HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-09-15 Planning Commission Agenda PacketTable of Contents
Agenda 4
October 28, 2015
Draft Minutes 6
Application ELN15-0012; 18470 Ravenswood Dr. (397-43-050);
Amer Ather - The applicant is proposing an addition of 700 sq.
ft. to a legal non-conforming one story single-family residence
located at 18740 Ravenswood Dr. The structure is classified as
nonconforming because the existing interior and exterior side
setbacks are located within the side yard(s).
Staff Memo 8
Att 1 Reso 10
Att 2 Reduced Plans 14
Application SUB10-10-0001 & ENV10-0001 – Mt. Eden Road
(503-13-127, 128) Irany / Karr - The applicant currently owns a
13.8 acre parcel. They have submitted an application to
subdivide the parcel into two parcels. Parcel 1 would be 3.85
acres and Parcel 2 would be 9.92 acres. An Initial Study /
Negative Declaration was required because both proposed lots
have average slopes greater than 20%. The intent to adopt the
Negative Declaration (ND) was duly noticed and circulated for a
20-day public review period from September 18, 2015 – October
7, 2015. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212.
Staff Report 17
Att 1 Reso 23
Att 2 Neg Dec for Mt Eden 30
Att 3 Arborist Report 48
Att 4 Geo Clearance 52
Att 5 Neighbor Comments 56
Att 6 Tentative Map Exhibit A 58
Application PDR14-0010; 18645 McFarland Avenue (389-14-
015); Mahmoud Khorashadi - The applicant requests to
demolish an existing single-story residence in order to construct
a new 3,515 sq. ft. two-story residence with two car garage and
attached second dwelling unit. The height of the new residence
will not exceed 26 feet. Two trees not protected by City Code
are proposed to be removed.
Staff Report 60
Att 1 Reso 67
Att 2 Photos 73
Att 3 Example 78
Att 4 Neighbor Forms 92
Att 5 Letters and E-mails 101
Att 6 Additional Letters and E-mails 108
Att 7 Rebuttal Letter 115
Att 8 Reduced Plans 116
1
Application PDR15-0036; 19905 Sunset Drive (510-02-004);
McCune/Beck The applicant is requesting to construct a 480 sq.
ft. addition to an existing two-story residence and a 201 sq. ft.
addition to an existing, detached secondary dwelling unit. The
height of the addition to the main house would be no taller than
26 feet and the height of the second dwelling unit would be no
taller than 18 feet. One protected tree is proposed for removal.
Planning Commission design review is required because the
cumulative floor area of the proposed project exceeds 6,000 sq.
ft. The site area is 40,799 sq. ft. and the property is zoned R1-
40,000. Staff Contact: Liz Ruess 408-868-1230
Staff Report 128
Att 1 - Resolution 134
Att 2 - Arborist Report 140
Att 3 - Neighborhood Photos 149
Att 4 - Plan Set 154
Att 5 - Photos of Existing House 171
Att 6 - Staff Report from 1987 173
Application PDR15-0023; 14768 Montalvo Road (517-20-041);
Wilson/Goodere - The applicant is requesting approval to
demolish an existing residence and to construct a new 26 foot
tall, 4,602 square foot two-story residence with a 281 square
foot second dwelling unit. Planning Commission design review
is required because the project consists of a new two-story
residence over 18 feet in height. Staff Contact: Sandy Baily
(408) 868-1235.
Staff Report 184
Att 1 - Resolution 190
Att 2 - Arborist report 196
Att 3 - Notices 205
Att 4 - Neighbor Notification Forms 211
Att 5 - Story Pole Certification 216
Att 6 - Plans 217
Application APTR15-0003; 20315 Orchard Rd (397-23-004);
Greenleaf – The appellant is appealing a tree removal permit
application (TRP15-0412) and specifically, the removal of one
coast live oak growing in the back yard of the property. Staff
contact: Kate Bear (408) 868-1276.
Staff report 229
Att 1 - Resolution 232
Att 2 - Tree removal permit application 235
Att 3 - arborist report 237
Att 4 - letter from appellant 251
Application ZOA15-0009(Citywide) - The City has drafted a
revised Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (Article 15-47).
The purpose of the Ordinance is to implement new State
requirements to increase water efficiency standards for new and
retrofitted landscapes through more efficient systems, greywater
usage, onsite storm water capture and by limiting the portion of
new or significantly modified landscapes that can be covered in
turf. Staff Contact: Sandy Baily (408) 868-1235.
Staff Meeting 254
2
Att 1 - Resolution 258
Att 2 - Saratoga News Excerpt 260
Att 3 - State's Prescriptive Compliance Option 262
Att 4 - Draft Ordinance 264
3
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, December 09, 2015
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 28, 2015
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
1. Application ELN15-0012; 18470 Ravenswood Dr. (397-43-050); Amer Ather - The applicant is
proposing an addition of 700 sq. ft. to a legal non-conforming one story single-family residence located
at 18740 Ravenswood Dr. The structure is classified as nonconforming because the existing interior
and exterior side setbacks are located within the side yard(s).
Recommended action:
Adopt Resolution No. 15-050 approving the major alteration subject to conditions of approval.
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 SUB10-10-0001 & ENV10-0001 – Mt. Eden Road (503-13-127, 128) Irany / Karr - The
applicant currently owns a 13.8 acre parcel. They have submitted an application to subdivide the parcel
into two parcels. Parcel 1 would be 3.85 acres and Parcel 2 would be 9.92 acres. An Initial Study /
Negative Declaration was required because both proposed lots have average slopes greater than 20%. The
intent to adopt the Negative Declaration (ND) was duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review
period from September 18, 2015 – October 7, 2015. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212.
Recommended action:
Approve Resolution No. 13-025 adopting the Negative Declaration and approving the project subject to
conditions of approval.
4
2. Application PDR14-0010; 18645 McFarland Avenue (389-14-015); Mahmoud Khorashadi - The applicant
requests to demolish an existing single-story residence in order to construct a new 3,515 sq. ft. two-story
residence with two car garage and attached second dwelling unit. The height of the new residence will not
exceed 26 feet. Two trees not protected by City Code are proposed to be removed.
Recommended action:
Adopt Resolution No. 14-048 approving Design Review PDR14-0010 subject to conditions of approval.
3. Application PDR15-0036; 19905 Sunset Drive (510-02-004); McCune/Beck The applicant is requesting to
construct a 480 sq. ft. addition to an existing two-story residence and a 201 sq. ft. addition to an existing,
detached secondary dwelling unit. The height of the addition to the main house would be no taller than 26
feet and the height of the second dwelling unit would be no taller than 18 feet. One protected tree is
proposed for removal. Planning Commission design review is required because the cumulative floor area of
the proposed project exceeds 6,000 sq. ft. The site area is 40,799 sq. ft. and the property is zoned R1-
40,000. Staff Contact: Liz Ruess 408-868-1230
Recommended action:
Adopt Resolution No. 15-053 approving the project subject to conditions of approval.
4. Application PDR15-0023; 14768 Montalvo Road (517-20-041); Wilson/Goodere - The applicant is
requesting approval to demolish an existing residence and to construct a new 26 foot tall, 4,602 square foot
two-story residence with a 281 square foot second dwelling unit. Planning Commission design review is
required because the project consists of a new two-story residence over 18 feet in height. Staff Contact:
Sandy Baily (408) 868-1235.
Recommended action:
Adopt Resolution No. 15-052 approving the project subject to conditions of approval.
5. Application APTR15-0003; 20315 Orchard Rd (397-23-004); Greenleaf – The appellant is appealing a tree
removal permit application (TRP15-0412) and specifically, the removal of one coast live oak growing in
the back yard of the property. Staff contact: Kate Bear (408) 868-1276.
Recommended action:
Approve tree removal permit application TRP15-0412 by adopting resolution 15-051 denying the appeal.
6. Application ZOA15-0009(Citywide) - The City has drafted a revised Water Efficient Landscaping
Ordinance (Article 15-47). The purpose of the Ordinance is to implement new State requirements to
increase water efficiency standards for new and retrofitted landscapes through more efficient systems,
greywater usage, onsite storm water capture and by limiting the portion of new or significantly modified
landscapes that can be covered in turf. Staff Contact: Sandy Baily (408) 868-1235.
Recommended action:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 15-054 recommending the City
Council adopt the revised Ordinance amending (Article 15-47)
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 December 3, 2015 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
5
ACTION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777
FRUITVALE AVENUE
ROLL CALL
PRESENT Commissioners Sunil Ahuja, Wendy Chang, Kookie, Fitzsimmons, Joyce
Hlava, Dede Smullen, Tina Walia, Chair Leonard Almalech
ABSENT None
ALSO PRESENT Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director
Michael Fossati, Planner
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSION & PUBLIC
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 14, 2015
Action:
FITZSIMMONS/WALIA MOVED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 14, 2015 MINUTES. MOTION PASSED.
AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE.
ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Application FER15-0002; 13288 Via Arriba Dr. (393-22-006); Mark Zee – The applicant is requesting
approval for a fence exception to allow a landscape area between an existing soundwall and sidewalk to be
less than two feet along certain areas. The proposed landscape area will include vegetation with drip
irrigation. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212
Action:
HLAVA/SMULLEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 15-047 APPROVING THE
PROJECT WITH CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONS. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA,
ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT:
NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
2. Application ADR15-0025; 21459 Saratoga Hills Rd. (503-29-121); Salehi / Adlparvar – The applicant is
requesting approval for a new one-story residence with basement. The total floor area of the project is
5,675 sq. ft. (not including certain portions of the lower floor considered “basement” by definition). Per
City Code, portions of the lower floor are considered either “basement” or “one-story”. The height of the
proposed residence will be no taller than 18 ft. Three trees (two of which are dead) are being approved for
removal by the City Arborist. The lot size is approximately three acres and is zoned R-1-40,000.
6
Action: HLAVA/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 15-046 APPROVING THE
PROJECT WITH CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONS. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA,
ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT:
NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
3. Application PDR15-0001; 15261 Norton Road (517-14-081); Constantin / Trafalgar Homes - The applicant
is requesting approval for a new 24 foot tall, 4,371 square foot two-story home with a 950 square foot
basement. Planning Commission design review is required because the project consists of a new two-story
residence over 18 feet in height. Twelve protected trees are being proposed for removal. Staff Contact:
Erwin Ordonez (408) 868-1231.
Action:
SMULLEN/HLAVA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 15-045 APPROVING THE
PROJECT WITH CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONS. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA,
ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT:
NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
4. Application PDR14-0010; 18645 McFarland Ave. (389-14-015); Khorashadi – The applicant is requesting
to construct a new two-story residence, two-car garage, and attached secondary dwelling unit. The total
floor area of the project would be 3,515 sq. ft. The height would be no taller than 25 feet. No protected
trees are being proposed for removal. The site area is 10,000 sq. ft. and the property is zoned R-1-10,000.
Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212
Action:
HLAVA/SMULLEN MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO A DATE UNCERTAIN.
MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA,
SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
5. Application ZOA15-0002, Citywide - Amendment of City Code Section 15-45.075 and 15-46.032 (Story
Pole Requirements)- The City Council has requested amendments to the Zoning Regulations to enhance the
City’s story pole requirements for Design Review applications. Staff Contact: Erwin Ordonez 408-868-
1231.
Action:
WALIA/SMULLEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 15-048 WITH CHANGES TO THE
ORDINANCE AND RECOMMENDED THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE.
MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA,
SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
6. Application ZOA15-0010, Citywide - Amendment of City Code Section 15-65 (Nonconforming Uses and
Structures) - The City Council has requested amendments to the Zoning Regulations for nonconforming
structures to allow exemptions for historic buildings, flexibility for residential additions with
nonconforming side yard setbacks, and for an alternative method for determining when nonconforming
structures must comply with current regulations. Staff Contact: Erwin Ordonez 408-868-1231.
Action:
HLAVA/WALIA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 15-049 WITH CHANGES TO THE
ORDINANCE AND RECOMMENDED THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE.
MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA,
SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
ADJOURNMENT
WALIA MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 11:10 PM. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS,
HLAVA SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
7
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
Meeting Date: December 9, 2015
Application: ELN15-0012
Location / APN: 18470 Ravenswood Dr. / 397-43-050
Owner/Applicant: Amer Ather
Staff Planner: Michael Fossati
The Planning Commission may approve a major alteration of a nonconforming structure. Major
Alteration means any work that is estimated to result in expenditure (cumulatively) of 20% to
50% of the estimated construction cost of the structure. The project proposed would result in
expenditure of approximately 33% of the estimated construction valuation of the existing
structure.
Approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to City Code Sections 15-65.050(b),
before staff can act on the pending Building Permit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 15-050 approving the major alteration subject
to conditions of approval.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing an addition of 700 sq. ft. to a legal non-
conforming one story single-family residence located at 18740 Ravenswood Dr. The structure is
classified as nonconforming because a portion of building is located within the exterior side yard.
The elevation facing the street is located approximately four feet into the 25 foot. The residence is
conforming in all other areas.
The Planning Commission has the authority to approve additions and remodels to legal non-
conforming structures if the proposed construction is valued at 50% or less than the value of the
existing structure. Staff has determined the value of the non-conforming structure as $653,448,
while the value of the construction being proposed is $217,000 or 33% of the value of the existing
structure. Therefore, the Planning Commission has authority to approve the project, as long as the
findings can be met. The proposed work consists of a new family room and office.
PROJECT DATA:
Net Site Area: 13,920 sq. ft.
Zoning District: R1-10,000
Proposed Allowed/Required
Total Site Coverage 4,166 sq. ft. (30%) 60% Max.
Total Floor Area 3,137 sq. ft. 3,880 sq. ft. Max.
Height 14 ft. 26 feet Max.
8
Page 2 of 2
Setbacks
Front:
Exterior Left Side:
Interior Right Side:
Rear:
35’
22’
10’
37’ 11”
25’
25’
10’
10’
Trees: The proposed construction is within five feet of a canopy of a persimmon tree, which is
not considered protected due to its size. No arborist report is required.
Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: The property owner posted a sign in front of the
property, notifying neighbors of the application for a building permit. No comments have been
received as of the writing of this report.
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
Pursuant to City Code Section 15-65.050(b), major repair and alteration of a nonconforming
structure may be permitted if the Planning Commission is able to make the following
determinations:
(1) The repair and/or alteration will accommodate a conforming use. This finding may be
made because the alteration will accommodate the residential use currently on the property.
(2) The repair and/or alteration does not increase the degree of noncompliance, or otherwise
increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the requirements of this Chapter.
This finding may be made because the existing noncompliance is along the exterior (east)
elevation while the proposed addition is located along the rear (south) elevation, where the
structure is in compliance with City Code setbacks.
(3) The repair and/or alteration do not effectively extend or perpetuate the useful life of any
particular feature or portion of the structure which is nonconforming. This finding may be
made because the project is proposing new construction in an area that is conforming to City
Code. The portion of structure within the setback would not be affected due to the proposed
project.
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. The project, as
proposed, is an addition to an existing residence.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval
2. Development Plans (Exhibit "A")
9
RESOLUTION NO: 15-050
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR AN ADDITION TO A NON-CONFORMING
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED AT
18470 RAVENSWOOD DR
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2015, an application was submitted by Amer Ather to add 700
sq. ft. to an existing legal non-conforming one-story residence. The existing residence encroaches
into the exterior side setback. The required setback is 25 feet and the residence has an existing
setback of 21 ft. The proposed addition will result in expenditure of approximately 33 percent of the
estimated construction valuation of the existing structure. . The foregoing work is described as the
“Project” in this Resolution.
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 December 9, 2015, the Planning Commission held a meeting 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 the repair and/or
alteration will accommodate a conforming use; the repair and/or alteration does not increase the
degree of noncompliance, or otherwise increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the
requirements of this Chapter; and the repair and/or alteration does not effectively extend or
perpetuate the useful life of any particular feature or portion of the structure which is
nonconforming.
10
Section 5: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that no protected trees
are being removed.
Section 6: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves ELN15-0012
located at 18470 Ravenswood Dr. 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 9th day of
December 2015 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Leonard Almalech
Chair, Planning Commission
11
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ELN15-0012
18470 RAVENWOOD DR. / 397-43-050
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.
12
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. THIS CONDITION IS PERMANENT. Statement of Acknowledgment of Legal
Nonconforming Status: The property Owner shall record a Statement of Acknowledgment of
Legal Nonconforming Status, satisfactory to the Community Development Director, specifying
that alteration and repair of the non-conforming structure shall comply with City Code.
7. Non-Conforming Structure Limitations. In no event shall the cumulative expenditures for
repairs and/or alterations on any nonconforming structure exceed fifty percent of the
estimated construction cost of the structure prior to such repairs and/or alterations, unless
such structure is changed to a conforming structure or otherwise satisfies the standards set
forth by City Code.
8. 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 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.”
13
14
15
16
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: December 9, 2015
Application: SUB10-0001 / ENV10-0001
Location / APN Mt. Eden Road / 503-13-127, 128
Applicant/Owner: Irany / Karr
Staff Planner: Michael Fossati, Planner
Mt. Eden Road
17
Page 2 of 6
SUMMARY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide an approximately
13.8 acre parcel located on Mt. Eden Road into two lots. Parcel 1 would be 3.85 acres and
Parcel 2 would be 9.92 acres. Environmental review in the form of a Negative Declaration is
required because both proposed lots have average slopes greater than 20%. The parcel is
zoned Hillside-Residential (HR).
S TAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Resolution No. 13-025 adopting the Negative Declaration and approving the
project subject to conditions of approval.
PROJECT DATA:
Zoning: Hillside Residential
General Plan Designation: Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC).
Parcel Size: Parcel 1 – 3.85 acres / Parcel 2 – 9.92 acres
Average Slope: Parcel 1 – 29.8% / Parcel 2 – 24.8%
PROPOSAL CODE REQ./ALLOWANCE CONFORMANCE
Parcel 1:
Net parcel
size:
3.85 acres 3.85 acres Conforms
Frontage: 891 feet 80 feet Conforms
Width: 747 feet 100 feet Conforms
Depth: 150 feet 150 feet Conforms
Setbacks:
Front: 30 feet 30 feet or 20% of depth Conforms
Sides: 75 feet 20 feet or 10% of width Conforms
Rear: 50 feet 50 feet or 25% of depth Conforms
Parcel 2:
Net parcel
size:
9.92 acres 3.33 acres Conforms
Frontage: 80 feet 80 feet Conforms
Width: 477 feet 100 feet Conforms
Depth: 615 feet 150 feet Conforms
Setbacks:
Front: 123 feet 30 feet or 20% of depth Conforms
Sides: 48 feet 20 feet or 10% of width Conforms
Rear: 153 feet 50 feet or 25% of depth Conforms
18
Application No. SUB10-0001 / Mt. Eden Rd
Page 3 of 6
PROJECT DISCUSSION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The project was continued from a June 26, 2013 PC meeting due to some missing details
regarding the application and potential bridge access. The City had requested investigative
data that a bridge could be built across an existing ravine to access Parcel 2. The applicant
had provided engineering data, which has been peer reviewed by the City Geologist, that a
bridge can be built to provide access. Therefore, the details have been addressed to allow
the application to be re-reviewed by Planning Commission. The delay was mainly due to
establishing a baseline of the amount of information needed by the City to verify the bridge
access.
