HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-13-14 Planning Commission Agenda PacketTable of Contents
Agenda 3
July 23, 2014
Draft Minutes 5
Application PDR14-0020; 14471 Big Basin Way (503-24-067);
Roger Roach on behalf of Verizon Wireless. The applicant is
proposing to remove and replace three existing wireless
antennas with three new dual band LTW/AWS antennas (one
per sector), install three RRUs (one per sector), and install
hybrid cables. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-
1230.
Staff Report 7
Resolution of Approval 10
Photo Simulations 14
RF Report 16
Notice 24
Plans 25
Application ADR14-0021 & CUP14-0002; 20201 La Paloma
Avenue (397-24-049); Caldwell / Paim - The applicant requests
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Administrative Design
Review (ADR) approval to remove an existing detached two-
story accessory structure in order to construct a new detached
1,072 sq. ft. one-story accessory structure within the required
rear setback. The maximum height of the new accessory
structure will be no higher than 10 ft. No protected trees are
required for removal. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-
1212.
Staff Report - 20201 La Paloma 31
Att 1 - Resolution 36
Att 2 - Neighbor Notifications 40
Att 3 - Plan - 20201 La Paloma 44
Application ZOA 14-0001; 20400 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road /
517-10-015, 517-10-009, 517-10-034; Our Lady of Fatima Villa.
The applicant is requesting approval of a Zoning Amendment to
add a Planned-Combined District (P-C) zoning overlay to three
adjoining parcels with an underlying residential zoning
designation of R1-10,000. The parcels have been occupied by
institutional uses since at least 1951 before the city was
incorporated. The current assisted living facility and associated
uses received conditional use permit approval in 2000. The
applicant is proposing to add 11 new parking spaces by
increasing the impervious parking area by approximately 2,312
square feet. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230.
Staff Report 48
Resolution 53
Ordinance 57
Exhibit A - site development plans 61
Exhibit B - approved floor plan and elevations 64
Exhibit C - Description of uses 71
1
Application PDR14-0012; 18844 Dundee Avenue / 389-17-049;
Deepak Sharma and Ana Stefan / Michelle Minor Design. The
applicant is proposing a new 2-story home and basement. The
proposed height is approximately 26 feet. The total floor area
including the existing garage is 3,197 square feet. The project
replaces an existing 1,125 square foot home, while retaining the
434 square foot attached garage. Staff Contact: Cynthia
McCormick (408) 868-1230.
Staff Report 72
Resolution 77
Notice 81
Neighbor Comments 82
Plans 91
Applications PDR14-0009 & ARB13-0077; 14584 Horseshoe
Drive (Parcel B) (397-20-104); Ravi Ramachandran (Applicant) -
The applicant is proposing a new 2-story single-family home on
a vacant lot. The proposed height is approximately 26 feet. The
total floor area including garage is 4,517 square feet. The
project includes the proposed removal of 11 protected trees.
Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan
Staff Report 98
Att. 1 - Resolution 103
Att. 2 - Arborist Report 107
Att. 3 - Neighbor Notification 117
Att. 4 - Project Renderings 122
Att. 5 -CalGreen Checklist 124
Att. 6 - Public Hearing Notice 132
Att. 7 - Reduced Plans 133
Applications VAR14-0003 and MOD14-0003; 18590 Avon Lane
(410-40-016) John Livingstone (Applicant) on behalf of Yeoun
Jin Kim (Owner) – The applicant requests Variance approval
from the regulations contained in the City Code regarding
Secondary Dwelling Units to reduce the minimum net lot size
required for a secondary dwelling unit in the R-1-40,000 zoning
district. The applicant is also requesting Design Review
Approval for modifications to previously approved plans. The
net lot size is approximately 36,465 square feet and the site is
zoned R-1-40,000. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408)
868-1235.
Staff Report 144
Att. 1 - Resolution 152
Att. 2 - Notice 156
Att. 3 - Neighbor Notification 157
Att. 4 - Reduced Plans 160
2
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, August 13, 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 July 23, 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 PDR14-0020; 14471 Big Basin Way (503-24-067); Roger Roach on behalf of Verizon
Wireless. The applicant is proposing to remove and replace three existing wireless antennas with three new
dual band LTW/AWS antennas (one per sector), install three RRUs (one per sector), and install hybrid
cables. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230.
Recommended action:
Approve Resolution No. 14-032 approving the project subject to conditions of approval.
2. Application ADR14-0021 & CUP14-0002; 20201 La Paloma Avenue (397-24-049); Caldwell / Paim - The
applicant requests Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Administrative Design Review (ADR) approval to
remove an existing detached two-story accessory structure in order to construct a new detached 1,072 sq. ft.
one-story accessory structure within the required rear setback. The maximum height of the new accessory
structure will be no higher than 10 ft. No protected trees are required for removal. Staff Contact: Michael
Fossati (408) 868-1212.
Recommended action:
Adopt Resolution No. 14-035 approving the project subject to conditions of approval.
3
3. Application ZOA 14-0001; 20400 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road / 517-10-015, 517-10-009, 517-10-034; Our
Lady of Fatima Villa. The applicant is requesting approval of a Zoning Amendment to add a Planned-
Combined District (P-C) zoning overlay to three adjoining parcels with an underlying residential zoning
designation of R1-10,000. The parcels have been occupied by institutional uses since at least 1951 before
the city was incorporated. The current assisted living facility and associated uses received conditional use
permit approval in 2000. The applicant is proposing to add 11 new parking spaces by increasing the
impervious parking area by approximately 2,312 square feet. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-
1230.
Recommended action:
Adopt Resolution No. 14-031 recommending the City Council approve the zoning amendment subject to
conditions of approval.
4. Application PDR14-0012; 18844 Dundee Avenue / 389-17-049; Deepak Sharma and Ana Stefan / Michelle
Minor Design. The applicant is proposing a new 2-story home and basement. The proposed height is
approximately 26 feet. The total floor area including the existing garage is 3,197 square feet. The project
replaces an existing 1,125 square foot home, while retaining the 434 square foot attached garage. Staff
Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230.
Recommended action:
Adopt Resolution No. 14-030 approving the project subject to conditions of approval.
5. Applications PDR14-0009 & ARB13-0077; 14584 Horseshoe Drive (Parcel B) (397-20-104); Ravi
Ramachandran (Applicant) - The applicant is proposing a new 2-story single-family home on a vacant lot.
The proposed height is approximately 26 feet. The total floor area including garage is 4,517 square feet.
The project includes the proposed removal of 11 protected trees. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan
(408) 868-1235.
Recommended action:
Adopt Resolution No. 14-033 approving Design Review PDR14-0009 and ARB13-0077 subject to
conditions of approval.
6. Applications VAR14-0003 and MOD14-0003; 18590 Avon Lane (410-40-016) John Livingstone
(Applicant) on behalf of Yeoun Jin Kim (Owner) – The applicant requests Variance approval from the
regulations contained in the City Code regarding Secondary Dwelling Units to reduce the minimum net lot
size required for a secondary dwelling unit in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. The applicant is also
requesting Design Review Approval for modifications to previously approved plans. The net lot size is
approximately 36,465 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan
(408) 868-1235.
Recommended action:
Adopt Resolution No. 14-034 approving the project subject to conditions of approval.
PLANNING STAFF//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 August 7, 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
4
ACTION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, July 23, 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, Tina Walia, Chair Mary-Lynne Bernald
ABSENT
ALSO PRESENT Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner
Michael Fossati, Planner
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSION & PUBLIC
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 9, 2014.
Action:
ALMALECH/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO APPROVE THE JULY 9, 2014 MINUTES. MOTION PASSED.
AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT:
NONE. ABSTAIN: GROVER.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Application GPA14-0001, ENV14-0001; City Wide / City of Saratoga; 2015-2023 General Plan Housing
Element and a Negative Declaration. Staff Contact: Chris Riordan (408) 868-1235
Action:
ALMALECH/ WALIA MOVED TO ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE 2015- 2023 GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT.
MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER
SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN.
2. Application ZOA13-0011, ENV13-0004, & PDR13-0028; 19700 Prospect Road (386-35-070,071); Weske
Associates – The applicant is requesting approval of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Zoning Amendment to add a Planned-Combined Zoning District (P-C) to a 2.402 acre parcel, and a design
review application to add approximately 6,500 sq. ft. of building area including, but not limited to, a new
chapel, central rotunda, and associated spaces to an existing 22,000 sq. ft. synagogue. The height of the
exiting synagogue would increase from 30 feet to 40 feet. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408)868-1212.
Action:
SMULLEN/WALIA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 14-028 WITH CHANGES TO THE
ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE
PROJECT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Strikeout “to a combined district” within Finding #2
2. Capitalized “Planned Combined” within Finding #2
5
3. Strikeout “another” within Finding #3
4. Added “stucco” within Finding #3
5. Strike “shaped into a cylinder structure” within Finding #3
6. Replaced “cylinder” with “rotunda” in Finding #3
7. Changed maximum site coverage from 62% to 68% within Exhibit 1
8. Changed language within Condition #10 to state “All functions sanctioned by Congregation
Beth David shall be open to the public”.
9. Added Condition #11 within resolution stating “Prior to obtaining zoning clearance, the
applicant shall provide a shared parking agreement between Congregation Beth David and
Church of the Ascension, and provide sufficient documentation demonstrating the agreement
has been recorded to title, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department.
MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER
SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN.
3. Application PDR13-0026,GRE14-0001,ARB13-0069; 22700 Mount Eden Road; APN 503-10-006; Sholeh
Diba Goetting - The project applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a new 6,942
square foot two story single-family home with a 2,202 square foot basement and a 600 square foot one
story detached secondary dwelling unit. The project also includes a grading exception for 9,339 cubic yards
of grading which includes 1,226 cubic yards to construct the basement. The net size area is 3.83 acres or
166,835 square feet and is zoned HR (Hillside Residential). Staff Contact: Chris Riordan (408) 868-1235
Action:
GROVER/WALIA MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PROJECT TO SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 WITH A
STUDY SESSION SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 9, 2014.
MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER
SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN.
4. Application PDR14-0014; 12970 Glen Brae Drive (389-03-002); Crown Castle on behalf of Sprint PCS –
The applicant has requested to replace three existing panel antennas and associated equipment with three
new panel antennas and associated equipment at Congress Springs Park. Design Review approval is
required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-44.020. The site is approximately 10 acres and is
located within the R-1-12,500 zoning district. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408)868-1212.
Action:
CHANG/GROVER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 14-027 WITH CHANGES TO THE
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
1. Add “is” and “to” to first Whereas, line 4
2. Add “to” to Section 2, line 2
MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER
SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN.
DIRECTOR/COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
ADJOURNMENT
6
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: August 13, 2014
Application: Design Review PDR14-0020
Location / APN: 14471 Big Basin Way (503-24-067)
Owner / Applicant: Roger Roach on behalf of Verizon Wireless
Staff Planner: Cynthia McCormick, AICP
14471 Big Basin Way
1
7
SUMMARY
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Resolution No. 14-032 approving the project subject to conditions of approval.
Design Review approval is required per City Code Section 15-44.020.
PROJECT DATA:
Zoning Designation: CH-1 (Commercial Historic)
General Plan Designation: CR (Commercial Retail)
Site and Project Description:
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to modify an existing
telecommunications facility. The project would remove and replace three existing wireless
antennas with three new dual band LTW/AWS antennas (one per sector), install three RRUs (one per
sector), and install hybrid cables. The wireless facility is located on the roof of an existing
building alongside many similar type installations from other wireless carriers. The building
is located between a rear parking lot and a restaurant, reducing its visibility from Big Basin
Way.
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 (Attachment #3) which
concludes the proposed telecommunication facility would comply with FCC’s current
standards for limiting human exposure to RF energy, and no significant impact on the
general public is expected.
Neighbor Correspondence
The “Notice of Public Hearing” was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the
subject property. The public hearing notice and description of the project was also published
in the Saratoga News. No comments were received as of the writing of this staff report.
8
DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS
The findings required for Design Review Approval per City Code Section 15-44.025 are set
forth below. The applicant has met the burden of proof to support making those 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 building.
(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 because the wireless telecommunication
facility is a replacement of existing antennas, thus minimizing the visual impact that
might result from additional antennas. The proposed antennas are similar in design and
color to existing antennas.
(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 is not applicable because the equipment is not located on the ground.
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 CEQA Guidelines.
This Class 3 exemption applies to new construction of limited small new facilities;
installation of small, new equipment and facilities in small structures.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval
2. Photo Simulations
3. RF Analysis
4. Public hearing notice
5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A.”
