HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-22-14 Planning Commission Agenda PacketTable of Contents
Agenda 2
October 8, 2014
Draft Minutes 4
APPLICATION PDR14-0010; 18645 McFarland Ave. (389-14-
015); Mahmoud Khorashadi - The project is to construct a new
one-story residence, two-car garage, and attached secondary
dwelling unit. The height of would be no taller than 21 feet.
Planning Commission design review is required because the
project consists of a new single-story residence over 18 feet in
height. No protected trees are being proposed for removal.
Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212.
Staff Memo 6
APPLICATION PDR11-0003 & VAR11-0001; 21794 Heber Way
(503-31-067); Eric Keng / Steve Sheng – The project is a
Design Review and Variance to construct a new two-story
residence with a three-car garage on a hillside lot. The height
will be no taller than 26 feet from average grade. The variance
is required because the applicant is proposing a 97 foot front
setback (when 131 foot setback is required) and a 20 foot and
30 foot side setback (when a 45 foot side setback is required).
No protected trees are being proposed for removal. This
meeting is continued from the September 24, 2014 Planning
Commission Meeting. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-
1212.
Staff Report 7
Att 1 PC Resolution 16
Att 2 Minutes from PC Meeting 23
Att 3 Geotechnical Memo 33
Att 4 Letter from Lin dated 02242011 35
Att 5 Letter from Lin dated 09132014 37
Att 6 Letter from Lin dated 10142014 40
Att 7 Letter from DL Architecture 59
Att 8 Letter from Matteoni dated 09162014 62
Att 9 Letter from Matteoni dated 10142014 71
Att 10 Letter from Kundtz dated 10142014 81
Att 11 Letter from Manzagol dated 09122014 83
Att 12 Reduced Plan Set Exhibit A 94
1
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, October 22, 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 October 8, 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.
NEW BUSINESS
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 PDR14-0010; 18645 McFarland Ave. (389-14-015); Mahmoud Khorashadi - The project
is to construct a new one-story residence, two-car garage, and attached secondary dwelling unit. The height
of would be no taller than 21 feet. Planning Commission design review is required because the project
consists of a new single-story residence over 18 feet in height. No protected trees are being proposed for
removal. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212.
Recommended action:
Continue the project to a date uncertain
2. APPLICATION PDR11-0003 & VAR11-0001; 21794 Heber Way (503-31-067); Eric Keng / Steve Sheng
– The project is a Design Review and Variance to construct a new two-story residence with a three-car
garage on a hillside lot. The height will be no taller than 26 feet from average grade. The variance is
required because the applicant is proposing a 97 foot front setback (when 131 foot setback is required) and
a 20 foot and 30 foot side setback (when a 45 foot side setback is required). No protected trees are being
2
proposed for removal. This meeting is continued from the September 24, 2014 Planning Commission
Meeting. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212.
Recommended action:
Adopt Resolution No. 14-045 approving Design Review PDR11-0003 and Variance 11-0001 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 October 16, 2014 at the City of Saratoga,
13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us.
You can also sign up to receive email notifications when Commission agendas and minutes have been added
to the City at website http://www.saratoga.ca.us/contact/email_subscriptions.asp.
NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at
www.saratoga.ca.us
3
ACTION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, October 8, 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 None
ALSO PRESENT Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner
Cynthia McCormick, Planner
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSION & PUBLIC
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 24, 2014.
Action:
GROVER/ALAMALECH MOVED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 MINUTES.
MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER,
SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Application ELN14-0008; 20201 Cherry Lane (386-54-045); Bhatnagar – The applicant is
requesting the addition of 663 sq. ft. to an existing legal non-conforming structure. Staff Contact:
Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212.
Action:
ALMALECH/WALIA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 14-043 SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD,
CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
ABSTAIN: NONE.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Application ZOA14-0001; 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 applicant is also proposing to add 11
new parking spaces by increasing the impervious parking area by approximately 2,312 square feet.
The requested changes would require the removal of six ordinance protected trees. The City
Arborist has recommended removal of one additional tree due to its condition. Staff Contact:
Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230.
4
Action:
ALMALECH/GROVER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 14-031 WITH CHANGES
TO THE CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE
ZONING AMENDMENT:
13) Fence. A six-foot tall solid fence shall be constructed between the subject property and the
properties at 14500 Oak Street and 14510 Oak Street.
MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS,
GROVER, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
2. Application PDR14-0008; 14011 Pike Road (503-30-011) Jacob & Pernille Bruun-Jensen - The
applicant requests Design Review approval to construct an approximately 2,890 square foot first
and second story addition to an existing 1,693 square foot one-story single-family home. No trees
are proposed for removal. The net site area is 2.96 acres and is zoned Hillside Residential. Staff
Contact: Chris Riordan (408)868-1235
Action:
GROVER/WALIA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 14-047 SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD,
CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
ABSTAIN: NONE.
DIRECTOR/COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
Chair Bernald reminded the Commission of the upcoming retreat on November 12, 2014.
ADJOURNMENT
GROVER/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 8:55 PM. MOTION PASSED. AYES:
ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE.
ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE
5
Page 1 of 1
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No./Location: PDR14-0011 / 18645 McFarland Avenue
Type of Application: Design Review application for a new 3,942 sq. ft. one-story
residence with attached 2nd dwelling unit
Applicant/Owner: Mahmoud Khorashadi
Staff Planner: Michael Fossati
Meeting Date: October 22, 2014
APN: 389-14-015
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a 3,492 square foot, one-story single-
family dwelling located at 18645 McFarland Avenue. The height would be no taller than 21 feet.
No trees have been proposed for removal.
The applicant has requested that the project be continued to a date uncertain. Once a date has been
determined, the project will be re-noticed.
6
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: October 22, 2014
Application: PDR11-0003 / VAR11-0001
Location / APN: 21794 Heber Way / 503-31-067
Owner / Applicant: Eric Keng / Steve Sheng
Staff Planner: Michael Fossati
21794 Heber Way
7
2
SUMMARY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant requests Design Review approval to build a new two-story residence on a
vacant lot and a variance for the front and side yard setbacks. The proposed residence
would have a total floor area of 5,039 sq. ft. which includes a 665 sq. ft. garage. The
height of the structure would not exceed 25 feet. No protected trees are proposed for
removal.
Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required for any new multi-story
main structure or multi-story accessory structure - City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(1).
Variance Approval by Planning Commission is required with respect to allowable setbacks
for front and side areas within the Hillside-Residential Zoning district – City Code Section
15-70.020(a).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. 14-044 approving Design Review PDR11-0003 and Variance 11-
0001 subject to conditions of approval.
PROJECT DATA:
Gross Site Area: 158,384 square feet
Average Site Slope: 48%
General Plan Designation: RHC (Hillside Conservation Single-Family)
PROJECT DATA
Net Lot Size: 158,384 sq. ft.
Proposed Allowed
Floor Area
1st floor:
2nd floor:
Garage:
Total
2,357 sq. ft.
2,017 sq. ft.
665 sq. ft.
5,039 sq. ft.
7,060 sq. ft.
Site Coverage
Building Footprint
Patio / Walk
Driveway
Total
3,022 sq. ft.
2,358 sq. ft.
2,680 sq. ft.
8,060 sq. ft. (5%)
15,000 sq. ft.
8
3
Setbacks
Front:
Side (Left):
Side (Right):
Rear
Proposed
97’
20’ & 35’
93’
470’
Required
131’
45’
45’
160’
Height
Lowest Elevation Point:
Highest Elevation Point:
Average Elevation Point:
Proposed Topmost Point:
741’
759’
749’
772.5’ (23.5’)
Maximum Building
Height is 26 Feet
(775’)
SITE AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Site Description
The existing 6.05 acre vacant site is located at 21794 Heber Way. Although the site is
6.05 acres in size, 60% of the site area has been deducted (to calculate buildable floor
area) due to its steep average slope and geotechnical instability. The site is located at the
end of Heber Way and is surrounded by large developed lots with many two story homes.
The project was originally submitted in 1999. In December 2004 the Planning
Commission reviewed plans for a proposed 6,483 square foot two-story residence for the
site. The project was continued and eventually withdrawn. Minutes from the meeting are
included as Attachment 2. The applicant resubmitted the project in February 2011.