The applicant requests Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a heavily wooded 13.8
acre parcel located at on Mt. Eden Road into two lots. Parcel 1 would be 3.85 acres with a
29.8% slope, fronting Mt. Eden Road. Parcel 2 would be 9.92 acres, also fronting Mt. Eden
Road, with the main portion of the lot substantially setback from the road. There are no
structures currently onsite.
Parcel 1 proposes access directly from Mt. Eden Road. Parcel 2 would require a bridge to
be constructed over a portion of Calabasas Creek in order to access the property.
Supplemental geotechnical information has been prepared by the applicant’s consultant and
was approved by the City Geologist confirming the geotechnical feasibility of constructing a
driveway and new residence within the proposed boundaries of Parcel 1, as well as a
driveway, bridge and new residence within the proposed boundaries of Parcel 2.
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Compliance
The City’s Subdivision and Zoning regulations of the City Code implement Saratoga’s
General Plan and the State of California Subdivision Map Act. The Zoning Ordinance has
minimum standards for lot sizes, depths, widths, and frontages. In addition, the City Code
also regulates building placement, modifications to natural topography and ordinance-
protected tree removal. Any new structures proposed for these parcels will require the
property owner to obtain a design review approval in order to build on the new home sites.
As part of these future design reviews any proposed tree removals will need to be reviewed
by the City Arborist.
There are no improvements or structures on the parcel. Both of the proposed parcels
comply with all minimum zoning standards with regard to parcel size, configuration, and
setbacks.
City Arborist Review
The project was reviewed and has received clearance from the arborist to proceed. No trees
are requested for removal to subdivide the parcel into two lots. If construction is proposed
on either one of the parcels that encroaches within ten feet of the canopy of any protected
tree, the applicant will require additional reviews and clearances from the City Arborist.
The arborist report has been included as Attachment 3.
City Geologist Review
The City Geologist reviewed the project as proposed and provided geotechnical clearance
on April 13, 2015. The approval memo has been included as Attachment 4.
19
Application No. SUB10-0001 / Mt. Eden Rd
Page 4 of 6
City Department/Outside Agency Review
This Tentative Parcel Map has been reviewed by the City Arborist, the City Geologist, and
the following agencies.
· Santa Clara County Fire
· Cupertino Sanitation District
· Pacific Gas and Electric
· San Jose Water Company
· Los Gatos – Saratoga Joint Union High School
· Saratoga Union School District
No objections have been received and conditions of those agencies have been included in
the resolution.
Neighbor Notification
Staff 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 of 21901 Mt. Eden road expressed concerns regarding the access point for Parcel
2. The owner would like verification that no one will request an access easement on his
property in the future. Staff is unable to confirm that no one will ever ask for an access
easement, but we can confirm that the proposed driveway does not encroach on his property.
The owners of 13941 and 13951 Damon Lane have expressed opposition of the proposed
subdivision. Objections include privacy impacts, view impacts, and damage to the
neighborhood. There comments have been included as Attachment 5. Staff has determined
that subdivision itself will not create privacy or view impacts. If development is proposed
after the subdivision has been approved, there will be review of any potential impacts
regarding privacy, views, or damage to the neighborhood.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Community Development Department completed an Initial Study and Negative
Declaration for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21177), CEQA Guidelines (14
California Code of Regulations sections 15000-15387), and any other applicable
requirements. The intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were duly
noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period from September 18, 2015 –
October 8, 2015. All Interested Parties desiring to comment on the MND were given the
opportunity to submit written and oral comments on the adequacy of the MND. No
comments have been received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
TENTATIVE MAP APPROVAL FINDINGS
The Planning Commission shall not approve any tentative map if the commission finds the
proposal supports any of the following nine findings (Municipal Code Section 14-
20.070[b]).
20
Application No. SUB10-0001 / Mt. Eden Rd
Page 5 of 6
(1) That the proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
specific plans.
The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and the Hillside Specific Plan in that
parcels are consistent with the General Plan designation of Residential Hillside
Conservation (RHC) defined as 0.5 dwelling units per net acre. The proposed parcels meet
the minimum lot size required by the municipal code for the HR zoning district. Proposed
lot dimensions including width, depth and frontage both meet and exceed the minimums
required by the City Code.
(2) That the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are not consistent
with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.
The design of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and the Hillside
Specific Plan because the proposed parcel sizes, configuration, access and building
envelopes are consistent with the zoning code and are compatible with the existing density
in the project vicinity. The proposed building envelopes are sufficient in size and dimension
to accommodate a single-family residence, which is permitted within the Hillside residential
zoning district. Building envelopes provided on the proposed tentative map indicate
required setbacks can be provided to meet the development regulations.
Design review approval shall be required, as applicable in the City Code, for any new
single-family residence on Parcel 1 or Parcel 2. At the time an application to construct a
single-family residence is filed with the Community Development Department, the mass,
bulk, view, privacy and compatibility issues of the proposed residence with the existing
neighborhood and residences shall be examined.
(3) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The
applicant is not proposing any development at this time. The property is physically suitable
for residential development, as long as it is consistent with City Code standards.
(4) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The
site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the density
allowance for Residential Hillside Conservation is 0.5 dwelling units per acre. Parcel 1 is
proposed at 3.85 acres and Parcel 2 is proposed at 9.92 acres.
(5) That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The
design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the site is
already surrounded by low impact development within the rural area. The project, as
proposed, will continue the use of single-family residential development, which is consistent
and permitted within the existing neighborhood.
(6) That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause serious health or safety
problems. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious health or safety
problems because the proposed project is consistent with the zoning and subdivision
regulations in the Municipal Code and General Plan. The Tentative Parcel Map has been
21
Application No. SUB10-0001 / Mt. Eden Rd
Page 6 of 6
reviewed by the all applicable agencies. All structural improvements to the property would
be reviewed by the Community Development Department, once received.
(7) That the design of the subdivision will conflict with easements for access or use.
The design of the subdivision would not conflict with easements for access or use because
access to both lots can be obtained by Mt. Eden Road, which is a public street. There are no
existing access easements in the direct area that would be affected by the subdivision.
(8) That a proposed subdivision of land which is subject to a contract executed
pursuant to the Williamson Act. The proposed subdivision of land is not subject to a
contract executed pursuant to the Williamson Act.
(9) That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing
community sewer system would result in violation of existing requirements. The
discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing public sewer system
would not result in violation of existing requirements. The Cupertino Sanitation District
operates a sewer along Mt. Eden Road and will provide adequate service to the parcels.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution for approval
2. IS/ND for Mt. Eden Road
3. Arborist Report – Mt. Eden Road, dated
4. Geotechnical Clearance memo – Mt. Eden Rd., dated April 13, 2015
5. Neighbor Comments
6. Reduced Plan (Exhibit A)
22
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO: 13-025
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ENV10-0001) AND APPROVING A
TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATION (SUB10-0001) LOCATED ON
MOUNT EDEN ROAD (503-13-127,128)
WHEREAS, the City has received an application requesting a subdivision of a 13.8 acre
parcel into two parcels, located on Mount Eden Road. Parcel 1 would be 3.85 acres and Parcel 2
would be 9.92 acres. The proposed parcels are located in the Hillside Residential (NR) zoning
district.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an Initial Study and
Negative Declaration pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), and recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the project.
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2013 and December 9, 2015, 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 Community Development Department completed an Initial Study and
Negative Declaration for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21177), CEQA Guidelines (14
California Code of Regulations sections 15000-15387), and any other applicable requirements. The
intent to adopt the Negative Declaration (ND) were duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public
review period from September 18, 2015 – October 7, 2015. All Interested Parties desiring to
comment on the ND were given the opportunity to submit written and oral comments on the
adequacy of the ND up to and including the close of the Public Hearing on Project before the
Planning Commission on December 9, 2015.
Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies:
Land Use LU 1.1 which provide that the city shall continue to be predominantly a community of
single-family detached residences and Land Use Policy LU 1.3 which provides that the city shall
ensure that existing undeveloped sites zoned single-family detached residential remain so
designated.
Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the Planning
Commission shall not approve any tentative map if the commission finds the proposal supports any
of the nine findings contained in Municipal Code Section 14-20.070(b). Staff has provided
evidence, which does not support the findings for denial.
23
Resolution No. 13-025
Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves SUB10-0001 and
ENV10-0001, located on Mount Eden Road, subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval
attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 9th day of
December 2015 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Leonard Almalech
Chair, Planning Commission
24
Resolution No. 13-025
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SUB10-0001/ENV10-0001
MOUNT EDEN ROAD
(APN 503-13-127/128)
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. 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).
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. 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.
The 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.
25
Resolution No. 13-025
B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
5. An application for Design Review and Geotechnical Clearance shall be submitted for any
proposed single-family residences to be constructed on Parcel 1 and Parcel 2.
C. CUPERTINO SANITATION DISTRICT
6. The developer is required to pay all applicable fees prior to the recordation of the Final Map.
The fees will be determined upon submittal of the improvement plan. District approval will be
in the form of sewer connection permits after payment of fees.
D. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
7. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner (applicant)
shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil
Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property
corner locations either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each
new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the City Engineer, all in conformity with the
Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act.
8. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance
with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14-
40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for examination. The Final Map shall
contain all of the information required in Section 14-40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be
accompanied by the following items:
a. Two copies of map checking calculations.
b. Two copies of the Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety (90)
days of the date of submittal for the Final Map.
c. Two copies of each map referenced on the Final Map.
d. Two copies of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map.
e. Two copies of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will
facilitate the examination process as requested by the City Engineer.
f. One copy of the approved Tentative Map.
9. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the
time of submittal of the Final Map for examination.
10. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the Final Map or
some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the
setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by
the City Engineer shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of
interior monuments.
26
Resolution No. 13-025
11. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements
and/or rights-of-way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative
Map and conditions of approval, prior to Final Map approval.
12. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans to the City Engineer in
conformance with the approved Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and
improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The improvement plans shall
be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the appropriate officials from other public
agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and private utility providers, prior to
approval of the Final Map. Improvement requirements shall include, but not necessarily be
limited to:
a. Widen Mount Eden Road shoulder along the subdivision frontage by 3 feet.
13. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee, as determined
by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Plans are submitted for review.
14. The owner (applicant) shall enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the City in
accordance with Section 14-60.010 of the Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval.
15. The owner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities in accordance with Section 14-
60.020 of the Municipal Code in the manner and amounts determined by the Public Works
Director prior to Final Map approval.
16. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance
coverage, in accordance with Section 14-05.050 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map
approval.
17. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the City Engineer with
satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the
subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serve the
subdivision.
18. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public
agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivision
improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be
provided to City Engineer.
19. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation fees prior to Final Map
approval.
20. Stormwater Treatment. The owner/applicant shall provide the Director of Public Works with a
plan describing how owner/applicant will implement all Best Management Practices (BMPs)
and other measures required to reduce the stormwater runoff impacts of the project, as described
in and required by the City's NPDES Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, Order R2-2009-
0074 (as amended by Order R2-2011-0083) ("NPDES Permit"). The measures included in this
plan shall include, but are not limited to, construction site control measures, plans for storm
27
Resolution No. 13-025
drain stenciling, and landscaping measures. This plan must be approved by the Director of
Public Works prior to final map approval. The owner/applicant shall enter into a Stormwater
Maintenance Agreement, which shall contain all of the provisions required by the NPDES
Permit and provide a funding mechanism(s), satisfactory in form and content to the Director of
Public Works, to ensure permanent funding for the maintenance of the stormwater treatment
systems or hydro modification controls developed on the property as well as inspection and
reporting. Upon owner/applicant's request, the City will initiate proceedings to create an
assessment district, which, if approved, shall be a satisfactory funding mechanism for this
maintenance, inspection, and reporting.
21. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and
Construction - Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing
storm water pollution.
22. Geotechnical Clearance to subdivide the subject property of approximately 14 acres into 2
parcels is granted. Parcel 1 located adjacent to Mount Eden Road includes a delineated building
site area previously approved from a geotechnical feasibility perspective. Geotechnical review
and approval by the City will be required during the development application for this parcel.
23. Parcel 2 will encompass the eastern portion of the property. Proposed bridge, driveway, and
building envelope within Parcel 2 are feasible from a geotechnical perspective. Prior to approval
of a specific design for the bridge, driveway, or new residence within Parcel 2, the following
items shall be satisfactorily addressed:
a. A geotechnical investigation should be completed as a basis for preparation of detailed
geotechnical design criteria for the bridge and driveway on Parcel 2. For bridge abutments,
consideration should be given to pier support that extends a sufficient depth below the active
creek channel. Appropriate measures should be recommended (as needed) to prevent scour
that may adversely impact the bridge. Grading design criteria should be prepared for the
proposed driveway. Geotechnical design parameters should be prepared for any proposed
retaining walls. Drainage design recommendations should be prepared.
b. A geotechnical investigation should be completed to develop geotechnical design criteria for
proposed residential improvements on Parcel 2. The Consultant should review and reference
geologic and geotechnical investigations completed by Pacific Geotechnical Engineering to
support the proposed subdivision. Consideration should be given to avoidance of large
unsupported cut slopes given the history of local landslides. Highly expansive earth
materials should be avoided for the construction of structural fills. Results of site
investigation should be summarized in a report.
24. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical
Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance.
25. 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.
26. An encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department is required for all new
28
Resolution No. 13-025
improvements in any portion of the public right-of-way or of a public easement prior to
commencement of the work in the public right-of-way or public easement.
E. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
27. The applicant shall coordinate with PG&E early in the development of the project to promote
safe and reliable maintenance and operation of existing utility facilities. Any proposed
development plans shall provide for unrestricted utility access and prevent interference with
PG&E easements.
28. The installation of new gas and electric facilities and/or the relocation of existing PG&E
facilities will be performed in accordance with common law or Rules and Tariffs as authorized
by the California Public Utilities Commission.
F. CITY ATTORNEY
29. Owner and Applicant agree to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's
defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the
City's action.
G. FIRE SAFETY OR FIRE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS
30. Fire Agency Conditions. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Agency conditions.
29
Environmental Initial Study
& Negative Declaration
Irany / Karr Subdivision
Owners:
Fred & Chris Irany and Robert & Carol Karr
Public Review Period:
September 18, 2015 to October 7, 2015
30
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Irany / Karr Subdivision
Page 2
1. Project title: Irany/Karr Subdivision - Subdivide 13.8 acre
parcel into two parcels
2. Lead agency name and address: City of Saratoga; Planning Division
13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga, CA 95070
3. Contact person and phone number: Michael Fossati
(408) 868-1212
4. Project location/APN: Mount Eden Road; Saratoga, CA 95070
503-13-127 / 503-13-128
5. Project sponsor name and address: Fred & Chris Irany
13937 Pierce Road
Saratoga CA 95070
Robert and Carol Karr
13951 Pierce Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
6. General plan designation: Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC)
7. Zoning: Hillside Residential (HR)
8. Description of project: The applicant currently owns a 13.8 acre parcel. They have submitted an
application to subdivide the parcel into two parcels. Parcel 1 would be 3.85 acres and Parcel 2
would be 9.92 acres (see Figure 2). Environmental review is required because both proposed lots
have average slopes greater than 20%.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project is located on a northeastern portion of Mt. Eden
Road in Saratoga, California. The property does not have a dedicated address, as it is currently
vacant with no structures. The general plan designation for the property is RHC and the zoning is
HR. Surrounding land uses include single-family homes on large lots which are all zoned HR. Mt
Eden Road is located to the south of the parcel.
10. Other public agencies whose review is required
San Jose Water Company
Cupertino Sanitary District
Pacific Gas & Electric
31
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Irany / Karr Subdivision
Page 3
Figure 1: Project Location
32
Figure 2: Tentative Map - Irany/Karr 33
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. Please see the
checklist beginning on page 7 for additional information.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population/Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required
Signature: Date: September 18, 2015
Printed Name: Michael Fossati
34
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Irany / Karr Subdivision
Page 6
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not
apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact"
answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g.,
the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or
less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less
Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how
they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier
Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiring, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this
case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies
should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental
effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
35
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Irany / Karr Subdivision
Page 7
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
DISCUSSION:
a-d) The proposed location and associated subdivision are not proposing any new construction and
are not located on a scenic highway. The project will not affect scenic vista’s, substantially damage
scenic resources, substantially degrade existing visual character or create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views.
No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Aesthetics
(Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site, City of Saratoga General Plan and Municipal
Code §15-12)
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as
an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In
determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information
compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest
carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined
in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
36
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Irany / Karr Subdivision
Page 8
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
DISCUSSION:
a-e) The property is not zoned for farm or agricultural land uses and it is not under a Williamson Act
contract. No forest land, as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g) exists on the property.
No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Agricultural and Forest Resources.
(Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site, City of Saratoga General Plan and Municipal
Code §15-12)
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
DISCUSSION:
a-e) The project is limited to a subdivision of an existing parcel. The project does not include any
construction or modifications to the site that could affect air quality.
No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Air Quality
(Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site, City of Saratoga General Plan and Municipal
Code §15-12)
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
37
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Irany / Karr Subdivision
Page 9
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish
and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
DISCUSSION:
a-f) The project site is currently undeveloped. The applicant is not proposing any construction in
order to modify any existing habitat, interrupt any hydrology on the site, interfere with the movement
of any native resident, remove any trees, or conflict with any provisions of any Habitat Conservation
Plan.
No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Biological Resources.
(Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
DISCUSSION:
a-d) The project includes a subdivision of an existing parcel and no physical development or site
modifications are proposed that could impact Cultural Resources.
No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Cultural Resources.
(Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site)
38
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Irany / Karr Subdivision
Page 10
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
DISCUSSION:
a-e) The project site is an undeveloped lot requesting a subdivision within a residential zoning
district, without any proposal for new construction. The subdivision was reviewed by the City’s
Geologist and it was determined that the subdivision itself would not expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects, as the subdivision does not propose any construction or physical
development.
No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Geology and Soils.
(Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site and City of Saratoga General Plan)
39
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Irany / Karr Subdivision
Page 11
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS:
An assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions and climate
change is included in the body of environmental document.
