 feet. All structures on the site will meet and or exceed minimum setbacks. Existing landscaping screen views of the home from all adjacent properties. (b) The project preserves the natural landscape. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is not proposing to remove any trees. All trees in the vicinity of the project will be protected during construction. (c) The project preserves native and heritage trees. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project would not remove any Native and/or Heritage trees. (d) The project minimizes the perception of excessive bulk. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the design of the main 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 in that the building has been designed to conform to the natural contours of the site. The perception of excessive bulk is minimized by the use of varying architectural forms and rooflines that break up the massing and reduce the perception of height and mass. 3 Application Numbers: PDR09-0011 / 14720 Sobey Road 134 (e) The project is of compatible bulk and height. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed main 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 in that the proposed setbacks for the two story structure will meet or exceed the minimum for the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Residences in the area are spread out given the minimum lot size requirements; the proposed structure is compatible in bulk and height with other homes located in the area and differences in height is mitigated by their physical distance that separates them from the proposed project and by the fact that existing landscaping screens the site from adjacent properties; and additionally, the bulk will be minimized through the use of varying rooflines through changes in height and form and a combination of vertical and horizontal architectural articulation and projections. The residences on neighboring lots are all on sites one acre and are similar in terms of bulk and predominately one and two story. The proposal is compatible with the natural environment as to bulk and height and does not unreasonably impair access to light and air or the solar potential of adjacent properties. (f) The project uses current grading and erosion control methods. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. The proposed location of the proposed residence is approximately in the same location as the existing residence to reduce grading. In addition, the Project is conditioned to conform to the City’s current grading and erosion control standards and comply with applicable NPDES Standards. The Project is also conditioned to require detention of storm water on site where feasible. As designed, drainage from impervious areas is being directed toward drywells in an attempt to maintain storm water on site. If not all storm water is to be retained on site, the grading plan is required to provide an explanation of the reason and how the stormwater which will flow offsite will be in compliance with City and NPDES Standards. The offsite stormwater flow shown on the grading plan shall be subject to prior review and approval by the Community Development Director to assure compliance. (g) The project follows appropriate design policies and techniques. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook as required by Section 15-45.055. The proposed Project has been reviewed by staff and determined to conform to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook, including for example minimizing the perception of bulk, integrating the residential buildings with the environment, and designing for energy efficiency. 4 Application Numbers: PDR09-0011 / 14720 Sobey Road 135 IX. Project Approval After careful consideration of the application, site plan, architectural drawings, plans, CEQA documentation, and other materials, exhibits and evidence submitted to the City in connection with this matter, the exemption from CEQA is approved, the required findings are made, and Application No. PDR09-0011 for Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth below. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. GENERAL 1. ALL CONDITIONS BELOW WHICH ARE IDENTIFIED AS PERMANENT OR FOR WHICH AN ALTERNATIVE PERIOD OF TIME FOR APPLICABILITY IS SPECIFIED SHALL RUN WITH THE LAND AND APPLY TO THE LANDOWNER’S SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST FOR SUCH TIME PERIOD. NO ZONING CLEARANCE, OR DEMOLITION, GRADING, OR BUILDING PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BE ISSUED UNTIL PROOF IS FILED WITH THE CITY THAT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL DOCUMENTING ALL APPLICABLE PERMANENT OR OTHER TERM-SPECIFIED CONDITIONS HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE APPLICANT WITH THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDER’S OFFICE IN FORM AND CONTENT ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. 2. IF A CONDITION IS NOT “PERMANENT” OR DOES NOT HAVE A TERM SPECIFIED, IT SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL THE ISSUANCE BY THE CITY OF SARATOGA OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR IT’S EQUIVALENT. 3. CONDITIONS MAY BE MODIFIED ONLY BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNLESS MODIFICATION IS EXPRESSLY OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY THE CITY CODE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SECTIONS 15-80.120 AND/OR 16-05.035, AS APPLICABLE. 4. The Community Development Director shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice in writing, on or after the time the Resolution granting this Approval is duly executed by the City, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). THIS APPROVAL OR PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE SIXTY (60) DAYS AFTER THE DATE SAID NOTICE IS MAILED IF ALL PROCESSING FEES CONTAINED IN THE NOTICE HAVE NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the Community Development Director certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 5 Application Numbers: PDR09-0011 / 14720 Sobey Road 136 5. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or the Design Review Approval will expire unless extended in accordance with the City Code. 6. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference. 