9
RESOLUTION NO: 14-032
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION PDR14-0020 FOR A WIRELESS
ANTENNA REPLACEMENT LOCATED AT 14471 BIG BASIN WAY (503-24-067)
WHEREAS, on July 21, 2014, an application was submitted by Roger Roach on behalf of
Verizon Wireless requesting Design Review approval to modify an existing telecommunications
facility. The project would remove and replace three existing wireless antennas with three new dual
band LTW/AWS antennas (one per sector), install three RRUs (one per sector), and install hybrid
cables. The site is located within the commercial-historic 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 August 13, 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 Saratoga General Plan Land Use Element Policy
LU 2.2 which states that non-residential uses shall be buffered from other uses by methods such as
setbacks.
Section 4: The project is consistent with the required design review findings in that the
antennas and RRUs will have a non-reflective finish and will be co-located with other similarly
sized wireless telecommunications antennas.
Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR14-0020
located at 14471 Big Basin Way, subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached
hereto as Exhibit 1.
10
Resolution No. 14-032
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 13th day of
August 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Chair, Planning Commission
11
Resolution No. 14-032
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PDR14-0020
14471 BIG BASIN WAY (503-24-067)
A. GENERAL
1. 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.
2. 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.
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 Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference.
4. Prior to issuance of any Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit to implement this Design
Review Approval the Owner or Applicant shall obtain a “Zoning Clearance” from the
Community Development Director by submitting final plans for the requested permit to the
Community Development Department for review to ascertain compliance with the requirements
of this Resolution.
5. 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.
12
Resolution No. 14-032
B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
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.
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 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 Exhibit “A” on file with the
Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. B.6 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
C. REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER AGENCIES OR UTILITIES
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Governmental entities. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other
Governmental entities, including the California Public Utilities Commission, must be met.
11. 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.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
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, August 13, 2014 at 7:00 p.m.
The Public Hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue.
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.
ADDRESS/APN: 14471 Big Basin Way, Saratoga CA 95070 (503-24-067)
APPLICANT: Roger Roach
APPLICATION: PDR14-0020
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to remove and replace three existing wireless
antennas with three new dual band LTW/AWS antennas (one per sector), install three RRUs (one per
sector), and install hybrid cables.
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a
decision of the Planning Commission, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the meeting.
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.
Cynthia McCormick, Planner, AICP
(408) 868-1230
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: August 13, 2014
Application: Design Review ADR14-0021 / Use Permit
CUP14-0002
Location / APN: 20201 La Paloma Ave. / 397-24-049
Owner / Applicant: Caldwell / Paim
Staff Planner: Michael Fossati
20201 La Paloma Ave.
31
2
SUMMARY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant requests Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Administrative Design Review
(ADR) approval to construct a new detached 1,072 sq. ft. garage within the required rear
setback. The maximum height of the proposed accessory structure would be no higher than
ten feet. No protected trees are required for removal
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. 14-035 approving the project subject to conditions of approval.
Design Review / Conditional Use Permit approval by the Planning Commission is required
pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.080 and 15-80.030 (d)(1)
PROJECT DATA
Net Site Area: 21,624 sq. ft.
Average Slope: 1 – 2%
General Plan Designation: RLD (Residential Low Density)
Zoning: R1-20,000
Proposed Allowed
Proposed Site Coverage
Residence
New Detached Garage
Driveway & Porch
Pool & Deck
Total Proposed Site Coverage
2,089 sq. ft.
1,072 sq. ft.
4,050 sq. ft.
1,010 sq. ft.
8,221 sq. ft.
Maximum Coverage
allowed is 9,731 sq. ft.
(45%)
Floor Area
Residence:
New Detached Garage:
Total
3,524 sq. ft.
1,072 sq. ft.
4,596 sq. ft.
Maximum Floor Area
allowed is 4,596 sq. ft.
Setbacks
Front:
Left Side:
Right Side:
Rear:
109’
15’
15’
35’
30’
N/A because structure
completely in rear
setback
N/A because structure
completely in rear
setback
12’ with Conditional Use
Permit approval
32
3
Height
Lowest Elevation Point:
Highest Elevation Point:
Average Elevation Point:
Proposed Topmost Point:
0.0’
1.0’
0.5’
11.5’ (10’)
Maximum Building
Height is 10 ft. with
Conditional Use Permit
approval
SITE AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Project Description
The applicant is proposing to remove a detached two-story non-conforming garage with a
new detached one-story accessory structure (i.e. garage, workshop, and boat storage)
within the rear setback. The height of the structure would be ten feet and it would be
located approximately 12 feet from the rear property line.
Building Design
In order to maintain consistency with the main residence, the applicant has proposed a beige
“Westover Hills” tru-wood siding, off-white “Columbia” window and door trim, and a
brown asphalt shingle roof. The applicant has proposed a shallow gable roof in order to
keep the height at ten feet.
Detail Colors and Materials
Building Ext. Beige “Westover Hills” tru-wood siding
Window &
Door Trim Off-white “Columbia” fascia board
Garage Door Off-white “Columbia” metal door with simulated wood texture
Roofing Brown Asphalt Shingle
Neighbor Correspondence
The applicant has submitted four signed neighbor notification forms. Staff has also sent a
“Notice of Public Hearing” to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property.
The public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga
News. Staff has not received any comments regarding the project.
DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS
The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code
Section 15-45.080 are set forth below and the applicant has met the burden of proof to
support making all of those required findings:
(a) 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 because the location of the site is relatively flat and very limited grading is
needed to create the pad for the accessory structure.
33
4
(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. The project meets this finding because no protected trees are being
proposed for removal. There is only a tree stump (filled with concrete) that would
be removed.
(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. The project meets this finding in because the height
of the proposed structure is in accordance with the City Code. As it would be one-
story with minimal glazing, as well as the planting of new shrubs along the
neighboring fence line will assist in avoiding unreasonable impacts to privacy or
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. The project meets
this finding because the detached accessory structure would follow the general
appearance, color pallet and materials used for the main residence, while keeping a
low profile design with a low-pitched roof.
(e) The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains
elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape. The project
meets this finding because the detached accessory structure would not affect the
landscape within the front setback.
(f) Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining
properties to utilize solar energy. The project meets this finding because the
structure would have a low profile, shallow pitched roof, which would not affect
adjoining properties from utilizing solar energy.
(g) The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the
Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. The project meets
this finding because it has incorporated design techniques such as scaling and
massing the accessory structure as a subordinate to the main residence, incorporating
a consistent use of colors and materials as the main residence, and created a well,
balanced articulated exterior while keeping the structure low in profile.
(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. The following finding is not applicable, as the
project is not on a hillside lot.
34
5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
The findings required for issuance of a Conditional Use Permit Approval pursuant to City
Code Section 15-55.070 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to
support making all of those required findings:
(a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives
of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is
located. This finding can be met because a detached accessory structure is typically
a principally permitted use within a residential zoning district. A Conditional Use
Permit allows a property owner to locate an accessory structure closer to the rear
property line. The proposed height and placement of the structure will still ensure
adequate light, air, privacy and open space for the main residence and adjacent
properties near the project site.
(b) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which
it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity. This finding can be met because appropriate conditions have been placed
on the use permit to ensure compliance with all applicable health, building and
safety codes.
(c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable
provisions of this Chapter. The proposed use will comply with each of the
applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code as staff reviewed the
project, conditioned it accordingly, and has recommended approval.
(d) That the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated
uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding
properties or the occupants thereof. This finding can be made because the detached
accessory structure would not adversely affect surrounding properties. Along with
setbacks that meet the minimum requirements, ten foot height maximum, and
minimal roof pitch, the proposed accessory structure should not distress neighboring
and adjacent property owners.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The project is Categorically Exempt from the
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This
exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval – 20201 La Paloma Ave
2. Neighbor Notification Forms
3. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A.”
35
RESOLUTION NO. 14-035
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING APPLICATION NO. ADR14-0021 AND CUP14-0002 FOR A NEW
DETACHED GARAGE LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD AT
20201 LA PALOMA AVE. / 397-24-049
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2014 an application was submitted by Sandra Paim and
Margaret Caldwell requesting Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval for a new
detached garage in the rear yard. The height of the proposed garage would be no taller than ten
feet, as measured from average grade. The property is located within the R1-20,000 Zoning
District.
WHEREAS, on August 13, 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 Saratoga General Plan Policies LU 1.1 in
that the City shall continue to be predominately a community of single-family residences and LU
1.2 to continue to review all residential development proposals to ensure consistency with Land
Use Element goals and Policies.
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 has a site
development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given
the property's natural constraints; 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; 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.; the overall mass and the height of the
structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the
neighborhood; the landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains
36
Resolution No. 14‐035 Page 2
elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape; development of the site does
not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy; the
design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential
Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15‐45.055.
Section 5: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the project is in
accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the
site is located, in that the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under
which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, in that the proposed
conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning chapter, and in
that the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the
immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants
thereof.
Section 6: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves ADR14-0021
and CUP14-0002, located at 20201 La Paloma Ave, subject to the above Findings, and
Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 13th day of
August 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Chair, Planning Commission
37
Resolution No. 14‐035 Page 3
EXHIBIT 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ADR14-0021 / CUP14-0002
20201 LA PALOMA AVE. / 397-24-049
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 approved
by the Community Development Department. 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
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.
38
Resolution No. 14‐035 Page 4
5. 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"
and as conditioned below. 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.
6. Fencing. All fencing shall be in compliance with City Code Article 15-29.
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 the following notes:
i. “Disposition and treatment of stormwater will comply with the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Standards and implementation standards
established by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program”
8. Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine on adjacent properties or
public right-of-way.
9. Maintenance of Construction Project Sites. Because this Design Review Approval
authorizes a project which requires a Building Permit, compliance with City Code Section
16-75.050 governing maintenance of construction project sites is required.
PUBLIC WORKS
10. Encroachment Permit. Applicant (owner) shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and
all improvements in any City right-of-way or City easement prior to commencement of the
work to implement this Design Review.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
REPORT TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: August 13, 2014
Application: Zoning Amendment (ZOA 14-0001)
Location/APN: 20400 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Owner/Applicant: Our Lady of Fatima Villa
Staff Planner: Cynthia McCormick
20400 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Page 1 of 5
48
SUMMARY
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 14-031 recommending the City Council
approve the zoning amendment subject to conditions of approval.
A P-C zoning amendment (Attachment 2) requires City Council approval.
PROJECT DATA:
Underlying Zoning Designation: Medium Density Residential (R1-10,000)
Proposed Overlay Zoning Designation: Planned-Combined (P-C)
General Plan Designation: Community Facility (CFS)
Site Area: 3.075 acres
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting approval of a Zoning Amendment to add a Planned-Combined District
(P-C) zoning overlay to three adjoining parcels with an underlying residential zoning designation of
R1-10,000. The parcels have been occupied by institutional uses since at least 1951 before the city
was incorporated. The current assisted living facility and associated uses received conditional use
permit approval in 2000. The applicant is proposing to add 11 new parking spaces by increasing the
impervious parking area by approximately 2,312 square feet.
Zoning Amendment: The purpose of the Planned Combined (P-C) district is to provide the City the
authority to modify standards of development in an underlying zoning district so as to achieve
certain objectives, including but not limited to providing greater flexibility of land use and design
for a development that provides a public benefit that would not otherwise be attainable through
strict application of the zoning regulations.
Public Benefit: In addition to providing healthcare services to the elderly, Our Lady of Fatima Villa
benefits the larger community by providing catering services, public meeting rooms and fundraising
opportunities, and a location for voter polling. The organization also holds community classes on
wellness, disaster preparedness, CPR, etc. and provides a clinical setting for several local colleges
that have nursing license programs.
Site Description: The 3.08 acre project site consists of three adjoining parcels; one parcel
occupied by the assisted living facility, one parcel used for parking, and one parcel adjacent to
Oak Street that is occupied by “Fireman’s Hall”—a building used for offices and public meeting
rooms. Surrounding uses include residential homes, commercial businesses, and other
community and institutional facilities such as a church, a museum, and a book store.
Description of Uses: The facility provides 24-hour healthcare services including rehabilitation,
assisted living, respite care and skilled nursing care. In addition to offering public meeting space,
the facility has a food service operation, transportation service, maintenance services (e.g.,
housekeeping and laundry), chapel, libraries, social and recreational activities, a beauty salon,
and associated offices for all of the uses.
Page 2 of 5
49
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Standards for the P-C district, including residential density, shall be consistent with the General
Plan. Per the General Plan, building intensity of community facilities is evaluated through the
conditional use permit process. Through the use permit process, institutional uses may have
different site area, density, structure height, setbacks, and off-street parking and loading
requirements. The facility received use permit approval in 2000. The following table shows the
development standards that would be approved under the current P-C application.
P-C Development Standard R1-10,000 Standard
Total Site Coverage 90,196 sq. ft. (67.3%) 60%
Total Floor Area 68,955 sq. ft. 4,400 SF maximum1
Height 30 feet 26 feet
Setbacks
Front:
Left Side:
Right Side:
Rear:
32’
26’
16’
46’
1st Story
25’
10’
10’
25’
2nd Story
25’
15’
15’
35’
Existing Improvements: In 2000, Our Lady of Fatima Villa received approval for 68,955 square
feet of facility space 2. The existing buildings include 37 assisted living apartments, “Fireman’s
Hall”, chapel, laundry room, and associated spaces needed for the previously mentioned uses. The
site is currently covered with 87,884 square feet of impervious surfaces, including the parking lot that
would be reconfigured, as described below.