While Caltrans has included this good faith effort in order to
provide the public and decision-makers as much information as
possible about the project, it is Caltrans determination that in the
absence of further regulatory or scientific information related to
GHG emissions and CEQA significance, it is too speculative to
make a significance determination regarding the project’s direct
and indirect impact with respect to climate change. Caltrans
does remain firmly committed to implementing measures to help
reduce the potential effects of the project. These measures are
outlined in the body of the environmental document.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
DISCUSSION:
a-b) The project site is an undeveloped lot requesting a subdivision within a residential zoning district,
without any proposal for new construction. No physical development or site modifications are
proposed which would be create a source of greenhouse gas emissions which would significantly
impact the environment or conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation regarding reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
(Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site)
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
40
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Irany / Karr Subdivision
Page 12
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent
to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
DISCUSSION:
a-h) The project site is an undeveloped lot requesting a subdivision within a residential zoning
district, without any proposal for new construction. No physical development or site modifications
are being proposed. The site is not included on any list of hazardous material sites. The site is not
located within two miles of a public airport, nor is there a relevant airport land use plan. There are no
known private airstrips in the vicinity. The project will not impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, nor expose people
or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to hazards and hazardous materials.
(Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site)
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
41
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Irany / Karr Subdivision
Page 13
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee
or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow
DISCUSSION:
a-j) The project site is an undeveloped lot requesting a subdivision within a residential zoning district,
without any proposal for new construction. No physical development or site modifications are being
proposed. The project would have no affect on groundwater supplies, would not alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site, or create new surface runoff nor degrade water quality. The project
would not expose housing or people to flooding hazards, inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Hydrology and Water Quality
Resources.
(Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site)
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
DISCUSSION:
a-c) The project site is an undeveloped lot requesting a subdivision within a residential zoning
district, without any proposal for new construction. No physical development or site modifications are
being proposed. The project has been designed to meet the required standards regarding width, depth, and net
lot size of the City Code. The project would not physically divide an established community or conflict
with any known habitat conservation or natural community plans of the City of Saratoga. The project
would not conflict with the City’s General Plan nor the regulations contained in Chapter 15 of the
City Code. There is no known applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan in the vicinity of the project.
No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Land Use and Planning.
(Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site, City of Saratoga General Plan and Municipal
Code §15-12)
42
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Irany / Karr Subdivision
Page 14
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
DISCUSSION:
a-b) The project site is not categorized or referenced within the General Plan as having mineral
deposits of value to the region and has not been recognized as being a locally important mineral
resource recovery site.
No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Mineral Resources.
(Sources: City Staff’s review of the project and City of Saratoga General Plan)
XII. NOISE: Would the project result in: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
DISCUSSION:
a-f) The project site is an undeveloped lot requesting a subdivision within a residential zoning district,
without any proposal for new construction. No physical development or site modifications are being
proposed. No noise or vibration would be associated with the project. The project is not located
43
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Irany / Karr Subdivision
Page 15
within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport or within
the vicinity of a private airstrip.
No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to Noise impacts.
(Sources: City staff’s review of the project)
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
DISCUSSION:
a-c) The project site is an undeveloped lot requesting a subdivision within a residential zoning
district, without any proposal for new construction. No physical development or site modifications are
being proposed. The project may indirectly induce population growth, but the growth would be substantial.
No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Population and Housing.
(Sources: City staff’s review of the project)
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for
new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
44
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Irany / Karr Subdivision
Page 16
DISCUSSION:
a) The project site is an undeveloped lot requesting a subdivision within a residential zoning district,
without any proposal for new construction. No physical development or site modifications are being
proposed. The project may indirectly induce population growth, but the growth would be substantial.
The project would have no effect on public safety, school, parks, or other public facilities.
Based on the above discussion, No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on
Public Services.
(Sources: City staff’s review of the project)
XV. RECREATION: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
DISCUSSION:
a-b) The project does not include residential construction that could affect population and/or housing.
The project would have no effect on the use of existing neighborhood, regional or other recreational
facilities, nor does the project require construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Recreation.
(Sources: City staff’s review of the project and City of Saratoga General Plan)
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and
relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
45
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Irany / Karr Subdivision
Page 17
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety
of such facilities?
DISCUSSION:
a-f) The project site is an undeveloped lot requesting a subdivision within a residential zoning district,
without any proposal for new construction. No physical development or site modifications are being
proposed. The project will not conflict with any City plan, ordinance, or policy or applicable
congestion management program. The proposed project would not result in a change in traffic
patterns, substantially increase hazards due to a design feature, or result in inadequate emergency
access. The proposed project will not conflict with any adopted policies or plans supporting
alternative transportation.
No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to transportation and traffic.
(Sources: City staff’s review of the project and City of Saratoga General Plan)
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
DISCUSSION:
46
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Irany / Karr Subdivision
Page 18
a-g) The project site is an undeveloped lot requesting a subdivision within a residential zoning
district, without any proposal for new construction. No physical development or site modifications are
being proposed. The project would have no effect on existing utilities and service systems.
No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to Utilities and Service Systems.
(Sources: City staff’s review of the project)
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
DISCUSSION:
a-c) This environmental document discusses the possible environmental impacts associated with a
subdivision of one 13.85 undeveloped parcel into two undeveloped parcels. Parcel 1 would be 3.85
acres and Parcel 2 would be 9.92 acres. No new development is proposed as part of this project.
Because the project includes no proposed construction or physical medications to the site it can be
seen that the project would have no effect on any resident habitat nor would it threaten any rare or
endangered species. The project would not have cumulative impacts or cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
GENERAL SOURCE REFERENCES:
1. City of Saratoga General Plan (Land Use, Circulation, Open Space & Conservation, Noise, and
Safety Element)
2. City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance and Map
3. City staff reviews of the project.
4. Tentative Subdivision Map (prepared by Westfall Engineers, March 2012)
5. City of Saratoga Geologist Clearance Memo, dated 04/13/15
47
Page 1 of 1
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
ARBORIST REPORT
Application #:ARB 09-0039
Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Mt. Eden Road subdivision
Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owners: Fred and Chris Irany &
Robert and Carol Karr
Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN 503-13-127
Report History: #1 Date: September 21, 2010
INTRODUCTION
The applicants have submitted a plan to subdivide a parcel on Mt. Eden Road into two parcels, one
with a building site and a second remainder parcel. Plans for a proposed house have also been
submitted, but no application for design review of the house has been received. This report will
address only the subdivision application. A separate arborist report will be required once an
application for design review has been received.
This project has clearance from the arborist to proceed. No trees are requested for removal in order
to subdivide the parcel, and subdivision of the parcel will not impact any protected trees.
SITE VISIT, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION
Architectural plans were submitted for review by Craftsmen’s Guild. They will not be reviewed for
this report. Civil plans submitted for review for this report were prepared by Westfall Engineers, Inc.
They include a Preliminary Map dated December 2009, and a Preliminary Grading and Drainage
Plan, dated July 2010.
A number of oak trees protected by City Code are located on the parcel to be created. Subdividing
the parcel does not have any impact on protected trees.
FINDINGS
Per Article 15-50.080, the project was reviewed, and no trees are requested or approved for removal
for parcel subdivision; the project does not include any new construction.
It is possible to access the proposed parcel from Mt. Eden Road without impacting trees. There is a
building envelope that would allow construction of a house without requiring the removal of
protected trees. The trees on the property do create constraints to any proposed design, in that
grading, addition of fill soil, excavation for a basement, installation of utilities, or drainage should
remain at least 25 feet from any protected tree on the property.
48
Mt. Eden Road subdivision
Page 2 of 2
REQUIREMENTS
1. This report shall be made available to any prospective buyers of the lot.
2. No protected tree is authorized for removal, pruning or encroachment pursuant to this
project.
Attachments:
Map showing original and proposed parcels
Map showing enlargement of proposed parcel with trees
49
Mt. Eden Road subdivision 50
Mt. Eden Road subdivision This house design has not been reviewed or approved for the parcel. A separate submittal for design review will be necessary. 51
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 868-1274
MEMORANDUM
TO: Iveta Harvancik, Senior Engineer DATE: April 13, 2015
FROM: Cotton Shires and Associates, Inc., City Geotechnical Consultant
SUBJECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review Revision (S5140E)
RE: Irany and Karr, Proposed Subdivision
GE010-0013
Mount Eden Road (APN 503-13-127 and 128)
At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical peer review of the subject application
using:
Geologic and Geotechnical Feasibility – Parcel #2 Driveway and Building Envelope (letter) prepared by
Geo-Logic Associates, dated February 9, 2015;
Tentative Map for Irani/Karr Subdivision (Sheet 1) prepared by Westfall Engineers, dated January 23,
2015;
Preliminary Access Road & Bridge to Parcel 2, Lands of Irani/Karr (Sheet 2) prepared by Westfall
Engineers, dated January 2014;
Geologic Feasibility of Bridge Alignment (letter) prepared by Pacific Geotechnical Engineering, dated
March 7, 2014; and
Geologic Update Letter – Irany/Karr Two-Lot Subdivision prepared by Pacific Geotechnical
Engineering, dated August 28, 2012.
In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files (S3286) and been in
communication with the Project Geotechnical Consultant (Geo-Logic).
DISCUSSION
We understand that the applicant proposes to subdivide the subject property of approximately 14 acres
into 2 parcels. Parcel 1 will be located adjacent to Mount Eden Road and includes a delineated building site
area previously approved from a geotechnical perspective. Parcel 2 will encompass the eastern portion of the
property. A preliminary plan for access to Parcel 2 has been prepared including a bridge and a driveway
extending to a depicted building envelope. The driveway southwest of the bridge is to be supported by fill
materials up to approximately 5 feet in depth. The depicted bridge deck spans 50 feet between abutments. The
driveway incorporates three retaining walls to a maximum height of approximately 5 feet. Cut and fill for this
52
Iveta Harvancik April 13, 2015
Page 2 S5140E
portion of the driveway does not extend beyond the paved roadway surface. Estimated cut and fill quantities
for driveway and bridge construction have not been provided. A centerline profile for the driveway and
bridge has not been provided. Our geotechnical peer review does not address design of the bridge with respect
to passing flood flows.
In our previous geotechnical peer review (dated April 16, 2014), we recommended that a geotechnically
feasible access route and building envelope(s) be identified within Parcel 2. We also recommended that
geotechnical design criteria for bridge abutments be developed. We further recommended that an access road
center-line profile be prepared and estimates of grading volumes for the roadway be provided. We also
recommended that any special design criteria for the selected residence site(s) within Parcel 2 be considered
and addressed.
RECENT GEOLOGIC EVALUATIONS
Geo-Logic Consultants has evaluated a Preliminary Access Road and Bridge Alignment Plan that
illustrates a proposed bridge of 100 feet in length. The Consultant concludes that the proposed bridge
alignment, driveway, and building envelope for Parcel #2 are generally feasible from an engineering geologic
standpoint. The Consultant indicates that detailed design for the bridge should anticipate use of drilled pier or
other deep foundations for abutment support, address scour by the Calabasas Creek near the abutments, and
incorporate suitable inclinations for cuts into colluvium and claystone. We understand that detailed
geotechnical engineering design parameters for the bridge will be included in a future submittal.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
We do not have objections to the indicated conclusions of Geo-Logic Associates that the proposed bridge,
driveway, and building envelope within Parcel 2 are feasible from a geotechnical perspective. The Consultant
has recently confirmed that the altered bridge and driveway configurations indicated on the referenced plans
are also deemed feasible. Consequently, we do not have remaining geotechnical issues with the proposed
subdivision and recommend geotechnical approval of the Tentative Map application.
Prior to approval of a specific design for the bridge, driveway, or new residence within Parcel 2, we
recommend that the following items be satisfactorily addressed:
1. Bridge and Driveway Design Criteria – A geotechnical investigation should be completed as a
basis for preparation of detailed geotechnical design criteria for the bridge and driveway. For
bridge abutments, consideration should be given to pier support that extends a sufficient depth
below the active creek channel. Appropriate measures should be recommended (as needed) to
prevent scour that may adversely impact the bridge. Grading design criteria should be prepared for
the proposed driveway. Geotechnical design parameters should be prepared for any proposed
retaining walls. Drainage design recommendations should be prepared.
2. Residential Structure Design Criteria – A geotechnical investigation should be completed to
develop geotechnical design criteria for proposed residential improvements on Parcel 2. The
Consultant should review and reference geologic and geotechnical investigations completed by
Pacific Geotechnical Engineering to support the proposed subdivision. Consideration should be
given to avoidance of large unsupported cut slopes given the history of local landslides. Highly
expansive earth materials should be avoided for the construction of structural fills. Results of site
investigation should be summarized in a report.
53
Iveta Harvancik April 13, 2015
Page 3 S5140E
Appropriate documentation to address the above two items should be submitted to the City, for review by
the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant, prior to approval of specific site development plans or
bridge design plans.
LIMITATIONS
This supplemental geotechnical peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the
City in its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents
previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions are made in
accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in
lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied.
TS:DTS:kc
54
Memorandum of Geotechnical Clearance Conditions
Page 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael Fossati, Project Planner, Community Development Department
CC: Irany/Karr (Owners)
FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Senior Engineer
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Clearance Conditions for GEO11-0013, 2-lot subdivision at Mt. Eden
Road
DATE: April 15, 2015
1. Geotechnical Clearance to subdivide the subject property of approximately 14 acres into 2
parcels is granted. Parcel 1 located adjacent to Mount Eden Road includes a delineated
building site area previously approved from a geotechnical feasibility perspective.
Geotechnical review and approval by the City will be required during the development
application for this parcel.
2. Parcel 2 will encompass the eastern portion of the property. Proposed bridge, driveway,
and building envelope within Parcel 2 are feasible from a geotechnical perspective. Prior
to approval of a specific design for the bridge, driveway, or new residence within Parcel 2,
the following items shall be satisfactorily addressed:
3. A geotechnical investigation should be completed as a basis for preparation of detailed
geotechnical design criteria for the bridge and driveway on Parcel 2. For bridge
abutments, consideration should be given to pier support that extends a sufficient depth
below the active creek channel. Appropriate measures should be recommended (as
needed) to prevent scour that may adversely impact the bridge. Grading design criteria
should be prepared for the proposed driveway. Geotechnical design parameters should be
prepared for any proposed retaining walls. Drainage design recommendations should be
prepared.
4. A geotechnical investigation should be completed to develop geotechnical design criteria
for proposed residential improvements on Parcel 2. The Consultant should review and
reference geologic and geotechnical investigations completed by Pacific Geotechnical
Engineering to support the proposed subdivision. Consideration should be given to
avoidance of large unsupported cut slopes given the history of local landslides. Highly
expansive earth materials should be avoided for the construction of structural fills.
Results of site investigation should be summarized in a report.
5. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City
Geotechnical Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance.
6. 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.
55
56
57
58
59
REPORT TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: December 9, 2015
Application: PDR14-0010
Location/APN: 18645 McFarland Ave. / 389-14-015
Applicant/Owner: Mahmoud Khorashadi
Staff Planner: Michael Fossati
18645 McFarland Ave.
60
Page 2 of 7
SUMMARY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests to demolish an existing single-story
residence in order to construct a new 3,515 sq. ft. two-story residence with two car garage
and attached second dwelling unit. The height of the new residence will not exceed 26
feet. Two trees not protected by City Code are proposed to be removed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. 14-048 approving Design Review PDR14-0010 subject to conditions
of approval.
Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission for the new house is required per
City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(1) because the structure is two stories.
PROJECT DATA:
Site Area: 10,000 square feet
Average Site Slope: Less than 2%
Grading: Less than 10cy
General Plan Designation: M-10 (Medium Density Residential)
Zoning: R-1-10,000
Proposed Allowable/Required
Proposed Site Coverage
House & Garage:
Pervious Driveway (50% of 1,029):
Side & Rear Patios:
Stepping Stones:
Total Proposed Site Coverage
2,272 SF
515 SF
2,040 SF
90 SF
4,917 SF (46%)
6,600 SF (includes 10%
increase for Deed
Restricted 2nd Unit)
Floor Area
1st & 2nd Floor:
Garage:
Attached 2nd Unit
Total Proposed Floor Area
2,735 SF
389 SF
391 SF
3,515 SF
3,520 SF (includes 10%
increase for Deed
Restricted 2nd Unit)
Height (Residence)
Lowest Elevation Point
Highest Elevation Point
Average Elevation Point
Proposed Topmost Point
101' 0"
101' 10"
101' 5"
127'1" (25’8”)
Maximum Height
= 127'5" (26 Feet)
Setbacks
Front:
Left Side:
Right Side:
Rear:
1st Floor
25'
11'8”
8'
52'5”
2nd Floor
25’
13’6"
14’
59’
1st Floor
25’
8’
8’
25’
2nd Floor
25'
13'
13'
35'
61
Application No. PDR14-0010/ 18645 McFarland Ave.
Page 3 of 7
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
An existing 1,891 one story single-family home is located in the eastern area of Saratoga,
near Quito Village. The neighborhood has typically quarter acre lots within a flatter
suburban area of Saratoga. There is a mixture of one and two story residences with
sloping roof forms, with the majority of residences being single-story ranch-style houses.
The houses most immediately adjacent to the site along the east and west elevation are
one-story. The existing two story houses in the neighborhood are shown in Attachment
2.
The 3,515 square foot two-story residence would be approximately 26 feet in height and
includes a two-car garage and an attached second dwelling unit. The second dwelling unit is
served by the same entrance as the main residence and is proposed to be located on the first
floor. The detached non-conforming structure would be removed. No additional structures
are proposed.
The design for the new residence includes earth-tone beige stucco exterior and trim and a
gray concrete tile roof. Proposed accents include black wrought iron details and green
decorative wood shutters The applicant has provided a color and materials board is on file
with the Community Development Department and will be available at the site visit and
public hearing. The following table lists the proposed exterior materials.
Detail Colors and Materials
Exterior & Trim Beige colored stucco and trim
Wood Shutters Green decorative wood shutters
Windows White vinyl windows
Roof Gray concrete tiles
Deed-Restricted Second Dwelling Unit
The applicant has proposed an attached second dwelling unit along the southern (rear)
elevation of the residence. The approximately 3917 sq. ft. area has bedroom, bathroom,
walk-in closet, and kitchen that would also act as a mud room. The project meets the
development standards required per the City Code to allow the second dwelling unit to be
deed-restricted and allows for a ten percent FAR and site coverage increase.
Existing Trees
Two trees are being proposed for removal. The trees proposed for removal are an existing
ash and Chinese elm, both in the front of the property. None of those trees are protected
per City Code. Therefore, none of the trees require approval from the City Arborist.
