Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-23-14 Planning Commission Agenda Packet
Table of Contents Agenda 2 April 9, 2014 Draft Minutes 4 APPLICATION PDR14-0007 ; 1777 Saratoga Ave. (386-10- 049); Crown Castle / Sprint– The applicant is requesting to replace three existing panel antennas with three new panel antennas three additional Radio Remove Units (RRU’s), and six junction cylinders to an existing 66 foot tower. The purpose of the project is to upgrade the project site from the current 3G technology to LTE so as to provide increased capacity and data speeds. There is no proposed increase in height to the existing tower or size of the antennas to accommodate this project. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212. Staff Report - 1777 Saratoga 6 Att. 1 - Resolution 10 Att. 2 - Photo Simulations 15 Att. 3 - RF Analysis 17 Att. 4 - Delivery Notices 39 Att. 5 - Coverage Maps 41 Att. 6 - Public Notice 42 Att. 7 - Plans - 1777 Saratoga 44 APPLICATION PDR13-0016; 13740 Pierce Road (503-30-067); Saiid Rezvani - The project applicant requests Design Review approval to replace an existing 3,000 square foot two story home with a new 6,531 square feet, two story, single-family home which includes a 2,519 square foot basement. The project would also include the construction of a detached 995 square foot secondary dwelling unit. The existing 751 square foot detached guest house on the site would be removed. The project also includes a grading exception for 2,168 cubic yards of grading and a site coverage exception of 18,318 square feet of coverage. Staff Contact: Chris Riordan (408) 868-1235 Staff Report 54 Attachment 1 - Resolution 63 Attachment 2 - Arborist Report 67 Attachment 3 - Geotechnical Clearance Conditions 76 Attachment 4 - Public Hearing Notice 78 Attachment 5 - Neighbor Notification Forms 79 Attachment 6 - Project Renderings 90 Attachment 7 - Development Plans 92 1 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, April 23, 2014 REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 9, 2014 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSION & PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three (3) 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. 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. PUBLIC HEARING All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants 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. Applicants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. APPLICATION PDR14-0007 ; 1777 Saratoga Ave. (386-10-049); Crown Castle / Sprint– The applicant is requesting to replace three existing panel antennas with three new panel antennas three additional Radio Remove Units (RRU’s), and six junction cylinders to an existing 66 foot tower. The purpose of the project is to upgrade the project site from the current 3G technology to LTE so as to provide increased capacity and data speeds. There is no proposed increase in height to the existing tower or size of the antennas to accommodate this project. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212. Recommended action: Approve Resolution No. 14-013 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. 2. APPLICATION PDR13-0016; 13740 Pierce Road (503-30-067); Saiid Rezvani - The project applicant requests Design Review approval to replace an existing 3,000 square foot two story home with a new 6,531 square feet, two story, single-family home which includes a 2,519 square foot basement. The project would also include the construction of a detached 995 square foot secondary dwelling unit. The existing 751 square foot detached guest house on the site would be removed. The project also includes a grading exception for 2,168 cubic yards of grading and a site coverage exception of 18,318 square feet of coverage. Staff Contact: Chris Riordan (408) 868-1235 2 Recommended action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-012 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. DIRECTOR/COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF AGENDA I, Abby Ayende, Office Specialist III for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission was posted and available for public review on April 17, 2014 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us. You can also sign up to receive email notifications when Commission agendas and minutes have been added to the City at website http://www.saratoga.ca.us/contact/email_subscriptions.asp. NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us 3 ACTION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, April 9, 2014 REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE ROLL CALL PRESENT Commissioners Leonard Almalech, Wendy Chang, Kookie Fitzsimmons, Pragati Grover, Dede Smullen, Chair Mary-Lynne Bernald ABSENT Commissioner Tina Walia (excused) ALSO PRESENT James Lindsay, Community Development Director Michael Fossati, Planner ELECTION OF CHAIR GROVER/ALMALECH NOMINATED COMMISSIONER BERNALD AS PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR. MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER, SMULLEN. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: WALIA. ABSTAIN: NONE. ALMALECH/SMULLEN NOMINATED COMMISSIONER GROVER AS PLANNING COMMISSION VICE CHAIR. MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER, SMULLEN. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: WALIA. ABSTAIN: NONE. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSION & PUBLIC APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approve Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 26, 2014. Action: ALMALECH/GROVER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MARCH 26, 2014 MINUTES. MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, GROVER, SMULLEN. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: WALIA. ABSTAIN: CHANG, FITZSIMMONS. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. APPLICATION PDR14-0004 - 12383 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (383-53-019); Cortel LLC/ Sprint– The applicant is requesting to replace three existing panel antennas with three new panel antennas and three Radio Remove Units (RRU’s) on an existing monopole 72’ above grade on an approximately 146’ tall PG&E lattice tower. The purpose of the project is to upgrade the project site from the current 3G technology to 4G so as to provide increased capacity and data speeds. There is no proposed increase in 4 height to the existing tower or size of the antennas to accommodate this project. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212. Action: ALMALECH/GROVER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 14-011 APPROVING THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER, SMULLEN. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: WALIA. ABSTAIN: NONE. DIRECTOR/COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ADJOURNMENT 5 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: April 23, 2014 Application: Design Review PDR14-0007 Location / APN: 1777 Saratoga Ave. / 386-10-049 Owner / Applicant: Sprint / Crown Castle Staff Planner: Michael Fossati 1777 Saratoga Ave. 6 SUMMARY ZONING Professional Administrative (P-A) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION M-10 (Medium Density Residential) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting to replace three existing panel antennas with three new panel antennas, three Radio Remote Units (RRU’s) on an existing 67 foot tall monopole. The project will also include the installation of additional equipment racks and batteries within an existing cabinet. This project would upgrade the technology from the current third- generation (3G) to LTE (Long Term Evolution) in order to provide increased capacity and data speeds for mobile devices. There is no proposed increase in height of the existing monopole or size of the antennas to accommodate this project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 14-013 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. SITE AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The site is located at 1777 Saratoga Avenue on a triangular shaped parcel located between Lawrence Expressway, Saratoga Avenue, and Prospect Road. The property is currently occupied by a 67 foot tall monopole which houses wireless antennas from multiple service providers (AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint). An existing six foot tall fence surrounds the ground level equipment cabinets and partially screens their appearance from offsite views. The proposed antennas are identical (regarding size and color) to the existing antennas being replaced and installed approximately 64 feet above grade. Each antenna is approximately five feet long and one foot wide. For each new antenna, an additional RRU will be installed. The RRU is used to wirelessly control the antenna frequency without having to physically access the antenna from the tower. Photo simulations of the existing and proposed antennas are included as Attachment #2. Existing Sprint locations and wireless coverage of new and existing antennas are included as Attachment #3. The applicant has stated that with the antenna replacement, the capacity and data speeds would increase significantly, while the coverage would remain the same. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Requirements Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC has exclusive jurisdiction over Radio Frequency (RF) emissions from personal wireless antenna facilities. The City can evaluate and regulate only the aesthetic aspects of wireless installations. Any concerns regarding health and safety aspects of the wireless sites are not within the purview of the Planning Commission. Pursuant to its authority under federal law, the FCC has established rules to regulate the safety of emissions from these facilities. Radio Frequency (RF) Analysis The applicant has provided a Radio Frequency (RF) Analysis which concludes the proposed telecommunication facility would comply with the FCC’s current standards for limiting 2 7 human exposure to RF energy, and no significant impact on the general public is expected. The RF Analysis can be found as Attachment #3. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant sent out certified letters to property owners nearby the proposed site. A copy of the letter, description of the project, and the addressees is included as Attachment #4. The applicant received one comment from a representative of the property where the monopole is located. The “Notice of Public Hearing” was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property (Attachment #6). The public hearing notice and description of the project was also published in the Saratoga News. No comments have been received. DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Section 15-44.025 are set forth below and the applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: (a) That the Wireless Telecommunications Facility is or can be co-located with another Wireless Telecommunications Facility located on a structure or an existing utility pole/tower in the public right-of-way unless the applicant has demonstrated that such location is not technically or operationally feasible. This finding can be made in the affirmative because the wireless telecommunication facility will be co-located with other service providers on an existing monopole. (b) That the Wireless Telecommunications Facility and related structures incorporate architectural treatments and screening to substantially include: (1) Appropriate and innovative stealth design solutions; (2) Techniques to blend with the surrounding environment and predominant background; (3) Colors and materials that are non-reflective; (4) Exterior textures to match the existing support structure or building; and (5) Reasonably compatible height with the existing surrounding environment. This finding can be made in the affirmative. The wireless telecommunication facility will be co-located with other service providers, thus eliminating the need for a new separate facility and reducing the visual impact on surrounding properties. The existing monopole will not increase in height. The proposed antennas are similar in design to existing antennas. The colors and materials of the proposed communication facility have a non-reflective finish to match the existing monopole. The proposed equipment will be placed in a cabinet on the ground in an existing fenced area screened by landscaping. 3 8 4 (c) That landscaping and fencing provide visual screening of the Wireless Communication Facility's ground-mounted equipment, related structures, and that fencing material is compatible with the image and aesthetics of the surrounding area. This finding can be made in the affirmative. The proposed equipment will be placed within an existing cabinet on the ground, screened by landscaping. The owner of the property is responsible for the maintenance of existing landscaping. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project, which includes installation and replacement of new cellular equipment, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to new construction of limited small new facilities; installation of small, new equipment and facilities in small structures. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 14-013 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval – 1777 Saratoga Avenue. 2. Photo Simulations 3. RF Analysis 4. Public Notice Letter / Envelopes 5. Coverage Maps – Sprint PCS 6. Public hearing notice and mailing addresses 7. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A.” 9 RESOLUTION NO: 14-013 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PDR14-0007 LOCATED AT 1777 SARATOGA AVE. WHEREAS, on March 20, 2014, an application was submitted by Sprint/Crown Castle requesting Design Review approval to replace three existing cellular panel antennas and three new panel antennas, and three Remote Radio Units, on an existing monopole, as well as the installation of associated equipment within and existing ground mounted shelter located at 1777 Saratoga Avenue (APN 386-10-049). The site is located within the Professional Administrative (P-A) zoning district. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt. WHEREAS, on April 23, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: 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 applies to new construction and installation of small, new equipment and facilities in small structures. Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings; Land Use Element Policy 5.2 which states that Development proposals shall be evaluated against City standards and guidelines to assure that the related traffic, noise, light, appearance, and intensity of the proposed use have limited adverse impact on the area and can be fully mitigated; and 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. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy; preserves the natural landscape including native and heritage trees; and follows appropriate design polices and techniques. 10 Resolution No. 14-013 Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR14-0007 located at 1777 Saratoga Avenue, subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 23rd day of April 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Mary-Lynne Bernald Chair, Planning Commission 11 Resolution No. 14-013 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR14-0007 1777 SARATOGA AVENUE (APN 386-10-049) 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 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 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 its 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 City shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice in writing, on or after the time the Resolution granting this Approval is duly executed 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 12 Resolution No. 14-013 Community Development Department for review to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this Resolution. 8. 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 City Attorney. B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9. Compliance with Plans and Description of Use. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans, Description of Use, and Photo Simulations dated March 20, 2014 denominated Exhibit "A". All proposed changes to the Approved Plans and Description of Use 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.6, above. 10. Harmonizing with Existing Structures. Prior to the installation of the proposed panel antennas and accessory equipment, the antennas and equipment shall be painted a color similar to the monopole. 11. 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.9 above; b. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages; c. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building Division 13 Resolution No. 14-013 C. REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER AGENCIES OR UTILITIES 12. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Verification. The owner and/or Applicant for this Project shall contact the FCC and verify whether there are any required permits from said Commission. If required by the FCC, prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for any proposed equipment installations (or if none, prior to commencement of the approved use), the Owner and/or Applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department documentation from the FCC showing proof of compliance of the proposed use and/or development with the FCC's requirements. 13. Decommission. If the subject site is decommissioned in the future, all cellular antennas and related equipment shall be removed within 30 days of cessation of operation. 14. Governmental entities. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities, including the California Public Utilities Commission, must be met. 15. Emergency Access. The owner / applicant shall provide a 24-hour phone number to which interference problems may be reported, and will resolve all interference complaints within 24 hours from the time the interference was reported. 14 15 16 200 North Glebe Road, Suite 1000, Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 ● 703.276.1169 fax info@sitesafe.com ● www.sitesafe.com Crown Castle on behalf of Sprint Crown ID – 816226 Sprint ID - SF60XC855 Site Name – Westgate (Revised) Site Compliance Report 1777 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Latitude: N37-17-25.53 Longitude: W121-59-42.81 Structure Type: Monopole Report generated date: March 21, 2014 Report by: Kobi Thompson Customer Contact: Tim Page Sprint Will Be Compliant based on FCC Rules and Regulations. © 2014 Sitesafe, Inc. Arlington, VA 17 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com 816226/SF60XC855 Westgate (Revised) Radio Frequency (RF) Site Compliance Report 1777 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 18 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 3 2 REGULATORY BASIS ........................................................................................... 4 2.1 FCC RULES AND REGULATIONS ............................................................................ 4 2.2 OSHA STATEMENT .............................................................................................. 5 3 SITE COMPLIANCE ............................................................................................. 6 3.1 SITE COMPLIANCE STATEMENT .............................................................................. 6 3.2 ACTIONS FOR SITE COMPLIANCE .......................................................................... 6 4 SAFETY PLAN AND PROCEDURES ...................................................................... 7 5 ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 8 5.1 RF EMISSIONS DIAGRAM ..................................................................................... 8 6 ANTENNA INVENTORY ..................................................................................... 11 7 ENGINEER CERTIFICATION .............................................................................. 14 APPENDIX A – STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS ......................................... 15 APPENDIX B – ASSUMPTIONS AND DEFINITIONS .................................................. 16 GENERAL MODEL ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................... 16 USE OF GENERIC ANTENNAS ......................................................................................... 16 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................. 17 APPENDIX C – RULES & REGULATIONS ................................................................... 19 EXPLANATION OF APPLICABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS .................................................. 19 OCCUPATIONAL ENVIRONMENT EXPLAINED .................................................................... 19 APPENDIX D – GENERAL SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 20 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ........................................................................................... 21 19 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 3 1 Executive Summary Crown Castle on behalf of Sprint has contracted with Sitesafe, Inc. (Sitesafe), an independent Radio Frequency (RF) regulatory and engineering consulting firm, to determine whether the proposed communications site, 816226/SF60XC855 - Westgate (Revised), located at 1777 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, CA, is in compliance with Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Rules and Regulations for RF emissions. This report contains a detailed summary of the RF environment at the site including: • diagram of the site; • inventory of the make / model of all antennas • theoretical MPE based on modeling. This report addresses exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields in accordance with the FCC Rules and Regulations for all individuals, classified in two groups, “Occupational or Controlled” and “General Public or Uncontrolled.” This site will be compliant with the FCC rules and regulations, as described in OET Bulletin 65. This document and the conclusions herein are based on the information provided by Crown Castle. If you have any questions regarding RF safety and regulatory compliance, please do not hesitate to contact Sitesafe’s Customer Support Department at (703) 276- 1100. 20 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 4 2 Regulatory Basis 2.1 FCC Rules and Regulations In 1996, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) adopted regulations for the evaluating of the effects of RF emissions in 47 CFR § 1.1307 and 1.1310. The guideline from the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology is Bulletin 65 (“OET Bulletin 65”), Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, Edition 97-01, published August 1997. Since 1996 the FCC periodically reviews these rules and regulations as per their congressional mandate. FCC regulations define two separate tiers of exposure limits: Occupational or “Controlled environment” and General Public or “Uncontrolled environment”. The General Public limits are generally five times more conservative or restrictive than the Occupational limit. These limits apply to accessible areas where workers or the general public may be exposed to Radio Frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields. Occupational or Controlled limits apply in situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and where those persons exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. An area is considered a Controlled environment when access is limited to these aware personnel. Typical criteria are restricted access (i.e. locked or alarmed doors, barriers, etc.) to the areas where antennas are located coupled with proper RF warning signage. A site with Controlled environments is evaluated with Occupational limits. All other areas are considered Uncontrolled environments. If a site has no access controls or no RF warning signage it is evaluated with General Public limits. The theoretical modeling of the RF electromagnetic fields has been performed in accordance with OET Bulletin 65. The Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits utilized in this analysis are outlined in the following diagram: FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Plane-wave Equivalent Power Density 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 0 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 Frequency (MHz)Power Density (mW/cm2)Occupational General Public 21 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 5 Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure (MPE) Frequency Range (MHz) Electric Field Strength (E) (V/m) Magnetic Field Strength (H) (A/m) Power Density (S) (mW/cm2) Averaging Time |E|2, |H|2 or S (minutes) 0.3-3.0 614 1.63 (100)* 6 3.0-30 1842/f 4.89/f (900/f2)* 6 30-300 61.4 0.163 1.0 6 300-1500 -- -- f/300 6 1500- 100,000 -- -- 5 6 Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure (MPE) Frequency Range (MHz) Electric Field Strength (E) (V/m) Magnetic Field Strength (H) (A/m) Power Density (S) (mW/cm2) Averaging Time |E|2, |H|2 or S (minutes) 0.3-1.34 614 1.63 (100)* 30 1.34-30 824/f 2.19/f (180/f2)* 30 30-300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30 300-1500 -- -- f/1500 30 1500- 100,000 -- -- 1.0 30 f = frequency in MHz *Plane-wave equivalent power density 2.2 OSHA Statement The General Duty clause of the OSHA Act (Section 5) outlines the occupational safety and health responsibilities of the employer and employee. The General Duty clause in Section 5 states: (a) Each employer – (1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees; (2) shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act. (b) Each employee shall comply with occupational safety and health standards and all rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to this Act which are applicable to his own actions and conduct. OSHA has defined Radiofrequency and Microwave Radiation safety standards for workers who may enter hazardous RF areas. Regulation Standards 29 CFR § 1910.147 identify a generic Lock Out Tag Out procedure aimed to control the unexpected energization or start up of machines when maintenance or service is being performed. 