Future Improvements: The applicant is proposing to improve site circulation and add 11 new
parking spaces by adding 2,312 square feet of impervious surface area. The total new lot
coverage will be 90,196 square feet. No other improvements are proposed at this time.
Parking and Circulation: The proposed parking lot will have 68 total parking spaces. Vehicles
may only enter the site from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Vehicles may exit the site from either
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road or Oak Street.
1 Each zoning district has a maximum floor area allowance regardless of lot size. 2 Per UP99-021 and DR99-052 3 For nursing homes, City Code Section 15-35.030(k) requires one parking space for each three beds, each two
employees, and each two doctors providing medical services on a regular basis.
Parking Categories 3 Required Spaces
Beds: 85
Employees: 25-30
Doctors: 12
Minimum needed:
Total provided:
28.33
15
6
50
68
Page 3 of 5
50
Neighbor Correspondence: Staff sent a “Notice of Public Hearing” to all property owners within
500 feet. The public hearing notice and description of the project was also published in the Saratoga
News. No comments have been received as of the writing of this report.
ZONING RECLASSIFICATION FINDINGS
Per City Code 15-60.060(b), the Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may
by ordinance adopt a change of zone to a Planned-Combined district (as applied for or in modified
and/or conditional reclassification form) if, on the basis of the application and the evidence
submitted, the Commission and/or the Council make the following findings:
(1) The change is required to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance set forth in Section
15-05.020. The project meets this finding because the Planned-Combined zoning
reclassification supports the appropriate location of this facility and also promotes the stability
of this institutional land use which conforms to the General Plan.
(2) The proposed location of the planned combined district is in accord with the objectives of
the General Plan and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located. The
project meets this finding because the general plan designation of the subject property is
Community Facility. Furthermore, the facility has previously received conditional use permit
approval in accordance with the zoning ordinance which conditionally permits institutional
facilities in residential zoning districts.
(3) The standards for the development will result in an aesthetic asset to the community and
produce an environment of stable and desirable character consistent with the overall
objectives of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The project meets this finding for the
following reasons. The development received design review approval from the Planning
Commission in 2000. The facility is aesthetically pleasing and has provided a stable and
desirable asset to the community since it was developed. The additional lot coverage needed
for improved parking and site circulation will minimize intrusion into adjacent
neighborhoods; a goal of the General Plan and Zoning Code.
(4) The uses in the development will complement each other and will not adversely affect
existing and proposed land uses in the vicinity or the public health, safety and welfare. The
project meets this finding for the following reasons. The services that the facility offers to its
residents, such as meals, nursing care, and social and recreational activities are transferrable
to the public at large in the form of catering services, nursing education opportunities, and
meeting rooms for various activities. The previously approved uses will not change as a
result of this zoning reclassification and it is not anticipated that continued use of the facility
will have any adverse effect within the site itself or on the larger community. Furthermore,
the associated uses have operated in this location for many years without any known
significant adverse effects on the surrounding uses or the public health, safety and welfare.
Page 4 of 5
51
(5) The application of the combined district furthers two or more of the purposes contained
within Section 15-16.010. The project meets this finding for the following reasons. Firstly,
the Planned-Combined zoning reclassification will provide greater consistency with the
General Plan designation of Community Facility and reinforce the development standards
that were previously approved under the use permit process. Furthermore the property, while
located in a zoning district where the standard lot size is 10,000 square feet, is over three
acres in size and is surrounded by other institutional facilities, community facilities, and
quasi-public uses, which make it uniquely suited for the associated uses. Secondly, the
facility offers many benefits to the community that might not otherwise be attainable in this
location including healthcare services, catering services, public meeting rooms, a voter
polling station, a clinical setting for nursing education, and community classes on wellness,
disaster preparedness, etc.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The reclassification of the R1-10,000 zoning district to a R1-10,000 P-C Planned-Combined district
will not have a significant effect on the environment, and therefore is not subject to CEQA. The
existing uses were previously approved pursuant to a conditional use permit and negative
declaration. All impacts at that time were found to be insignificant for the purposes of CEQA and
that determination has not changed. The additional lot coverage needed for improved site coverage
and parking is exempt from CEQA pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 11 “Accessory
Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of
small parking lots.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Recommendation of Approval
2. Ordinance
3. Proposed Site Development Plan (Exhibit "A")
4. Approved Floor Plans and Elevations (Exhibit "B")
5. Description of Uses Plans (Exhibit "C")
Page 5 of 5
52
RESOLUTION NO. 14-031
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONING APPLICATION ZOA14-0001 FOR A
ZONING RECLASSIFICATION FROM R-1-10,000 TO R-1-10,000 P-C (PLANNED
COMBINED DISTRICT) LOCATED AT 20400 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD
(517-10-015, 517-10-009, 517-10-034)
WHEREAS, On May 15, 2014 Our Lady o f Fatima Villa requested approval of a
Planned-Combined zoning reclassification of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 517-10-015, 517-10-
009, and 517-10-034 from R-1-10,000 to R-1-10,000 P-C. The current facility and associated
uses received design review and conditional use permit approval in the year 2000 (DR99-052
and UP99-021). The applicant is also proposing to add 11 new parking spaces by increasing the
impervious parking area by approximately 2,312 square feet. The foregoing work is described as
the “Project” in this Resolution; and
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 August 13, 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 reclassification of the R1-10,000 zoning district to a R1-10,000 P-C Planned
Combined district will not have a significant effect on the environment, and therefore is not subject
to CEQA. The existing uses were previously approved pursuant to a conditional use permit and
negative declaration. All impacts at that time were found to be insignificant for the purposes of
CEQA and that determination has not changed. The additional lot coverage needed for improved
site coverage and parking is exempt from CEQA pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 11
“Accessory Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the
construction of small parking lots.
Section 3: The project is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan Policies LU 4 in that the
City shall continue to provide sufficient land area for public, quasi-public and similar land uses in
Saratoga.
Section 4: The project is consistent with Saratoga City Code Section 15-16.060(b) in that
the change is required to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance set forth in Section 15-
05.20; and the proposed location of the Planned Combined district is in accord with the
objectives of the General Plan and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located;
53
Resolution No. 14-031
and standards for the development will result in an aesthetic asset to the community and produce
an environment of stable and desirable character consistent with the overall objectives of the
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and the uses in the development will complement each
other and will not adversely affect existing and proposed land uses in the vicinity or the public
health, safety and welfare; and the application of the combined district furthers two or more of
the purposes contained within Section 15-16.010.
Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City
Council approve application ZOA14-0001 for the project located at 20400 Saratoga-Los Gatos
Road, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 13th day of
August 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Chair, Planning Commission
54
Resolution No. 14-031
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ZOA14-0001
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 517-10-015, 517-10-009, 517-10-034
LADY OF FATIMA VILLA; 20400 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. GENERAL
1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of
time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s
successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, or 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. 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 processing fees have been paid
in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained).
4. 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.
5. 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.
55
Resolution No. 14-031
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
6. All permitted and conditional uses per City Code Section 15-16.030 are allowed. Additional
permitted uses include those approved on the basis of the general site development plan
(Exhibit A), floor plan and elevations (Exhibit B), and description of uses (Exhibit C). No
other use shall be established or changed upon the property unless approved pursuant to City
Code Article 15-16 and Section 15-16.060(a).
7. The total permitted site coverage, approved on the basis of Exhibit A, is 90,196 square feet.
8. The total permitted floor area of all structures, approved on the basis of Exhibit B, is 68,955
square feet. The maximum permitted height of any structure, approved on the basis of Exhibit
B, is 30 feet.
9. No other structures or site coverage shall be permitted unless approved pursuant to City Code.
10. All required setbacks shall be per City Code Section 15-12.090 for the R-1-10,000 zoning
district.
56
ORDINANCE __________
AN ORDINANCE REZONING
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 517-10-015, 517-10-009, 517-10-034
FROM R-1-10,000 TO R-1-10,000 P-C (PLANNED COMBINED DISTRICT)
LADY OF FATIMA VILLA; 20400 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Findings
1. Saratoga City Code Article 15-16 establishes the P-C (Planned Combined) District to provide
the City the authority to modify standards of development in an underlying zoning district so as
to achieve the following objectives:
a. To provide a means of guiding development or redevelopment of properties in areas of the
City that are uniquely suited for a variety of design and development patterns and standards.
b. To provide greater flexibility of land use and design for a development that provides a public
benefit that would not otherwise be attainable through strict application of the zoning
regulations. A public benefit could include, but is not limited to, buildings that exceed the
City's green building standards, provides community facilities that are open to the public, or
allows for innovative in-fill design.
c. To encourage innovative design in a development that achieves one or more specific goals
and policies of the General Plan that would otherwise not be attainable through strict
application of the zoning regulations.
2. A Planned Combined District may be combined with any zoning district upon the granting of a
change of zone in accord with the provisions of Article 15-16. A Planned Combined district shall
be designated by the symbol "P-C" following the zoning district designation with which it is
combined.
3. Community centers, private recreational centers, social halls, lodges, clubs, restaurants and
medical centers, to be used by the residents of the Planned Combined district and their guests are
the types of uses which may be established or changed upon the property with which the P-C
district is combined.
4. The City Council may by ordinance adopt a change of zone to a Planned Combined district as
applied for or in modified and/or conditional reclassification, as set forth in the Resolution of
Approval 14-031 (Attachment 1).
5. Consistent with the General Plan standards for the P-C district, including residential density, the
City Council has authority to grant exceptions to the zoning regulations pertaining to
development standards (e.g., floor area, lot coverage, height) without compliance with the
provisions of Article 15-70 relating to variances. The City Council may require such
development to contain a common green and/or other common area features.
1
57
6. The City of Saratoga Planning Commission and City Council have each found that that the
change is required to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance set forth in Section 15-
05.020, and following additional findings required in support of the rezoning to R-1-10,000 P-C:
a. That the proposed location of the Planned Combined district is in accord with the objectives
of the General Plan and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located.
b. That standards for the development will result in an aesthetic asset to the community and
produce an environment of stable and desirable character consistent with the overall
objectives of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
c. That the uses in the development will complement each other and will not adversely affect
existing and proposed land uses in the vicinity or the public health, safety and welfare.
That the application of the combined district furthers two or more of the purposes
contained within Section 15-16.010 (as set forth above, particularly purposes (b) and (c)
under Finding 1 above).
7. The City Council of the City of Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing on September 17,
2014, and after considering all testimony and written materials provided in connection with that
hearing introduced this ordinance and waived the reading thereof.
Therefore, the City Council hereby amends the City Code as follows:
Section 1. Adoption.
The Saratoga City Zoning Map is amended to conditionally rezone Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 517-
10-015, 517-10-009, 517-10-034 (also known as 20400 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga,
California from R-1-10,000 TO R-1-10,000 P-C (Planned Combined District) subject to the
conditions specified in Attachment 1 hereto.
Section 2. Severance Clause.
The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause
and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section,
paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section,
paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, the City
Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective
of the portion held invalid, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this
ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated.
Section 3. California Environmental Quality Act
The reclassification of the R1-10,000 zoning district to a R1-10,000 P-C Planned Combined district
will not have a significant effect on the environment, and therefore is not subject to CEQA. The
existing uses were previously approved pursuant to a conditional use permit and negative
declaration. All impacts at that time were found to be insignificant for the purposes of CEQA and
that determination has not changed. The additional lot coverage needed for improved site coverage
and parking is exempt from CEQA pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 11 “Accessory
Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of
small parking lots.
2
58
Section 4. Publication.
A summary of this ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of
Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption.
Following a duly notice public hearing the foregoing ordinance was introduced at the regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 17th day of September, 2014, and
was adopted by the following vote on October 1st, 2014.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED: ATTEST:
_________________________________ _____________________________
EMILY LO CRYSTAL BOTHELIO
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
Saratoga, California Saratoga, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________________
RICHARD TAYLOR, CITY ATTORNEY
3
59
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ORDINANCE _______
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 517-10-015, 517-10-009, 517-10-034
OUR LADY OF FATIMA VILLA; 20400 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. All permitted and conditional uses per City Code Section 15-16.030 are allowed. Additional
permitted uses include those approved on the basis of the general site development plan (Exhibit
A), floor plan and elevations (Exhibit B), and description of uses (Exhibit C). No other use shall
be established or changed upon the property unless approved pursuant to City Code Article 15-
16 and Section 15-16.060(a).
2. The total permitted site coverage, approved on the basis of Exhibit A, is 90,196 square feet.
3. The total permitted floor area of all structures, approved on the basis of Exhibit B, is 68,955
square feet. The maximum permitted height of any structure, approved on the basis of Exhibit B,
is 30 feet.