Building Design
The proposed project is for a new two-story residence. Exterior materials would include
smooth stucco and trim, precast concrete railings, Eldorado stone base veneer, lightweight
concrete tile roofing, and a semi-custom wood garage door and louver vent. The proposed
color scheme is earth-tone with varying shades of tans and browns. A color and sample
board will be available at the public hearing.
Detail Colors and Materials
Building ext. ‘La Habra’ beige stucco
Trim & Fascia ‘Western Pursuit’ brown trim and fascia
Roofing ‘Bel Air, Nantucket Blend’ lightweight concrete tile roof
Windows ‘Brown’ Anderson 400 Series
Base ‘Eldorado Stone’ stone veneer
Landscaping & Trees
The project would not affect any protected trees. Any trees that would need to be removed
would be no greater than 4 inches in diameter. The landscaping plan indicates that new
trees would be planted (i.e. Live Oak, Bay) near the proposed driveway and near the front
entrance. City Arborist review was not required.
9
4
Variance for Setbacks
Setbacks in the Hillside-Residential District are different for developed and vacant lots as
illustrated in the below table:
Setback Requirements Developed Lots Vacant Lots
Front 30 ft. 20% of Lot Depth
Side 20 ft. 10% of Lot Width
Rear (1st Floor) 50 ft. 25% of Lot Depth
Rear (2nd Floor) 60 ft. 25% of Lot Depth
As previously stated, the project site is vacant. Due to the size of the site the standard
setbacks are larger than what are required for developed lots. The required front setback for
the front is 131 feet when 30 feet is required for developed lots. The required side setback is
45 feet, when 20 feet is required for developed lots.
The applicant has applied for a variance for an exception to the front and side yard setbacks
due to the sites limited building envelope. The western portion of the 6.05 acre site is
constrained by an open space easement and proximity to the Berrocal fault with anticipated
strong seismic ground shaking and potential slope instability associated with steep slopes,
per the City Geologist Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review Memorandum, dated June
18, 2013 (Attachment 2). To address the issues raised by the City Geologist, the applicant
reduced the amount of proposed grading and located the residence along the northeastern
portion of the site.
The residence complies with zoning standards for the right side and rear setback, but does
not comply with the front setback and two left side setbacks. The variances are for the
following:
• Front setback of 97 ft. when 131 ft. is required.
• Side setback of 30 ft. when 45 ft. is required (along eastern property line)
• Side setback of 20 ft. when 45 ft is required (along southeastern property line)
If the applicant were to adhere to the required setbacks than the project would be located in
an area with unstable soils and steep slopes and constructing the residence to conform to the
131 foot front yard setback would require a variance to build on a slope in excess of 30%.
In lieu of requesting such a variance, the applicant is proposing to locate the project closer to
the front and side yard setbacks in a level area with stable soil.
10
5
Existing Development Pattern
The proposed project consists of a 5,039 sq. ft. residence which is consistent with the
setbacks and square footage of residences in the neighborhood as illustrated in the following
table:
Address Lot size House Size Setbacks
21790 Heber Way 1.6 acres 6,190 sq. ft.
Front: 87 ft
Rear: 132 ft
Right Side: 30 ft
Left Side: 25 ft
21781 Heber Way 1.2 acres 3,683 sq. ft.
Front: 58 ft.
Rear: 132 ft.
Right Side: 20 ft.
Left Side: 90 ft.
21780 Heber Way 1.1 acres 4,498 sq. ft.
Front: 42 ft.
Rear: N/A
Right Side: 25 ft.
Left Side: 140 ft.
21771 Heber Way 1.18 acres 5,615 sq. ft.
Front: 30 ft.
Rear: 196 ft.
Right Side: 20 ft.
Left Side: 24 ft.
21770 Heber Way 1.43 acres 5,271 sq. ft.
Front: 60 ft.
Rear: 250 ft.
Right Side: 50 ft.
Left Side: 20 ft.
21760 Heber Way 1.40 acres 5,615 sq. ft.
Front: 177 ft.
Rear: 120 ft.
Right Side: 45 ft.
Left Side: 50 ft.
21791 Heber Way 6.63 acres 6,297 sq. ft.
Front: 120 ft.*
Rear: 550 ft.
Right Side: 70 ft.
Left Side: 213 ft.
* 21791 Heber Way received a variance to build in the front setback in 1996. The required front setback was
147 feet.