22 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 6 3 Site Compliance 3.1 Site Compliance Statement Upon evaluation of the cumulative RF emission levels from all operators at this site, Sitesafe has determined that: This site will be compliant with the FCC rules and regulations, as described in OET Bulletin 65. The compliance determination is based on theoretical modeling, RF signage placement recommendations, proposed antenna inventory and the level of restricted access to the antennas at the site. Any deviation from the Sprint’s proposed deployment plan could result in the site being rendered non-compliant. 3.2 Actions for Site Compliance Based on common industry practice and our understanding of FCC and OSHA requirements, this section provides a statement of recommendations for site compliance. RF alert signage recommendations have been proposed based on theoretical analysis of MPE levels. Barriers can consist of locked doors, fencing, railing, rope, chain, paint striping or tape, combined with RF alert signage. This site will be compliant with the FCC rules and regulations. Sitesafe found one or more issues that led to our determination. The site will be made compliant if the following are implemented: • Post RF sign such that a person could read and understand the signs prior to accessing the Tower; Base of Tower Yellow caution sign required. Sprint Proposed Alpha Sector Location No action required. Sprint Proposed Beta Sector Location No action required. Sprint Proposed Gamma Sector Location No action required. 23 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 7 4 Safety Plan and Procedures The following items are general safety recommendations that should be administered on a site by site basis as needed by the carrier. General Maintenance Work: Any maintenance personnel required to work immediately in front of antennas and / or in areas indicated as above 100% of the Occupational MPE limits should coordinate with the wireless operators to disable transmitters during their work activities. Training and Qualification Verification: All personnel accessing areas indicated as exceeding the General Population MPE limits should have a basic understanding of EME awareness and RF Safety procedures when working around transmitting antennas. Awareness training increases a workers understanding to potential RF exposure scenarios. Awareness can be achieved in a number of ways (e.g. videos, formal classroom lecture or internet based courses). Physical Access Control: Access restrictions to transmitting antennas locations is the primary element in a site safety plan. Examples of access restrictions are as follows: • Locked door or gate • Alarmed door • Locked ladder access • Restrictive Barrier at antenna (e.g. Chain link with posted RF Sign) RF Signage: Everyone should obey all posted signs at all times. RF signs play an important role in properly warning a worker prior to entering into a potential RF Exposure area. Assume all antennas are active: Due to the nature of telecommunications transmissions, an antenna transmits intermittently. Always assume an antenna is transmitting. Never stop in front of an antenna. If you have to pass by an antenna, move through as quickly and safely as possible thereby reducing any exposure to a minimum. Maintain a 3 foot clearance from all antennas: There is a direct correlation between the strength of an EME field and the distance from the transmitting antenna. The further away from an antenna, the lower the corresponding EME field is. Site RF Emissions Diagram: Section 5 of this report contains an RF Diagram that outlines various theoretical Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) areas at the site. The modeling is a worst case scenario assuming a duty cycle of 100% for each transmitting antenna at full power. This analysis is based on one of two access control criteria: General Public criteria means the access to the site is uncontrolled and anyone can gain access. Occupational criteria means the access is restricted and only properly trained individuals can gain access to the antenna locations. 24 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 8 5 Analysis 5.1 RF Emissions Diagram The RF diagram(s) below display theoretical spatially averaged percentage of the Maximum Permissible Exposure for all systems at the site unless otherwise noted. These diagrams use modeling as prescribed in OET Bulletin 65 and assumptions detailed in Appendix B. The key at the bottom of each diagram indicates if percentages displayed are referenced to FCC General Population Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits. Color coding on the diagram is as follows: • Gray represents areas predicted to be at 5% of the MPE limits, or below. • Green represents areas predicted to be between 5% and 100% of the MPE limits. • Blue represents areas predicted to be between 100% and 500% of the MPE limits. • Yellow represents areas predicted to be between 500% and 5000% of the MPE limits. • Red areas indicated predicted levels greater than 5000% of the MPE limits. General Population diagrams are specified when an area is accessible to the public; i.e. personnel that do not meet Occupational or RF Safety trained criteria, could gain access. If trained occupational personnel require access to areas that are delineated as Blue or above 100% of the limit, Sitesafe recommends that they utilize the proper personal protection equipment (RF monitors), coordinate with the carriers to reduce or shutdown power, or make real-time power density measurements with the appropriate power density meter to determine real-time MPE levels. This will allow the personnel to ensure that their work area is within exposure limits. The key at the bottom also indicates the level or height of the modeling with respect to the main level. The origin is typically referenced to the main rooftop level, or ground level for a structure without access to the antenna level. For example: Average from 0 feet above to 6 feet above origin and Average from 20 feet above to 26 feet above origin The first indicates modeling at the main rooftop (or ground) level averaged over 6 feet. The second indicates modeling at a higher level (possibly a penthouse level) of 20 feet averaged over 6 feet. Abbreviations used in the RF Emissions Diagrams PH=##’ Penthouse at ## feet above main roof 25 1 2 3 45 6 7 8 9 101112 13 1415 16 171819 202122 232425 66FT TOWER BILLBOARD CAUTION Beyond This Point you are entering a controlled area where RF Emissions may exceed the FCC Occupational Exposure Limits Proposed RF Emissions Simulation For: Westgate (Revised) Composite View % of FCC Public Exposure Limit Spatial average 0' - 6' www.sitesafe.com Site Name:Westgate (Revised) Sitesafe Inc. assumes no responsiblity for modeling results not verified by Sitesafe personnel. Contact Sitesafe Inc. for modeling assistance at (703) 276-1100 SitesafeTC Version: 1.0.0.0 3/21/2014 3:00:06 PM 0 20 40 (Feet)>= 5000 >= 500 >= 100 >= 5 < 5 AT&T MOBILITY LLC VERIZON WIRELESS T-MOBILE SPRINT-NEXTEL METROPCS CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS CLEARWIRE N 26 1 2 3 456 7 8 9 101112131415 16 1718 19 202122232425 BILLBOARD MONOPOLE CAUTION Beyond This Point you are entering a controlled area where RF Emissions may exceed the FCC Occupational Exposure Limits PROPOSED RF Emissions Simulation For: Westgate (Revised) ELEVATION VIEW % of FCC Public Exposure Limit Spatial average 0' - 6' www.sitesafe.com Site Name:Westgate (Revised) Sitesafe Inc. assumes no responsiblity for modeling results not verified by Sitesafe personnel. Contact Sitesafe Inc. for modeling assistance at (703) 276-1100 SitesafeTC Version: 1.0.0.0 3/21/2014 3:07:22 PM 0 17.5 35 (Feet)>= 5000 >= 500 >= 100 >= 5 < 5 AT&T MOBILITY LLC VERIZON WIRELESS T-MOBILE SPRINT-NEXTEL METROPCS CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS CLEARWIRE27 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 11 6 Antenna Inventory The Antenna Inventory shows all transmitting antennas at the site. This inventory was provided by the customer, and was utilized by Sitesafe to perform theoretical modeling of RF emissions. The inventory coincides with the site diagrams in this report, identifying each antenna’s location at 816226/SF60XC855 - Westgate (Revised). The antenna information collected includes the following information: • Licensee or wireless operator name • Frequency or frequency band • Transmitter power – Effective Radiated Power (“ERP”), or Equivalent Isotropic Radiated Power (“EIRP”) in Watts • Antenna manufacturer make, model, and gain For other carriers at this site, the use of “Generic” as an antenna model, or “Unknown” for an operator means the information with regard to carrier, their FCC license and/or antenna information was not available nor could it be secured while on site. Equipment, antenna models and nominal transmit power were used for modeling, based on past experience with radio service providers. 28 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 12 The following antenna inventory, on this and the following page, were provided by the customer and were utilized to create the site model diagrams: Table 3: Antenna Inventory Ant # Operated By TX Freq (MHz) ERP (Watts) Antenna Gain (dBd) Az (Deg) Antenna Model Ant Type Len (ft) Horizontal Half Power Beamwidth (Deg) Location X Y Z (AGL) 1 SPRINT (Proposed) 862 942.4 13.21 345 KMW ET-X-TS-72-16-65-19-iR Panel 6 62 189.8' 328.8' 64' 1 SPRINT (Proposed) 1930 1911.4 15.41 345 KMW ET-X-TS-72-16-65-19-iR Panel 6 62 189.8' 328.8' 64' 2 SPRINT (Proposed) 2500 355 15.86 0 Kmw ET-X-WM-18-65-8P Panel 5.1 72 198.5' 328.5' 64' 3 SPRINT (Proposed) 862 942.4 13.21 135 KMW ET-X-TS-72-16-65-19-iR Panel 6 62 204.1' 317.9' 64' 3 SPRINT (Proposed) 1930 1911.4 15.41 135 KMW ET-X-TS-72-16-65-19-iR Panel 6 62 204.1' 317.9' 64' 4 SPRINT (Proposed) 2500 355 15.86 120 Kmw ET-X-WM-18-65-8P Panel 5.1 72 201.1' 312.6' 64' 5 SPRINT (Proposed) 862 942.4 13.21 225 KMW ET-X-TS-72-16-65-19-iR Panel 6 62 187.1' 313.6' 64' 5 SPRINT (Proposed) 1930 1911.4 15.41 225 KMW ET-X-TS-72-16-65-19-iR Panel 6 62 187.1' 313.6' 64' 6 SPRINT (Proposed) 2500 355 15.86 240 Kmw ET-X-WM-18-65-8P Panel 5.1 72 184.8' 320.1' 64' 7 AT&T MOBILITY 737 931.4 11.91 5 Ericsson KRC 118 068/1 Panel 4.5 68 194.8' 329.3' 49' 8 AT&T MOBILITY 850 851.6 12.77 0 Kathrein-Scala 800-10764 Panel 4.6 65 198.5' 326.8' 49' 8 AT&T MOBILITY 1900 1571.1 15.43 0 Kathrein-Scala 800-10764 Panel 4.6 60 198.5' 326.8' 49' 9 AT&T MOBILITY 850 1005.5 12.62 0 Andrew TBXLHB-6565A-R2M Panel 4.3 72 202.4' 325' 49' 9 AT&T MOBILITY 1900 1862.9 15.22 0 Andrew TBXLHB-6565A-R2M Panel 4.3 65 202.4' 325' 49' 10 AT&T MOBILITY 737 931.4 11.91 125 Ericsson KRC 118 068/1 Panel 4.5 68 201.2' 313.8' 49' 11 AT&T MOBILITY 850 851.6 12.77 140 Kathrein-Scala 800-10764 Panel 4.6 65 198' 312.5' 49' 11 AT&T MOBILITY 1900 1571.1 15.43 140 Kathrein-Scala 800-10764 Panel 4.6 60 198' 312.5' 49' 12 AT&T MOBILITY 850 1005.5 12.62 140 Andrew TBXLHB-6565A-R2M Panel 4.3 72 195.1' 310.6' 49' 12 AT&T MOBILITY 1900 1862.9 15.22 140 Andrew TBXLHB-6565A-R2M Panel 4.3 65 195.1' 310.6' 49' 13 AT&T MOBILITY 850 851.6 12.77 250 Kathrein-Scala 800-10764 Panel 4.6 65 185.6' 317.8' 49' 13 AT&T MOBILITY 1900 1571.1 15.43 250 Kathrein-Scala 800-10764 Panel 4.6 60 185.6' 317.8' 49' 14 AT&T MOBILITY 850 1005.5 12.62 250 Andrew TBXLHB-6565A-R2M Panel 4.3 72 186.6' 321.9' 49' 29 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 13 Table 3: Antenna Inventory Ant # Operated By TX Freq (MHz) ERP (Watts) Antenna Gain (dBd) Az (Deg) Antenna Model Ant Type Len (ft) Horizontal Half Power Beamwidth (Deg) Location X Y Z (AGL) 14 AT&T MOBILITY 1900 1862.9 15.22 250 Andrew TBXLHB-6565A-R2M Panel 4.3 65 186.6' 321.9' 49' 15 AT&T MOBILITY 737 931.4 11.91 260 Ericsson KRC 118 068/1 Panel 4.5 68 187.1' 325.2' 49' 16 AT&T MOBILITY 5700 32 29.06 120 Generic Microwave Aperture 2 2 198.7' 321.8' 69' 17 VERIZON WIRELESS 850 1549.1 12.87 40 Andrew LBX-6513DS Panel 4 65 197' 327.4' 58' 18 VERIZON WIRELESS 1900 2570.9 15.07 40 Andrew 732DG65V1EXM Panel 4 65 199.6' 325' 58' 19 VERIZON WIRELESS 751 813.1 11.32 40 Andrew SBNH-1D6565A Panel 4.2 71 202.5' 321.8' 58' 20 VERIZON WIRELESS 850 1549.1 12.87 160 Andrew LBX-6513DS Panel 4 65 198.5' 313.8' 58' 21 VERIZON WIRELESS 1900 2570.9 15.07 160 Andrew 732DG65V1EXM Panel 4 65 196.1' 313.1' 58' 22 VERIZON WIRELESS 751 813.1 11.32 160 Andrew SBNH-1D6565A Panel 4.2 71 193.7' 312.6' 58' 23 VERIZON WIRELESS 850 1549.1 12.87 280 Andrew LBX-6513DS Panel 4 65 187.5' 320.8' 58' 24 VERIZON WIRELESS 1900 2570.9 15.07 280 Andrew 732DG65V1EXM Panel 4 65 188.4' 323.3' 58' 25 VERIZON WIRELESS 751 813.1 11.32 280 Andrew SBNH-1D6565A Panel 4.2 71 189.6' 325.9' 58' NOTE: X, Y and Z indicate relative position of the antenna to the origin location on the site, displayed in the model results diagram. Specifically, the Z reference indicates antenna height above the main site level unless otherwise indicated. ERP values provided by the client and used in the modeling may be greater than are currently deployed. For other carriers at this site the use of “Generic” as an antenna model or “Unknown” for a wireless operator means the information with regard to carrier, their FCC license and/or antenna information was not available nor could it be secured while on site. Equipment, antenna models and nominal transmit power were used for modeling, based on past experience with radio service providers. 