4. No other structures or site coverage shall be permitted unless approved pursuant to City Code.
5. All required setbacks shall be per City Code Section 15-12.090 for the R-1-10,000 zoning
district.
4
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
REPORT TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: August 13, 2014
Application: Design Review PDR14-0012
Location / APN: 18844 Dundee Avenue / 389-17-049
Owner/Applicant: Deepak Sharma and Ana Stefan / Michelle Minor Design
Staff Planner: Cindy McCormick, Planner, AICP
18844 Dundee Avenue
Page 1 of 5
72
Summary
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new two-
story home and basement. The project will replace an existing 1,125 square foot home, while
retaining the 434 square foot attached garage. The total floor area including the existing garage is
3,197 square feet. The proposed height is 25 feet, six inches.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 14-030 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.
PROJECT DATA:
Site Area: 10,000 sq. ft.
Average Slope: level site
General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (M-10)
Zoning: Single-Family Residential (R1-10,000)
Proposed Allowed/Required
Site Coverage
Residential Footprint
Porch and Patios
Driveway/Walkways
Lightwell
Total Site Coverage
Front Yard Hardscape
2,118 sq. ft.
1,424 sq. ft.
1,350 sq. ft.
240 sq. ft.
5,132 sq. ft. (52%)
955 sq. ft. (48%)
6,000 SF (60%) Maximum
1,000 SF Maximum (50% of (25*80))
Floor Area
First Floor
Second Floor
Garage:
Total Floor Area
Basement
1,684 sq. ft.
1,079 sq. ft.
434 sq. ft.
3,197 sq. ft.
1,684 sq. ft.
3,200 sq. ft. Maximum
Height (Residence)
Lowest Elevation Point:
Highest Elevation Point:
Average Elevation Point:
Proposed Topmost Point:
.0’ (base reference)
.5’
.25’
25’6”
26 feet Maximum
Setbacks
Front:
Left Side:
Right Side:
Rear:
1st Story
25’-0”
8’-4”
16’-6”
46’-8”
2nd Story
31’-0”
13’-0”
19’-8”
46’-8”
1st Story
25’
8’
8’
25
2nd Story
25’
13’
13’
35
Application No. PDR 14-0012; 18844 Dundee Avenue / 389-17-049 Page 2 of 5
73
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Neighborhood: The property is located on Dundee Avenue in the vicinity of Kevin Street and
McDole Avenue. Most of the homes in the immediate vicinity are older homes, including the
subject home. The applicant surveyed 11 homes in the neighborhood and determined that the
majority of the older homes are approximately 15 to 16 feet in height with some of the newer homes
being approximately 18 feet in height, including the home across the street.
Site Design: The non-conforming lot is 80 feet wide, permitting the owner to have a reduced side
yard setback of eight feet. The proposed home meets the minimum front and left side yard setback
while providing a 16 foot right side yard setback and a 46 foot rear yard setback. The applicant
considered reversing the floor plan and/or increasing the left side setback but preferred to retain the
existing stamped concrete driveway and patio area on the right side of the property.
Building Design: Overall, the proposed stucco exterior and moderate entry height is similar to
homes in the neighborhood, while the varied setback of the second story helps minimize its
appearance from the street. To help further integrate the home into the neighborhood, the
applicant has made several design changes to the original proposal, as follows:
To minimize the perception of height, scale, and mass, the applicant has made several changes to
the design including window placement, roof lines, and plate heights. The applicant lowered the
living room plate height from 14 feet to 12 feet to bring it more in line with the neighbor to the
left. This effectively lowered the highest point of the living room roof from 18 feet to 16 feet. To
further reduce the mass of the façade, the applicant changed the roof over the dining room from a
hip design to a gable design. The applicant also made changes to the placement of windows on
the front elevation, bringing more balance to the overall façade.
To minimize privacy impacts, the applicant revised the design to obscure two second-story
windows and increase the sill height of one second-story window that could have a direct view
into the windows of the neighbor to the left. Likewise, the applicant revised the design to obscure
a second-story window that could have a direct view into the window of the neighbor to the
right. The applicant also removed one of two second-story balconies. For the rear-facing
balcony, the applicant designed a privacy wall screening the property to the left, while
maintaining a 28 foot setback from the property to the right.
Detail Colors and Materials
Exterior Medium Brown colored stucco
Window Trim Dark brown windows with tan colored trim
Front Door Brown stained wood, glass, and wrought-iron
Garage Door Brown stained wood
Roof Variegated brown colored barrel tiles
Application No. PDR 14-0012; 18844 Dundee Avenue / 389-17-049 Page 3 of 5
74
Landscape Design: The landscape plan proposes 955 square feet (48%) of hardscape and at least
50% live or decorative landscaping in the front yard. The front yard will be landscaped with new
grass and drought tolerant plantings. The existing tree in the front yard will be retained and
accented by tan bark. The existing stamped concrete driveway will be also retained and a new
paver walkway will provide access to the front door.
Trees: No protected trees are proposed for removal.
CalGreen Standards: The project will comply with the required Calgreen standards.
Additionally, the applicant is proposing energy efficient appliances.
Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: A public notice was sent to property owners within
500 feet of the site. The property owner also distributed notification forms to seven adjacent
neighbors, five of which had comments (Attachment 3). Neighbor comments included concerns
about privacy, architectural consistency with the neighborhood, sight-lines on adjacent streets, and
views of the sky and trees. Staff has worked with the applicant to better integrate the home into the
neighborhood through building design changes as previously described. Privacy impacts have been
reasonably minimized by obscuring windows, increasing sill height, and removing one of two
balconies. Second story setbacks help minimize impacts to viewsheds from the street.
DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS:
The findings required for issuance of a Design Review approval pursuant to City Code Article 15-
45 are set forth below. The Applicant has met the burden of proof to support the required findings:
(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 because the
lot is relatively flat and the new home has been proposed within the general footprint of the
existing home, requiring minimal grading.
(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. The project meets this finding in that no trees will be removed.
(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. The project meets this finding because the site plan and home have been designed to
reasonably minimize privacy and viewshed impacts. Viewshed impacts have been reasonably
minimized by designing the home with varied second story setbacks from the street and a larger
than required open area in the rear yard and along the right side yard. Privacy impacts have been
reasonably minimized by either obscuring or minimizing the size of second story side windows
that directly face neighbor’s windows. Privacy impacts from the rear facing balcony have been
reasonably minimized with a privacy wall between the balcony and the property to the left,
and a 28 foot setback from the property to the right.
Application No. PDR 14-0012; 18844 Dundee Avenue / 389-17-049 Page 4 of 5
75
(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. The project meets this finding because the
two-story home has been designed with single story features which reduce its visual mass,
height, and scale. The second story is well-proportioned and is setback from the street. The entry
has been designed in proportion to the home itself and with the neighborhood. The garage and
living room are single-story in height, bringing the home into scale with neighboring residences.
The gable roof lines are compatible with adjacent residences and deemphasize some of the taller
features of the home. Furthermore, the design incorporates similar building materials and exterior
paint colors as those found in the neighborhood.
(e) The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements
that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape. The project meets this finding. The
site plan proposes 955 square feet of hardscape in the front yard, most of which is currently
existing. The existing stamped concrete driveway will be softened in appearance by grass and
new drought tolerant plantings.
(f) Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to
utilize solar energy. The project meets this finding in that impacts to solar access are minimized
by designing the site plan with a large south facing rear yard.
(g) The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential
Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. The project meets this finding because the
building design and site plan incorporate several techniques from the Residential Design
Handbook, including second-story setbacks, a single-story garage, and moderate entry height,
open space for solar access, and colors and materials that are compatible with the neighborhood.
(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 is not applicable because the lot is relatively level.
Environmental Determination: 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.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval
2. Public Notice
3. Neighbor Comment Forms
4. Development Plans (Exhibit "A")
Application No. PDR 14-0012; 18844 Dundee Avenue / 389-17-049 Page 5 of 5
76
RESOLUTION NO: 14-030
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION PDR14-0012 FOR A NEW TWO STORY
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 18844 DUNDEE AVENUE (389-17-049)
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2014 an application was submitted for Design Review approval
of a new two-story home and basement. The proposed height is 25 feet, six inches. The total floor
area including the existing garage is 3,197 square feet. The project replaces an existing 1,125 square
foot home, while retaining the 434 square foot attached garage. The site is located within the R1-
10,000 Residential 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 August 13, 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 new
construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings
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 site development
follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s
natural constraints; all protected trees have been preserved; 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; the overall mass and the height of the structure,
and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood; the
landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are
complementary to the neighborhood streetscape; development of the site does not unreasonably
impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy; and the design of the structure and
the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook.
77
Resolution No. 14-030
Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR14-0012
located at 18844 Dundee 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 13th day of
August 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Chair, Planning Commission
78
Resolution No. 14-030
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PDR14-0012
18844 DUNDEE AVENUE / 389-17-049
GENERAL CONDITIONS
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
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.
79
Resolution No. 14-030
5. 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",
and as conditioned below. 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.
6. 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.
80
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, August 13, 2014 at 7:00 p.m.
The Public Hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue.
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.
ADDRESS/APN: 18844 Dundee Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070
APPLICANT/OWNER: Deepak Sharma and Ana Stefan
APPLICATION: PDR14-0012
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing a new 2-story home and basement.
The proposed height is approximately 26 feet. The total floor area including the existing garage
is 3,197 square feet. The project replaces an existing 1,125 square foot home, while retaining the
434 square foot attached garage.
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a
decision of the Planning Commission, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the meeting.
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.
Cynthia McCormick, Planner, AICP
(408) 868-1230
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No./Location: PDR14-0009/ARB13-0077 / 14584 Horseshoe Drive Lot B
Type of Application: Design Review application for a proposed 4,517 square foot
new two story home on a vacant site
Applicant/Owner: Ravi Ramachandran
Staff Planner: Chris Riordan
Meeting Date: August 13, 2014
APN: 397-20-104
14584 Horseshoe Court Lot B
SITE
98
Page 2 of 5
SUMMARY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct an approximately 4,517
square foot, two-story single-family dwelling and related site landscaping. The net site area
is .463 acres or 20,151 square feet and is zoned R-1-20,000.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. 14-033 approving Design Review PDR14-0009 and ARB13-0077
subject to conditions of approval.
Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required for any new multi-story
main structure - City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(1).
PROJECT DATA:
Gross Site Area: 20,151 square feet
Average Site Slope: 7.7%
General Plan Designation: RLD (Low Density Residential)
Grading: 356 cubic yards
Proposed Allowable/Required
Proposed Site Coverage
Main House:
Covered Porch
Driveway:
Hardscape/Walkways/Patio:
Total Proposed Site Coverage
3,122 SF
223 SF
2,487 SF
1,145 SF
6,977 SF (34%)
9,068 SF
Floor Area
First Floor:
Second Floor:
Attached Garage
Total Proposed Floor Area
2,422.5 SF
1,395.4 SF
699.5 SF
4,517.4 SF
4,518 SF
Height (Residence)
Lowest Elevation Point
Highest Elevation Point
Average Elevation Point
Proposed Topmost Point
484.00 FT
488.50 FT
486.25 FT
512.25 (26.00 FT)
Maximum Height
= 512.25(26 Feet)
Setbacks
Front:
Rear:
Left Side:
Right Side:
34’-0”
75’-6”
20’-8”
31’-3”
30’
35’
15’
15’
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The project site is vacant. The project site was identified as Lot B on a Tentative Map
approved by the Planning Commission on May 9, 2012. The lot containing the house at
the corner of Horseshoe Drive and Horseshoe Court was designated as Lot ‘A’ and is
99
Application No. PDR14-0009, ARB13-0077 / 14584 Horseshoe Court Lot B
Page 3 of 5
24,133 square feet in size and the subject parcel was designated as Lot ‘B’ and is 20,151
square feet.
The project for Lot B would include the construction of a new two story single-family
residence. The 4,517 square foot residence would be 26 feet in height and includes an
attached garage. No additional structures are proposed. The residence would have a cement
plaster exterior and would include a combination of arched and square wood clad
windows, a clay tile roof, and wrought iron detailing. Along with the Development Plans
(Attachment #7), the applicant has also submitted architectural renderings which are
included as Attachment #4. A colors and materials board is on file with the Community
Development Department and will be present at the site visit and public hearing. The
following table lists the proposed exterior materials.
Detail Colors and Materials
Exterior Beige colored cement plaster
Trim Light tan colored cast-stone sills and columns
Windows Light tan colored wood clad
Entry Door Stained wood
Garage Door Stained wood
Roof “Old World Blend” clay tiles
Trees
The project arborist inventoried 34 trees on the project site protected by city ordinance
and the project is proposing the removal of 11 of these trees. Trees to be removed
include Coast Live oaks, Monterey pines, and Acacia’s. With the exception of a nine inch
Coast Live oak in good condition impacted by the construction of the driveway, the
remaining ten trees are either in poor or fair condition. Trees to be saved would be
protected during construction by chain link fencing installed per the recommendations of
the City Arborist. This fencing must be installed and inspected and the tree protection
deposit provided to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicant
would be required to submit a $40,000 security deposit (100% of their appraised value)
for the protection of trees with the potential of being impacted by the project.