11
6
Neighbor Correspondence
The applicant submitted three neighbor notification forms from neighboring property
owners (Attachment 3). Staff 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.
The owner's of 21790 Heber Way have submitted multiple letters (Attachment 5-7)
specifying their concerns with the project which include the granting of a special privilege to
the applicant, misleading noticing regarding the setbacks, violation of the rear open space
easement, safety concerns, and violation of privacy. Staff’s responses to these concerns are
located below. The applicant met with the neighbor on three occasions in an attempt to
address their concerns and staff has included documents from the applicant demonstrating
these efforts (Attachment 8). The applicant’s attorney has also prepared a letter addressing
the neighbors’ concerns (Attachment 9 & 10). Staff has received one additional letter from
the former owner of 21790 Heber Way regarding the project (Attachment 11).
Comment #1 – Granting a Special Privilege. Variances are associated with the property,
not with the owner. The applicant did receive a variance to construct a residence on a
different property but this is not related to the current variance request.
Comment #2 – Misleading Setback Information. The project was noticed for a second
time. Staff included in the notice that the applicant has applied for a variance to build within
the front setback and within the side setback along the eastern property line (30 feet when
45 feet is required) and southern property line (20 feet when 45 feet is required).
Comment #3 – Granting Another Special Privilege. The applicant’s Geologist provided
a detailed letter (see Attachment 11) addressing the neighbor’s concerns regarding the
granting of special privilege.
Comment #4 – Violation of Open Space Easement. A proposed retaining wall that was
partially encroaching into a portion of the open space easement has been relocated outside of
the easement.
Comment #5 – Detrimental to Health, Safety and Welfare. This comment has been
answered by the applicant’s Geologist (see Attachment 12).
Comment #6 – Violation of Privacy – The proposed setback along the shared property line
is 30 feet (not 20 feet as the letter states). The shared property line contains a row of
existing California Pepper and Australian Willow trees. The applicant has proposed to
increase the landscape screening by planting new photinia trees which could reach a height
of 20 feet at maturity. Lastly, the property line would be separated by a 15 foot driveway
between the project location and the property line of 21790 Heber Way. Revisions have
been made by the applicant to minimize privacy impacts for the residence at 21790 Heber
Way. These revisions include moving the garage from the left side to the right side of the
site, relocation of the second floor terrace away from the shared property line, and proposing
12
7
to install windows with five foot sills along all areas of the second floor facing the
neighboring property.
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. This finding can be made in the
affirmative in that the proposed construction is within the most level portion of the site.
The development steps up the hillside (via the stairwell midway through the first floor)
so as to minimize grading and follow the natural contours of the site.
(b) All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations).
If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and
native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal
of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be
minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. This finding can be made
in the affirmative in that the proposed construction would not require the removal of any
protected trees.
(c) The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are
designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to
community viewsheds. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the residence
is significantly pushed back from the edge of the street. Privacy has been mitigated by
the applicant relocating the second floor terrace away from the side facing the
immediate neighbor, by altering the location of the high traffic areas on the first floor
away, and having five foot sills for all windows on the second floor facing the eastern
property line.
(d) The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in
scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. This finding can be made in
the affirmative in that the proposed residence has been built into the hillside thereby
reducing the bulk of the structure and integrating it into the natural environment. The
varying rooflines and stone veneer break up the appearance of the front facade while
adding character and interest to the structure. The proposed size is consistent with
nearby structures thereby increasing compatibility with the neighborhood.
(e) The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains
elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape. This finding can be
made in the affirmative in that landscaping plan proposes a driveway in the front,
surrounded by native trees, such as manzinita, California Live oak, and California bay
trees. The applicant has also proposed to plant new photinia along the eastern property
line to soften the elevation and provide a landscape buffer for the adjacent neighbor as
well as perennial beds to soften the views from the end of the cul-de-sac.
13
8
(f) Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining
properties to utilize solar energy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
project's proposed height and setback from the nearest adjacent structure (+/- 97 feet)
would not unreasonably impair the adjoining property 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. This finding can be
made in the affirmative in that the project incorporates design techniques such as
incorporating simple lines, appropriate setbacks, and a material selection which includes
a natural color exterior that would complement the streetscape and 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 can be made in the affirmative in that
the project is not located on a ridgeline, significant hillside feature, nor community
viewshed.