30 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 14 7 Engineer Certification The professional engineer whose seal appears on the cover of this document hereby certifies and affirms that: I am registered as a Professional Engineer in the jurisdiction indicated in the professional engineering stamp on the cover of this document; and That I am an employee of Sitesafe, Inc., in Arlington, Virginia, at which place the staff and I provide RF compliance services to clients in the wireless communications industry; and That I am thoroughly familiar with the Rules and Regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as well as the regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), both in general and specifically as they apply to the FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio-frequency Radiation; and That I have thoroughly reviewed this Site Compliance Report and believe it to be true and accurate to the best of my knowledge as assembled by and attested to by Kobi Thompson. March 21, 2014 31 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 15 Appendix A – Statement of Limiting Conditions Sitesafe will not be responsible for matters of a legal nature that affect the site or property. Due to the complexity of some wireless sites, Sitesafe performed this analysis and created this report utilizing best industry practices and due diligence. Sitesafe cannot be held accountable or responsible for anomalies or discrepancies due to actual site conditions (i.e., mislabeling of antennas or equipment, inaccessible cable runs, inaccessible antennas or equipment, etc.) or information or data supplied by Sprint, the site manager, or their affiliates, subcontractors or assigns. Sitesafe has provided computer generated model(s) in this Site Compliance Report to show approximate dimensions of the site, and the model is included to assist the reader of the compliance report to visualize the site area, and to provide supporting documentation for Sitesafe’s recommendations. Sitesafe may note in the Site Compliance Report any adverse physical conditions, such as needed repairs, observed during the survey of the subject property or that Sitesafe became aware of during the normal research involved in performing this survey. Sitesafe will not be responsible for any such conditions that do exist or for any engineering or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist. Because Sitesafe is not an expert in the field of mechanical engineering or building maintenance, the Site Compliance Report must not be considered a structural or physical engineering report. Sitesafe obtained information used in this Site Compliance Report from sources that Sitesafe considers reliable and believes them to be true and correct. Sitesafe does not assume any responsibility for the accuracy of such items that were furnished by other parties. When conflicts in information occur between data provided by a second party and physical data collected by Sitesafe, the physical data will be used. 32 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 16 Appendix B – Assumptions and Definitions General Model Assumptions In this site compliance report, it is assumed that all antennas are operating at full power at all times. Software modeling was performed for all transmitting antennas located on the site. Sitesafe has further assumed a 100% duty cycle and maximum radiated power. The site has been modeled with these assumptions to show the maximum RF energy density. Sitesafe believes this to be a worst-case analysis, based on best available data. Areas modeled to predict emissions greater than 100% of the applicable MPE level may not actually occur, but are shown as a worst-case prediction that could be realized real time. Sitesafe believes these areas to be safe for entry by occupationally trained personnel utilizing appropriate personal protective equipment (in most cases, a personal monitor). Thus, at any time, if power density measurements were made, we believe the real- time measurements would indicate levels below those depicted in the RF emission diagram(s) in this report. By modeling in this way, Sitesafe has conservatively shown exclusion areas – areas that should not be entered without the use of a personal monitor, carriers reducing power, or performing real-time measurements to indicate real-time exposure levels. Use of Generic Antennas For the purposes of this report, the use of “Generic” as an antenna model, or “Unknown” for an operator means the information about a carrier, their FCC license and/or antenna information was not provided and could not be obtained while on site. In the event of unknown information, Sitesafe will use our industry specific knowledge of equipment, antenna models, and transmit power to model the site. If more specific information can be obtained for the unknown measurement criteria, Sitesafe recommends remodeling of the site utilizing the more complete and accurate data. Information about similar facilities is used when the service is identified and associated with a particular antenna. If no information is available regarding the transmitting service associated with an unidentified antenna, using the antenna manufacturer’s published data regarding the antenna’s physical characteristics makes more conservative assumptions. Where the frequency is unknown, Sitesafe uses the closest frequency in the antenna’s range that corresponds to the highest Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE), resulting in a conservative analysis. 33 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 17 Definitions 5% Rule – The rules adopted by the FCC specify that, in general, at multiple transmitter sites actions necessary to bring the area into compliance with the guidelines are the shared responsibility of all licensees whose transmitters produce field strengths or power density levels at the area in question in excess of 5% of the exposure limits. In other words, any wireless operator that contributes 5% or greater of the MPE limit in an area that is identified to be greater than 100% of the MPE limit is responsible taking corrective actions to bring the site into compliance. Compliance – The determination of whether a site is safe or not with regards to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation from transmitting antennas. Decibel (dB) – A unit for measuring power or strength of a signal. Duty Cycle – The percent of pulse duration to the pulse period of a periodic pulse train. Also, may be a measure of the temporal transmission characteristic of an intermittently transmitting RF source such as a paging antenna by dividing average transmission duration by the average period for transmission. A duty cycle of 100% corresponds to continuous operation. Effective (or Equivalent) Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) – The product of the power supplied to the antenna and the antenna gain in a given direction relative to an isotropic antenna. Effective Radiated Power (ERP) – In a given direction, the relative gain of a transmitting antenna with respect to the maximum directivity of a half wave dipole multiplied by the net power accepted by the antenna from the connecting transmitter. Gain (of an antenna) – The ratio of the maximum intensity in a given direction to the maximum radiation in the same direction from an isotropic radiator. Gain is a measure of the relative efficiency of a directional antennas as compared to an omni directional antenna. General Population/Uncontrolled Environment – Defined by the FCC, as an area where RFR exposure may occur to persons who are unaware of the potential for exposure and who have no control of their exposure. General Population is also referenced as General Public. Generic Antenna – For the purposes of this report, the use of “Generic” as an antenna model means the antenna information was not provided and could not be obtained while on site. In the event of unknown information, Sitesafe will use our industry specific knowledge of antenna models to select a worst case scenario antenna to model the site. Isotropic Antenna – An antenna that is completely non-directional. In other words, an antenna that radiates energy equally in all directions. Maximum Measurement – This measurement represents the single largest measurement recorded when performing a spatial average measurement. 34 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 18 Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) – The rms and peak electric and magnetic field strength, their squares, or the plane-wave equivalent power densities associated with these fields to which a person may be exposed without harmful effect and with acceptable safety factor. Occupational/Controlled Environment – Defined by the FCC, as an area where Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) exposure may occur to persons who are aware of the potential for exposure as a condition of employment or specific activity and can exercise control over their exposure. OET Bulletin 65 – Technical guideline developed by the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology to determine the impact of Radio Frequency radiation on Humans. The guideline was published in August 1997. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) – Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing a safe and healthy workplace for their employees. OSHA's role is to promote the safety and health of America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual process improvement in workplace safety and health. For more information, visit www.osha.gov. Radio Frequency Radiation – Electromagnetic waves that are propagated from antennas through space. Spatial Average Measurement – A technique used to average a minimum of ten (10) measurements taken in a ten (10) second interval from zero (0) to six (6) feet. This measurement is intended to model the average energy an average sized human body will absorb while present in an electromagnetic field of energy. Transmitter Power Output (TPO) – The radio frequency output power of a transmitter’s final radio frequency stage as measured at the output terminal while connected to a load. 35 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 19 Appendix C – Rules & Regulations Explanation of Applicable Rules and Regulations The FCC has set forth guidelines in OET Bulletin 65 for human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Specific regulations regarding this topic are listed in Part 1, Subpart I, of Title 47 in the Code of Federal Regulations. Currently, there are two different levels of MPE - General Public MPE and Occupational MPE. An individual classified as Occupational can be defined as an individual who has received appropriate RF training and meets the conditions outlined below. General Public is defined as anyone who does not meet the conditions of being Occupational. FCC and OSHA Rules and Regulations define compliance in terms of total exposure to total RF energy, regardless of location of or proximity to the sources of energy. It is the responsibility of all licensees to ensure these guidelines are maintained at all times. It is the ongoing responsibility of all licensees composing the site to maintain ongoing compliance with FCC rules and regulations. Individual licensees that contribute less than 5% MPE to any total area out of compliance are not responsible for corrective actions. OSHA has adopted and enforces the FCC’s exposure guidelines. A building owner or site manager can use this report as part of an overall RF Health and Safety Policy. It is important for building owners/site managers to identify areas in excess of the General Population MPE and ensure that only persons qualified as Occupational are granted access to those areas. Occupational Environment Explained The FCC definition of Occupational exposure limits apply to persons who: • are exposed to RF energy as a consequence of their employment; • have been made aware of the possibility of exposure; and • can exercise control over their exposure. OSHA guidelines go further to state that persons must complete RF Safety Awareness training and must be trained in the use of appropriate personal protective equipment. In order to consider this site an Occupational Environment, the site must be controlled to prevent access by any individuals classified as the General Public. Compliance is also maintained when any non-occupational individuals (the General Public) are prevented from accessing areas indicated as Red or Yellow in the attached RF Emissions diagram. In addition, a person must be aware of the RF environment into which they are entering. This can be accomplished by an RF Safety Awareness class, and by appropriate written documentation such as this Site Compliance Report. All Sprint employees who require access to this site must complete RF Safety Awareness training and must be trained in the use of appropriate personal protective equipment. 