Replacement trees with a value of $22,000 must be installed prior to completion of the
project.
A full discussion of the trees to be removed and or preserved and the required tree
protection fencing is included in the City Arborist report 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 as Attachment #5.
Neighbor Notification and Correspondence
The applicant has shown the proposed plans to adjacent neighbors. The project does not
include a circular driveway but the neighbor located at 20021 Bella Vista did include a
comment objecting to the possibility of the project including such a driveway. The adjacent
100
Application No. PDR14-0009, ARB13-0077 / 14584 Horseshoe Court Lot B
Page 4 of 5
neighbor located at 14584 Horseshoe Drive is in support of the design. The applicant made
repeated attempts but was unsuccessful in getting project comments from the rear neighbor
at 14582 Horseshoe Drive. Completed Neighbor Notification forms are included as
Attachment #4.
Staff mailed a “Notice of Public Hearing” to all property owners within 500 feet of the
subject property (Attachment #3). The public hearing notice and description of the project
was published in the Saratoga News. No additional written comments, either positive or
negative, were received prior to the completion of this staff report.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant
Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the
Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of one single-
family residence in a residential area.
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.
(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
because the site development and grading is located in a predominantly level area and
is concentrated towards the center of the site thereby preserving the sites existing
contours.
(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 because the City Arborist has determined that
the 11 trees proposed for removal are consistent with the tree removal criteria
allowing removal and replacement as part of the project.
(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 because the size of
the parcel and existing vegetation and trees would screen views of the residence from
the rear neighbor. In addition, the project does not include second story balconies and
the windows facing the nearest property have been minimized in size and number.
The project would not impact any identified 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
101
Application No. PDR14-0009, ARB13-0077 / 14584 Horseshoe Court Lot B
Page 5 of 5
the affirmative because the tallest portion of the structure is located toward the middle
of the building footprint, the architectural elements are simple and well-proportioned
with respect to the entire structure and include varying architectural forms, shapes,
and roof heights, all setbacks meet or exceed the minimum dimensions, the entrance
is in scale with the design of the home, and a horizontal orientation of the building
footprint reduces the vertical perception of height.
(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 because the hardscape in the front setback area
is limited to the driveway which is composed of permeable pavers. The proposed
landscape design would be complementary to the neighborhood streetscape and
existing landscaping of the area as the project would include dense landscaping
along the Horseshoe Court frontage.
(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
because the house is located approximately at the center of the site and the second
story setbacks exceed the minimum requirements which when taken together would
minimize shadows being cast on adjacent properties which could limit or reduce their
solar energy opportunities.
(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 can be
made in the affirmative because 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
because the project site is not located in the Hillside Residential Zoning District nor
does the site have a slope in excess of 10% which would classify it as a ‘Hillside’ lot.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Arborist Report dated July 8, 2014.
3. Neighbor Notification Forms
4. Project Renderings
5. CalGreen Checklist
6. Public hearing notice
7. Reduced Plans (Exhibit A)
102
RESOLUTION NO: 14-033
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PDR14-0009
LOCATED AT 14584 HORSESHOE COURT LOT B
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2014, an application was submitted by Ravi Ramachandran
requesting Design Review approval to construct a new two story home and related site
improvements located at 14584 Horseshoe Court Lot B. The project has a total floor area of 4,417
square feet. The height of the proposed residence is approximately 26 feet. The site is located
within the R-1-20,000 Zoning District (APN 397-20-104).
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 August 13, 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 allows for the construction of one
single-family residence in a residential area.
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; 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 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
103
Resolution No. 14-033
neighborhood streetscape; does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize
solar energy; and is consistent with the Residential Design Review Handbook.
Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR14-0009,
located at 14584 Horseshoe Court Lot B, 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 13th day of
August 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Chair, Planning Commission
104
Resolution No. 14-033
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
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
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
105
Resolution No. 14-033
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 current 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.
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.
106
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
ARBORIST REPORT
Application No: ARB13-0077
Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 14584 Horseshoe Court Lot B
Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Ravi Ramachandran
Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 397-20-104
Email: ravir_1@hotmail.com
Report History:
Report #1
Date:
Plans received May 8, 2014
Report completed May 27, 2014
Report #2 – This report replaces report 1
Revised plans received June 30, 2014
Report completed July 8, 2014
PROJECT SCOPE:
The applicant has submitted plans to the City to build a new two story house with attached three car
garage on a vacant lot.
Eleven trees protected by Saratoga City Code (trees 23, 24, 25, 30, 31, 36, 37, 38, 53, 54 and 55)
have been requested for removal to construct the project. They meet the tree removal criteria,
allowing removal and replacement as part of the project. Details are in the Findings section below.
STATUS: Approved by City Arborist to proceed, with conditions (attached).
PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF:
Tree bond – Required - $40,000
For trees 19 – 22, 26 – 29, 33, 48, 52 and 56.
Tree fencing – Required – See Conditions of Approval and attached map.
Tree removals –
Permitted once building permits have been issued.
Replacement trees – Required - $22,000
For trees 23, 24, 25, 30, 31, 36, 37, 38, 53, 54 and 55.
107
14584 Horseshoe Court Lot B
FINDINGS:
Tree Removals
Pursuant to Saratoga City Code Article 15-50.080, whenever a tree is requested for removal, certain
findings must be made and specific tree removal criteria met. Eleven trees are requested for removal
to construct the project. All of them meet the criteria allowing them to be removed and replaced as
part of the project, once building division permits have been obtained. Attachment 3 contains the
tree removal criteria for reference and the paragraphs below provide additional information on how
specific trees qualify for removal.
Table 1: Summary of Tree Removal Criteria Met
Tree No. Criteria met Criteria not met
23, 24 1, 2, 4, 7, 9 3, 5, 6, 8
25, 54, 55, 1, 4, 6, 7, 9 2, 3, 5, 8
30, 31 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 2, 3, 5
36, 37, 38, 53 1, 4, 7, 8, 9 2, 3, 5, 6
Trees 25, 54 and 55 consist of one coast live oak and two Monterey pines in fair condition that grow
in the center of the property within the footprint of the house (criterion 1). There is no feasible
alternative to removing these three trees to construct the house (criterion 6).
Trees 23 and 24 are coast live oaks that grow under PG&E lines and have been topped to provide
line clearance. They are both young trees in fair condition, and are in conflict with the house and a
retaining wall around it. They would likely not survive construction due to their proximity to
improvements (criterion 1). If they were left in place and survived, they would likely cause damage
to the house and retaining wall in the future (criterion 2).
Trees 30 and 31 are a young oak in poor condition and a leaning acacia in fair condition. Although
they are not in conflict with the project, the oak will likely never improve in health or structure, and
the acacia cannot have its structure improved (criteria 6 and 8). The site would be better served by
planting new trees as part of the project.
Trees 36, 37, 38 and 53 consist of three oaks (36, 37 and 53) and one acacia (38). Trees 36 – 38 are
in poor condition and trees 36 and 53 are in conflict with the proposed driveway (criterion 1). Oak
tree 37 leans on and grows into acacia tree 38 which leans over the street. The two trees are
intertwined and cannot be separated. Trees 37 and 38 cannot have their health or structure improved
with care.
All trees requested for removal meet criteria 4, 7 and 9. There are many trees on the property that
provide scenic beauty, shade and privacy for the site (criterion 4). Replacement of these trees with
new trees as part of the project is consistent with the tree regulations (criterion 7), and provides
economic and other enjoyment of the property (criterion 9).
108
14584 Horseshoe Court Lot B
Replacement Trees:
The total appraised value of trees 23, 24, 25, 30, 31, 36, 37, 38, 53, 54 and 55 is $22,000. New trees
equal to this appraised value will be required as a condition of the project. Replacement trees may be
planted anywhere on the property where they do not interfere with established trees on site.
The planting plan and legend of new trees do not correlate with each other. There are more
dogwoods than specified, and no redbud trees. This should be corrected for the final plans so that
they are consistent and meet the required replacement values. The applicant may plant tree species of
his choosing and select their locations on the property. Replacement values for trees are listed below.
New Construction
Based on the information provided, and as conditioned, this project complies with the requirements
for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15-50.120 of the City Code.
The design has been modified to meet the setbacks recommended in the arborist report submitted by
David Laczko of Ian Geddes and Associates, dated February 13, 2014. They are listed below.
Table 2: Setbacks for tree protection fencing recommended in the submitted arborist report.
Tree No. Distance required Comments
16 - 22 10 feet Oaks 19 and 20 impacted by the retaining wall and steps.
33 7 feet Flowering plum impacted by driveway close to tree.
46 13 feet Oak impacted by excavation for wall at 12 feet, or closer, to
tree at edge of driveway.
47, 48, 52 9 feet Tree 52 impacted by wall about 5 feet from tree.
56 – 58 11 feet Tree 56 impacted by wall about 7 feet from tree.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 – Plans Reviewed and Tree Information
2 – Conditions of Approval
3 – Tree Removal Criteria
4 – Map of Site showing tree locations and protective fencing
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
IMPORTANT
This entire report, including attachments, shall be copied onto a plan
sheet, titled “Tree Preservation”, and included in the final set of plans.
109
14584 Horseshoe Court Lot B Attachment 1
PLAN REVIEW:
Architectural Plans reviewed:
Preparer: Chris Spaulding, Architect
Date of Plans: April 17, 2014
Sheet A1 Site Plan and Cover Sheet
Sheet A2 First Floor Plan
Sheet A3 Second Floor Plan
Sheets A4 and A5 Elevations
Sheet A6 Sections
Landscape Plans reviewed:
Preparer: DuBridge Landscape Architecture
Date of Plans: June 27, 2014
No number Planting Plan
Civil Plans reviewed:
Preparer: LE Engineering
Date of Plans: January 2014, Revised June 2014
Sheet C1 Grading and Drainage Plan
Sheet C2 Sections, Details and Erosion Control
TREE DATA:
Arborist Report:
Preparer: David Lazcko, Ian Geddes and Associates
Date of Report: February 13, 2014
An arborist report was submitted for review. It inventoried 34 trees on site, provided tree
protection recommendations and included appraised values of trees. The 34 inventoried trees
included 27 coast live oaks (14, 14a, 15, 17 – 30, 36, 37, 46 – 48, 52, 53, and 56 – 58), 1 valley
oak (16), 2 Monterey pines (54 and 55), 2 acacias (31 and 38), one flowering plum (33) and one
unidentified tree (13a).
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 was used in conjunction with the Species Classification and
Group Assignment, published by the Western Chapter of the ISA, 2004.
110
14584 Horseshoe Court Lot B Attachment 1
Table 3: Tree data from the February 13, 2014 arborist report submitted by Ian Geddes
and Associates.
111
14584 Horseshoe Court Lot B Attachment 1
Table 4: This table compares species, size, and condition of trees with tree protection zone. This
table combines data provided in the February 13, 2014 arborist report with data I collected on
site on February 24, 2014. Shaded cells indicate trees requested for removal to construct the
project.
Tree
Number
Species
DBH
Canopy
Condition of
Tree
Tree Protection
Zone Required
13a Unidentified 16.5” 30 ft. Good 8 feet
14 Oak 14” 20 ft. Good 8 feet
14a Oak 7” 20 ft. Good 8 feet
15 Oak 12.5” 35 ft. Good 8 feet
16 Oak 13” 50 ft. Good 10 feet
17 Oak 18.5” 20 ft. Fair 10 feet
18 Oak 11” 30 ft. Good 10 feet
19 Oak 19” 35 ft. Good 10 feet
20 Oak 21” 40 ft. Good 10 feet
21 Oak 14” 30 ft. Good 10 feet
22 Oak 9” 15 ft. Good 10 feet
23 Oak 7.5” 12 ft. Fair Not required
24 Oak 9” 20 ft. Fair Not required
25 Oak 18” 30 ft. Fair Not required
26 Oak 14” 30 ft. Good 12 feet
27 Oak 23” 15 ft. Fair 12 feet
28 Oak 18” 30 ft. Good 12 feet
29 Oak 13” 20 ft. Fair 12 feet
30 Oak 8” 25 ft. Poor Not required
31 Acacia 15” 40 ft. Fair Not required
33 Flowering plum 14” 25 ft. Fair 8 feet
36 Oak 18” 35 ft. Poor Not required
37 Oak 15” 25 ft. Poor Not required
38 Acacia 11” 25 ft. Poor Not required
46 Oak 26” 30 ft. Fair 13 feet
47 Oak 10” 25 ft. Good 9 feet
48 Oak 9” 25 ft. Good 9 feet
52 Oak 24” 55 ft. Good 9 feet
53 Oak 9” 20 ft. Good Not required
54 Monterey pine 35” 40 ft. Fair Not required
55 Monterey pine 22” 30 ft. Fair Not required
56 Oak 14” 25 ft. Fair 11 feet
57 Oak 22” 50 ft. Good 11 feet
58 Oak 18” 30 ft. Fair 11 feet
112
14584 Horseshoe Court Lot B Attachment 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. This entire arborist report shall be copied on to a plan sheet, titled “Tree Preservation” and
included in the final job copy set of plans.