Front Landscape
A pervious paver system, stepping stones, and drought tolerant flowers and shrubs are being
proposed for the front landscaping. In an effort to reduce water usage while providing an
attractive front landscape area complimentary to the neighborhood, the applicant has
proposed approximately 42% of the front yard to be hardscape.
62
Application No. PDR14-0010/ 18645 McFarland Ave.
Page 4 of 7
Residential Design Guidelines
The applicant has worked diligently with staff in order to present a design that addresses the
requirements of the City’s Design Guidelines. The structure currently being reviewed by
the PC is the product of three complete changes in design and over a year of consultation
with staff. The applicant has utilized the Single-Family Residential Handbook in
developing this current design, which was an effort to blend in seamlessly with the
McFarland neighborhood.
Two-story residences are not the predominant building form in the McFarland area, but are
still allowed per City Code. In an effort to blend the new structure into the context of the
existing neighborhood, the applicant included substantial considerations into the proposed
design, such as:
· Incorporating single-story eave lines with the adjacent single-story residences to
maintain a sense of scale(pg. 4)
· Setting portions of the second story back and incorporating single-story elements to
assist in bringing the proposed structure into a proportionate scale with the
neighborhood.(pg. 5)
· Maintaining a general front yard setback along the street (pg. 6)
· Providing proper site planning design in an effort to not affected protected trees
either onsite or on neighboring properties (pg. 8)
· Maintaining a reasonable amount of open space along the rear yard in order to not
unreasonably impact the view sheds of other properties on Devon Avenue. (pg.
9).
· Increasing the second floor side yard setback to exceed the minimum required by
code (pg. 10) to help minimize bulk and potential privacy concerns.
· Minimizing windows in direct view of neighbor's private indoor and outdoor
areas. (pg. 11).
· Designing the proposed roof, eaves, and wall planes to minimize potential impact
and assist in allowing continued solar access to adjacent neighbors (pg. 12 and pg.
16).
· Proposing a pervious paver driveway to allow infiltration of storm water and
runoff into the soil and groundwater reservoirs. (pg. 21).
An example of how the project incorporates concepts from the Residential Design
Handbook has been provided by the applicant and included as Attachment #3. Along
with the changes discussed, the applicant incorporated additional design concepts and
strategies such as deemphasizing the garage by placing it behind the entry and including
simple window fenestration and recessed front and side wall planes to further break down
the apparent mass of the proposed residence.
Neighbor Notification and Correspondence
The applicant submitted five neighbor notification forms signed by adjacent property
owners. Property owners along the east and west elevation were concerned about privacy
impacts. In order to address concerns, the applicant adjusted the second story windows
along those elevations with five foot tall bottom sills, in a clerestory fashion, as
63
Application No. PDR14-0010/ 18645 McFarland Ave.
Page 5 of 7
previously discussed in the above paragraph. This result in the bottom sill of the
windows being located at least five feet above the finished floor, and minimizing
potential privacy impacts. The changes seem to meet the concerns of the neighbors, and
they have re-signed their neighbor notification forms. Copies of the neighbor notification
forms are included as Attachment #4.
After the project story poles were erected, the property owner at 18628 Devon Ave.
(located northeast and to the rear of the project) submitted a letter opposing the project
due to impacts to views and privacy.
Staff met with applicant regarding the concern of 18628 Devon Ave. In an effort to
appease the concerns of the neighbor, the applicant has proposed the following:
· Lower the overall height from 26 ft. to 25’8” feet.
· Keep the existing Persimmon tree in the area and/or plant additional trees in the
northeast corner to mitigate privacy.
Also, the property owner at 18644 Devon Ave. (located directly behind the project
location) and 18660 Devon Ave. (located northwest and to the rear of the project) have
submitted e-mails opposing the project. The letter and e-mails have been included as
Attachment #5.
Staff mailed 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. Additional written comments, other than what was discussed above
were received. Those additional e-mails have been included as Attachment #6. The
comments received reflect concerns that the project will impact mass, scale, views and
privacy and certain plan sheets are either misleading (streetscape shown on sheet A4) or
inaccurate (landscape plan on sheet A2) regarding canopy sizes of live oak tree. Lastly, the
proposed second dwelling unit does not clearly demonstrate an independent cooking facility.
In another effort to address the neighbor’s concerns, the applicant has modified the plans to
change the front gable of the garage to a hip form in order to provide more consistency with
the neighboring properties, relocate the master bedroom on the second floor to face the front
of the property to decrease the impacts of privacy with the rear neighbor, and change the
clerestory windows along the left side elevation second story bedrooms from two large
windows to four smaller windows. An explanation of the additional changes has been
included as Attachment #7.
Per City Code, the proposed floor plan meets the minimum standards for a second dwelling
unit in that the area demonstrated as the second unit “includes permanent provisions for
living, cooking, sleeping and sanitation on a parcel where a legally created single-family
dwelling is situated.”
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
64
Application No. PDR14-0010/ 18645 McFarland Ave.
Page 6 of 7
Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of three
single-family residences in a residential area. The project, as proposed, is for the
construction of one single-family residence in a suburban, 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. This finding can be made
because the project is on a flat land, where the natural contours of the site will be
unaffected by the development. Grading will also be limited because the property is
relatively flat. The lot is not considered a hillside lot and therefore will not require
significant grading to build.
(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 because no trees protected by City Code are proposed for removal. An
existing Persimmon tree is located at the rear of the site, but is substantially setback
from the proposed design and will be unaffected due to construction.
(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 because the proposed two story
residence will be built with clerestory style windows and second story setbacks that
exceed the minimum along the second story facing the nearest adjacent properties. In
order to provide adequate privacy for the rear neighbors, the residence will be set in a
location that exceeds the rear setback requirement by 24 feet. The floor plan has been
changed to place the master bedroom on the second floor into the front plane,
decreasing the impact on privacy for the rear neighbors. Furthermore, the applicant
has agreed to keep an established Persimmon tree that already is located within the
northeastern corner of the property as well planting additional trees (species to be
decided between the owner an direct neighbor) along with the rear property line to
further mitigate privacy impacts.
(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
because the proposed structure includes simple lines and a limited color pallet, the
incorporation of single story elements into the design. The project did not flatten the
roof in order to accommodate the height limitations, but rather chose a slope that is
consistent with the overall design of the proposed residence, and recessed the
placement of the garage and second story to not overwhelm the view from the public
65
Application No. PDR14-0010/ 18645 McFarland Ave.
Page 7 of 7
right-of-way. The applicant also minimized the overall mass by adjusting the first
floor roof eaves of the project to be approximately in line and scale with the roof
eaves of the adjacent single-story structures.
(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 because the hardscape in the front setback area is limited to the driveway
and steeping stones. The proposed landscape design would be complementary to the
neighborhood streetscape and includes drought tolerant shrubs and plants.
(f) Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining
properties to utilize solar energy. This finding can be made because the majority of
the residence because the slopes proposed will fall along the sides of the lot, allowing
greater solar access to the adjacent properties lying east and west.
(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 such as
minimizing the use of excessive colors and materials, set portions of the second story
back and incorporating single-story elements to assist in bringing the proposed
structure into scale with the neighborhood, maintaining the general front yard setback
associated with the street, and minimized windows in direct view of neighbor's
private indoor and outdoor areas.
(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 in that the project
location is not within the hillsides.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Picture of existing residences near project site
3. Example of Residential Design Handbook Compliance
4. Neighbor Notification Forms
5. Letter from owners of 18628, 18644 & 18660 Devon Ave, dated 10/16/15
6. Additional letters from neighbors
7. Rebuttal letter from architect
8. Reduced Plans (Exhibit A)
66
RESOLUTION NO. 14-048
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR DESIGN REVIEW NO. PDR14-0010 APPROVING
A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED SECOND DWELLING UNIT
LOCATED AT 18645 MCFARLAND AVE. (APN 389-14-015)
WHEREAS, an application was submitted by Mahmoud Khorashadi, in order to
demolish an existing residence and build a new 3,515 sq. ft., 25 foot tall, two-story residence
with attached second dwelling unit located at 18645 McFarland Avenue. Design Review
approval is required because the proposed project is new multi-story structure over eighteen feet
in height. The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in this Resolution.
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 December 9, 2015, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the subject application, and after considering evidence presented by City staff, the
applicant, and other interested parties, requested the applicant to revise the project to address
height, mass, and parking concerns.
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds,
determines and resolves as follows:
Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures” of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the
construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies.
Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies:
Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure
that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the
adjacent surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City
shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design
Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits; Land Use Element Goal 10 which minimizes
the impact of development proposals in hillside areas by requiring visual analyses and
imposition of conditions to prevent or reduce significant visual impacts; and Conservation
Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of
Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development.
67
Resolution No. 14-048 Page 2
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 view sheds; 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 view sheds, 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 no protected
trees are being removed.
Section 6: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR14-0010,
located at 18645 McFarland Avenue (APN 389-14-015), 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 9th day of
December 2015 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Leonard Almalech
Chair, Planning Commission
68
Resolution No. 14-048 Page 3
EXHIBIT 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PDR14-0010
18645 MCFARLAND AVE. (APN: 389-14-015)
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
permit for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of
approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been
recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content
to the satisfaction of 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 Zoning Regulations 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.
69
Resolution No. 14-048 Page 4
5. Construction must be commenced within 36 months of the date of this approval (December 9,
2018), or the resolution will expire.
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 dated November 23, 2015
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 3, above.
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 and referenced in Condition
No. 6 above;
b. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or
private vehicles shall be parked or stored within the root zone of any Ordinance-
protected tree on the site;
c. This Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages;
d. A final utility plan that shows location of HVAC mechanical equipment outside of
required setback areas;
e. A final Drainage and Grading Plan stamped by a registered Civil Engineer combined
with the above-required Stormwater Detention Plan;
f. A final Landscape and Irrigation Plan; and
g. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building
Division.
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.
10. Fences, Walls and Hedges. All fences, walls and hedges not in connection with the
proposed fence exception shall conform to height requirements provided in City Code
Section 15-29.
11. Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan. The final landscaping and irrigation plan shall
take into account the following:
70
Resolution No. 14-048 Page 5
a. To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water
runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that
provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and
prolong exposure to water shall be specified.
b. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the
landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area.
c. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil
type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall,
air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to
ensure successful establishment.
d. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the
landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area.
e. Any proposed or required under grounding of utilities shall take into account potential
damage to roots of protected trees
12. Fire Department Requirements. Owner/applicant shall comply with all Fire Department
requirements.
13. Noise and Construction Hours. In order to comply with standards that minimize impacts to
the neighborhood during site preparation and construction, the applicant shall comply with
City Code Sections 7-30.060 and 16-75.050, with respect to noise, construction hours,
maintenance of the construction site and other requirements stated in these sections.
14. Front yard landscaping. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection
or a bond satisfactory to the Community Development Department valued at 150% of the
estimated cost of the installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City.
15. Second Dwelling Unit - Deed Restricted. The owner shall restrict the rental of the second
unit to only households that qualify as lower, very-low, or extremely-low income households
as those terms are defined in the move recent Santa Clara County Housing and Urban
Development Program Income Limits or, in the event that the most recent such report is more
than five years old, in accordance with the definitions set forth in Health and Safety Code
sections 50079.5,50105, and 50106 as those sections exist as of the effective date of this
restriction. "Rental" means any agreement whereby the occupant(s) of the second unit make
any payment in consideration of said occupancy. THIS CONDITION IS PERMANENT.
16. Rear Landscaping Screening – Deed Restricted. The owner shall install landscape
screening shall be planted (in a manner which does not affect an existing persimmon tree
located in the northeast corner of the rear yard) on the north property line, starting from the
northwest corner of the property and expanding east approximately 70 feet. This will be
accomplished by installing trees in a size and variety satisfactory to the Community
Development Department. The owner shall be required to maintain the health (or replace if
needed) of such trees for a minimum of 20 years (December 9, 2035).
17. Construction Management Plan. The applicant shall submit a construction management
plan prior to obtaining a building permit. The plan shall address work hours and schedule,
71
Resolution No. 14-048 Page 6
equipment/material staging and parking, estimated vehicular traffic, contaminated soil
management, dust control measures, noise mitigation, and general health and safety.
PUBLIC WORKS
18. Encroachment Permit. The 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.
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
101
October 18, 2015
Michael Fossati
Planner
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Michael Fossati:
We live directly behind 18645 McFarland Ave. and are opposed to the proposed
development of a two-story house on the property.
Seeing the “story poles” from our backyard, the proposed second floor of the house
dominates the skyline, blocking what presently is a more natural setting with views of
mountains and open sky. We find the height of the structure to be out of scale with the
neighborhood. If the proposed house is built, our 10,000 square feet lot will feel much
smaller with the neighbor’s house overlooking our backyard.
The windows of the second story look down on our backyard, invading our privacy. The
proposed second story windows give the property owners a site line into our master
bedroom. This loss of privacy will result in a loss to our property value, not only now, but
also in the future when the time comes to sell our home.
The new neighbor seems like a nice person, and while he may never look out his second
story windows, we don’t know what possible future neighbors may do. I’ve included a
photo from my roof of his backyard so he knows how it might feel if we were allowed to
add a second story. We’d have a clear view of any activity in his backyard.
A few months ago the neighbor at 18645 McFarland asked me to sign a paper stating that
I had seen the plans. In my reading of the form, signing it only meant that I had seen the
plans, not that I agreed to the proposal. I remember the form having some language to
that effect. I frankly didn’t expect his plans to get this far knowing that similar past
proposals were denied by the planning department.
We have owned our home since 1992, and thanks to the City of Saratoga’s building rules,
have enjoyed the open feel of the neighborhood. We’d like to see those rules preserved.
Sincerely,
Jim Gensheimer & JoAnn Lambkin
18644 Devon Ave.
408-374-7575
102
P.S. – We would like to know what are the plans for the garage on the McFarland
property that was converted to living space a few years ago.
103
104
105
106
1
Michael Fossati
From:Xiaoqiang Zheng <zhengxq@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 19, 2015 9:04 PM
To:Michael Fossati
Subject:Regarding 18645 McFarland Ave
Dear Michael,
We are the owners of 18660 Devon Ave, Saratoga. Today, I received a notice regarding the two-story building
proposal on 18645 McFarland Ave. I would like to express my concern over this proposal.
My wife and I enjoyed our time in our backyard very much. With a two-story building right across our property,
it feels someone could stare right into our backyard and bedroom where my family rests. I feel our privacy is
somewhat compromised in that way.
We bought this house on 2011. We enjoyed the rural feeling and quiet neighborhood very much. When we were
shopping for the house, we were positively motivated by the fact that all the houses in the neighborhood are
one-story buildings. We thought there must be some rules or agreement among the neighbors. I now understand
that there is not rule against second-story buildings. But it is conceivable that once more two-story buildings
show up in the neighborhood, it would affect the perceived value of this neighborhood to people in a similar
mindset to us a few years ago.
We would very much appreciate it if the Saratoga Planning office can uphold the tradition of this neighborhood,
and help us continue to enjoy our privacy in our properties in years to come.
With best respects,
Xiaoqiang Zheng and Ge Wang
107
108
109
110
1
Michael Fossati
From:Nick W <nickweis@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 01, 2015 10:31 AM
To:Michael Fossati
Subject:PDR14-0010 / 18645 McFarland Avenue
18724 McFarland Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
December 1, 2015
City of Saratoga
Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
To Whom It May Concern:
This is regarding the proposed construction at 18645 McFarland Avenue. I recently received a "Notice of
Public Hearing" about this construction and, as a neighbor, wish to express my opinion about it.
I strongly prefer that the project not be approved in its present form. The proposed house is completely out of
proportion to the vast majority of the block. The highest current dwelling I know of is at 18677 McFarland
Avenue, and our understanding is that 18645 McFarland Avenue would be even higher. (The height is stated as
"no taller than 25 feet" according to the "Notice of Public Hearing", but, I think, 25 feet 8 inches, according to
the plans.) And the exceptional height is only one aspect of the disproportional scale: the area of the second
floor alone is nearly as large as most of the original construction in the neighborhood.
Most of us bought property in this Saratoga neighborhood specifically for its low-density, spacious
character. The proposed construction is entirely out of balance with the area. I respectfully request that the
project not be approved until its scale is reduced.
Thank you for your consideration,
Nicholas Weis
111
1
Michael Fossati
From:Holly Anderson <hollyanderson2@comcast.net>
Sent:Tuesday, December 01, 2015 3:45 PM
To:Michael Fossati
Cc:jimgensheimer@yahoo.com; Curtis Anderson
Subject:Proposed 2-story plans for 18645 McFarland
Dear Michael Fossati,
We do not want to see our nice neighborhood destroyed by this very large 2-story planned for 18645
McFarland. It is a wedding cake stack design with 3 bedrooms and master bath upstairs. 10-foot walls bottom
floor and 9-foot walls second floor. Total height is 25'8", just 4" short of the max. We don't think we have
anything that tall currently in our neighborhood. Please do not allow this to set a new precedent for our
wonderful neighborhood.
We have lived in this neighborhood for 22 years and walk every night. We enjoy the open space and single
story look of our area. This area is very old and has been photographed by Ansel Adams when he was taking
photographs from the Paul Mason Winery many, many years ago. We saw them when we were in Napa.
Please Mr. Fossati, please keep our neighborhood free from McManisons, McPalaces and McTacky houses
especially those towering over the neighbor’s property lines. We love our open looking Saratoga
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Curtis and Holly Anderson
13074 Montrose Street
Saratoga, CA, 95070
408-464-6124
Email Address: mfossati@saratoga.ca.us
112
1
Michael Fossati
From:Lia Dewey <liadewey@comcast.net>
Sent:Tuesday, December 01, 2015 6:46 PM
To:Michael Fossati
Subject:Fwd: 18645 McFarland Ave.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Lia Dewey <liadewey@comcast.net>
Date: December 1, 2015 at 6:42:44 PM PST
To: planning@saratoga.ca.us
Subject: 18645 McFarland Ave.
December 1,2015
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
1377 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Saratoga Planning Commission:
I own and live on 18628 McFarland Ave. I am opposed to the planned two story house on 18645 McFarland.
When I chose this neighborhood, I was attracted by the privacy the one story surrounding homes offered. Since
none of the homes recently built are two stories, I was sure that the Planning Commission would not permit
two stories in our neighborhood. What a rude awakening when I saw the story poles on the house kitty corner
from my house!
Two story homes do not fit into the rural character of our neighborhood. The existing two stories were built
decades ago and are not as massive as the one proposed. If this large two story structure is permitted, it will set
a precedent and change the privacy and character of our neighborhood.
Please add my letter to the side letters for the meeting.