36 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 20 Appendix D – General Safety Recommendations The following are general recommendations appropriate for any site with accessible areas in excess of 100% General Public MPE. These recommendations are not specific to this site. These are safety recommendations appropriate for typical site management, building management, and other tenant operations. 1. All individuals needing access to the main site (or the area indicated to be in excess of General Public MPE) should wear a personal RF Exposure monitor, successfully complete proper RF Safety Awareness training, and have and be trained in the use of appropriate personal protective equipment. 2. All individuals needing access to the main site should be instructed to read and obey all posted placards and signs. 3. The site should be routinely inspected and this or similar report updated with the addition of any antennas or upon any changes to the RF environment including: • adding new antennas that may have been located on the site • removing of any existing antennas • changes in the radiating power or number of RF emitters 4. Post the appropriate NOTICE, CAUTION, or WARNING sign at the main site access point(s) and other locations as required. Note: Please refer to RF Exposure Diagrams in Appendix B, to inform everyone who has access to this site that beyond posted signs there may be levels in excess of the limits prescribed by the FCC. The signs below are examples of signs meeting FCC guidelines. 5. Ensure that the site door remains locked (or appropriately controlled) to deny access to the general public if deemed as policy by the building/site owner. 6. For a General Public environment the four color levels identified in this analysis can be interpreted in the following manner: • Gray represents area at below 5% of the General Public MPE limits or below. This level is safe for a worker to be in at any time. • Green represents areas predicted to be between 5% and 100% of the General Public MPE limits. This level is safe for a worker to be in at any time. 37 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 21 • Blue represents areas predicted to be between 100% and 500% of the General Public MPE limits. This level is safe for a worker to be in at any time. • Yellow represents areas predicted to be between 500% and 5000% of the General Public MPE limits. This level is safe for a worker to be in. • Red areas indicated predicted levels greater than 5000% of the General Public MPE limits. This level is not safe for the General Public to be in. 7. For an Occupational environment the four color levels identified in this analysis can be interpreted in the following manner: • Areas indicated as Gray are at 5% of the Occupational MPE limits or below. This level is safe for a worker to be in at any time. • Green represents areas predicted to be between 5% and 20% of the Occupational MPE limits. This level is safe for a worker to be in at any time. • Yellow represents areas predicted to be between 20% and 100% of the Occupational MPE limits. Only individuals that have been properly trained in RF Health and Safety should be allowed to work in this area. This is not an area that is suitable for the General Public to be in. • Red areas indicated predicted levels greater than 100% of the Occupational MPE limits. This level is not safe for the Occupational worker to be in for prolonged periods of time. Special procedures must be adhered to such as lock out tag out procedures to minimize the workers exposure to EME. 8. Use of a Personal Protective Monitor: When working around antennas, Sitesafe strong recommends the use of a Personal Protective Monitor (PPM). Wearing a PPM will properly forewarn the individual prior to entering an RF exposure area. Keep a copy of this report available for all persons who must access the site. They should read this report and be aware of the potential hazards with regards to RF and MPE limits. Additional Information Additional RF information is available by visiting both www.Sitesafe.com and www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety. OSHA has additional information available at: http://www.osha-slc.gov/SLTC/radiofrequencyradiation. 38 39 40 41 CITY OF SARATOGA Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga’s Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 23rd day of April, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION/ADDRESS: PDR14-0007 / 1777 Saratoga Ave. APPLICANT/OWNER: Sprint APN: 386-10-049 DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to replace three existing antennas with three new antennas and three new Radio Remote Units (RRU’s) to an existing monopole. The existing and proposed location of the antennas are approximately 64 feet above ground level. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission’s information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Tuesday, April 15th 2014. 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. Michael Fossati Planner (408) 868-1212 42 Parcel Number Owner Name Owner Address Owner City, State Zip 38610004 VELLA LEONARD J TRUSTEE 231 HOURET DR MILPITAS, CA 95035 38610006 PATRICK EDWARD H SR AND VIRGIN P.O. BOX 6030 PHOENIX, AZ 85005 38610007 SEGALL JOHN B AND REVA A TRUST 456 CORNELL AV SAN MATEO, CA 94402 38610033 KATO BROTHERS 1777 SARATOGA AV SAN JOSE, CA 95129 38610035 SALINAS VALLEY SAVINGS AND LOA PO BOX 7788 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 38610036 KATO YASUTO AND DOROTHY ET AL 1777 SARATOGA AV SAN JOSE, CA 95129 38610038 CAMPBELL UNION S D SARATOGA, CA 95070 38610040 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF QUITO 1735 SARATOGA AV SAN JOSE, CA 95129 38610041 MALONE W B AND MARY 1735 SARATOGA AV SAN JOSE, CA 95129 38610043 RUSSO RAY A SR TRUSTEE & ET AL 4010 MOORPARK AV STE 111 SAN JOSE, CA 95117 38610043 FRUTTI 18562 B PROSPECT RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 38610043 NILOU RAHIMI 18576 PROSPECT RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 38610043 McDONALD'S 18578 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 38610049 KATO BROTHERS 1777 SARATOGA AV SAN JOSE, CA 95129 38610054 GAZZERA STEPHEN I TRUSTEE 10083 SENATE WY CUPERTINO, CA 95014 38610055 DAMICO TIRE SERVICE INC PO BOX 969 SAN JOSE, CA 95108 38610056 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 900 LIGHTPOST WAY MORGAN HILL, CA 95037 38610058 EARL JOHN A TRUSTEE & ET AL 2808 ADELINE ST #2 BERKELEY, CA 94703 38610059 GREAT WESTERN SAVINGS AND LOAN PO BOX 7788 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 38611046 FARRAR GEOFFREY A TRUSTEE & ET 1804 SARATOGA AV SAN JOSE, CA 95129 38623039 RUSSO RAY A SR TRUSTEE & ET AL PO BOX 41057 SAN JOSE, CA 95160 38623045 AGEE JOHN T AND DORIS F TRUSTE 12348 LOLLY DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 38623046 CHO TIK-FAI AND TERESA M 12336 LOLLY DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 38623047 DESAI ANIL AND GITA TRUSTEE 12324 LOLLY DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 38623048 CROSS ROGER L AND JEAN C 18670 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 38623049 MATISON ROBERT C AND MARY L TR 18668 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 38623050 PHILLIPS STEVEN M AND YUEH JYH 18656 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 38623051 HO HAE CHON AND JOONG SIM 18651 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 38623052 RASTEGAR-PANAH MOHSSEN AND SIM 15127 SPERRY LN SARATOGA, CA 95070 38623053 HOLLOWAY GARRY L AND MISTY M T 18675 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 38623054 YEE ALBAN AND ANGELA 19746 VIA GRANDE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 38623055 BECKER DARYL V 18699 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 38623056 LOOS DUANE E AND MAXE LISA A 18711 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 38623058 RUSSO RAY A SR TRUSTEE & ET AL PO BOX 41057 SAN JOSE, CA 95160 38623070 KNOWLES RICHARD L 12339 KOSICH PL SARATOGA, CA 95070 38661021 UELMEN MARTHA A AND GERALD F T 18727 CABERNET DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 38661022 HARUTYUNYAN, GAGIK AND MADATYA 18735 CABERNET DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 38661023 LE TOAN P AND CHOW NICOLETTE 18743 CABERNET DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 40333014 SUNRISE PENGUIN SARATOGA LTD P 1312 EL PASEO DE SARATOGA SAN JOSE, CA 95129 39 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: April 23, 2014 Application: PDR13-0016 Location / APN: 13740 Pierce Road / 503-30-067 Owner/Applicant: Saiid Rezvani Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan SITE 13740 Pierce Road 54 13740 Pierce Road/Rezvani Summary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project applicant requests Design Review approval to replace an existing 3,000 square foot two story home with a new 6,531 square feet, two story, single-family home which includes a 2,519 square foot basement. The project would also include the construction of a detached 995 square foot secondary dwelling unit. The existing 751 square foot detached guest house on the site would be removed. The project also includes a grading exception for 2,168 cubic yards of grading and a site coverage exception of 18,318 square feet of coverage. The net size area is 8.69 acres or 378,470 square feet and is zoned HR (Hillside Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 14-012 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(3). Grading Exception Approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to City Code Section 15-13.050(f). PROJECT DATA: Gross Site Area: 385,070 SF / 8.84 acres Net Site Area: 378,470 SF / 8.69 acres Average Site Slope: 38% Average Slope at Bldg. Site 25% General Plan Designation: RHC (Hillside Conservation) Zoning: HR (Hillside Residential) Proposed Allowed/Required Proposed Site Coverage Residential Footprint/Main Residence Residential Footprint/2nd Dwelling Porches/Decks/Walks Driveway Total Proposed Site Coverage 4,578 sq. ft. 995 sq. ft. 2,397 sq. ft. 10,348 sq. ft. 18,318 sq. ft. (4.8%) 15,000 SF (Applicant request to exempt 3,318 square feet of site coverage per City Code Section 15-13-080) Floor Area Main House First Floor (including garage) Second Floor Second Dwelling Unit Total Floor Area 4,578 sq. ft. 1,953 sq. ft. 995 sq. ft. 7,526 sq. ft. 8,000 sq. ft. Page 2 of 9 55 13740 Pierce Road/Rezvani Height (Residence) Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: Total Proposed Height 552 565 558.5 584.25 (25.75 Ft.) 26 Feet Height (Second Dwelling) Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: Total Proposed Height 549 561 555 573 (18 Ft.) 18 Feet Setbacks Main House Front: Left Side Right Side: Rear: Second Unit Front Left Side Right Side Rear 1st Story 270’ 46’ 250’ 356’ 259 649’ 46’ 153’ 2nd Story 274’ 50’ 260’ 401’ NA NA NA NA 1st