2. The arborist report submitted by David Lazcko of Ian Geddes and Associates, dated February
13, 2014 shall be copied onto a plan sheet and included in the final job copy set of plans.
3. Tree Protection Security Deposit - $40,000
a. Shall be for the protection of trees 19 – 22, 26 – 29, 33, 48, 52 and 56.
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.
4. Tree Protection Fencing:
a. Shall be installed as shown on the attached map.
b. Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site.
c. 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.
d. Shall include a six inch layer of mulch inside of fences.
e. Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR
REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, KATE BEAR (408)
868-1276”.
f. 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.
g. Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final
inspection.
h. If contractor feels that work must be done inside the fenced area, call City Arborist to
arrange a field meeting.
5. The designated Project Arborist shall be David Lazcko of Ian Geddes and Associates, unless
otherwise approved by the City prior to receiving Planning approval.
6. All conditions of the submitted arborist report dated February 13, 2014 shall become
conditions of approval for this project.
7. The Project arborist shall visit the site every two weeks during grading activities, and
monthly thereafter, until the completion of the project.
8. The Project Arborist shall monitor all work within 15 feet of trees 19 – 22, 26 – 29, 33, 46,
52 and 56.
9. Following completion of the project, and before a final inspection, the applicant shall provide
a letter to the City from the Project Arborist. That letter shall document the work performed
Page 1 of 2
113
14584 Horseshoe Court Lot B Attachment 2
around trees, include photos of the work in progress, and provide information on the
condition of the trees.
10. Trenching to install new utilities shall not be permitted inside tree protection fencing.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site shall be performed under the
supervision of the Project Arborist and according to ISA standards.
15. Trees 23, 24, 25, 30, 31, 36, 37, 38, 53, 54 and 55 meet the criteria for removal and
replacement as part of the project, and may be removed and replaced once Building Division
permits have been obtained.
16. New trees equal to $22,000 shall be planted as part of the project before final inspection and
occupancy of the new home. New trees may be of any species and planted anywhere on the
property as long as they do not encroach on retained trees.
17. 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
18. Only drought tolerant plants that are compatible with oaks are permitted under the outer half
of the canopy of oak trees on site.
19. 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.
20. 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.
Page 2 of 2
114
14584 Horseshoe Court Attachment 3
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, and whether the tree is a Dead tree or a
Fallen tree.
(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
(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.
(10) The necessity to remove the tree for installation and efficient operation of solar panels, subject to the
requirements that the tree(s) to be removed, shall not be removed until solar panels have been installed
and replacement trees planted in conformance with the City Arborist's recommendation.
115
25
Attachment 4
14584 Horseshoe Court Lot B
Legend
Tree Canopy
Tree Protection
Fence
33
31
55
54 53
46
38
37 36
52
48
47 30
28 29
27
26
24
23
19
20
21
22
18
17 16
56 57
58
13a
14 14a
15 13
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
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 13th day of August 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: PDR14-0009 / 14584 Horseshoe Court Lot B
OWNER: Ravi Ramachandran
APN: 397-20-104
DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct an approximately
4,417 square foot, two-story single-family dwelling and related site landscaping. The net site area is
.463 acres or 20,151 square feet and is zoned R-1-20,000. Design Review approval by the
Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060.
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a
decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information
to be included in the Planning Commission’s information packets, written communications should
be filed on or before Monday, August 11, 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
132
SITE PLAN1" = 16' - 0"VICINITY MAPSITE & PROJECT DATA:- DESCRIPTION:BUILD A NEW 2-STORY HOUSE ON A SUBDIVISION LOT- APN: A PORTION OF 397-20-104- PROJECT ADDRESS: PORTION OF14584 HORSESHOE CT, SARATOGA, CA- OWNER: RAVI RAMACHANDRAN-EXISTING USE: SINGLE FAMILY HOME- BUILDING OCCUPANCY: R-3 / U- BUILDING TYPE: V-B- ZONING DISTRICT: R-1-20,000- AVERAGE SLOPE: UNDER 10 %-1(7 *5266/276,=( 64)7§$&5(-ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: 4,050 + (78) 6 = 4,518 SQ. FT.- ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE = 45 %SITE COVERAGESQ. FOOTAGE% OF NET LOT SIZEFOOTPRINT OF HOME 3,122 15.49COVERED PORCH 223 1.1DRIVEWAY 2,487 12.34WALK, PATIO, LANDING 1,145 5.68POOL 0 0TOTAL 6,977 34SETBACKSIMPERVIOUS COV. TABLE SETBACK TABLE
HEIGHTLOWEST ELEVATION POINT (AT BUILDING'S EDGE FR NATURAL GRADE)484.0'HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT (AT BUILDING'S EDGE FR NATURAL GRADE) AVERAGE ELEVATION TOP MOST ELEVATION POINT (FR AVERAGE PT TO HIGHEST PT OF ROOF) HEIGHT INFORMATION
TABLELIVING AREAGARAGETOTAL FLOOR AREAFLOOR AREA TABLE
ENCLOSED PORCHTOTAL04,517.4488.5'486.25'512.25'PLOTTED ON SURVEY BY LC ENGINEERING, DATED 3-27-2013. LC PHONE # (408) 806-7187SETBACK VERIFICATION NOTE:PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION BY THE CITY, THE LLS OF RECORD SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION THAT ALL BUILDING SETBACKS ARE PER THEAPPROVED PLANSSTORMWATER RETENTION NOTE:DISPOSITION AND TREATMENT OF STORMWATER WILL COMPLY WITH THE NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) STANDARDS ANDIMPLEMENTATION STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY RUNOFF POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAMA1699.52ND FLOOR1,395.41ST FLOOR2,422.51ST FLRREQ'D1ST FLRPROPOSED2ND FLRREQUIREDCOMPLIANCE?2ND FLRPROPOSEDFRONTLEFT SIDERIGHT SIDEREAR30'15'15'35'34'-0"20'-8"31'-3"30'25'25'45'44'-4"39'-0"49'-6"YESYESYESYES25
'
-0
"
2ND
F
L
R
R
EQ
'D39'-0
"
P
RO
POS
ED2ND
F
L
R
L
E
F
T
S
ID
E 35'-0" 1ST FLR REQ'D45'-0" 2ND FLR REQ'D75'-512" PROPOSED1ST FLR REAR92'-912" PROPOSED2ND FLR REARPORCHPORCH92'-912"15'-0"1ST FLRRIGHT-SIDEREQ'D25'-0" 2ND FLRRIGHT-SIDE REQ'DPROPOSEDNEW 2-STORYHOUSE1ST FLR SUBFLR 487.5'2ND FLR SUBFLR 498.05'2ND FLOOREXTERIORPERIMETERCONC.WALKCONC.DRIVEWAYSHEETSSHEETOFSCALE:DATE:DRAWN:JOB:PERMIT SETCONSTRUCTION SETPRELIMINARY SETPLAN CHECK SETDESIGN REVIEW SETREVISIONSBYA R C H I T E C T CHRIS SPAULDING(510) 527-5997 FAX (510) 527-5999BERKELEY CALIFORNIA 94710801 CAMELIA STREET SUITE EDRAWINGS PREPARED BYEL/CS/DB/KDRAMACHANDRAN6AS NOTED4-17-14SARATOGA CALIFORNIA
14584 HORSESHOE CT
RAVI RAMACHANDRAN
A PROPOSED NEW 2-STORY HOUSE FOR 6-30-14PORCH487.0'LOW POINT484.0'HIGH POINT488.5'2ND FLOORSETBACK LINE,TYPICAL1ST FLOORSETBACK LINE,TYPICALCONC.DRIVEWAY31'-3"PROPOSED1ST FLRRIGHT SIDE49'-6" PROPOSED2ND FLR RIGHT SIDE20
'
-8
"
P
RO
PO
S
ED1ST
F
LR
L
E
F
T
S
ID
E
30'-0" REQ'D FRONT34'-0" PROPOSED FRONT44'-4" PROPOSED 2ND FLR FRONT75'-512"AVERAGE GRADE486.25'TREE INVENTORYNOTE: DRIVEWAY WILL BEPERVIOUS PAVERS =50% x 12.34 = 6.1%WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE FIREPROTECTION NOTES:-ROOFING SHALL BE CLASS 'A' CLAY TILE ROOF-ROOF VALLEYS SHALL HAVE NOT LESS THAN 26 GA. SHEET METALINSTALLED OVER A MIN. 36" WIDE UNDERLAYMENT OF NO. 72 CAPSHEET RUNNING THE FULL LENGTH OF THE VALLEY-ROOF GUTTERS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH THE MEANS TO PREVENTTHE ACCUMULATION OF LEAVES AND DEBRIS- UNDERSIDES OF EAVES SHALL BE STUCCO OR WOOD PANELINGOVER GYPSUM BOARD, OR FIRE RETARDANT LUMBER-EAVE VENTS WITHIN 12' OF GRADE OR WALKING SURFACE TO BEPROTECTED FROM THE PASSAGE OF FLAMES OR EMBERS. NOTE:PROTECTED VENTS MUST BE APPROVED BY CALFIRE - STANDARDSCREEN VENTS NOT ALLOWED LESS THAN 12' ABOVE GRADE. VENTSMORE THAN 12' ABOVE GRADE OR WALKING SURFACE MAY BESTANDARD SCREEN VENTS-ROOF AND ATTIC VENTS SHALL BE COVERED WITH&25526,215(6,67$17:,5(0(6+:,7+µ0,1$1'0$;MESH OPENINGS (ALL WALL AND STANDARD SCREEN ROOF VENTS)-EXTERIOR WALL COVERING SHALL BE EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER(STUCCO) & SHALL EXTEND FROM TOP OF FOUNDATION TO THE522)7(50,1$7,1*$7µ120,1$/62/,':22'%/2&.,1*BETWEEN RAFTERS AT ALL ROOF OVERHANGS OR TERMINATE ATENCLOSED EAVES-EXTERIOR WALL VENTS (I.E., CRAWL SPACE VENTS, COMBUSTION AIRVENTS, ETC.) SHALL BE COVERED WITH CORROSION-RESISTANT WIRE0(6+:,7+µ0,1$1'0$;0(6+23(1,1*6-ALL EXTERIOR WINDOWS SHALL BE DUAL-PANED WITH A MINIMUM OFONE TEMPERED PANE (INNER OR OUTER PANE) NOTE: HAZARDOUSLOCATIONS STILL REQUIRE SAFETY GLAZING IN ALL PANES.ALL EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL BE:xSOLID-CORE, 1-3/8" MIN. THICK OR UTILIZE MULTIPLE DUAL-PANEDGLAZED PANELS WITH AT LEAST ONE TEMPERED GLASS PANE ORxAPPROVED. LISTED, 20-MINUTE DOOR (PROVIDE SPECIFICATIONSSHOWINGxAPPROVED LISTING TO BUILDING OFFICIAL UPON PLAN REVIEWSUBMITTAL) ORxNONCOMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION (PROVIDE SPECIFICATIONSSHOWING APPROVED LISTING TO BUILDING OFFICIAL UPON PLANREVIEW SUBMITTAL- VEGETATION CLEARANCE SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CBCSECTION 701A.3.2.4 PRIOR TO PROJECT APPROVAL15
'
-0
"
1
S
T
F
L
R
R
EQ
'D133
FIRST FLOOR PLAN1/4"=1'-0"A20510152025LIVING ROOMCOVERED PORCHBREAKFAST NOOKFAMILY ROOMKITCHENHALL3-CAR GARAGECLO.DINING ROOMPORCHFOYERLAUNDRYPORCHPOWDERBATH 3OFFICEBEDROOM 4BEDROOM 5MUDROOM74'-0"5'-6"18'-0"14'-6"8'-0"13'-6"9'-6"5'-0"15'-6"6'-0"2'-0"29'-8"2'-0"
9'-1112"11'-0"16'-012"16'-0"7'-0"4'-8"8'-0"27'-6"10'-6"16'-0"6'-0"2'-6"3'-6"64'-8"SHEETSSHEETOFSCALE:DATE:DRAWN:JOB:PERMIT SETCONSTRUCTION SETPRELIMINARY SETPLAN CHECK SETDESIGN REVIEW SETREVISIONSBYA R C H I T E C T CHRIS SPAULDING(510) 527-5997 FAX (510) 527-5999BERKELEY CALIFORNIA 94710801 CAMELIA STREET SUITE EDRAWINGS PREPARED BYEL/CS/DB/KDRAMACHANDRAN6AS NOTED4-17-14SARATOGA CALIFORNIA
14584 HORSESHOE CT
RAVI RAMACHANDRAN
A PROPOSED NEW 2-STORY HOUSE FOR 6-30-14AABB GASFIREPLACE134
SECOND FLOOR PLAN1/4"=1'-0"AA0510152025M. BATHWALK-IN CLO.BEDROOM 3PEAKED CEILINGBATH 213'-012"14'-1112"11'-6"2'-6"42'-0"74'-0"4'-6"8'-0"14'-0"6'-2"12'-4"
8'-0"32'-6"14'-6"10'-6"14'-6"13'-6"64'-8"STAIRHALLA3SHEETSSHEETOFSCALE:DATE:DRAWN:JOB:PERMIT SETCONSTRUCTION SETPRELIMINARY SETPLAN CHECK SETDESIGN REVIEW SETREVISIONSBYA R C H I T E C T CHRIS SPAULDING(510) 527-5997 FAX (510) 527-5999BERKELEY CALIFORNIA 94710801 CAMELIA STREET SUITE EDRAWINGS PREPARED BYEL/CS/DB/KDRAMACHANDRAN6AS NOTED4-17-14SARATOGA CALIFORNIA
14584 HORSESHOE CT
RAVI RAMACHANDRAN
A PROPOSED NEW 2-STORY HOUSE FOR 6-30-14BB7'-0"8'-0"7'-0"12'-6"
8'-0"MEDIA ROOMPEAKED CEILINGBEDROOM 2COFFERED CEILINGMASTERBEDROOMCOFFERED CEILINGGASFIREPLACE135
FRONT ELEVATION1/4"=1'-0"A4CLASS 'A' CLAY TILE ROOFING, TYPICALEXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER EXTERIOR FINISH, TYPICALSHEETSSHEETOFSCALE:DATE:DRAWN:JOB:PERMIT SETCONSTRUCTION SETPRELIMINARY SETPLAN CHECK SETDESIGN REVIEW SETREVISIONSBYA R C H I T E C T CHRIS SPAULDING(510) 527-5997 FAX (510) 527-5999BERKELEY CALIFORNIA 94710801 CAMELIA STREET SUITE EDRAWINGS PREPARED BYEL/CS/DB/KDRAMACHANDRAN6AS NOTED4-17-14SARATOGA CALIFORNIA
14584 HORSESHOE CT
RAVI RAMACHANDRAN
A PROPOSED NEW 2-STORY HOUSE FOR 6-30-14REAR ELEVATION1/4"=1'-0"412WOOD-CLAD WINDOWS W/FACTORY-INSTALL CASINGS, TYPICALCAST-STONE SILL, TYPICALDECORATIVEWROUGHT-IRONROOF PLAN1/8"=1'-0"252015105024"x24"SKYLIGHT(F) 486.5'(F) 486.5'(E) 488.5'(E) 487.5'(F) 486.5'(E) 485.5'(F) 486.5'(E) 485.5'9'-6" 1ST FLR PLATE, TYP., U.N.O.