Sincerely,
Lia Dewey
18628 McFarland Ave.
408-931-6009
113
1
Michael Fossati
From:Xiaoqiang Zheng <zhengxq@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 01, 2015 8:39 PM
To:Planning
Cc:Michael Fossati
Subject:Re: Regarding 18645 McFarland Ave
Dear Planning Commission,
We are the owners of 18660 Devon Ave, Saratoga. We received a modified plan regarding the two-story building proposal on 18645
McFarland Ave. I would like to reiterate my opposition to this proposal.
My wife and I enjoyed our time in our backyard very much. With a two-story building right across our property, it feels someone could stare
right into our backyard and bedroom where my family rests. Our privacy is compromised with this change.
We bought this house on 2011. We enjoyed the rural feeling and quiet neighborhood very much. When we were shopping for the house, we
were positively motivated by the fact that all the houses in the neighborhood are one-story buildings. We thought there must be some rules or
agreement among the neighbors. I now understand that there is not rule against second-story buildings. But it is conceivable that once more
two-story buildings show up in the neighborhood, it would damage the perceived value of this neighborhood to people similar to us.
We would very much appreciate it if the Saratoga Planning Commission can uphold the tradition of this neighborhood, and help us continue
to enjoy our privacy in our properties in years to come.
With best respects,
Xiaoqiang Zheng and Ge Wang
114
November 23, 2015
Mr. Erwin Ordonez, AICP, EDFP
Community Development Director
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Revisions to 18645 McFarland Avenue
Dear Erwin:
Items that have been modified since our meeting last week:
We’ve flipped the master bedroom to the front. Owner is sacrificing their own privacy in order to
provide privacy for neighbors.
The original big master bedroom window at the rear has now become two small high windows. (please
note: rear neighbor had not expressed concern for the “other” bedroom window, because it’s more
towards the corner and it’s always been narrower than the original master bedroom window)
The front gable over the garage has been changed to a hip to reduce building mass.
The rear gable over the original master bedroom has been changed to a hip to further reduce the
perception of height.
Owner has committed to provide privacy screening trees along the back fence. Species and height will
be determined jointly with the neighbors.
We’ve moved the front porch back to increase front setback by 2 feet. There will be more landscaping
in the front, and less building mass.
Along the side elevations, the high windows in the second floor bedrooms have been cut up into smaller
windows in order to further increase privacy for the neighbors.
THANK YOU.
Sincerely,
Anthony Ho
LPMD Arcitects
115
Architects
1288 Kifer Road, Unit 206,Sunnyvale, CA 94086Telephone : 408-992-0280Fax : 408-992-0281
116
S01° 58' 45"E 125.00N01° 58' 45"W 125.00S88° 01' 15"W 80.00
N88° 01' 15"E 80.00
/%(#4.#0'
E
S
T-1APN: 389-14-015
CITY OF SARATOGA
18645 McFARLAND AVE.
SARATOGA, CA TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY MAP
.')'0& #$$4'8+#6+105
BOUNDARY AND
117
118
Architects
1288 Kifer Road, Unit 206,Sunnyvale, CA 94086Telephone : 408-992-0280Fax : 408-992-0281
119
Architects
1288 Kifer Road, Unit 206,Sunnyvale, CA 94086Telephone : 408-992-0280Fax : 408-992-0281
120
Architects
1288 Kifer Road, Unit 206,Sunnyvale, CA 94086Telephone : 408-992-0280Fax : 408-992-0281
121
Architects
1288 Kifer Road, Unit 206,Sunnyvale, CA 94086Telephone : 408-992-0280Fax : 408-992-0281
122
Architects
1288 Kifer Road, Unit 206,Sunnyvale, CA 94086Telephone : 408-992-0280Fax : 408-992-0281
123
Architects
1288 Kifer Road, Unit 206,Sunnyvale, CA 94086Telephone : 408-992-0280Fax : 408-992-0281
124
Architects
1288 Kifer Road, Unit 206,Sunnyvale, CA 94086Telephone : 408-992-0280Fax : 408-992-0281
125
Architects
1288 Kifer Road, Unit 206,Sunnyvale, CA 94086Telephone : 408-992-0280Fax : 408-992-0281
126
Architects
1288 Kifer Road, Unit 206,Sunnyvale, CA 94086Telephone : 408-992-0280Fax : 408-992-0281
127
REPORT TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: December 9, 2015
Application: PDR15-0036, ARB15-0062
Location / APN: 19905 Sunset Drive / 510-02-004
Owner / Applicant: Beck / McCune
Staff Planner: Liz Ruess
19905 Sunset Drive
128
Summary
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting to construct a 480 sq. ft. addition to an existing two-story residence and
a 201 sq. ft. addition to an existing, detached secondary dwelling unit. The height of the addition to
the main house would be no taller than 26 feet and the height of the second dwelling unit would be
no taller than 18 feet. One protected tree is proposed for removal. Planning Commission design
review is required because the cumulative floor area of the proposed project exceeds 6,000 sq. ft.
The site area is 40,799 sq. ft. and the property is zoned R1-40,000.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 15-053 approving the project subject to
conditions of approval.
Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to City Code Section
15-45.060(a)(6).
PROJECT DATA:
Gross Site Area: 50,965 SF / 1.17 acre
Net Site Area: 40,799 SF / 0.94 acre
Average Site Slope: 6%
Grading: 30 CY (not including basement)
General Plan Designation: RVLD (Very Low Density Residential)
Zoning: R-1-40,000 (Single-Family Residential)
Proposed Allowed/Required
Proposed Site Coverage
Residential Footprint/Main Residence
Driveway
Permeable Driveway (50% counted)
Patios/Walkways
Second Dwelling Unit
Pool
Total Proposed Site Coverage
4,708 SF
5,142 SF
0 SF
2,791 SF
733 SF
860 SF
14,234 SF (34.8%)
15,707 SF
(includes 10% increase for
Deed Restricted 2nd Unit)
Floor Area
Main House
First Floor (includes garage)
Second Story
Second Dwelling Unit
Total Floor Area
4,083 SF
1,861 SF
667 SF
6,611 SF
6,622 SF
(includes 10% increase for
Deed Restricted 2nd Unit)
Height (Residence)
Lowest Elevation Point:
Highest Elevation Point:
Average Elevation Point:
Proposed Topmost Point:
Total Proposed Height
Height (2nd Dwelling Unit)
Lowest Elevation Point
Highest Elevation Point
Average Elevation Point
Proposed Topmost Point:
Total Proposed Height
95.00 FT
98.68 FT
96.84 FT
122.25 FT
25.42 FT
92.20 FT
94.83 FT
93.52 FT
111.25 FT
17.73 FT
Maximum Height of Addition
= 122.84 (26 Feet)
Not included in Addition:
Existing House is 27’-6”
(Approved by Planning
Commission in 1987)
Maximum Height
= 119.52 (26 Feet)
Page 2 of 6
129
Proposed Allowed/Required
Setbacks for Residence
Front (Sunset):
Interior Side (1st floor):
Interior Side (2nd floor):
Exterior Side (Hume):
Rear:
Setbacks for 2nd Dwelling Unit
Front (Sunset):
Interior Side:
Exterior Side (Hume):
Rear:
36-6”
20’-6”
47’
36’-8”
117’
112’+
20’
125’+
60-7.5”
30’
20’
25’
25’/30’
20’
30’
20’
25’
20’
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The 0.94 acre site is located at the corner of Sunset Drive and Hume Drive. The site is covered
with significant vegetation which screens much of the off-site views from adjacent properties.
The average slope of the site is 6%. The proposed building site is essentially level and is located
on the Southern half of the site, where the existing house is located. An existing paved driveway
provides access to the building site.
This project proposes a 480 sq. ft. addition to an existing two-story, single family residence and a
201 sq. ft. addition to an existing, detached secondary dwelling unit which will be deed
restricted. Planning Commission design review is required because the cumulative floor area of
the proposed project exceeds 6,000 sq. ft. The existing maximum height of the main residence is
legal nonconforming at 27 feet, 6 inches, which exceeds the maximum allowed height of 26 feet
and was approved by Planning Commission in 1987 (this Staff Report is included as Attachment
#6). The height of the proposed 2nd story addition would be approximately 25 feet, 6 inches. The
height of the second dwelling unit would be approximately 17 feet, 8.75 inches. The proposed
scope of work does not exceed the nonconforming structure construction valuation threshold of
20-percent and could have been approved administratively if not for the overall size of the
structure exceeding 6,000 square feet.
The proposed addition matches the existing house which is an eclectic style house with Tudor
inspired elements. The exterior materials of the main residence and second dwelling unit include;
stucco in a neutral beige, with dark green exterior trim and white aluminum clad windows. The roof
is a wood shake-look, asphalt shingle and the garage doors would be a mahogany stained wood.
Photos of the existing colors and materials are 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 Stucco Neutral Beige
Exterior Trim Dark Green
Window Frames Aluminum clad wood casement in White
Roofing Asphalt Shingle (wood shake-look)
Garage Doors Mahogany stained wood
Page 3 of 6
130
Deed-Restricted Second Dwelling Unit
Prior to this application, the applicant received a Building Permit to rebuild the existing second
dwelling unit. When complete, the second dwelling unit will be 667 sq. ft. and have one bedroom,
one bathroom, and an open living room/kitchen area. The project complies with the development
standards required by the City Code to allow the second dwelling unit to be deed-restricted and that
make it eligible for up to an additional 10-percent floor area increase.
Trees
The site currently has more than 30 mature trees; there are 19 protected trees included in the tree
inventory. One protected tree, a young Oak, is proposed for removal. This tree meets the City’s
criteria for removal and replacement. The value of the tree proposed for removal is $530 and an
equivalent amount will be spent in replacement trees to be planted on site.
The proposed tree removal was approved with conditions. The Arborist Report is included as
Attachment #2.
Front Landscape
No new landscaping is proposed as part of this project. The applicant will retain the existing
driveways and landscaping in the existing front yard setback.
The existing hardscape covers less than 50% of the 5,188 sq. ft. front yard setback area.
Neighbor Notification and Correspondence
The applicant submitted no Neighbor Notification Forms signed by adjacent property owners.
Staff mailed 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. No comments 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 three single-family residences 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. This finding can be made because the
majority of the proposed additions will remain in the same building footprint of the existing
structure. The average slope of the site is 6% and the building site is essentially level. The
location of the rebuilt second dwelling unit and addition to the main residence are located
where grading can be will minimally affect the property’s natural 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
Page 4 of 6
131
using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. This finding can be made because the
proposed for removal meets the required criteria for removal and replacement, as determined
by both the project and City arborist. All other trees on site shall be preserved and protected
during construction.
(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 because the proposed addition to the
existing two-story residence is compatible with the predominant streetscape of the area,
including the generally established front yard setbacks. The addition is located on the West
side of the existing residence, away from the intersection, and will be shorter than the
maximum height of the existing roof. The existing main residence is setback more than 36
feet from the front property line, and the second floor addition is setback an additional 14
feet. The second floor addition is approximately 134 feet from the exterior side setback along
Hume Drive. The existing two-story home and proposed addition exceed all required setback
requirements as does the secondary dwelling unit. The second dwelling unit is not visible
from the intersection of Sunset Drive and Hume Drive. Existing vegetation and trees will
significantly screen views of the addition and second dwelling unit from most surrounding
properties. There would be no unreasonable impact to the privacy of adjoining properties or
to community viewsheds.
(d) The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in
scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. This finding can be made because
the overall design, height, materials, and location of architectural features will avoid the
perception of excessive bulk. The proposed addition and second dwelling unit utilize
dormers, textures and angles to break-up the overall mass of the structures. The addition and
second dwelling unit are both located on the Western side of the property, away from the
intersection, limiting the visual impact to the neighborhood.
The proposed addition and second dwelling unit continue the colors and materials of the
existing two-story, main residence. The exterior stucco is neutral beige, with exterior trim
accents in dark green and a natural wood shake-look roof made of asphalt shingles.
The eclectic design of the house with Tudor elements fits into the neighborhood, which is
eclectic in style, ranging from Traditional to California Ranch. The views from homes on
adjacent sites are screened by existing landscaping.
(e) The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains
elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape. This finding can be
made because the existing hardscape, landscape, and trees are to remain. Existing hardscape
in the front setback area is limited and is well screened with landscaping.
(f) Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining
properties to utilize solar energy. This finding can be made because the locations of the
addition and second dwelling unit exceed required setbacks on all sides and both will remain
under 26 feet in height. The area of addition is shorter than the maximum height of the
existing roof of the main residence. The locations of both the main residence and second
dwelling unit provide distance from adjacent properties. The project will not impair adjoining
properties to utilize 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 because the proposed project conforms to the applicable design policies and
Page 5 of 6
132
techniques in the Residential Design Handbook such as minimizing the use of excessive
colors and materials, designed the structure with simple and well-proportioned massing,
deemphasizing the garage presence from the street, 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 is not applicable as this lot is not located
within the hillside residential zoning district and is not considered a hillside lot.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Arborist Report
3. Neighborhood Photo
4. Reduced Plans (Exhibit A)
5. Photos of Existing House
6. Staff Report from 1987 (SD-87-006 / DR-87-028)
Page 6 of 6
133
RESOLUTION NO: 15-053
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PDR15-0036 AND ARBORIST REPORT ARB15-0062
LOCATED AT 19905 SUNSET DRIVE
WHEREAS, on December 9, 2015, an application was submitted by John McCune
requesting Design Review approval to construct a 480 sq. ft. addition to an existing two-story
residence and a 201 sq. ft. addition to an existing, detached secondary dwelling unit. The height of
the addition to the main house would be no taller than 26 feet and the height of the second dwelling
unit would be no taller than 18 feet. One protected tree is proposed for removal. Planning
Commission design review is required because the cumulative floor area of the proposed project
exceeds 6,000 sq. ft. The site area is 40,799 sq. ft. and the property is zoned R1-40,000. (APN 510-
02-004).
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 December 9, 2015, 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
134
properties and to community viewsheds; the mass and height of the structure and its architectural
elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood; landscaping minimizes
hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the
neighborhood streetscape; does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize
solar energy; and is consistent with the Residential Design Review Handbook.
Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR15-0036 and
ARB15-0062 located at 19905 Sunset Drive, 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 9th day of
December 2015 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Leonard Almalech
Chair, Planning Commission
135
EXHIBIT 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PDR15-0036
19905 SUNSET DRIVE (APN: 510-02-004)
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
permit for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of
approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been
recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to
the satisfaction of 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 Zoning Regulations 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.
136
5. Construction must be commenced within 36 months from the date of this approval (December
9, 2018), or the resolution will expire.
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 revision dated October 16,
2015, 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 3, above.
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 and referenced in Condition No. 6
above;
b. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private
vehicles shall be parked or stored within the root zone of any Ordinance-protected tree on
the site;
c. This Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages;
d. A final utility plan that shows location of HVAC mechanical equipment outside of required
setback areas;
e. A final Drainage and Grading Plan stamped by a registered Civil Engineer combined with
the above-required Stormwater Detention Plan;
f. A final Landscape and Irrigation Plan; and
g. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building
Division.
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.
10. Fences, Walls and Hedges. All fences, walls and hedges not in connection with the proposed
fence exception shall conform to height requirements provided in City Code Section 15-29.
11. Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan. The final landscaping and irrigation plan shall take
into account the following:
137
a. To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water
runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that
provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and
prolong exposure to water shall be specified.
b. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the
landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area.
c. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil
type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air
movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure
successful establishment.
d. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped
area, especially along any hardscape area.
e. Any proposed or required under grounding of utilities shall take into account potential
damage to roots of protected trees
12. Fire Department Requirements. Owner/applicant shall comply with all Fire Department
requirements.
13. Noise and Construction Hours. In order to comply with standards that minimize impacts to
the neighborhood during site preparation and construction, the applicant shall comply with City
Code Sections 7-30.060 and 16-75.050, with respect to noise, construction hours, maintenance
of the construction site and other requirements stated in these sections.
14. Front yard landscaping. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or a
bond satisfactory to the Community Development Department valued at 150% of the estimated
cost of the installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City.
15. Second Dwelling Unit - Deed Restricted. The owner shall restrict the rental of the second
unit to only households that qualify as lower, very-low, or extremely-low income households
as those terms are defined in the move recent Santa Clara County Housing and Urban
Development Program Income Limits or, in the event that the most recent such report is more
than five years old, in accordance with the definitions set forth in Health and Safety Code
sections 50079.5,50105, and 50106 as those sections exist as of the effective date of this
restriction. "Rental" means any agreement whereby the occupant(s) of the second unit make
any payment in consideration of said occupancy. THIS CONDITION IS PERMANENT.
16. Construction Management Plan. The applicant shall submit a construction management plan
prior to obtaining a building permit. The plan shall address work hours and schedule,
equipment/material staging and parking, estimated vehicular traffic, contaminated soil
management, dust control measures, noise mitigation, and general health and safety.
CITY ARBORIST
17. Arborist Report. All recommendations of the Arborist Report dated December 1, 2015 and all
other future updated reports, and incorporated herein by this reference shall be followed and
incorporated (in its entirety) into the plans.
138
PUBLIC WORKS
18. Encroachment Permit. The applicant 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.
139
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
ARBORIST REPORT
Application No. ARB15-0047
Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 19905 Sunset Drive
Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner:Beck
Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 510-02-004
Email: wktc@variabledesign.com
Report History:
Report 1 - Addition
Date:
Plans received August 27, 2015
Report completed October 6, 2015
Report 2 –
Addition: This report replaces report 1
Arborist report addendum received November 4, 2015
Revised plans received November 30, 2015
Report completed December 1, 2015
PROJECT SCOPE:
The applicant has submitted plans to the City to add on to the house, remodel the interior and build a
carport. One coast live oak (tree #5) is in conflict with the proposed addition and requested for
removal.
In conjunction with the addition, the owners plan to install a three foot diameter pipe along the
bottom of the property to capture rainwater runoff and direct it into an underground tank for reuse.
The project also will connect the sanitary sewer from the second unit to the main line in the street.
STATUS: Approved by City Arborist, with attached conditions.
PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF:
Tree bond – Required - $21,625 (add to deposit already on file)
For trees 27 – 29.
Tree fencing – Required – See Conditions of Approval and attached map.
Tree removals – Tree 5 is approved for removal once a building division permit
has been issued.
Replacement trees – Required = 1 24-inch box tree or 2 15-gallon trees
1
140
19905 Sunset Drive
FINDINGS:
Tree Removal:
Whenever a tree is requested for removal as part of a project, certain findings must be made and
specific tree removal criteria met. One coast live oak (tree 5) is in conflict with the proposed addition
and utilities alongside the new building, and meets the City’s criteria allowing it to be removed and
replaced as part of the project, once building division permits have been obtained. Attachment 2
contains the tree removal criteria for reference.