Story 30’ 20’ 20’ 50’ 30’ 20’ 20’ 50’ 2nd Story NA 25’ 25’ 60’ NA NA NA NA Grading (Cubic Yards) Main House Basement Garage Driveway Landscaping Guest House Pad Garage Driveway Landscaping Total Cut 764 20 60 120 10 30 60 20 1,084 Fill 0 30 810 140 40 0 0 64 1,084 Total 764 50 870 260 50 30 60 84 2,168 1,000 Cubic Yards (Grading Exception Requested) PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS Site Description: The 8.84 acre project site is located at 13740 Pierce Road. The site has an average slope of 38 percent. Pierce Road bisects the northerly portion of the site. An approximately 240 foot long asphalt driveway from Pierce Road provides vehicular access to the building area with site coverage of approximately 3,108 square feet. Located in the northerly portion of the site are an existing two story single-family home and a guest house. Both structures are proposed for removal. Dense vegetation and the neighboring Page 3 of 9 56 13740 Pierce Road/Rezvani single-family home on the adjacent site to the north screen all existing structures from Pierce Road. A seasonal drainage swale bisects the property from south to north. The swale collects water from the undeveloped southern portion of the property that is characterized by dense vegetation, trees, and relatively steep slopes. The swale passes to the west of the existing house before being converted to a 27’ culvert underneath the existing driveway. Beyond the driveway the culvert deposits the water into a rock lined swale that flows across the neighboring property to the north before entering Calabazas Creek on the opposite side of Pierce Road. Numerous protected trees are located on the property but only the protected trees potentially impacted by the project were inventoried. These trees include five Coast Live Oaks, four Big Leaf Maples, and two Bay trees. Project Description and Architectural Style: The project would include the construction of a new two story single-family main residence and a secondary dwelling unit. The 6,531 square feet, 26 feet tall, main residence and the 995 square foot secondary unit would have a Mediterranean architectural style. The 2,519 square feet basement would be located below grade and is not included in the allowable floor area. Main House - The proposed main residence would include a wide asymmetrical building footprint, a hipped roof with over hanging eaves, barrel style mission roof tiles, decorative corbels beneath the eves of both the first and second stories, a combination of arched and square windows, wrought iron railings, elaborated chimney tops, and a combination of stone and stucco for the exterior. A porte-cochère architectural element projects from the front entrance and extends over the driveway. The residence would include two fireplaces, a gas fireplace located in the Great Room and a wood burning fireplace located in the Family Room. Guest House - The 995 square foot, one story, secondary dwelling unit would be located in approximately the same area as the one that is to be removed. This two bedroom building with an attached one car garage would have the same architectural style and exterior materials as the main residence. A gas fireplace would be located in the living room. Materials and Colors: Detail Colors and Materials Exterior Dark Beige and Tan Colored Stucco Brown Colored Trim Railings Black colored “wrought iron” Windows Vinyl covered “wood clad” windows Garage Door Sectional Wood Door – Match trim color Roof Brown multi-color barrel mission tiles Landscaping - The proposed landscape plan illustrates that the project will have a minimal quantity of drought tolerant landscaping and groundcover which will be clustered close to the buildings and developed areas. This landscaping would include a Coast Live Oak and an Olive tree planted in front of the main residence and adjacent to the driveway. Other plants would Page 4 of 9 57 13740 Pierce Road/Rezvani include Italian Cypress, Toyon, Rosemary, and Manzanita. Groundcovers would include Lavender, Daisy’s, Evergreen Currant, and wildflowers. Site Coverage and Grading Exceptions Site Coverage A 240 foot long driveway from Pierce Road provides access to the site. This driveway terminates at an emergency vehicle turnaround and at that point the driveway divides into two with one driveway portion providing access to the main dwelling and the other providing access to the secondary dwelling unit. The total proposed site coverage for the project is 18,318 square feet and the maximum allowable site coverage for the site is 15,000 square feet. City Code Section 15-13.080 allows the Planning Commission to exempt a portion of the driveway and any related emergency vehicle turnaround from the sites allowable site coverage if the project meets one or more of the following design objectives subject to the Design Review Findings: • Avoid placing structures in geologically unstable areas or on major or minor ridgelines; • Preserving trees; • Reducing any visual impacts; • Meeting public or safety emergency vehicle access requirements; • Reducing overall grading project grading or changes in slope. The site coverage of the 240 foot driveway portion between Pierce Road and the emergency vehicle turnaround is 3,108 square feet and the site coverage for just the emergency vehicle turnaround is 1,800 square feet for a total of 4,908 square feet. Staff believes that a portion of the site coverage of the 240 long driveway and the emergency vehicle turnaround should be exempted from the projects overall site coverage because this driveway and turnaround are required to meet emergency vehicle access requirements. However, staff would support exempting only 3,318 square feet of the 4,908 square foot driveway and turnaround because limiting the deduction to this amount would bring the project into compliance with the maximum 15,000 square foot site coverage limit. Grading The City Code limits the combined cut and fill of any grading for a project in the Hillside Residential (HR) zone district to one thousand (1,000) cubic yards, including any excavation for a swimming pool, unless a larger quantity is approved by the Planning Commission. The project includes a request for a grading exception for a combined cut and fill of 2,168 cubic yards (1,084 cut and 1,084 fill). Staff is in support of the grading exemption because the additional grading is associated with the construction of the basement and garage pad so as to integrate the footprint of the main residence with the existing slope thereby reducing the visual mass of the structure. Additional grading is also associated with locating the building footprint away from the seasonal drainage swale and onto the slope to eliminate water intrusion into the basement. The grading exemption findings are discussed later in the report. Page 5 of 9 58 13740 Pierce Road/Rezvani Trees: The Project Arborist inventoried 11 trees on the project site that could potentially be impacted by construction. The applicant is proposing that one 9.5” Big Leaf Maple tree in fair condition be removed for the construction of the driveway. The City Arborist believes the findings can be made for the removal of this tree. All remaining protected trees in the vicinity of the project will be protected during the duration of the project. Details of the arborist findings and descriptions of the tree to be removed are included in the Arborist report which is included as Attachment #2. Residential Calgreen Measures: The project will meet the minimum CalGreen standards for a new home. The Residential Calgreen Measures Checklist is included on page 22 of the development plans. Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: The applicant submitted eleven Neighbor Notification Forms signed by adjacent property owners. None of the forms included negative comments related to the project. Copies of the neighbor notification forms are included as Attachment 5. A Public Notice was also sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site. No additional concerns have been brought to the City’s attention as of the writing of this staff report. FINDINGS Design Review Findings - The Planning Commission shall not grant design review approval unless it is able to make the following findings. These findings are in addition to and not a substitute for compliance with all other Zoning Regulations (which constitute the minimum requirements, as provided in City Code Section 15-05.050.) (a) Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. The project meets this finding in that the site development and grading is located in a predominantly level area that was previously developed and the majority of development is limited to this area thereby preserving the natural contours of the site. The exception is the location of the proposed residence which is being shifted to the east to increase the setback from an existing drainage swale. (b) All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project has been designed to reduce impacts to a minimum number of protected trees. The 11 protected trees that were inventoried as being potentially impacted include five Coast Live Oaks, four Big Leaf Maples, and two California Bay Laurels. Of these trees, only one 9.5” Big Leaf Maple in fair conditions is in conflict with the development of the project and the City Arborist has made the required findings to recommend its removal. The tree to be removed has an appraised value of $800 and replacement trees are to be planted on the site equal to this value. Page 6 of 9 59 13740 Pierce Road/Rezvani (c) The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the size of the parcel and existing vegetation and trees would screen all views of both the proposed main residence and secondary unit from surrounding properties and Pierce Road. Because the project would not be visible from Pierce Road, the setbacks far exceed the minimums, and existing landscaping screen the project form the residences on the two adjacent sites, there would be no unreasonable impact to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. (d) The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the overall design, height, materials, and location of building features for both the main residence and the guest house will avoid the perception of excessive bulk and the Mediterranean architectural theme of the home and the use of architecturally true elements helps unify the façade. The facades of the buildings are well articulated with jogs in the building lines with varying height of roof elements, architectural projections, and rooflines. The elevations are softened by the use of varying materials to include earth toned smooth finished stucco and cultured stone. The views from homes on the two adjacent sites are screened by existing landscaping. (e) The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the existing asphalt driveway is the only hardscape located within the 30’ front setback area and there is no additional hardscape proposed. The neighborhood streetscape along this section of Pierce Road is characteristic of a rural mountain road and the project will have no effect on this existing streetscape. (f) Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the location of the nearest residence is located at a distance of more than 100 feet and existing dense vegetation and trees that screen all views of the project site from adjoining properties. (g) The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to 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. (h) On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is not located on a ridgeline, there are no significant hillside features on the site to be impacted, and the project is screened from offsite views by existing vegetation. The overall size of the parcel and the proposed building setbacks would cause the project to not unreasonably impact community viewsheds and the project is in compliance with City Code Section 15- 13.100 (Height of Structures). Page 7 of 9 60 13740 Pierce Road/Rezvani Grading Over One Thousand Cubic Yards - City Code section 15-13.050 limits the combined cut and fill of any grading for a project in the Hillside Residential (HR) zone district to one thousand (1,000) cubic yards, including any excavation for a swimming pool, unless a larger quantity is approved by the Planning Commission based upon making all of the below listed findings. 