8'-6" 2ND FLR PLATE,
TYPICAL, U.N.O.
7'-6" PLATE @ GARAGE (F) 494.0'7'-8" PLATE OVER
TUB POP-OUT
7'-6" PLATE
@ W.I. CLO
26'-0" PROPOSED MAX. HEIGHT FROM AVERAGE ELEVATIONAVERAGEELEV. 486.25'PROPOSED MAX. HEIGHT 512.25'10'-914" PLATE @ DINING ROOM
10'-91
4" PLATE @ DINING ROOM
26'-0" PROPOSED MAX. HEIGHT FROM AVERAGE ELEVATIONAVERAGEELEV. 486.25'PROPOSED MAX. HEIGHT 512.25'T.O. 1ST FLRSUBFLR 487.5'T.O. 2NDSUBFLR 498.05'T.O. 1STFLR SUBFLR487.5'2ND FLRPLATE506.55'T.O. 2NDFLR SUBFLR498.05'1ST FLRPLATE497.0'9'-6" 1ST FLRPLATE, TYP., U.N.O.8'-6" 2NDFLR PLATE,TYPICAL, U.N.O.T.O. 1STFLR SUBFLR487.5'2ND FLRPLATE506.55'T.O. 2NDFLR SUBFLR498.05'1ST FLRPLATE497.0'136
RIGHT-SIDE ELEVATION1/4"=1'-0"A5412SHEETSSHEETOFSCALE:DATE:DRAWN:JOB:PERMIT SETCONSTRUCTION SETPRELIMINARY SETPLAN CHECK SETDESIGN REVIEW SETREVISIONSBYA R C H I T E C T CHRIS SPAULDING(510) 527-5997 FAX (510) 527-5999BERKELEY CALIFORNIA 94710801 CAMELIA STREET SUITE EDRAWINGS PREPARED BYEL/CS/DB/KDRAMACHANDRAN6AS NOTED4-17-14SARATOGA CALIFORNIA
14584 HORSESHOE CT
RAVI RAMACHANDRAN
A PROPOSED NEW 2-STORY HOUSE FOR 6-30-14LEFT-SIDE ELEVATION1/4"=1'-0"FIRST FLOORA 179.25B (2 x 5.19) 10.38C 14.67D 223.06E 288.75F (2 x 10.98) 21.96G 31.05H 381.01I 67.5J 253K 204.75L 336M 790N 227.6O 74.68P 16.0TOTAL3,119.57SECOND FLOORQ 119.67R 471.25S 320.25T 471.25U 15.41TOTAL1,397.83TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA:3,119.57 + 1,397.83 §64)7FLOOR AREA DIAGRAM2520151050FIRST FLOOR1/8"=1'-0"SECOND FLOOR1/8"=1'-0"2520151050ABEDGHFKMIJCNOPQRSTULFG 486.5'FF 487.5'(F) 486.5'(E) 487.5'(F) 486.5'(E) 485.5'(F) 486.5'(E) 488.5'(F) 486.5'(E) 485.5'SLAB @ GARAGE DOOR 486.5'26'-0" PROPOSED MAX. HEIGHT FROM AVERAGE ELEVATION
AVERAGEELEV. 486.25'PROPOSED MAX. HEIGHT 512.25'9'-6" 1ST FLR
PLATE, TYP., U.N.O.
8'-6" 2ND
FLR PLATE,
TYPICAL, U.N.O.T.O. 1STFLR SUBFLR487.5'2ND FLRPLATE506.55'T.O. 2NDFLR SUBFLR498.05'1ST FLRPLATE497.0'26'-0" PROPOSED MAX. HEIGHT FROM AVERAGE ELEVATION
AVERAGEELEV. 486.25'PROPOSED MAX. HEIGHT 512.25'9'-6" 1ST FLR
PLATE, TYP., U.N.O.
8'-6" 2ND
FLR PLATE,
TYPICAL, U.N.O.T.O. 1STFLR SUBFLR487.5'2ND FLRPLATE506.55'T.O. 2NDFLR SUBFLR498.05'1ST FLRPLATE497.0'137
SECTION A-A1/4"=1'-0"A6412SHEETSSHEETOFSCALE:DATE:DRAWN:JOB:PERMIT SETCONSTRUCTION SETPRELIMINARY SETPLAN CHECK SETDESIGN REVIEW SETREVISIONSBYA R C H I T E C T CHRIS SPAULDING(510) 527-5997 FAX (510) 527-5999BERKELEY CALIFORNIA 94710801 CAMELIA STREET SUITE EDRAWINGS PREPARED BYEL/CS/DB/KDRAMACHANDRAN6AS NOTED4-17-14SARATOGA CALIFORNIA
14584 HORSESHOE CT
RAVI RAMACHANDRAN
A PROPOSED NEW 2-STORY HOUSE FOR 6-30-14SECTION B-B1/4"=1'-0"WALK-IN CLO.MEDIA ROOMSTAIRHALLMASTERBEDROOMBATH 2STAIRHALLT.O. 1ST FLRSUBFLR 487.5'7'-6" PLATE
PANTRYKITCHENGARAGEOFFICEMUDROOMHALLPORCH26'-0" PROPOSED MAX. HEIGHT FROM AVERAGE ELEVATION
AVERAGEELEV. 486.25'PROPOSED MAX. HEIGHT 512.25'(F) 486.5'SLAB @ GARAGEDOOR 486.5'7'-6" PLATE @ GARAGE (F) 494.0'7'-8" PLATE OVER
TUB POP-OUT
9'-6" 1ST FLR TYP PLATE, U.N.O.
8'-6" 2ND FLR TYPICAL
PLATE HT, U.N.O.T.O. 2NDSUBFLR 498.05'26'-0" PROPOSED MAX. HEIGHT FROM AVERAGE ELEVATION
AVERAGEELEV. 486.25'PROPOSED MAX. HEIGHT 512.25'9'-6" 1ST FLR
PLATE, TYP., U.N.O.
8'-6" 2ND
FLR PLATE,
TYPICAL, U.N.O.T.O. 1STFLR SUBFLR487.5'2ND FLRPLATE506.55'T.O. 2NDFLR SUBFLR498.05'1ST FLRPLATE497.0'9'-6" 1ST FLR
PLATE, TYP., U.N.O.
8'-6" 2ND
FLR PLATE,
TYPICAL, U.N.O.T.O. 1STFLR SUBFLR487.5'2ND FLRPLATE506.55'T.O. 2NDFLR SUBFLR498.05'1ST FLRPLATE497.0'PEAKED CEILINGCOFFER CEILINGSTREETSCAPE VIEWNTS14584 HORSESHOE CT14571 HORSESHOE DRɓɓɓ14582 HORSESHOE CT(BEHIND)20021 BELLA VISTA138
ENGINEERING139
ENGINEERING140
ENGINEERING141
142
143
REPORT TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: August 13, 2014
Application: VAR14-0003, MOD14-0003
Location / APN: 18590 Avon Lane / 410-40-016
Owner/Applicant: Yeoun Jin Kim / John Livingstone
Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan
18590 Avon Lane
SITE
144
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Variance approval for an existing secondary
dwelling unit constructed on a site that is less than the minimum prescribed 40,000 square foot (net)
size required for the R-1-40,000 zoning district. The applicant is also requesting modification of an
existing Design Review approval for the main residence that exceeds the floor area and height as
approved by the Planning Commission in October 1997.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 14-034 approving the project subject to
conditions of approval.
Variance approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to City Code Section 15-
29.010(l).
PROJECT DATA:
Gross Site Area: 44,937 SF
Net Site Area: 36,465 SF
Average Site Slope: 8.5%
General Plan Designation: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density)
Zoning: R-1-40,000
Proposed Allowed/Required
Floor Area Main Dwelling
First Story
Second Story
Garage
Total Floor Area
3,314 sq. ft.
2,203 sq. ft.
710 sq. ft.
6,227 sq. ft.
6,343 sq. ft.
[5,766 sq. ft. + 10% (577 sq. ft.) increase for
a deed restricted secondary dwelling unit]
Height (Residence)
Lowest Elevation Point:
Highest Elevation Point:
Average Elevation Point:
Proposed Topmost Point
Total Proposed Height
95.85
96.46
96.15
121.75
25.56 ft.
26 feet
Floor Area Secondary
Dwelling
814 sq. ft.
Not included in the sites overall
“allowable floor area”
Height (Second Dwelling)
Lowest Elevation Point:
Highest Elevation Point:
Average Elevation Point:
Proposed Topmost Height:
Total Proposed Height
95.19
96.18
95.69
110.19
14.50 ft.
26 feet
Secondary Dwelling
Required Lot Size (Net)
36,465 sq. ft.
40,000 sq. ft.
(Variance Requested)
Page 2 of 8
145
Proposed Allowed/Required
Site Coverage
Main House
Garage
Porch
Secondary Dwelling Unit
Swimming Pool
Pathways
Driveway
Total Site Coverage
3,314 sq. ft.
710 sq. ft.
170 sq. ft.
814 sq. ft.
727 sq. ft.
4,348 sq. ft.
2,297 sq. ft.
12,380 sq. ft.
14,039 sq. ft.
[12,763 sq. ft. + 10% (1,276 sq. ft.) increase
for a deed restricted secondary dwelling unit
Setbacks (Corner Lot)
Front
Rear
Exterior Side
Interior Side
44 ft.
28 ft.
34 ft.
23 ft.
30 ft.
20 ft.
25 ft. / 30 ft.
20 ft. / 25 ft.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Site Description: The 36,465 square foot (net) site is located at the intersection of Quito Road
and Avon Lane. The site is bordered to the west by Quito Road, a single-family residential
parcel to the north, San Thomas Aquino Creek to the east, and Avon Lane to the south. Stratford
Court in the City of Monte Sereno is located on the opposite side of San Thomas Aquino Creek.
The site is currently improved with a 6,227 square foot two-story single-family residence with an
attached garage, an 814 square foot secondary dwelling unit, a swimming pool, and related site
improvements.