Table 1: Summary of Tree Removal Criteria that are met
Tree No. Criteria met Criteria not met
5 1, 4, 6, 7, 9 2, 3, 5, 8, 10
Replacement Trees
The total appraised value of oak tree 5 is $530. One 24 inch box tree or two 15 gallon trees will be
required to replace it. Replacement trees may be planted anywhere on the property and be of any
species.
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.
A preliminary trench was dug where the three-foot pipe will be installed to collect drainage from the
site. It was inspected and the pipe for drainage can be installed with minimal impact to protected
trees.
The project proposes to bore at a depth of 4 feet or deeper to install a connection to the main sewer
line rather than to trench. This is acceptable.
Tree Preservation Plan
Section 15-50.140 of the City Code requires a Tree Preservation Plan for this project. The submitted
arborist report, once included in the final set of plans, will satisfy this requirement.
The Project Data in Brief and Conditions of Approval from this report are also to be included in the
final set of plans.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 – Plans Reviewed and Tree Information
2 – Tree Removal Criteria
3 – Conditions of Approval
4 – Map of Site showing tree locations and protective fencing
2
141
19905 Sunset Dr Attachment 1
PLAN REVIEW:
Architectural Plans reviewed:
Preparer: Mimi Snowden Design
Date of Plans: July 24, 2015, revised November 30, 2015
Sheet A0.1 Title Sheet
Sheet A1.1 Site Plan
Sheet A1.2 Enlarged Site Plan
Sheets A2.1 First Floor Existing/Demo Plan
Sheet A2.2 Second Floor Existing/Demo Plan
Sheet A2.3 First Floor Plan
Sheet A2.4 Second Floor Plan
Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 Sections
Sheets A4.1 and A4.2 Exterior Elevations
Civil Plans reviewed:
Preparer: JLK Associates
Date of Plans: February 22, 2015, revised November 30, 2015
Sheet C – 1 Grading and Drainage Plan
Sheet C – 2 Details
TREE INFORMATION:
Arborist Report reviewed:
Preparer: Katherine Naegele of Anderson Tree Care Specialists, Inc.
Date of Report: February 2, 2015, addenda dated October 12, November 3 and
November 16, 2015
An arborist report was submitted to the City for this project that inventoried 29 trees
protected by Saratoga City Code. Information on the condition of each tree, potential
impacts from construction, suitability for preservation, appraised values and tree protection
recommendations was provided. A table summarizing information about each tree is below.
One coast live oak (tree 5) is requested for removal to construct the addition.
3
142
19905 Sunset Dr Attachment 1
Table 2: List of trees and appraised values from the November 3, 2015 addendum.
4
143
19905 Sunset Dr Attachment 1
5
144
19905 Sunset Drive Attachment 2
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.
6
145
19905 Sunset Drive Attachment 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. It is the responsibility of the owner, architect and contractor to be familiar with the
information in this report and implement the required conditions.
2. All recommendations in the arborist report addenda dated November 3 and November 16,
2015 prepared by Katherine Naegele of Anderson Tree Care Specialists shall become
conditions of approval.
3. The arborist report addenda dated November 3 and November 16, 2015 shall be copied on to
a plan sheet, titled “Tree Preservation” and included in the final job copy set of plans.
4. The designated Project Arborist shall be Katherine Naegele, unless otherwise approved by
the City Arborist.
5. Tree Protection Security Deposit
a. Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080.
b. Shall be $21,625 for tree(s) 27 – 29.
c. Shall be obtained by the owner and filed with the Community Development Department
before obtaining Building Division permits.
d. May be in the form of cash, check, credit card payment or a bond.
e. Shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project.
f. May be released once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City
Arborist.
6. Tree Protection Fencing:
a. Shall be installed per the November 16, 2015 arborist report addendum map (attached).
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 be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR
REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, KATE BEAR (408)
868-1276”.
e. Call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection
fencing once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division
permits.
f. Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final
inspection.
g. If contractor feels that work must be done inside the fenced area, call City Arborist to
arrange a field meeting before performing work.
7. The Project Arborist shall visit the site monthly. Following visits to the site, the Project
Arborist shall provide the City with a report including photos documenting the progress of
the project and noting any tree issues.
7
146
19905 Sunset Drive Attachment 3
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Trenching to install utilities is not permitted inside tree protection fencing.
12. Roots of protected trees measuring two inches in diameter or more shall not be cut without
prior approval of the Project Arborist. Roots measuring less than two inches in diameter may
be cut using a sharp pruning tool.
13. 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.
14. Tree 5 meets the criteria for removal and may be removed and replaced once Building
Division permits have been obtained.
15. Trees permitted for removal shall be replaced on or off site according to good forestry practices,
and shall provide equivalent value in terms of aesthetic and environmental quality, size, height,
location, appearance and other significant beneficial characteristics of the removed trees. The
value of the removed trees shall be calculated in accordance with the ISA Guide for Plant
Appraisal.
16. New trees 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 site.
17. One 24-inch box tree or two 15-gallon sized trees will satisfy the tree replacement requirement.
18. Should any tree be damaged beyond repair, new trees shall be required to replace the tree. If
there is insufficient room to plant new trees, some or all of the replacement value for trees
shall be paid into the City’s Tree Fund.
19. Following completion of the work around trees, and before a final inspection of the project,
the applicant shall provide a letter to the City from the Project Arborist. That letter shall
document the work performed around trees, include photos of the work in progress, and
provide information on the condition of the trees.
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.
8
147
Attachment 4
19905 Sunset Drive
9
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
SLOPE AREA AROUND BUILDING PERIMETER AWAY FROM FOUNDATION @ 2% MIN.) FOR AT LEAST FIVE FEET (3') ANDDIVERT TO POSITIVE OUTFALL - TYP.ALL FINE GRADING SHALL BE DONE IN MANNER TO PROMOTE POSITIVE DRAINAGE, PREVENT EROSION, PREVENT PONDING, AND TO DIRECT FLOWS (EITHER SHEET OR CONCENTRATED) TO APPROPRIATE OUTFALL - TYP.INSTALL WATTLE BARIIER FOR SEDIMENT CONTROL. INSTALL INLET PROTECTION AS SHOWN FOR THE DOWN GRADE INLET NEAR HAVEN AVE. CONSTRUCT DOWNSPOUT DRAINWATER LEADER CONNECTION PER DETAILCONSTRUCT VEGETATED / GRASSY SWALE PER DETAIL:CONSTRUCT PAD & NEW FOUNDATION PER SOILS & STRUCTURAL RECOMMENDATIONSINSTALL NEW INLETS AND PIPES AS SHOWN PER DETAILINSTALL NEW 1" WATER METER (SEE CITY DETAIL W-3 ON SHEET C-4 INSTALL NEW SANITARY SEWER CLEAN OUT PER CITY STD DETAIL S-1 SHOWN ON SHEET C-4 (USE OF EXISTING LATERAL SUBJECT TO APPROVAL)CONSTRUCT NEW DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE PER CITY STD DETAIL C-1 SHOWN OF SHEET C-3 AND ON SITE DRIVEWAY AS SHOWN PER DETAIL & SOILS REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS93.57'98.65'97.86'97.78'102.65'104.50'104.50'104.13'103.76'103.88'TBM=NAIL SET104.12'103.58'103.59'102.28'102.79'103.28'102.44'101.36'100.67'104.03'103.89'103.66'100.88'102.57'103.26'102.91'101.56'102.50'102.38'102.74'100.46'102.99'101.09'100.41'99.81'99.78'102.84'103.17'102.50'102.75'TBM=NAIL SET102.51'101.42'102.24'102.67'101.49'100.97'99.85'99.55'99.17'98.70'98.77'99.21'100.78'100.44'99.63'98.59'97.91'97.70'99.29'98.61'97.81'98.62'98.55'99.38'100.28'100.74'99.00'98.72'98.20'98.64'FF ELEV98.65'FF ELEV98.13'98.41'99.80'98.54'97.72'Fd Hub &Tack97.58'96.62'95.91'98.66'FF ELEV96.77'98.89'96.19'93.50'93.00'95.77'92.92'93.86'97.93'99.90'97.82'98.83'98.01'96.09'95.50'95.57'95.92'95.45'95.28'97.73'98.84'100.03'101.60'101.71'101.70'101.49'101.37'101.24'101.14'101.36'101.28'100.58'100.73'100.74'100.54'99.89'100.54'98.91'TBM=NAIL SET97.62'97.61'97.24'97.48'97.09'97.94'97.39'97.43'97.51'96.55'97.11'96.89'96.53'99.96'99.53'99.67'101.16'101.97'101.06'101.25'101.19'101.27'101.18'100.85'100.93'Fd 5/8 Rod bBent100.03'100.50'100.02'99.90'99.52'101.04'99.82'99.74'99.26'99.17'99.54'99.86'99.10'99.30'96.60'98.27'98.22'98.51'98.39'97.69'98.07'99.11'99.03'99.32'99.47'98.46'97.74'96.90'99.94'FF ELEV97.29'96.54'96.09'96.18'96.37'95.46'94.27'95.10'G94.67'95.10'G95.29'95.33'96.00'96.08'95.80'95.54'95.17'95.90'95.75'96.80'95.78'96.41'96.97'96.07'94.52'95.03'95.66'94.76'95.20'95.06'95.05'94.60'94.94'94.93'94.62'94.49'93.70'93.06'94.27'93.93'93.26'93.66'92.97'92.72'91.51'TBM=NAIL SET93.98'Fd Hub &Tack94.81'94.21'93.40'94.28'91.01'90.69'89.35'90.04'93.63'93.70'92.80'93.30'93.14'93.15'92.84'92.97'92.55'90.36'92.71'92.77'92.59'90.61'88.67'93.75'92.97'93.16'94.46'94.86'93.15'92.61'92.67'92.19'93.16'92.20'91.94'92.28'4" TREES90.75'94.10'94.67'92.25'93.87'93.19'92.76'91.35'91.19'TBM=NAIL SET90.11'90.67'EL:91.97'91.48'91.75'91.53'90.14'89.63'89.73'89.16'88.69'INV 3" Curb Drain90.17'89.84'90.18'89.95'89.65'87.95'88.36'88.03'87.93'88.43'89.13'87.97'87.71'(E) VERT. CURBASSUMED RIGHT-OF-WAY LINESTUMPAUTO GATE(E) PAVED DRIVEWAY(TO REMAIN)POLEPOLELAWNOVERHEAD POWER LINES (TYPICAL)22" TREE12" TREEAUTO GATE24" TREE28" TREE18" REDWOOD24" TREE(E) GAS METER4" TRIPLE BIRCH15" TREE36" TREE(to remain)(see Landscape plansfor Tree Well details)5" TREE18" PINE25'ASSUMED RIGHT-OF-WAY LINEPAVER DRIVEWAYFOUNTAIN36" TREE32" TREEPOLESTREET SIGNPOLESTOP SIGN20'6" TREETRIPLE 8" TREE4" TREE4" TREE5" TREE42" TREE8" TREEPAVER DRIVEWAY36" TREE30" TREE34" OAK12" TREE36" PINE14" PINE28" PINE24" T
R
E
E(E) POOL EQUIP PAD (to be removed)31" PINELANDSCAPED AREALAWN AREALANDSCAPED AREA28" PINELANDSCAPED AREALAWN AREAASSUMED RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE31" PINE26" PINELot Area1.1684 acres50,896 sq ft42" PINE34" PINED=2 1 °4 0'00 " R=52 2.5 8'L=1 9 7.6 2'S U N S E T D R I V ES 89°59'00" W227.68'N 00°00'00" W239.50'H U M E D R I V E S 00°08'00" E20.00'S 89°39'00" E180.08'S 21°48'00" E27.42'SSSSSS SSS SSSS SSS SSDDD DDD DDD DDDDDD DDD94.10'36 LF 4" SD 35 @ .088" INLETTG: 93.90'INV THRU: 91.70'S S S SSS SSSSSS SSS SS SS SSSSSSSSS SS S S SSSSS SSSSSSSSS SSSDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD D(E) 4" PVC DRAIN PIPELSSSS SS SSSS SS SSSS SD DDD DDDD DDDDDD D D(E) 4" PVC DRAIN PIPE(E) CONC WALK(TO REMAIN)99.00'TG: 99.010'8" (E) INLETEX HOUSE FF:99.89'FS:98.89'SSSSSSSAREA CONVERTED TO LIVING SPACETG:98.40'INV OUT:97.20TG: 99.10'8" (E) INLET98.30'(N) 8" WIDECHANNEL INLETS98.50'98.50'98.30'94.20'8" INLETTG: 98.75'INV THRU: 96.20'98.30'36 LF 4' SD 35 @ .0612" INLETTG: 96.50'INV THRU: 95.00'(N) RAMP @ 9%DNDN S S S S S(N) DECKABOVE8" INLETTG: 98.75'INV THRU: 96.00'98.70'SINKBBQFS:98.83'FS:97.39'SSS94.00'(N) CONC STEPS(to replace old steps)96.89'FS94.89'TS94.00'(E) GRAVEL BASINAPPROX. 4' X 9' 24" MIN. DEPTHTG: 96.40'8" (E) INLET(N) 24"X36" RIP RAPDISSIPATOR(N) SECOND UNIT FF:94.13'24"-40" CONCRET.WALL12"-24"RET.WALL(STEM WALL)LS(N) VEGETATEDSWALE 49 LF 4" SD 35 @ .01FS:94.00'S S S S S S S S S 8" INLET / TG: 93.90'INV THRU: 92.00'(N) 20' X 43' POOL(SEPARATE PERMIT)(N) POOL COVER WELL8" INLET / TG: 93.90'INV OUT: 92.40'27 LF 6" SD 35 @ .01(E) POOL(TO BE REMOVED)100 LF 6" SD 35 @ .03(N) PAVED POOL PATIOFS:94.00'APPROX LOCATION OF 3" OVERFLOW PIPETG:89.10' LP INV IN: 88.0'89.10'(N) 4' X 5' X 24" DEEP GRAVEL BASIN8787888888888888
89898989898989 8990909090909090909090909191919191919191919191 929292929292
92
929292929393939393939393
939393
93 9393 9394
94 949494949494 94949494959595959595959595969696969696969696
9797
97 9797979797979898989898 989898989898989899999999999999999999999999999999100100100100 100100 100100100100100100100101101101101101101101101101
101101102102 102102102102102102
103
103103103103
104
10410496100104 104103102 103102
101104103102103101102101
10110010099 103101102102102102101
1001019999100
999898
100999999999897989896979594 10010010110010110198999998999897 981009999979797101100100981009998999899989694 969696 9797969697969595959594949494939394
959593 93
92919094 939291908993939192908993 9493959493 9392
929191959494939292939392919091919093929291 92919091908989 90899090898988908889888888878887 SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSS SSSSSSSS SSSSSSS S S S SS S S S S S SSS S S S S S S SS S S S SWWWWWWWWWWWWWG G G G G G G G
G
G G
A A
A
A A A A
A
A A A
S
S
S S S S
S
S S S S
(N) ELECTRIC METER(E) ELECTRIC METER(TO BE RELOCATED)(E) WATER METER(E) OVERHEAD WIRES(E) HAVC(E) INGROUND POOL (DEPTH VARIES)DSDSDSDSDSDSDSSSN/ADSDSDSDSDS293N/A29015.00'26.71'25.50'24.00'4.00'28822.00'N/AN/A16.07'0 16 32 48 64 80
1"=10'
1"=16'S I T E P L A N AS NOTED1 OF 2SHEET:C - 119905 Sunset DriveCity of SaratogaSANTA CLARA COUNTYCALIFORNIAGRADING & DRAINAGE PLANDate: 02-22-15Drawn By: JLKREVISED: 03-15-15DateByChkdNODESCRIPTIONGRADING & DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION NOTES98.65'97.86'102.65'103.76'103.88'TBM=NAIL SET104.12'103.58'103.59'102.28'102.79'103.28'102.44'101.36'100.67'103.66'100.88'102.57'103.26'102.91'101.56'102.50'102.38'102.74'100.46'102.99'101.09'100.41'99.81'99.78'102.84'102.75'TBM=NAIL SET102.51'101.42'102.24'101.49'100.97'99.85'99.55'99.17'98.70'98.77'99.21'100.78'100.44'98.59'97.91'97.70'99.29'98.61'97.81'98.62'98.55'99.38'100.28'100.74'99.00'98.72'98.20'98.64'FF ELEV98.65'FF ELEV98.13'98.41'99.80'98.54'97.72'Fd Hub &Tack97.58'96.62'95.91'98.66'FF ELEV96.77'98.89'96.19'93.50'93.00'95.77'92.92'93.86'97.93'99.90'98.83'98.01'96.09'95.50'95.57'95.92'95.45'91.51'TBM=NAIL SET93.98'Fd Hub &Tack94.81'94.21'93.40'94.28'91.01'93.63'93.70'92.80'93.30'93.14'93.15'92.84'92.97'92.55'92.71'92.77'92.59'90.61'93.75'92.97'93.16'94.46'94.86'93.15'92.61'92.67'92.19'93.16'92.20'91.94'92.28'4" TREES90.75'94.67'91.19'TBM=NAIL SET90.18'ASSUMED RIGHT-OF-WAY LINESTUMPAUTO GATE(E) PAVED DRIVEWAY(TO REMAIN)POLELAWN22" TREE12" TREEAUTO GATE24" TREE28" TREE18" REDWOOD24" TREE(E) GAS METER4" TRIPLE BIRCH15" TREE36" TREE(to remain)(see Landscape plansfor Tree Well details)5" TREE30" TREE34" OAK12" TREE36" PINE24" T