7. Prior to issuance of any Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit to implement this Design Review Approval the Owner or Applicant shall obtain a “Zoning Clearance” from the Community Development Director by submitting final plans for the requested permit to the Community Development Department for review to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this Resolution. 8. Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend City as to Action Challenging Approval of Application and as to Damage from Performance of Work Authorized by Design Review Approval. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the Community Development Director. B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans dated September 16, 2010 denominated Exhibit "A" and the Color Board dated October 18, 2010 denominated Exhibit “B. All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with Condition A.3, above. 6 Application Numbers: PDR09-0011 / 14720 Sobey Road 137 10. THIS CONDITION IS PERMANENT. Deed Restriction: Secondary Dwelling Unit. Because the Project includes a secondary dwelling unit, the property Owner shall record a deed restriction satisfactory to the Community Development Director limiting rental of the secondary dwelling unit to below market rate households prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Building Permit. 11. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted per habitable structure (e.g., main house or guest house). All other fireplaces shall be gas burning. 12. Fences. Fences and walls shall comply with City Code Chapter 15-29. 13. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment shall comply with City Code Section 15-80.030(l). Air conditioning condensers shall not be installed within any required setbacks. 14. All building exterior lighting shall be on a timer or motion detector to ensure that the lights do not remain on during the evening when the building is not in use. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit a final exterior lighting plan that complies with Section 15-35.040(i) of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the plan shall indicate that no exterior lighting fixtures shall allow direct light rays to leave the project site, or allow direct light sources (incandescent, fluorescent, or other forms of electric illumination) to be directly visible from off-site locations. The plan shall also show that light levels will not exceed 100 foot lamberts anywhere on the property. The plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division of the Community Development Department prior to building permit issuance 15. Front yard landscaping. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or a bond satisfactory to the Community Development Director for 150% of the estimated cost of the installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City. 16. Landscape installation and replacement for screening or ornamentation. A landscaped area required as a condition of any Design Review Approval shall be planted with materials suitable for screening or ornamenting the site and providing erosion control on all cut and fill graded areas, whichever is appropriate. Plant materials shall be replaced as needed to screen or ornament the site. Landscaping shall be installed to provide erosion control on all graded areas. All landscaping shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 17. Landscape maintenance. Landscaped areas shall be watered, weeded, pruned, fertilized, sprayed or otherwise maintained by the Owner as may be prescribed by the Community Development Director; 18. Plumbing. All plumbing fixtures or irrigation systems shall be water conserving and otherwise comply with City Code Section 16-75.030. 7 Application Numbers: PDR09-0011 / 14720 Sobey Road 138 19. Construction truck routes. Construction trucks shall only use designated truck routes. 20. Noise limitations during construction. The noise level at any point twenty-five feet from the source of noise shall not exceed 83 dBA during residential construction, and residential construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid City permit, or do not require the issuance of a City permit, may be conducted only between the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Saturday. Residential construction shall be prohibited on Sunday and weekday holidays, with the exception of that construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid City permit and which do not exceed fifty percent of the existing main or accessory structure may be conducted between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Sunday and weekday holidays. A notice of applicable construction hour restrictions shall be posted conspicuously on site at all times for all exterior residential construction activity requiring a City permit. 21. Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Plan. Because this Design Review Approval authorizes a construction, remodeling, or demolition project affecting more than two thousand five hundred square feet of floor space the Applicant is required to provide to the Building Official a construction and demolition debris recycling plan prior to the issuance of any Demolition, Grading or Building Permit. 22. Maintenance of Construction Project Sites. Because this Design Review Approval authorizes a project which requires a Building Permit, compliance with City Code Section 16-75.050 governing maintenance of construction project sites is required. 23. Stormwater. Disposition and treatment of stormwater shall comply with the applicable requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit issued to the City of Saratoga and the implementation standards established by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (collectively the “NPDES Permit Standards”). Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Demolition, Grading or Building Permit for this Project, a Stormwater Detention Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval demonstrating how all storm water will be detained on-site and in compliance with the NPDES Permit Standards. If not all stormwater can be detained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, and if complete detention is not otherwise required by the NPDES Permit Standards, the Project shall be designed to detain on-site the maximum reasonably feasible amount of stormwater and to direct all excess stormwater away from adjoining property and toward stormwater drains, drainageways, streets or road right-of- ways and otherwise comply with the NPDES Permit Standards and applicable City Codes. 