Project History: In October 1997 the Planning Commission approved a Design Review
application for the previous property owner which included a 1,785 square foot single story and a
1,668 square foot second story addition to an existing 1,905 square foot single story residence.
The total project floor area was 5,358 square feet and the height of the addition did not exceed 22
feet. The project received final approval from the Building Department in May 2001.
In May 2006, the same previous property owner submitted a building permit application to
relocate and renovate a pool house being constructed within the rear yard setback. The pool
house was the subject of a “stop work” request by the Building Department as the owner had not
applied for nor received a building permit for it construction. In April 2009 the pool house
received final approval from the Building Department.
The existing swimming pool received a building permit on September 2002.
Current Project Description: In the spring of 2012, a representative for the current property
owner, having purchased the property in January 2011 from the previous owner, submitted a
request to receive copies of all records for the subject property from the Community
Development Department. Upon receiving and reviewing the records, some confusion was
expressed by the property owner and their representative concerning the floor area of the existing
structures and whether these structures had been constructed in compliance with those permits
which had been obtained.
Page 3 of 8
146
In October 2013, the applicant submitted an application to the Community Development
Department for staff review of the “as built” development plans for the site. This review was to
determine whether there was any nonconformance with City land use regulations and to request
modification of approved permits or variance(s) so as to attain regulatory compliance. Based on
review of the “as built” development plans, visiting the site with the applicant, and reviewing
existing permits, planning staff made the following determinations:
1. The floor area for the existing buildings on site is 7,041 square feet. This includes the 6,227
square feet main dwelling and the 814 square feet secondary unit. The original development
plan approved by the Planning Commission was for a remodeled two story residence not
exceeding 5,538 square feet. The approved plans included an existing ‘open’ shed in the rear
yard. No other building existed on site.
2. The existing height of the main dwelling is approximately 25.6 feet. The original building
height as approved by the Planning Commission did not exceed 22 feet.
3. The May 2006 building permit was for the construction of a ‘pool house’. As constructed,
the existing 814 square foot single story structure contains a kitchen, bedroom, living room,
and a bathroom. The pool house is defined as a Secondary Dwelling unit per the City Code
because it has independent living facilities and includes a kitchen. The secondary dwelling
unit development standards require that the net lot size of the parcel is not to be less than
40,000 square feet. The actual net size of the parcel is 36, 465 square feet.
4. The retaining wall located to the west of the secondary dwelling unit is 6.55 feet in height at
it tallest point. The maximum allowable retaining wall height is 5 feet. The retaining wall
exceeds the maximum allowable height for a length of approximately 40 feet.
In June 2014 the applicant submitted the following applications:
- Variance application for a reduction in the minimum net lot size required for a secondary
dwelling unit.
- Modification of Design Review application for the additional floor area and height of the main
dwelling not originally approved by the Planning Commission.
Variance for Secondary Dwelling Unit
As previously mentioned, the former property owner received a building permit in May 2006 to
relocate and renovate a ‘pool house’ which was being constructed within the rear yard setback
area without required permits. The pool house was moved to a conforming location. These types
of structures often contain one or more rooms which can include a bathroom.
During a site visit to the property, staff did visually confirm that the ‘pool house’ was being used
as a secondary dwelling unit due to it having full independent living facilities and a kitchen. The
City has no record that a building permit was issued for the construction of a secondary dwelling
unit. The 814 square foot single story structure is located in the northern corner of the property
adjacent to the existing swimming pool.
Page 4 of 8
147
Per the City Code, the net site area required for the construction of a Secondary Dwelling Unit
shall not be less than the minimum standard for the underlying zoning district (see City Code
Section 15-06.030(a). The site is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district so the minimum lot
size for a secondary dwelling unit is 40,000 square feet. The gross square footage of the site is
44,937 square feet, which is reduced by the size of the access easements located on Quito Road
and Avon Lane (8,472 square feet), so that the net site area is 36,465 square feet and does not
conform to the minimum net lot size for the construction of a second dwelling. The applicant
has applied for a Variance for a reduction in the minimum lot size required for a secondary
dwelling unit.
Floor Area
The total existing floor area on the site includes the 6,227 square foot main residence and the 814
secondary dwelling for a total floor area of 7,041 square feet. The maximum allowable floor
area for the site is 5,766 square feet.
When the main residence was originally approved and when the current application was
submitted, the City Code listed in Section 15-45.030 the types of structures included in the
definition of a sites ‘allowable floor area’. This definition included the maximum floor area of a
main structure plus any accessory structures.
The City Code includes a definition of ‘Accessory Structure’ [see City Code Section 15.06.022].
This definition states that second dwelling units are not to be considered as accessory structures.
The implication of this definition is that because the existing second dwelling unit on the site is
not considered as an accessory structure it is not included in the allowable floor area limitation
for the site. The floor area limitation for the site only includes the floor area of the main
residence and not that of the secondary dwelling.
The 6,227 square feet of floor area for the main residence does exceed the sites maximum
allowable square footage of 5,766 square feet. The applicant has agreed to a deed restriction for
the secondary dwelling unit that would limit its rental to below market rate households. This
deed restriction would increase the sites allowable floor area by 10% for a total allowable site
floor area of 6,343 square feet. With the recordation of a deed restriction, and the associated
increase in floor area, the floor area of the main dwelling would be in conformance with the City
Code.
Retaining wall in excess of five feet
The retaining wall located to the west of the secondary dwelling unit is 6.55 feet in height at it
tallest point. The maximum allowable retaining wall height is 5 feet. The retaining wall exceeds
the maximum allowable height for a length of approximately 40 feet. This retaining wall is
composed of stackable bricks. The applicant has not requested a variance for this retaining wall
and has agreed to a condition of approval that the retaining wall bricks be disassembled and
rebuilt so that the maximum height of the wall does not exceed five feet.
Architectural Modifications
Page 4.1 of the Development Plans (Attachment 4) illustrates the exterior elevations of the main
residence that were originally approved by the Planning Commission on October 1997. This
Page 5 of 8
148
included a 1,785 square foot single story and a 1,668 square foot second story addition to an
existing 1,905 square foot single story residence for a total square footage of 5,358 square feet.
The height of the project did not exceed 22 feet. The addition was designed to match the existing
residence with wood siding, wood trimmed windows, a columned front porch and gabled roof
lines.
Page A4.0 of the Development Plans include the as-built plans (photos) of the main residence
that substantially conform to the plans approved by the Planning Commission. The as-built plans
indicate that the main residence is taller and is larger in square footage than the approved plans
as follows:
Floor Area Approved Proposed (existing) Change
First Story 2,688 sq. ft. 3,314 sq. ft. 628 sq. ft. increase
Second Story 1,668 sq. ft. 2,203 sq. ft. 535 sq. ft. increase
Garage 1,002 sq. ft. 710 sq. ft. 292 sq. ft. decrease
Total 5,358 sq. ft. 6,227 sq. ft. 869 sq. ft. increase
Height 22 ft. 25.6 ft. 3.6’ increase
The original Design Review findings made by the Planning Commission when the project was
originally approved are listed in the following paragraphs.
Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: The applicant received signed neighbor
notification forms from three adjacent neighbors located at 15122 Stratford Lane, 15895 Avon
Lane, and 15095 Quito Road. Neither neighbor included project related comments on the forms.
Copies of the neighbor notification forms are included as Attachment #3
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. A copy of
this notice is included as Attachment #2
FINDINGS
Design Review: The Planning Commission made the follow findings when the project was
approved in October 1997. The proposed modifications are to be consistent with these findings.
(a) The project avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy.
The project meets this finding in that the location of the proposed residence meets or exceeds
minimum setback requirements and will be screened from view by existing trees, vegetation, and
the topography of the lot.
Page 6 of 8
149
(b) The project preserves the natural landscape.
(c) Preserve protected native and heritage trees.
The project meets these findings in that no ordinance protected trees will be removed, and the
amount of grading is limited to the amount necessary to accommodate the structures foundation.
(d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk.
(e) Compatible bulk and height.
The project meets these findings in that the height of the residence is compatible with
surrounding residences in the neighborhood.
(f) Current grading and erosion control methods.
The project meets this finding in that the proposed site development or grading plan incorporates
current grading and erosion control standards used by the City.
(g) Design policies and techniques.
The project meets this finding in that the proposed residence will conform to each of the
applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as
required by Section 15-45.055.
Variance: The findings required for issuance of a Variance approval for a reduction in the
minimum lot size for a secondary dwelling unit pursuant to City Code Section 15-70.020 (Authority
to grant Variances) are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support
making all of those required findings:
(a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulations
enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning
district.
The gross square footage of the site is 44,937 square feet which exceeds the minimum net lot size
required for a secondary dwelling unit in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. However, the required lot
size for a secondary dwelling unit is based on the net site area and the existing net site area of the
site is 36,465 square feet. The site is bordered on two sides by streets. Quito Road borders the
northern side of the property and Avon Lane borders the southern side of the property. The
property lines for the site extend to the centerline of both streets. Easements for public access
purposes that are 20 feet in width are located both along the Quito Road and Avon Lane frontages.
The total area of these easements is 8,472 square feet which reduces the gross size of the lot. The
net site area is 36,465 square feet after the subtracting the area of the easements. A site bordered by
two streets with easements along two property lines that reduces the gross site area by 8,472 can be
considered a special circumstance that is applicable to this property. This finding can be made in
the affirmative.
Page 7 of 8
150
(b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the
same zoning district.
The gross square footage of the site is 44,937 square feet. This exceeds the minimum net lot size of
40,000 square feet required in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Other properties in the vicinity do not
have access easements on both sides of the property. These easements reduce the gross lot size by
8,472 square feet resulting in a net site area of 36,465 square feet. Because other lots in the vicinity
and classified in the same zoning district do not have the same limitations there will not be a
granting of a special privilege to construct a secondary dwelling unit on the site.
(c) That the grant of the variance would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare
or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The building that is used for the secondary dwelling unit did receive a final inspection from the
Building Department. The kitchen was added to the building following the final inspection and did
not receive a building permit for its construction. The project includes a condition of approval that
the property owner applies for and receives a building permit for the secondary dwelling unit. The
granting of the variance will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the regulations and will
have no negative impact to the public health, safety, or welfare. This finding can be made in the
affirmative.
Environmental Determination: 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. 14-034 approving the project, subject to
conditions of approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Public Hearing Notice
3. Neighbor Notification Forms
4. Development Plans (Exhibit "A")
Page 8 of 8
151
RESOLUTION NO: 14-034
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIRED FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT AND DESIGN REVIEW
MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS FOR AN INCREASE IN
FLOOR AREA AND BUILDING HEIGHT LOCATED AT 18590 AVON LANE
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2014, an application was submitted by John Livingstone on behalf
of Heetae Ahn and Yeoun Jin Kim requesting Variance approval for a reduction in the minimum
required lot size to construct a secondary dwelling unit in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. The
application also includes a request to modify an existing Design Review approval for an increase in
the floor area and height of the main dwelling. The project is located at 18590 Avon Lane and is
located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district (APN 410-40-016).
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 August 13, 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;
Conservation Element Goal 2 and Land Use Element Goal 1 which states that the City shall
preserve the City’s existing character which includes small town residential, rural/semi-rural areas
and open spaces areas; 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; and Land Use Element Policy 1.1 that the city shall continue to be predominantly a
community of single-family detached residences.
Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that because of special
circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulations would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning
district; the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
152
Resolution No. 14-034
the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district; and that
the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity
Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves VAR14-0003 and
MOD14-0003 located at 18590 Avon Lane 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 13th day of
August 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Chair, Planning Commission
153
Resolution No. 14-034
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
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
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. 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
154
Resolution No. 14-034
clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in
accordance with City Code.
6. The applicant shall submit an application for a building permit to modify Building Permit No.
98-376 to include an increase in the square footage and height of the main residence.
7. The applicant shall submit an application for a building permit for the construction of a
secondary dwelling unit.
8. No retaining wall located on the site can exceed a height of five feet. The existing retaining wall
to the west of the secondary dwelling unit that is 6.55 feet tall shall be disassembled and rebuilt
so that the maximum height of the wall does not exceed a height of five feet. Retaining wall
height shall be measured from the bottom of the footing to top of wall.
9. The applicant shall file a deed restriction with the County of Santa Clara Recorders office which
expressly prohibits the below grade storage area being converted to habitable space.
10. The owner/applicant shall agree to all conditions required by the Saratoga Building Department.
155
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 13th day of August, 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: VAR14-0003 and MOD14-0003/ 18590 Avon Lane
APPLICANT/OWNER: John Livingstone (Applicant / Yeoun Jin Kim (Owner)
APN: 410-40-016
DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Variance approval from the regulations contained in
the City Code regarding Secondary Dwelling Units to reduce the minimum net lot size required
for a secondary dwelling unit in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. The applicant is also requesting
Design Review Approval for modifications to previously approved plans. The net lot size is
approximately 36,465 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000.
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, August 11, 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
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167