1. The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that 784 cubic yards of cut would be used to construct the basement and garage pad and to integrate the footprint of the main residence with the existing slope thereby reducing the visual mass of the structure. The driveway for the main residence is located parallel to existing contours. To reduce the overall slope of the driveway its construction would require 810 cubic yards of fill resulting in a cross slope of not more than two percent. Due to the proximity of the guest house to the emergency turnaround area, a relatively short driveway would be required to access the secondary dwelling unit, which has a finished floor height that is 13 feet higher in elevation than the turnaround, thereby necessitating 60 cubic yards of fill for driveway construction. Additional cut and fill would be necessary to transition developed areas of the site with areas that are not being graded. The earthwork quantity which includes and even amount of both cut and fill would eliminate the need for soil removal and related truck trips which could impact neighboring property owners. 2. The natural land forms and vegetation are being preserved and protected. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is predominantly located in a previously developed area and the buildings are being constructed to follow the contours of the site so as to preserve the natural land forms. The natural vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the project consists of natural grasses and beyond the developed area the vegetation consists of dense trees. One non-native Big Leaf Maple tree in fair condition is proposed for removal. The natural vegetation on the site consists of both native and non-native trees and none of these trees are being removed as part of the project. 3. The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the grading would improve the integration of the structures into the natural topography of the site by constructing the buildings to follow the sites existing contours. 4. The increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is screened from offsite views due to the size of the lot and existing vegetation and is not visible from distant community views. 5. No building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the grading will not be used to create flat building pads beyond the building footprints as the majority of project grading would be used to excavate the basement and to raise the grade of the driveways to provide access to both the main residence and the secondary dwelling unit. Landscape grading will be used to transition from graded areas to non-graded areas. The grade behind the residence and secondary dwelling unit will continue to increase as the slope currently rises Page 8 of 9 61 13740 Pierce Road/Rezvani Page 9 of 9 behind the buildings and the area in front of the buildings will gradually decrease until daylighting with existing grades. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATON The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 14-012 approving the project, subject to conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval for Design Review 2. Arborist Report 3. Geotechnical Clearance Conditions 4. Public Hearing Notice, Mailing Addresses for Project Notification 5. Neighbor Correspondence and Notification Forms 6. Project Renderings 7. Development Plans (Exhibit "A") 62 RESOLUTION NO: 14-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A NEW TWO STORY, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, A ONE STORY DETACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT AND A GRADING EXCEPTION TO EXCEED 1,000 CUBIC YARDS WHEREAS, on August 12, 2013, an application was submitted by Saiid Rezvani requesting Design Review approval to construct a new two story Mediterranean designed home and a one story detached secondary dwelling unit located at 13740 Pierce Road. The project includes a request for grading exception to exceed 1,000 cubic yards of grading. The project also includes a site coverage exception to exceed the maximum allowable site coverage by 3,318 square feet due to a long driveway to meet emergency vehicle access requirements. The project has a total floor area of 7,526 square feet. The height of the proposed residence would be 26 feet and the height of the secondary dwelling unit would be 18 feet. The site is located within the Hillside Residential Zoning District (APN 503-30-067). WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt. WHEREAS, on April 23, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies. Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: 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; 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; 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 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. 63 Resolution No. 14-012 Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints; preserves protected trees; is designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds; the mass and height of the structure and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood; landscaping minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape; does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy; is consistent with the Residential Design Review Handbook; and in the case of hillside lots, avoids unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13-100. Section 5: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the request for a grading exception to exceed 1,000 cubic yards of grading is consistent with the Grading Exception findings in that the additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site; natural land forms and vegetation are being preserved and protected; the increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain; the increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views; and that no building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure. Section 6: The project would be consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the request for a site coverage exception to exceed 15,000 square feet of site coverage by an additional 3,318 square feet is consistent with the determination that a portion of the projects site coverage can be exempted due to the 240 foot long access driveway and turnaround area to meet emergency vehicle access requirements. Section 7: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the removal of one protected tree meets the criteria established in Section 15-50.080(a). Section 8: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR13-0016, GRE14-0002, and ARB13-0045 located at 13740 Pierce Road subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 23rd day of April 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ 64 Resolution No. 14-012 Mary-Lynne Bernald Chair, Planning Commission Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR13-0016, GRE14-0002, and ARB13-0045 13740 Pierce Road (APN 503-30-067) 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 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 to the Community Development Director. 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 its equivalent. 2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, 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 City certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 3. 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 City Code incorporated herein by this reference. 4. 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 65 Resolution No. 14-012 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, 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 City Attorney. 5. Site Drainage. The owner/applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding drainage, including but not limited to complying with the city approved stormwater management plan. The project shall retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site, that is created by the proposed construction and grading project, such that adjacent down slope properties will not be negatively impacted by any increase in flow. Design must follow the 2007 Santa Clara County Drainage Manual method criteria, as required by the building department. Retention/detention element design must follow the Drainage Manual guidelines, as required by the building department. Additionally, the site development plan must not restrict, obstruct or alter the existing natural drainage swale along the rear property in any way that would cause or increase erosion. 6. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans denominated Exhibit "A". 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 City Code. 7. 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 City 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. b. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, notes, and/or materials required by the Building Division. c. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages. d. 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. 66 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ARBORIST REPORT It is the responsibility of the owner, architect and contractor to be familiar with the information in this report and implement the required conditions. Application #: ARB13-0045 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 13740 Pierce Road Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Saiid Resvani Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 503-30-067 Email: saiid.rezvani@gmail.com Report History: #1 – Preliminary Report Date: Plans received August 14, 2013 Preliminary report completed August 29, 2013 #2 – This report replaces the preliminary report Revised plans received December 10, 2013 Report completed December 11, 2013 #3 – This report replaces previous reports Project arborist report received December 20, 2013 Revised civil plans received February 3, 2014 Arborist report completed February 13, 2014 PROJECT SCOPE The applicant has submitted revised plans to the City to demolish a house, carport and guest cottage, and build a new two story house with a basement and attached garage, and a guest house. The swimming pool previously proposed has been deleted from the project. One big leaf maple tree is indicated for removal to construct the project. CLEARANCE – with conditions This project has clearance from the arborist to proceed, with the conditions noted below under the Conditions of Approval section. PLAN REVIEW Plans Reviewed: Architectural plans were prepared by David Pruitt Designs and dated December 3, 2013. Plan sheets reviewed for this report included Sheet A1, Cover Sheet; Sheet A2, Site Plan; Sheet A3, Front Elevation; Sheet A4, Left Side Elevation; Sheet A5, Right Side Elevation; Sheet A6, Rear Elevation; Sheet A8, Main Floor Plan; Sheet A9, Second Floor Plan; Sheet A10, Basement Floor Plan; Sheets A12 and A13, Sections; Sheet A14, Guest House Elevations; Sheet A15, Guest House Floor Plan; and Sheet A16, Guest House Sections. Page 1 of 6 67 13740 Pierce Road Revised civil plans were prepared by Nordic Engineering and dated January 2014. Plan sheets reviewed for this report included Sheet C1, Grading and Drainage Plan and Sheet C2, Utility Plan and Driveway. The site plan has been revised so that the scale is 20 feet per inch, which is acceptable. It does not show trees #6 or 9 – 11, and they should be included on the architectural plans as well as the civil plans. The site plan is no longer consistent with the grading and drainage plan, in that is shows a 4 foot high wall along the entire back of the house that is in conflict with tree #6. The site plans requires modification to be consistent with the civil drawings. TREE INFORMATION Tree Inventory: The applicant has engaged David Lazcko of Ian Geddes and Associates to be the designated Project Arborist for this project. He has provided an arborist report for review which includes an inventory of trees, recommendations for protection of retained trees, and appraised values for trees. All recommendations of his arborist report shall become conditions of approval for this project. Tree Removals: One big leaf maple (#7) is shown on the plans to be removed to construct the driveway. It meets the criteria for removal, and may be removed and replaced with new trees once building permits have been obtained. See the Findings section for details. Tree Protection: Chain link fencing is required around individual trees or groups of trees for protection during construction, and work is not permitted within these fenced areas. Fences are to be posted with signs indicating that they are for the protection of trees and may not be taken down or moved without prior approval from the City Arborist. Areas that require fencing are shown on the map attached to the end of this report. No equipment is permitted on site until after the City Arborist inspects and approves tree protection fencing. See the Conditions of Approval for details. Trees # 1 and 5 will require straw wattle wrapped around their trunks for protection per