24. Landscape and Irrigation Plan. The Landscape and Irrigation Plan required by City Code Section 15-45.070(a)(9) shall be designed to the maximum extent reasonably feasible to: 8 Application Numbers: PDR09-0011 / 14720 Sobey Road 139 a. utilize efficient irrigation (where irrigation is necessary), to eliminate or reduce runoff, to promote surface infiltration, and to minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that have the potential to contribute to water pollution; b. treat stormwater and irrigation 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 in the Plan, installed and maintained; c. be comprised of pest resistant landscaping plants throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area; d. be comprised of plant materials selected to 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; e. protect the roots of Ordinance-protected trees from any proposed or required undergrounding of utilities; f. retain and incorporate existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover into the Plan; and g. comply with Section 16-75.030 of the City Code to the extent applicable. h. to minimize erosion during construction all slopes within 20 feet of the building pad shall be planted with natural vegetation. This landscaping shall be planted prior to issuance of a building permit and shall remain in place for a minimum of one year after building permit final. 25. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department Director or designee prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. B.1 above; b. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall be parked or stored within the root zone (five feet beyond the dripline (the area under the canopy) or a greater distance as determined by the City Arborist) of any Ordinance-protected tree on the site; c. 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 comply with the Approved Plans,” which note shall represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance with this Design Review Approval; d. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages; e. A boundary survey, wet-stamped and wet-signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying. The stamp shall reflect a current license for the land surveyor/engineer, the document shall be labeled “Boundary Survey,” and the document shall not contain any disclaimers; 9 Application Numbers: PDR09-0011 / 14720 Sobey Road 140 f. City Arborist Reports dated August 10 and August 30, 2010 printed collectively onto separate construction plan pages; g. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building Division. 26. 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 approval in compliance with condition A.3 above. 27. Project shall comply with the State of California “Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance” pursuant to State Law AB 1881. C. PUBLIC WORKS 28. Geotechnical Clearance. a. All geotechnical aspects of the Approved Plans (including but not limited to the site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for the building foundation and driveway) shall be reviewed and approved by the Project Geotechnical Consultant to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the Project Geotechnical Consultants’ recommendations. b. The results of the review of the Approved Plans shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to and subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any Building Permit or Grading Permit related to this Design Review Approval. In carrying out the aforementioned City Engineer review, the City Engineer may obtain the advice of experts such as Geotechnical (or Soils) Engineers and/or Engineering Geologists, at the expense of the Applicant. c. The Project Geotechnical Consultant 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. d. The results of the Project Geotechnical Consultant’s inspections and the as-built conditions of the Project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to and subject to review and approval by the City 10 Application Numbers: PDR09-0011 / 14720 Sobey Road 141 Engineer prior to the City’s final Building Permit inspection for the completed Project. e. Prior to the City’s inspection for final approval of the completed Project, the property owner shall enter into an 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. Such Agreement shall be substantially in the form approved by the Public Works Director. D. CITY ARBORIST 29. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Reports dated June 24, October 5, and October 8, 2010, shall be followed. 30. Tree protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist, shall be installed and inspected by Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. 31. 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 $78,050 to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees. 32. 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. E. FIRE SAFETY OR FIRE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS 33. Fire Agency Conditions. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Agency conditions as specified in Exhibit “C” attached. 11 Application Numbers: PDR09-0011 / 14720 Sobey Road 142 12 Application Numbers: PDR09-0011 / 14720 Sobey Road 34. Fire Hydrants and Water for Fire Flow. Installation of fire hydrants and/or improvements to water delivery systems to ensure adequate fire flow shall be provided as required by the Fire Agency, whether on-site or off-site. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 8th day of December 2010 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ___________________________________ Mary-Lynne Bernald Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: ___________________________________ John F. Livingstone, AICP Secretary to the Planning Commission ACCEPTANCE BY APPLICANT AND OWNER 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 time required in this Resolution by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. __________________________________ ____________________________ Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172