R
E
E(E) POOL EQUIP PAD (to be removed)LAWN AREALAWN AREAS 89°59'00" W227.68'94.10'36 LF 4" SD 35 @ .088" INLETTG: 93.90'INV THRU: 91.70'S S S S S SSS SS S S S S SSS S S S S S S SSS S SSSSS SSDDD DSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD(E) 4" PVC DRAIN PIPE(E) CONC WALK(TO REMAIN)99.00'TG: 99.010'8" (E) INLETEX HOUSE FF:99.89'FS:98.89'SS S S SS SAREA CONVERTED TO LIVING SPACETG:98.40'INV OUT:97.20TG: 99.10'8" (E) INLET98.30'(N) 8" WIDECHANNEL INLETS98.50'98.50'98.30'94.20'8" INLETTG: 98.75'INV THRU: 96.20'98.30'36 LF 4' SD 35 @ .0612" INLETTG: 96.50'INV THRU: 95.00'(N) RAMP @ 9%DNDN S S S S S(N) DECKABOVE8" INLETTG: 98.75'INV THRU: 96.00'98.70'SINKBBQFS:98.83'FS:97.39'S S S94.00'(N) CONC STEPS(to replace old steps)96.89'FS94.89'TS94.00'(N) 24"X36" RIP RAPDISSIPATOR(N) SECOND UNIT FF:94.13'24"-40" CONCRET.WALL12"-24"RET.WALL(STEM WALL)LS(N) VEGETATEDSWALE 49 LF 4" SD 35 @ .01FS:94.00'S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S 8" INLET / TG: 93.90'INV THRU: 92.00'(N) 20' X 43' POOL(SEPARATE PERMIT)(N) POOL COVER WELL8" INLET / TG: 93.90'INV OUT: 92.40'27 LF 6" SD 35 @ .01(E) POOL(TO BE REMOVED)100 LF 6" SD 35 @ .03(N) PAVED POOL PATIOFS:94.00'909191919191919292
92929292939393
939393939393 9394
94 949494949595959596969797
9898989898 9999999999999999100100100100 100100
101101101101101
101101102102102102102102102103
10310310310410496100104 104102103102101103102103101 10210110110010099 103101102102102101
1001019999100
999898
100999999999897989896979594
94
95959393929194 9392919393919293 9493959493 9392
9291919493929190WWWWWWWG
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
(N) ELECTRIC METER(E) ELECTRIC METER(TO BE RELOCATED)(E) INGROUND POOL (DEPTH VARIES)DSDSDSDSDSDSDSS SN/ADSDS293N/A29015.00'26.71'25.50'24.00'4.00'22.00'16.07'0 10 20 30 40 50DETAIL 1"=10'SITE PLAN1"=16'Expires:PROESSIONALE N G I NEERFDERETSIGER S TATEOFCALAINROFIALIAB.IANINO C 5781806-30-16CIVILJLK ASSOCIATES73 CEDAR LANESAN JOSE, CA. 95127(408) 729-3734SURVEYORS / ENGINEERSEARTHWORK TABLE3C-3C-376543218C-35C-3C-3C-36142C-34LOCATION CUT (CY) FILL (CY)FOUNDATIONS 30 30NEW PATIOS & WALKWAYS 20 20NEW POOL 90 90EXPORT 0 NOTE: EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ON THIS TABLE ARE FOR INFORMATION ONLY.CONTRACTORS ARE TO PERFORM THEIR OWN QUANTITIES TAKE-OFF.TABLE DOES NOT REFLECT CONCRETE REMOVAL OR PLANTER MATERIALS S S S SS S S S SS S SS SS S S SSS SS S SS S SS S S S SS S S S SS S SS S SS SS SSSS SS S S SS Snew cleanoutS S SS SS S S SSS SS S SS S SS S SS S SS S S S SSinvert in @87.00+/-new cleanout155
GRASSY SWALE & DOWNSPOUT SPLASH BLOCK DETAILSLOPE TO DRAIN (2% MIN)P I P E L I N E B A C K F I L L D E T A I LFINISHED GRADE ORSTORM, WATER OR S.S. LINESSAME MATERIAL AS TRENCHEXCAVATION.COMPACTED BACKFILLCOMPACTED SAND BACKFILLEXCEPT WITHIN 10' OFBUILDING. BACKFILL WITHPER SOIL REPORTRECOMMENDATIONTOP OF A.C. PAVINGTOSUIT4" 4" NOT TO SCALE5VARIESC-324" X 8" CONC SPLASH BLOCK2% MIN.CL GRASSY SWALE @ 2% MINNOT TO SCALE5% MIN.DOWNSPOUTVARIESSLOPE TO DRAIN (2% MIN)BRASS GRATE (SQ OR RND 6" R. MIN)C-33C-34BACKFILL W COMPACTED SOIL OR STONECRUSHED STONEFLOOR JOISTSFINISH FLOORFLOOR JOISTS6" MININVERT ELEVATION6" RND OR SQ CATCH BASINUNIVERSAL OUTLET4" SD 35 AT 2% MIN.93.57'98.65'97.86'97.78'102.65'104.50'104.50'104.13'103.76'103.88'TBM=NAIL SET104.12'103.58'103.59'102.28'102.79'103.28'102.44'101.36'100.67'104.03'103.89'103.66'100.88'102.57'103.26'102.91'101.56'102.50'102.38'102.74'100.46'102.99'101.09'100.41'99.81'99.78'102.84'103.17'102.50'102.75'TBM=NAIL SET102.51'101.42'102.24'102.67'101.49'100.97'99.85'99.55'99.17'98.70'98.77'99.21'100.78'100.44'99.63'98.59'97.91'97.70'99.29'98.61'97.81'98.62'98.55'99.38'100.28'100.74'99.00'98.72'98.20'98.64'FF ELEV98.65'FF ELEV98.13'98.41'99.80'98.54'97.72'Fd Hub &Tack97.58'96.62'95.91'98.66'FF ELEV96.77'98.89'96.19'93.50'93.00'95.77'92.92'93.86'97.93'99.90'97.82'98.83'98.01'96.09'95.50'95.57'95.92'95.45'95.28'97.73'98.84'100.03'101.60'101.71'101.70'101.49'101.37'101.24'101.14'101.36'101.28'100.58'100.73'100.74'100.54'99.89'100.54'98.91'TBM=NAIL SET97.62'97.61'97.24'97.48'97.09'97.94'97.39'97.43'97.51'96.55'97.11'96.89'96.53'99.96'99.53'99.67'101.16'101.97'101.06'101.25'101.19'101.27'101.18'100.85'100.93'Fd 5/8 Rod bBent100.03'100.50'100.02'99.90'99.52'101.04'99.82'99.74'99.26'99.17'99.54'99.86'99.10'99.30'96.60'98.27'98.22'98.51'98.39'97.69'98.07'99.11'99.03'99.32'99.47'98.46'97.74'96.90'99.94'FF ELEV97.29'96.54'96.09'96.18'96.37'95.46'94.27'95.10'G94.67'95.10'G95.29'95.33'96.00'96.08'95.80'95.54'95.17'95.90'95.75'96.80'95.78'96.41'96.97'96.07'94.52'95.03'95.66'94.76'95.20'95.06'95.05'94.60'94.94'94.93'94.62'94.49'93.70'93.06'94.27'93.93'93.26'93.66'92.97'92.72'91.51'TBM=NAIL SET93.98'Fd Hub &Tack94.81'94.21'93.40'94.28'91.01'90.69'89.35'90.04'93.63'93.70'92.80'93.30'93.14'93.15'92.84'92.97'92.55'90.36'92.71'92.77'92.59'90.61'88.67'93.75'92.97'93.16'94.46'94.86'93.15'92.61'92.67'92.19'93.16'92.20'91.94'92.28'4" TREES90.75'94.10'94.67'92.25'93.87'93.19'92.76'91.35'91.19'TBM=NAIL SET90.11'90.67'EL:91.97'91.48'91.75'91.53'90.14'89.63'89.73'89.16'88.69'INV 3" Curb Drain90.17'89.84'90.18'89.95'89.65'87.95'88.36'88.03'87.93'88.43'89.13'87.97'87.71'(E) VERT. CURBASSUMED RIGHT-OF-WAY LINESTUMPAUTO GATE(E) PAVED DRIVEWAY(TO REMAIN)POLEPOLELAWNOVERHEAD POWER LINES (TYPICAL)22" TREE12" TREEAUTO GATE24" TREE28" TREE18" REDWOOD24" TREE(E) GAS METER4" TRIPLE BIRCH15" TREE36" TREE(to remain)(see Landscape plansfor Tree Well details)5" TREE18" PINE25'ASSUMED RIGHT-OF-WAY LINEPAVER DRIVEWAYFOUNTAIN36" TREE32" TREEPOLESTREET SIGNPOLESTOP SIGN20'6" TREETRIPLE 8" TREE4" TREE4" TREE5" TREE42" TREE8" TREEPAVER DRIVEWAY36" TREE30" TREE34" OAK12" TREE36" PINE14" PINE28" PINE24" T
R
E
E(E) POOL EQUIP PAD (to be removed)31" PINELANDSCAPED AREALAWN AREALANDSCAPED AREA28" PINELANDSCAPED AREALAWN AREAASSUMED RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE31" PINE26" PINELot Area1.1684 acres50,896 sq ft42" PINE34" PINED=2 1°4 0'0 0 " R=52 2.5 8'L=1 97.62'S U N S E T D R I V ES 89°59'00" W227.68'N 00°00'00" W239.50'H U M E D R I V E S 00°08'00" E20.00'S 89°39'00" E180.08'S 21°48'00" E27.42'S SSSS SS SSSS SSSSSS SDDDD DD DD DD DDDDDD DD94.10'36 LF 4" SD 35 @ .088" INLETTG: 93.90'INV THRU: 91.70'S S S SS S SSSSSSSSS SS SSSSSSSS SSS S S SSSSSSSSSSS SSSS SSSSDDD DDD DDDDDDDD DD(E) 4" PVC DRAIN PIPELSS S SSS S S SS SS SSSS SD DDDD DD DDDDDDD DD(E) 4" PVC DRAIN PIPE(E) CONC WALK(TO REMAIN)99.00'TG: 99.010'8" (E) INLETEX HOUSE FF:99.89'FS:98.89'SSSSSSSAREA CONVERTED TO LIVING SPACETG:98.40'INV OUT:97.20TG: 99.10'8" (E) INLET98.30'(N) 8" WIDECHANNEL INLETS98.50'98.50'98.30'94.20'8" INLETTG: 98.75'INV THRU: 96.20'98.30'36 LF 4' SD 35 @ .0612" INLETTG: 96.50'INV THRU: 95.00'(N) RAMP @ 9%DNDN S S S SS(N) DECKABOVE8" INLETTG: 98.75'INV THRU: 96.00'98.70'SINKBBQFS:98.83'FS:97.39'SSS94.00'(N) CONC STEPS(to replace old steps)96.89'FS94.89'TS94.00'(E) GRAVEL BASINAPPROX. 4' X 9' 24" MIN. DEPTHTG: 96.40'8" (E) INLET(N) 24"X36" RIP RAPDISSIPATOR(N) SECOND UNIT FF:94.13'24"-40" CONCRET.WALL12"-24"RET.WALL(STEM WALL)LS(N) VEGETATEDSWALE 49 LF 4" SD 35 @ .01FS:94.00'S S S S S S S S S 8" INLET / TG: 93.90'INV THRU: 92.00'(N) 20' X 43' POOL(SEPARATE PERMIT)(N) POOL COVER WELL8" INLET / TG: 93.90'INV OUT: 92.40'27 LF 6" SD 35 @ .01(E) POOL(TO BE REMOVED)100 LF 6" SD 35 @ .03(N) PAVED POOL PATIOFS:94.00'APPROX LOCATION OF 3" OVERFLOW PIPETG:89.10' LP INV IN: 88.0'89.10'(N) 4' X 5' X 24" DEEP GRAVEL BASIN8787888888888888
89898989898989 8990909090909090909090909191919191919191919191 929292929292
92
929292929393939393939393
93939393 9393 9394
94 949494949494 94949494959595959595959595969696969696969696
9797
97 9797979797979898989898 989898989898989899999999999999999999999999999999100100100100 100100 100100100100100100100101101101101101101101101101
101101102102 102102102102102102
103
103103103103
104
10410496100104 104103102 103102
101104103102103101102101
10110010099 103101102102102102101
1001019999100
999898
100999999999897989896979594 10010010110010110198999998999897 981009999979797101100100981009998999899989694 969696 9797969697969595959594949494939394
959593 9392919094 939291908993939192908993 9493959493 9392
929191959494939292939392919091919093929291 92919091908989 90899090898988908889888888878887 SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS S S S S S S S SSS S SS S S S S S SSSS S SSWWWWWWWWWWWWWG
G
G G G G
G
G G G G
A A A
A
A
A
A A
A
A A
S
S
S
S
S S
S
S S S S
(N) ELECTRIC METER(E) ELECTRIC METER(TO BE RELOCATED)(E) WATER METER(E) OVERHEAD WIRES(E) HAVC(E) INGROUND POOL (DEPTH VARIES)DSDSDSDSDSDSDSSSN/ADSDSDSDSDS293N/A29015.00'26.71'25.50'24.00'4.00'28822.00'N/AN/A16.07'2" TO 4"12" MIN.3/4" X 3/4" WOOD STAKESMAX. 4' SPACING2% MIN4"FIBER ROLLS(8" MIN)slope variesC.L. SWALE36"24"12"36"OVERLAND RELEASE1. CONTOURS & ELEVATIONS ARE FIELD LOCATED AND ARE BASED ON ASSUMED DATUM3. BOUNDARY INFO TAKEN FROM RECORD MAPS AND TITLE INFORMATION. HOWEVER THIS MAP SHOULD NOT BE USED TO ESTABLISH PROPERTY LINES. THE REPLACEMENT OF THE PROPERTY CORNERS WILL NECESSITATE THE FILING OF A RECORD OF SURVEY MAP BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR4. TREES TYPES ARE APPROXIMATED AND ARE TO BE IDENTIFIED BY OTHERS5. INDICATES FIELD LOCATED ELEVATION SPOT SHOT.6. OWNERS: THE BECKS7. CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1'8. INDICATES DISTINCT BORDER 100.56'NOTES:N O T E & D E T A I L S 19905 Sunset DriveCity of SaratogaSANTA CLARA COUNTYCALIFORNIAGRADING & DRAINAGE PLANAS NOTED2 OF 2SHEET:C - 2DateByChkdDate: 02-22-15Drawn By: JLKNODESCRIPTIONREVISED: 03-15-15EROSION CONTROL & BMP NOTES*CONCRETE TO BE USED IN CITY RIGHT-OF WAY 6" Class 2 Aggregate Baserock4" ASPHALT IN 2 LIFTS*18'88%-90% compaction of native soil (do not over compact expansive soils)2% MINSEE SOILS REPOERT RECOMMENDATIONSExpires:PROESSIONALE N G I NEERFDERETSIGER S TATEOFCALAINROFIALIAB.IANINO C 5781806-30-16CIVILJLK ASSOCIATES73 CEDAR LANESAN JOSE, CA. 95127(408) 729-3734SURVEYORS / ENGINEERS1. UTILIZE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP'S), AS DIRECTED BY THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, FOR ANY ACTIVITY, WHICH DISTURBS SOIL.2. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DUST CONTROL AND INSURING THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE WORK IS LEFT IN A CLEAN CONDITION.3. WATERING ALL EXPOSED OR DISTURBED SOIL SURFACES AT LEAST TWICE DAILY, AS NECESSARY TO ELIMINATE VISIBLE DUST PLUMES.4. COVER ALL TRUCKS HAULING SOIL, SAND AND OTHER LOOSE MATERIALS OR REQUIRE ALL TRUCKS TO MAINTAIN AT LEAST TWO FEET 5. FREEBOARD LEVEL WITHIN THOSE TRUCK BEDS. ENCLOSE, COVER, OR APPLY (NON-TOXIC) SOIL BINDERS TO EXPOSED STOCKPILES OR DEBRIS, SOIL, SAND, OR OTHER MATERIALS.6. SWEEP DAILY (WITH WATER SWEEPERS) ALL PAVED ACCESS ROADS, PARKING AREAS AND STAGING AREAS AT CONSTRCUTION SITES.7. SWEEP STREET DAILY (WITH WATER SWEEPERS) IF VISIBLE SOIL, MATERIAL IS CARRIED ONTO ADJACENT PUBLIC STREETS.8. INSTALL WATTLE BARRIER ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THE JOB SITE. THE PLACEMENT OF ADITIONAL DEVICES TO REDUCE EROSION DAMAGE WITHIN THE SITE IS LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE FIELD ENGINEER.C-36PLANFINISH GRADEPROFILEINLET DETAILNOT TO SCALEC-32C-31TOP OF A.C. PAVINGRECOMMENDATIONPER SOIL REPORTBUILDING. BACKFILL WITHEXCEPT WITHIN 10' OFCOMPACTED SAND BACKFILLCOMPACTED BACKFILLEXCAVATION.SAME MATERIAL AS TRENCHSTORM, WATER OR S.S. LINES4" 4" SUITTOFINISHED GRADE ORP I P E L I N E B A C K F I L L D E T A I L4NOT TO SCALEC-3NOT TO SCALE1C-3INLET DETAILSLOPE TO DRAIN (2% MIN)CRUSHED STONE4" SD 35 AT 2% MIN.UNIVERSAL OUTLET6" RND OR SQ CATCH BASININVERT ELEVATIONSLOPE TO DRAIN (2% MIN)BRASS GRATE (SQ OR RND 6" R. MIN)BACKFILL W COMPACTED SOIL OR STONEVARIESRIP RAP DISSIPATOR DETAIL2C-3C.L. SWALE2% MIN36"36"24"4"12"OVERLAND RELEASEPLANFINISH GRADEUSE CLEAN 1" TO 1-1/2" CRUSHED DRAIN ROCK WITH NO FINE MATERIAL,SILT OR FINE SANDPROFILEGEO-TEXTILE FABRIC TO ENCLOSE ALL DRAIN ROCKUSE MIRAFI 140N FILTER FABRIC 6" MINVARIESCL GRASSY SWALE @ 2% MIN2% MIN.NOT TO SCALEGRASSY SWALE & DOWNSPOUT SPLASH BLOCK DETAIL24" X 8" CONC SPLASH BLOCKFLOOR JOISTSFINISH FLOORFLOOR JOISTSDOWNSPOUT5% MIN.3C-3S S S SS S S SS SSS S SS S S S S Snew cleanoutSSSSS S S SS S S Sinvert in @87.00+/-new cleanoutGEO-TEXTILE FABRIC TO ENCLOSE ALL DRAIN ROCKUSE MIRAFI 140N FILTER FABRIC USE CLEAN 1" TO 1-1/2" CRUSHED DRAIN ROCK WITH NO FINE MATERIAL,SILT OR FINE SANDRIP RAP DISSIPATOR DETAILTYPICAL ON SITE DRIVEWAY SECTIONWATTLE BARRIER DETAIL156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
REPORT TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 1 of 6
Meeting Date: December 9, 2015
Application: PDR15-0023
Location / APN: 14768 Montalvo Rd / 517-20-041
Owner/Applicant: Kirk Goodere/David and Jayne Wilson
Staff Planner: Sandy L. Baily, Special Projects Manager
14768 Montalvo Road
184
Page 2 of 6
Summary
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval to demolish an existing 3,951 square
foot nonconforming single story residence and to construct a new 26 foot tall, 4,602 square foot
two-story residence with a 281 square foot second dwelling unit which will be an affordable
housing unit. No trees are proposed for removal.
S TAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 15-052 approving the project subject to
conditions of approval.
Design Review approval is required pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(3).