VARIANCE 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) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. This finding can be
made in the affirmative in that the uniqueness of the site would restrict development to a
relatively small portion of the lot due to steep slopes, a restrictive open space easement,
and geological constraints. The lot is 3.6 acres in size and only one other lot in the
neighborhood is of comparable size. Due to the lot size and geological constraints, the
City Code requirement that the setbacks be based on a percentage of the lot width and
depth would result in a building envelope of approximately 1,100 sq. ft. The relatively
small building envelope is not consistent with the larger size residences currently in the
neighborhood. The strict enforcement of the setback regulations would result in the
development of a residence that would not be in scale with the neighborhood or the
property. Furthermore, the proposed setbacks are consistent with the majority of
residences within the area.
(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. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the lot is unique
with special circumstances not typical of lots in the vicinity. The granting of the setback
variance would not constitute a special privilege because the proposed setbacks are
similar to the majority of residences in the neighborhood. The granting of the variance
14
9
would allow the project the same privileges enjoyed by the neighboring developed
parcels.
(c) That the granting of the variance 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 made in the affirmative in that the proposed structure would not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare as it received Geotechnical Clearance
from the City Geologist. The project, as conditioned, would either need meet or exceed
building permit requirements when constructed.
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
2. Minutes of Previous PC Meeting, dated December 8, 2004
3. Geotechnical Clearance, dated June 18, 2013
4. Neighbor Notification
5. Letter from Lin, dated February 24, 2011
6. Letter from Lin, dated September 13, 2014
7. Letter from Lin, dated October 14, 2014
8. Letters from DL Architecture, dated May 25, 2011, Sept. 12, 2012 & e-mail from
Steve Sheng, dated Nov. 12, 2013.
9. Letter from Mattoni, dated September 16, 2014
10. Letter from Mattoni, dated October 14, 2014
11. Letter from Kundtz, dated October 14, 2014
12. Letter from Geologist Manzagol, dated September 18, 2014
13. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A.”, dated October 1, 2014
15
RESOLUTION NO: 14-044
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION (PDR11-0003) FOR A NEW TWO
STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND VARIANCE (VAR11-0001) REQUESTS
FOR A REDUCED FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS,
LOCATED AT 21794 HEBER WAY (APN 503-31-067)
WHEREAS, on February 3, 2011, an application was submitted by Eric Keng and Steve
Sheng requesting Design Review and Variance approval to construct a new two story home located
at 21794 Heber Way. The project has a total floor area of 5,039 square feet. The height of the
proposed residence is approximately 25 feet. The site is located within the Hillside Residential
Zoning District (APN 503-31-067).
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental
assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt.
WHEREAS, on September 24, 2014, the Planning Commissions opened the public hearing
agenda and continued the project at the request of the applicant to the meeting of October 22, 2014.
WHEREAS, on October 22, 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, “New Construction or Conversion of Smaller
Structures”, of the Public Resources Code. The proposed project is one single-family residence in
an urbanized 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; Land Use Element Goal 10 which minimizes the impact of
development proposals in hillside areas by requiring visual analyses and imposition of conditions to
prevent or reduce significant visual impacts; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides
that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the
visual impact of new development.
16
Resolution No. 14-044
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’s 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) and 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; and 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; and the overall mass and the height of the structure, and its
architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood; and the
landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are
complementary to the neighborhood streetscape; and the 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,
pursuant to Section 15-45.055; and that if the project is a hillside lot, that 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 of the City Code.
Section 5: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the variance
exception findings can be made in that because of special circumstances applicable to the property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the
vicinity and classified in the same zoning district; and 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; and that the granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
Section 6: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR11-0003 and
VAR11-0001, located at 21794 Heber Way, 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 22nd day of
October 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: ____________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Chair, Planning Commission
17
Resolution No. 14-044
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PDR11-0003 AND VAR11-0001
21794 HEBER WAY
(APN 503-31-067)
A. GENERAL
1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of
time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s
successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this
project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting
all applicable permanent of other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant
with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community
Development Director.
2. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until
the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent.