the recommendations of the Project Arborist. Tree #5 will require chain link fencing to replace the straw wattle once the carport has been deconstructed. Oak tree #1 will require any installation of utilities to be done under the supervision of the Project Arborist. This work is proposed very close to the tree, and the tree may not survive the installation of utilities. To adequately protect oak trees #6 and 11, and maple trees #9 and 10, no changes in grade should occur within 12 feet of the trunks of these trees. Security Deposit for the Projection of Trees: Pursuant to City Code section 15-50.080(d), a tree protection security deposit will be required for this project. Owner shall obtain, and file with the Community Development Department, the required security deposit prior to receiving building permits. The security deposit may be in the form of a savings account, a certificate of deposit account or a bond. This deposit will be held until completion of the project and acceptance by the City. The required security deposit for this project is $57,700 for trees #1 – 6 and 9 – 11. Page 2 of 6 68 13740 Pierce Road Appraised values: Appraised values were calculated using the Trunk Formula Method and according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. This is to be used in conjunction with the Species Classification and Group Assignment, published by the Western Chapter of the ISA, 2004. FINDINGS Tree Removal Whenever a tree is requested for removal as part of a project, certain findings must be made and specific tree removal criteria met. One big leaf maple tree (#7) is in conflict with the proposed driveway, and requires removal to construct the project. It meets criteria #1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 for removal and may be removed and replaced once building division permits have been obtained. The tree removal criteria are listed at the end of this report for reference. Replacement Trees: Whenever trees are approved for removal, replacement trees are required. New trees equal to $800 will be required prior to a final inspection of the project. Replacement values for new trees are listed in the box below. New Construction Based on the information provided, this project complies with the requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15-50.120 of the City Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The architectural site plan shall be modified to be consistent with the civil site plan dated February 4, 2014. 2. This entire report, including the submitted Tree Inventory Table, and attached maps, shall be copied on to a plan sheet, titled “Tree Preservation” and included in the final job copy set of plans. 3. The December 20, 2013 report submitted by David Lazcko of Ian Geddes and Associates shall also be copied onto the Tree Preservation Sheet(s). 4. The Tree Protection Detail (Sheet C2) shall be corrected so that it is consistent with the Tree Protection specifications listed here. Wire mesh and T-posts are not permitted. 5. The Tree Protection Notes (Sheet C2, upper left hand corner) shall delete references to TPZ1 or TPZ2, and instead refer to the specifications listed below and the attached map. Replacement Tree Values 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 Page 3 of 6 69 13740 Pierce Road 6. Tree Protection Note #1 shall be modified to delete the word “devices” and to be consistent with the specifications listed below, i.e. no equipment may come on site until it is installed and approved by the City Arborist. 7. Tree Protection Notes (Sheet C2) #3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 shall be deleted. 8. Tree Protection Security Deposit – $57,700 a. Shall be for trees #1 – 6 and 9 – 11. b. Shall be obtained by the owner and filed with the Community Development Department before obtaining Building Division permits. c. Shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project. d. May be released once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City. 9. Tree Protection: a. Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. b. Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. c. Straw wattle shall be wrapped around the trunks of oak trees #1 and 5 up to a height of 6 feet. d. Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, KATE BEAR (408) 868-1276”. e. Call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection fencing once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division permits. f. Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final inspection. g. If contractor feels that work must be done inside the fenced area, call City Arborist to arrange a field meeting. 10. The designated Project Arborist for the project shall be David Lazcko of Ian Geddes and Associates. 11. The Project Arborist shall monitor the work listed below. Prior to a final inspection by the building division, a letter with photos shall be provided to the City, which documents how the work was done and verifies that the trees were adequately protected. a. Rough grading near trees 1 – 6 and 8 – 11. b. Installation of utilities by tree #2. c. Installation of the driveway and retaining walls for the main house within 15 feet of the trunks of trees #1, 6 and 9 – 11. d. Deconstruction of the carport. 12. Excavation, addition of fill soil, or any other changes in grade are not permitted within: a. 8 feet of trees #3 and 4 b. 12 feet of trees #1, 2, 6, 9, 10 and 11 c. 30 feet of trees #5 and 8 Page 4 of 6 70 13740 Pierce Road 13. No protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project may be removed or encroached upon until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building division for the approved project. 14. Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities for protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction work. 15. All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing. These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 16. Where excavation under trees has been approved by the City Arborist, all roots measuring two inches or more in diameter shall be retained and worked around. Utility lines shall be placed under retained roots or farther away from the roots. Dissipater pits shall leave roots intact. Roots measuring less than two inches in diameter may be cut using a sharp pruning tool. 17. Tree #7 is approved for removal once building permits have been issued. 18. New trees equal to $800 shall be planted as part of the project before a final inspection. They may be planted anywhere on the property as long as they do not encroach on existing trees. 19. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 20. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited under tree canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage to areas under tree canopies. Herbicides shall not be applied under tree canopies. 21. At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing and have the tree protection security deposit released by the City, call City Arborist for a final inspection. ATTACHMENTS: Tree Removal Criteria Inventory of Trees and Appraised Values (arborist report dated December 20, 2013) Map of Main House Map of Guest House Page 5 of 6 71 13740 Pierce Road TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article 15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and replacement during construction. (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; (2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property; (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes; (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; (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices; (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree; (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article; (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; and (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. Page 6 of 6 72 73 13740 Pierce Road Main House Legend Tree canopy Tree Protection Fence Straw Wattle 5 10 7 9 6 11 Tree #5—Straw wattle to be installed at start of project. After carport is demolished, chain link fencing is required at 30 feet or farther from trunk of tree. 74 13740 Pierce Road Guest House Legend Tree canopy Tree Protection Fence Straw Wattle 1 4 3 8 2 75 CITY of SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868-1274 MEMORANDUM TO: Iveta Harvancik, Senior Engineer DATE: March 27, 2014 FROM: Cotton Shires and Associates Inc., City Geotechnical Consultant SUBJECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review (S5033C) RE: Rezvani, Proposed Residence, Guesthouse, and Driveway GEO13-0007 13740 Pierce Road We have completed a supplemental geotechnical peer review of the subject project application using: • Clarification and Supplemental Recommendations (letter) prepared by Upp Geotechnology, dated March 26, 2014; • Report Update and Supplemental Recommendations (letter-report) prepared by Upp Geotechnology, dated March 13, 2014 • Supplemental Information and Response to Comments (letter) prepared by Upp Geotechnology, dated February 24, 2014; and • Grading and Drainage Plan (Sheet C1 – Base Plan for Upp Geotechnology Figure 1) prepared by Nordic Engineering, dated January 2014. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files and been in communication with the Project Geotechnical Consultant. DISCUSSION The applicant proposes to remove the existing residence and guesthouse and construct a new two-story residence with partial basement approximately 100 feet east of the existing residence. A proposed replacement guesthouse is to be constructed near the location of the existing guesthouse. In our previous project geotechnical peer review (memorandum dated March 3, 2014), we raised issues regarding retaining wall design and debris catchment. 76 Iveta Harvancik March 27, 2014 Page 2 S5033C CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Development at the subject property is constrained by potential flooding, steep slopes subject to creep and shallow slope failures, potentially expansive soil materials, areas of deep ancient landslide debris potentially subject to settlement, and strong seismic ground shaking. The Project Geotechnical Consultant has updated recommended geotechnical design parameters for the proposed site development. The Consultant has provided geotechnical design criteria for an Ultrablock (or similar) retaining wall to be located east of the residence and geotechnical recommendations for measures to address potential slope debris that may be directed towards the residence. Submitted evaluations and recommendations satisfactorily address the comments of our previous geotechnical peer review. Consequently, we recommend approval of project Geotechnical Clearance with the following conditions: 1. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls and driveway) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Geotechnical Construction Inspections - The 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 foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (granting of occupancy) project approval. The consultant shall inspect final site drainage improvements in conformance with geotechnical recommendations. LIMITATIONS This supplemental geotechnical peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the City of Saratoga in its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. TS:DTS:kd 77 CITY OF SARATOGA Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga’s Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 23rd of April, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. A site visit will also be held by the Planning Commission at the subject property. Please contact the Planning Department for the date and time of the site visit. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION/ADDRESS: PDR13-0016/ 13740 Pierce Road APPLICANT/OWNER: Saiid & Shahla Rezvani APN: 503-30-067 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new 6,531 square foot, two story single-family home which includes a 2,519 square foot basement. The project will also include the construction of a new one story 995 square feet guest house. All existing buildings on the site will be removed. The net lot size is approximately 8.84 acres and the site is zoned HR (Hillside Residential). All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission’s information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Monday, April 21 , 2014. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor’s office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of-date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Christopher Alan Riordan, AICP Senior Planner (408) 868-1235 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