PROJECT DATA:
Site Area: 19,473 sf net
Average Slope: 7%
Grading: NA
General Plan Designation: RLD (Low Density Residential)
Zoning: R-1-20,000 (Single-Family Residential)
Proposed Allowed/Required
Site Coverage
Main House & Garage
Walkways/ Decks/ Patios
Pool/Spa
Other
Pervious Patio
Pervious Driveways
Total Site Coverage
Front Yard Impervious
4,630.9 sf
194 sf
682.2 sf
224
1,112.85 sf (50% of 2,225.7 sf)
1,533.5 sf (50% of 3,067 sf)
8,153.45 sf (41.9%)
194 sf (0.1%)
8,762.85 sf (45%)
1,681.5 sf (50% of 3,363 sf )
Floor Area
First Floor
Second Floor
Garage
Second Unit
Total Floor Area
2,109.86 sf
1,925.56 sf
566.68 sf
280.66 sf
4,882.76 sf
4,884 sf (includes 10% addition,
444 sf, for affordable second unit)
Height
Lowest Elevation Point:
Highest Elevation Point:
Average Elevation Point:
Proposed Topmost Point:
525.77’
526.91’
526.34’
552.25’ (25’11”)
26 feet Maximum
185
Page 3 of 6
Setbacks
Front:
Left Side:
Right Side:
Rear:
Front:
Left Side:
Right Side:
Rear:
1st Story
30’5”
17’1”
20’
NA
2nd Story
30’5”
42’6”
23’9”
NA
1st Story
30’
15’
15’
NA
2nd Story
30’
20’
20’
NA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/DISCUSSION
DESIGN REVIEW
Site and Neighborhood Description: The 19,473 square foot property is located at 14768 Montalvo
Rd. The triangularly shaped lot and is located on a curving street, which creates an unconventional
building envelope for the property. The residential neighborhood includes both single story and two
story homes with various architectural styles. The houses on both sides of the subject property are
single story and the house across the street is two stories. Another new two story house was recently
approved two properties south of the subject lot.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 3,134.68 sq. ft. single-story square foot house on
the property. The house is nonconforming because the structure projects 3’3’’ into the required
front-yard and 1’8” into the left side-yard setbacks. To replace the existing home, the applicant
proposes to construct a new 4,602 square foot two story single family residence which includes an
attached garage and a 281 sq. ft. attached second unit with an attached carport. The proposed
structure conforms to current setback requirements. A pool currently exists on site which will
remain. The site currently contains three curb cuts which the applicant proposes to maintain. The
existing curb cuts are for a circular driveway and a separate driveway to the parking areas. It is
possible that the separate driveway curb cut could be eliminated as the proposed parking areas could
be accessed from the circular driveway. The impervious concrete driveways will be replaced with
permeable material. No trees will be impacted by this proposal. The adjacent lot to the south of the
subject lot is at a slightly higher elevation and the adjacent lot to the north of the subject lot is at a
slightly lower elevation.
Architectural Design: The applicant is proposing a two-story contemporary designed home that
will be 25 feet 11 inches in height. The exterior materials include stucco exterior, wood stone
veneer trim, wrought iron balcony railings, steel sectional garage door, wood with aluminum
clad windows, and a concrete barrel tile roof. A Juliet balcony (false balcony) is proposed at the
front elevation. A useable balcony is proposed at the rear elevation. A gas fireplace is proposed.
186
Page 4 of 6
Trees: No trees will be impacted by this proposal. The City Arborist has reviewed the proposal
and has recommended conditions of approval to ensure that the existing trees will not be
impacted by the construction. The applicant is required to place a tree deposit of $7,450 and
install tree protection fencing prior to the issuance of building permits.
Landscaping: The majority of the existing landscaping will remain. A large amount of
impervious concrete exists on the right side of the house which wraps around to the back yard.
The majority of this concrete accommodates the existing side loading garage driveway. All of
this concrete will be removed. This area will be modified with a new pervious driveway and the
areas not used for the driveway will be landscaped which will include a new drainage swale at
the side of the house. A small landscaped area at the front of the house between the existing
circular driveway and existing driveway to the garage will be replaced with pervious driveway
material. Since no new landscaping is required as part of this project and the applicant is
maintaining the majority of the existing landscaping, the project will most likely be exempt from
the new State WELO requirements. The WELO requirements will be reviewed as part of the
building permit process.
CalGreen Standards/Sustainable Features: The project will meet the minimum CalGreen
standards for a new home. The CalGreen checklist is on a full size plan sheet and is available for
viewing in the file.
Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: The applicant submitted three Neighbor
Notification Forms signed by adjacent property owners. The applicant also submitted two
Neighborhood Notification forms of the neighbors they were unable to contact. Copies of the
neighbor notification forms are included as Attachment #3. A Public Notice was sent to property
owners within 500 feet of the site. No neighborhood concerns have been brought to the City’s
attention as of the writing of this staff report.
FINDINGS
Design Review Findings:
The Planning Commission may grant Design Review approval pursuant to City Code Article 15-45,
if the Planning Commission makes all of the following 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 residence proposed is located in the center on a relatively flat portion of the lot. The
residence proposed is located in roughly the same area developed with the existing house.
Detail Colors and Materials
Exterior & Trim White (Stucco) and Golden (Stone Veneer)
Windows/ Doors Brown
Trim Dark Brown (Wood)
Balcony Railing Black (Iron)
187
Page 5 of 6
(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 the
applicant designed the project to not impact any trees. The City Arborist has reviewed the
proposal and has recommended conditions of approval to ensure that the existing trees will
not be impacted by the constructed.
(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 structure is located in the
middle of the lot, surrounded by trees and vegetation along the front, side and rear property
lines. The left side setback on the second floor has been increased beyond the minimum
required on the side adjacent to an existing neighboring single-story residence and has been
designed with small and minimal windows. The second story windows and balcony at the
rear elevation and the second story windows at the right elevation should not impact the
privacy of adjacent parcels due to the existing vegetation on the adjacent properties and the
distances between the structures. The project does 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. The project meets this finding because
the proposed home features a second story that is stepped back to help reduce the visual
perception of mass and incorporates architectural features. The house has a horizontal design
with simple roof forms which is sympathetic to the neighborhood. There is a two-story house
across the street and a new story house has recently been approved two properties south of
the subject property.
(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 impermeable hardscape surfaces constitute less than 50% of the front setback
area. Permeable driveways are also located in the front setback area.
(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 proposed location and house
design would not impact solar access for adjacent properties. The distance between adjacent
structures is sufficient to allow solar access. In addition, existing trees on the subject and
adjacent parcels currently shadow the properties.
(g) The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential
Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. The project meets this finding because
the building design and site plan incorporate several techniques from the Residential Design
Handbook, including increasing side yard setbacks adjacent to smaller homes; designing first
story eave heights and entry eave heights that are in scale with adjacent residences; facing
188
Page 6 of 6
garage doors perpendicular to the street and deemphasizing the garage presence; minimizing
the size of second story windows; and selecting materials, colors, and details that enhance the
architecture in a well-composed, understated manner.
(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 finding is not applicable as the site is not a hillside lot.
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 for Design Review
2. Arborist Report dated October 6, 2015
3. Public hearing notice, mailing addresses, and map for project notification
4. Neighbor Notification Forms
5. Story pole Certification Letter, received November 30, 2015
6. Development Plans (Exhibit "A")
189
RESOLUTION NO. 15-052
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING
COMMISSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW NO. PDR15-0023 APPROVING THE
DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE AND SECOND DWELLING UNIT AT
14768 MONTALVO RD (APN 517-20-041)
WHEREAS, an application was submitted by Kirk Goodere to demolish an existing
nonconforming residence and to construct a new 26 foot tall, 4,602 square foot two-story
residence with a 281 square foot second dwelling unit which will be an affordable housing
unit located at 14768 Montalvo Road. Design Review approval is required because the proposed
main residence is a new two-story structure over eighteen feet in height. The foregoing work is
described as the “Project” in this Resolution.
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 December 9, 2015, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the subject application, and after considering evidence presented by City staff, the
applicant, and other interested parties, requested the applicant to revise the project to address
height, mass, and parking concerns.
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds,
determines and resolves as follows:
Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures” of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the
construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies.
Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land
Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that
the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the
adjacent surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the
City shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved
during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits; 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.
190
Resolution No. 15-052 Page 2
Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that a
nonconformity will be eliminated and the proposed house will conform to current setback
requirements, the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings
in that the project follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is
appropriate given the property’s natural constraints; preserves protected trees; is designed
to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community
viewsheds; the mass and height of the structure and its architectural elements are in scale
with the structure itself and with the neighborhood; landscaping minimizes hardscape in
the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood
streetscape; does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar
energy; and is consistent with the Residential Design Review Handbook.
Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR15-0023,
located at 14768 Montalvo Road (APN 517-20-041), 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 9th day of
December 2015 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Leonard Almalech
Chair, Planning Commission
191
Resolution No. 15-052 Page 3
EXHIBIT 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PDR15-0023
14768 MONTALVO RD (APN 517-20-041)
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
permit for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of
approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been
recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content
to the satisfaction of 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 Zoning Regulations 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.
192
Resolution No. 15-052 Page 4
5. Construction must be commenced within 36 months from the date of this approval (December
9, 2018), or the resolution will expire.
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 dated November 23, 2015
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 3, above.
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 and referenced in Condition
No. 6 above;
b. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or
private vehicles shall be parked or stored within the root zone of any Ordinance-
protected tree on the site;
c. This Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages;
d. A final utility plan that shows location of HVAC mechanical equipment outside of
required setback areas;
e. A final Drainage and Grading Plan stamped by a registered Civil Engineer combined
with the above-required Stormwater Detention Plan;
f. A final Landscape and Irrigation Plan; and
g. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building
Division.
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.
10. Setback Verification Letter – Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land
Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the
approved plans.
11. Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan. The final landscaping and irrigation plan shall
take into account the following:
193
Resolution No. 15-052 Page 5
a. To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water
runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that
provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and
prolong exposure to water shall be specified.
b. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the
landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area.
c. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil
type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall,
air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to
ensure successful establishment.
d. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the
landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area.
e. Any proposed or required under grounding of utilities shall take into account potential
damage to roots of protected trees.
f. Sufficient documentation to show how the project complies with applicable Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) requirements including the payment of
deposit fees for the review submitted plans and water budget/usage calculations.
12. Fire Department Requirements. Owner/applicant shall comply with all Fire Department
requirements.
13. Noise and Construction Hours. In order to comply with standards that minimize impacts to
the neighborhood during site preparation and construction, the applicant shall comply with
City Code Sections 7-30.060 and 16-75.050, with respect to noise, construction hours,
maintenance of the construction site and other requirements stated in these sections.
14. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or a bond satisfactory
to the Community Development Department valued at 150% of the estimated cost of the
installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City.
15. Construction Management Plan. The applicant shall submit a construction management
plan prior to obtaining a building permit. The plan shall address work hours and schedule,
equipment/material staging and parking, estimated vehicular traffic, contaminated soil
management, dust control measures, noise mitigation, and general health and safety.
CITY ARBORIST
16. Arborist Report (ARB15-0063). All recommendations of the Arborist Report dated
October 6, 2015 and all other future updated reports, and incorporated herein by this
reference shall be followed and incorporated (in its entirety) into the plans.
PUBLIC WORKS
17. Fees. The owner (applicant) shall pay all applicable fees prior to Zone Clearance.
194
Resolution No. 15-052 Page 6
18. 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.
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
Sheet ScaleProject DesignerChecked ByReviewed ByProject Start DateCAD File Name:T
As Noted
Wilson 8/26/2015WilsonTotal Sheets Cover PageDavid & Jayne WilsonNo.DateIssue NotesDesign ReviewA8/05/15No.DateRevision NotesDesign Review18/26/15Appr ofofProject:New Spanish Villa HomeOwner & Project Address:14768 Montalvo RdSaratoga, CA. 95070APN: 517-20-041Demo Existing HomeNew Spanish Villa Style HomeConsultant:Project ManagerDrawn ByKirk Gooderewww.GoodereAssociates.comGoodere & Associates, Inc. retains all rights & ownership of all drawings and specifications. The contents of the drawings & specifications may not be used on any other project without the express written consent of goodere & Associates Inc.Goodere & Associates, Inc. Saratoga, CaliforniaADDITIONS - REMODELS - NEW HOMESDesign Review Reply210/12/15 Design Review Update310/27/15 Project Code Summary
Building Code Requirements Remarks
Building Code References Edition
California Building Code 2013 CBC
California Fire Code 2013 CRC
California Fire Code 2013 CFC
California Plumbing Code 2013 CPC
California Mechanical Code 2013 CMC
California Electric Code 2013 CEC
California Energy Code 2003 CEC
California Green Building Code 2013 CBC
Building Code Analysis Code Req't Code Ref.
Construction Type V-B CBC Any Materials Allowed by Code
Occupancy Type R3/U CBC Single Family Residence
The purpose of this project is to demolish an existing single story ranch home and replace it with a
two story Spanish Villa. The design takes inspiration and design clues from classic Spanish Villas
and from Villa Montalvo. Which will be a perfect compliment to all those entering Villa Montalvo.
No trees will be removed for the project. All loading and materials will be placed onto the existing
driveways. The new house sits in the same location as the existing house. All existing landscaping to
remain at rear and both sides of the house. Portion of the front landscaping to be converted to
driveway for access to new garage.
Residential New Home
For:
David & Jayne Wilson
14768 Montalvo Road
Saratoga, CA. 95070
G 1.ALL NOTE BLOCKS SUCH AS THIS ONE ARE PROJECT NOTES APPLICABLE
TO THE ENTIRE PROJECT OR TO SPECIFIC PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT. THE
NOTE IDENTIFIER (LETTER AND NUMBER) - WHERE USED ON THE VARIOUS
DRAWINGS AND DETAILS ARE USED AS KEYNOTE IDENTIFIERS TO REFER BACK
TO THE NOTE BLOCKS WHICH GIVE DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OR
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE OBJECT.
G 2.CALLOUT NOTES (TEXT AND POINTER ARROW) MAY INCLUDE KEYNOTE
IDENTIFIERS.
G 3.BUILDING CODES - THE CODES APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT ARE
SHOWN ON THE BUILDING CODES SUMMARY CHART ON THIS SHEET.
G 4.DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN WITH DIFFERENT DIMENSION LINE TYPES TO
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN EXISTING DIMENSIONS AND NEW DIMENSIONS. REFER
TO THE DIMENSION LINES KEY BELOW.
G 5.SINCE THIS IS A REMODEL PROJECT DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE
DRAWINGS AND ACTUAL CONDITIONS MAY OCCUR. WHERE DISCREPANCIES
BETWEEN THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS AND THE DRAWINGS BECOME APPARENT
CONTACT THE ARCHITECT TO RESOLVE THESE DISCREPANCIES BEFORE
PROCEEDING TO ORDER EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL OR TO PERFORM WORK IN
THESE AREAS.
G 6.VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND SIZES BEFORE ORDERING ANY MATERIALS
OR EQUIPMENT FOR THIS PROJECT TO ENSURE THAT THE ORDERED ITEMS
WILL FIT INTO THE EXISTING OR NEW SPACES WHERE THEY BELONG.
G7.BEFORE CUTTING ANY MATERIALS, VERIFY DIMENSIONS AND CHECK TO
ENSURE THAT ITEMS WILL FIT INTO THE EXISTING OR NEW SPACES WHERE
THEY BELONG.
G8.VERIFY ALL EQUIPMENT SIZES BEFORE CREATING OPENINGS AND
ENCLOSURES FOR THE EQUIPMENT TO ENSURE THAT ITEMS WILL FIT INTO THE
EXISTING OR NEW SPACES WHERE THEY BELONG.
NEW DIMENSION DIMENSION IS FACE TO FACE
OF SURFACES
DIMENSION IS FACE TO FACE
OF (E) SURFACES
EXISTING DIMENSION
INDICATES LENGTH, EXTENT
AND TYPE OF SHEAR WALL PER
SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE
SHEAR WALL
INDICATES CENTERLINE TO
CENTERLINE
CENTERLINE DIM.
SW1
Project Contacts:
Owner:
Designer:
Structural Engineer:
David & Jayne Wilson
14768 Montalvo Drive
Saratoga,CA. 95070
Home: (408) 442-2615
Kirk Goodere/Goodere & Associates Inc.
Saratoga, CA. 95070
(408) 802-1518
Site Analysis And Statistics
Year Originally Built 1977
Lot Size (Gross) 21094 (Net)=19,473.00± S.F.0.45± Ac.= Total Site Area
Slope of Entire Site 7%
Zoning Designation:R 1-20,000
CBC Occupancy Type R3/U CBC Construction Type VB
Building Area Analysis
Space ID Area (Sq. Ft.)% Lot Cover/FAR Remarks
Existing House Living 3,134.68±S.F.Existing Living Area
(E) Garage Area 816.38±S.F.Existing Garage
Total Existing House 3,951.06±S.F.Existing Total
New First Floor 2,109.86±S.F.New Living Area
New Garage 566.68±S.F.New Garage Area
New Second Floor 1,925.56±S.F.New Second Floor - Inc. Chimney
Total New SF 4,602.09±S.F.
Secondary Dwelling SF 280.66±S.F.Area of Secondary Dwelling
Grand Total New SF 4,882.75±S.F.
FAR 0.250 (FAR)
Allowable Floor Area 4050 + (78x5)= 4440 + 444 (10% Addition for Secondary Dwelling) = 4884
Setback Conformance First Floor SB Designed First Flr Second Floor SB Designed Second Flr
Front Setback 30'0"30'5"30'0"30'5"
Rear Yard Setback NA NA NA NA
Left Side Setback (North)15'0"17'1"20'0"42'6"
Right Side Setback (SouthEast)15'0"17'3"20'0"23'9"
Height
Lowest Elevation Point 525.77'
Highest Elevation Point 526.91'
Average Elevation Point 526.34'
Top Most Elevation Point 552.25'= 25'10 7/8"
Site Coverage
Impervious Surfaces % of Impervious Total SF
Footprint of Home/Garage (includes roof overhang)24 4630.9
Walkways/Decks/Patio 0.1 194
Pool & Spa 4 682.2
(a) Subtotal Impervious 28.1 5507.1
Pervious Surfaces Actual S.F.50% credit Total SF
Permeable Rear Patio 2225.7 1112.85 1112.85
Permeable Driveway 3067 1533.5 1533.5
(b) Subtotal Pervious 5292.7 2646.35 2646.35
Site Coverage Total 8153.45
Front Yard Sq.Ft.6726
Front Yard Coverage 3350 49.9% Only 194 sq.ft. is impervious
Total Allowable Site Coverage 45% of Net site 19473 0.45 8762.85
TBD
Second Floor
Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"2
SECOND FLOOR = 1935.53 S.F.
First Floor
Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"1
GARAGE =
566.68 S.F.
FIRST FLOOR = 2021.42 S.F.
3
2
2 3
217