3. Conditions may be modified only by the Planning Commission unless modification is expressly
otherwise allowed by the City Code including but not limited to Sections 15-80.120 and/or 16-
05.035, as applicable.
4. The City shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice in writing, on or after the time the
Resolution granting this Approval is duly executed containing a statement of all amounts due to
the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively
“processing fees”). THIS APPROVAL OR PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE SIXTY (60) DAYS
AFTER THE DATE SAID NOTICE IS MAILED IF ALL PROCESSING FEES
CONTAINED IN THE NOTICE HAVE NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL. No Zoning
Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the Community
Development Director certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit
accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained).
5. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 24 months from the date
of adoption of this Resolution or the Variance Approval will expire unless extended in
accordance with the City Code.
6. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City
and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the
requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference.
7. Prior to issuance of any Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit to implement this Design
Review Approval the Owner or Applicant shall obtain a “Zoning Clearance” from the
Community Development Director by submitting final plans for the requested permit to the
18
Resolution No. 14-044
Community Development Department for review to ascertain compliance with the requirements
of this Resolution.
8. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and
hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and
volunteers harmless from and against:
a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on
the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made
prior to said action; and
b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner
relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by
the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf.
In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner
and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required
Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval
as to form and content by the City Attorney.
B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
9. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those
features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans received October 1, 2014
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 Condition A.3, above.
10. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted per habitable structure (e.g., main
house or guest house). All other fireplaces shall be gas burning.
11. Fences. Fences and walls shall comply with City Code Chapter 15-29.
12. All building ex terior lighting shall be on a timer or motion detector to ensure that the lights do
not remain on during the evening when the building is not in use. Prior to building permit
issuance, the Applicant shall submit a final exterior lighting plan that complies with Section 15-
35.040(i) of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the plan shall indicate that no exterior lighting
fixtures shall allow direct light rays to leave the project site, or allow direct light sources
(incandescent, fluorescent, or other forms of electric illumination) to be directly visible from
off-site locations. The plan shall also show that light levels will not exceed 100 foot lamberts
anywhere on the property. The plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning
Division of the Community Development Department prior to building permit issuance
13. Front yard landscaping. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or a
bond satisfactory to the Community Development Department 150% of the estimated cost of the
installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City.
19
Resolution No. 14-044
14. Landscape installation and replacement for screening or ornamentation. A landscaped area
required as a condition of any Design Review Approval shall be planted with materials suitable
for screening or ornamenting the site, whichever is appropriate, and plant materials shall be
replaced as needed to screen or ornament the site.
15. Landscape maintenance. Landscaped areas shall be watered, weeded, pruned, fertilized,
sprayed or otherwise maintained by the Owner as may be prescribed by the Community
Development Department;
16. Plumbing. All plumbing fixtures or irrigation systems shall be water conserving and otherwise
comply with City Code Section 16-75.030.
18 Noise limitations during construction. The noise level at any point twenty-five feet from the
source of noise shall not exceed 83 dBA during residential construction, and residential
construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid City permit, or do not
require the issuance of a City permit, may be conducted only between the hours of 7:30 A.M.
and 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on
Saturday. Residential construction shall be prohibited on Sunday and weekday holidays, with
the exception of that construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid
City permit and which do not exceed fifty percent of the existing main or accessory structure
may be conducted between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Sunday and weekday
holidays. A notice of applicable construction hour restrictions shall be posted conspicuously on
site at all times for all exterior residential construction activity requiring a City permit.
19. Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Plan. Because this Design Review Approval
authorizes a construction, remodeling, or demolition project affecting more than two thousand
five hundred square feet of floor space the Applicant is required to provide to the Building
Official a construction and demolition debris recycling plan prior to the issuance of any
Demolition, Grading or Building Permit.
20. 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.
21. Stormwater. Disposition and treatment of stormwater shall comply with the applicable
requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit issued
to the City of Saratoga and the implementation standards established by the Santa Clara Valley
Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (collectively the “NPDES Permit Standards”).
Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Demolition, Grading or Building Permit for this
Project, a Stormwater Detention Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development
Director for review and approval demonstrating how all storm water will be detained on-site and
in compliance with the NPDES Permit Standards. If not all stormwater can be detained on-site
due to topographic, soils or other constraints, and if complete detention is not otherwise required
by the NPDES Permit Standards, the Project shall be designed to detain on-site the maximum
reasonably feasible amount of stormwater and to direct all excess stormwater away from
adjoining property and toward stormwater drains, drainageways, streets or road right-of- ways
and otherwise comply with the NPDES Permit Standards and applicable City Codes.
20
Resolution No. 14-044
22. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to
the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Community
Development Department Director or designee prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The
construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following:
a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A”
on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. B.1
above;
b. 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;
c. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages;
d. A boundary survey, wet-stamped and wet-signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil
Engineer authorized to practice land surveying. The stamp shall reflect a current license for
the land surveyor/engineer, the document shall be labeled “Boundary Survey,” and the
document shall not contain any disclaimers;
e. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building
Division.
C. PUBLIC WORKS
23. Broken Gutter and Curb – Applicant (owner) shall replace any and all broken section of
concrete curb and gutter along the property frontage per City standard specifications prior to
final occupancy approval.
24. Encroachment Permit – Applicant (owner) shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all
improvements in any City right-of-way or City easement including curb and gutter replacement
prior to commencement of the work to implement this Design Review
D. CITY GEOLOGIST
25. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the
development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design
parameters for foundations, and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been
properly incorporated. The consultant shall either review geotechnical aspects of supporting
structural calculations to verify that appropriate CBC 2010 seismic design parameters have been
utilized or prepare updated seismic design parameters. The consultant shall verify that the
proposed project design is consistent with recommendations of all referenced AESC documents.
The plan review shall be prepared and signed by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and
Engineering Geologist. Results of the Geotechnical Plan Review should be submitted to the
City for review by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. The following items
should be performed prior to final (as-built) project approval.
21
Resolution No. 14-044
26. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical
aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited
to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and
excavations for retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The consultant shall
inspect final installed site drainage improvements for conformance with geotechnical
recommendations. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project
shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter and submitted to the City
Engineer for review prior to final (as-built) project approval.
27. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical
Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance.
28. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from
any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure
or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Han C. Lin and Huoy-Bing Lim
21790 Heber Way,
Saratoga, CA 95070
City of Saratoga Planning Commissioner Sep 13, 2014
13777 Fruitvale Avenue,
Saratoga, CA 95070-5151
Re: Objections to the Building Plans on 21794 Heber Way, Saratoga, CA
Dear commissioner:
We are the residents and owners of 21790 Heber Way. We are writing to you regarding
the proposed building project of our neighbor Mr. Steve Sheng on his vacant lot at 21794
Heber Way (Lot #14 of Teerlink Ranch).
We are opposing the proposed building project. Here are our reasons:
1. Granting of a Special Privilege
In 1996, the city granted a special privilege to Mr. Sheng by giving him front setback
variance to build his residence at 21791 Heber Way. His house is the only house on
Heber Way that was granted a setback variance. All other houses on Heber Way followed
the city's building codes and regulations. Now the city is about to grant Mr. Sheng the
same special privilege for the second time by approving him not only the front setback
variance but also the side setback variance to build another house. This is simply not fair
to all the other neighbors.
2. Misleading Setback Variance Information
Neighbors and general public were misled regarding the setback distance. In the public
hearing notice, all neighbors were informed that the side setback variance requested is 30
feet (when 45 feet is required) but in fact the requested side setback is actually only 20
feet. 20 foot side setback is tabulated and marked on Mr. Sheng's building plan submitted
to the city. We believe granting a setback variance to Mr. Sheng by misleading the
neighbors is wrong.
3. Granting of Another Special Privilege
In the latest geological report (please refer to attached Tim J. Manzagol’s map) Mr.
Sheng submitted to the city for his building proposal, the Berrocal fault line was
suggested to be 10 - 40 feet outside of Mr. Sheng’s property line (Lot #14), and inside of
our property line (Lot #15).
The report confirmed that the fault line originates from Lot #13 (the lot which Mr.
Sheng’s residence sits on and adjacent to Lot #14 in the north). However, instead of
continuing in a rather straight line fashion into Lot #14, the report suggested the fault line
37
bends and enters Lot #15. On the contrary, in two earlier geological reports Mr. Sheng
submitted (please refer to attached Hydro-Geo’s map), Berrocal fault line is confirmed to
be inside Lot #14. When our house was built in 1990, a separate geological study was
conducted on our lot (Lot #15) and no fault line was found in the area suggested by Mr.
Sheng’s latest geological report. When we purchased our house in 2010, the disclosure
reports from JCP-LGS also did not reveal any fault line in our lot. If there were any fault
lines within our property, we would not have made the decision to buy our house.
Furthermore, in another different geological study conducted by the Rekhi family on their
vacant lot (Lot #23) adjacent to Mr. Sheng’s lot (Lot #14) in the south and behind our lot
(Lot #15), the Berrocal fault line was found to be entering Lot #23 from the border
between Lot #14 and Lot #23.
If one sums up the pictures from Mr. Sheng’s first two reports, our reports, and the
Rekhi’s report; one can see that the Berrocal fault line actually originates from Lot #13,
continues into Lot #14 and later Lot #23; instead of originating from Lot #13, changes
direction and enters Lot #15, and then magically reappears in Lot #23 from the border of
Lot #14 in a discontinuous fashion.
In 1996, the city gave approval to Mr. Sheng to build his house on Lot #13 in close
distance to the Berrocal fault line. Now the city also plans to allow him to build another
house on Lot #14 after the fault line conveniently disappeared from his Lot #14. On the
other hand, the city disallowed the Rekhis to build theirs near the same fault line. This
seems like yet another grant of special privilege and huge favor from the city to Mr.
Sheng.
To us, agreeing with Mr. Sheng’s building proposal is like admitting that the Berrocal
fault line is inside our property line. Not only will our property value plummet, our house
will also become not up to code. We have absolutely no choice but to oppose the plan.
4. Violation of Open Space Easement
Part of Mr. Sheng's proposed building is in the open space easement. His plan also calls
for construction of a retaining wall in the open space easement on the hillside. All lots on
Heber Way are subdivisions of Teerlink Ranch. According to the county code, any
development or construction on this kind of open space easement is prohibited. The 1974
Open Space Easement Act grants standing to government and owner of any property to
seek injunctive relief to prevent construction on open space easement. Any resident may
seek an injunction if the city or county fails to do so. It is everyone’s job to bring this
violation to the attention of the city.
5. Detrimental to Health, Safety and Welfare
In his latest geological report, some landslide areas in Mr. Sheng’s lot appear smaller
than they are as reported in his first two geological reports and City of Saratoga Geology
Map created in 1980.
This significant discrepancy should be carefully investigated before any decision on the
building plan is even made. Mr. Sheng’s building plan also calls for removing soil from
38
the steep hillside on his lot. The plan calls for removing soils from the open space
easement which is strictly prohibited. Should a landslide occurs due to Mr. Sheng's
construction, even if the landslide does not physically affects any of the neighbors’
houses or lots, the property values in the neighborhood will surely be negatively impacted.
6. Violation of Privacy
Mr. Sheng’s request of setback variances is not only unfair to the neighbors, but is also a
violation to our privacy. If the left side setback variance is approved, the left side of the
proposed building which faces our house will appear as a huge, tall, and long wall. This
intimidating long wall with windows and balcony will not only block our entire view of
the open space but also seriously invade our privacy. Noise impact caused by the 20 foot
side setback (45 feet is the setback requirement) is also a major concern to us. There is no
space to plant any trees or plants along our side of the property line to screen the building
from view or to buffer the noise.
The reasons we bought our house in 2010 is because of the privacy, the open space view,
and the tranquility offered by its location. All these reasons will be taken away by Mr.
Sheng’s proposed building. In additions to the negative effects on privacy, view, and
noise, our property value will also decrease.
Mr. Sheng bought a piece of land with an intention to build a big house and sell it for
maximal profit. He knew at the time when he purchased the lot that 5.5 acres of the land
is dedicated as open space and only 0.5 acre is buildable, and the site has multiple
geologic problems. However, instead of building a house within his legal rights, he is
asking the city for multiple special treatments and violating our property rights at the
same time. We are pleading the planning commission to reject this proposed building
plan based on the all the objections and concerns mentioned above.
Thank you.
Regards,
Han C. Lin & Huoy-Bing Lim
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100