HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-27-15 Planning Commission Agenda PacketTable of Contents
Agenda 4
May 13, 2015
Draft Minutes 7
Application ELN15-0004; 18349 Vanderbilt Drive (403-28-
010)Ho/Yeh - 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 will result in expenditure of approximately
45.4% of the estimated construction valuation of the existing
structure. Contact: Justin Shui (408)868-1230.
Staff Report 10
Att. 1 - Resolution 12
Att. 2 - Plans 16
APPLICATION PDR14-0028/ARB14-0065; 20455 Herriman
Avenue (Saratoga Presbyterian Church); Verizon Wireless on
behalf of The Presbytery of San Jose – The applicant is
requesting Design Review and Conditional Use Permit Approval
to install a new cellular telecommunication facility on the site.
The facility will be located in an enclosure that will be located
atop the classroom building and would increase the height of
the 31.6’ tall building by 9’-8”. The installation would include
nine antennas, ground mounted electrical equipment, and
associated cabling. The enclosure would be constructed to
match the materials of the existing building. The project would
include the removal of one 19 inch Liquid Amber tree. Staff
Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235.
Staff Memorandum 24
APPLICATION PDR11-0003 & VAR11-0001; 21794 Heber Way
(503-31-067); Eric Keng / Steve Sheng – The project is a
Design Review and Variance to construct a new two-story
residence with a three-car garage on a hillside lot. The height
will be no taller than 26 feet from average grade. The variance
is required because the applicant is proposing a 99 foot front
setback (when 131 foot setback is required) and a 20 foot and
35 foot side setback (when a 45 foot side setback is required).
No protected trees are being proposed for removal. This
meeting is continued from the October 22, 2014 Planning
Commission Meeting. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-
1212.
Staff Report 21794 Heber Way 25
Att 1 Resolution 33
Att 2 Teerlink Staff Report 40
Att 3 21794 Heber Way Report dated 102214 55
Att 4 Before and After Exhibit 131
Att 5 Neighbor Letter 135
Att 6 Letter in Support 157
Att 7 Memo from Cotton 167
Att 8 Plan Set Exhibit A 169
1
Application PDR15-0009/ARB15-0023; 19990 Bella Vista Ave
(397-20-059); Terry Martin on behalf of Paghu Pai and Sahana
Pai - The applicant is requesting approval for a new 26 foot tall,
6,530 square foot two-story house with a basement. Planning
Commission design review is required because the project
consists of a new two-story residence. Staff Contact: Justin
Shiu, (408)868-1230
Staff Report 180
Att. 1 - Resolution 186
Att. 2 - Arborist Report 190
Att. 3 - Neighbor Notification 197
Att. 4 - View from the balcony and bedroom 202
Att. 5 - Story Pole Certification 203
Att. 6 - Plans 205
APPLICATION PDR15-0010; South Side of Saratoga Ave. and
140’ East of Douglass Lane (Right-of-Way): Verizon Wireless –
The applicant is requesting approval for the replacement of an
existing 29 foot, 9 inch utility pole with a new 35 foot utility pole,
2 foot pole extension, 4 foot tall wireless antenna and
associated equipment located on the south side of Saratoga
Avenue and 140 feet east of Douglass Lane. The installation
also includes three Radio Remote Units (RRU’s), one ground
mounted cabinet, an electrical meter, and associated cabling.
The height of the utility pole with the antenna would increase
from approximately 29 feet 9 inches to 41 feet. The antenna
and associated equipment would be painted “Mesa Brown” in
order to match the existing utility pole. Staff Contact: Michael
Fossati (408) 868-1212.
Staff Report 219
Att 1 Resolution 224
Att 2 Statement of Purpose 229
Att 3 Coverage Maps 230
Att 4 RF Analysis 232
Att 5 Small Cell Base Station 236
Att 6 HPC Minutes 237
Att 7 Photosimulations 240
Att 8 Pole Heights 241
Att 9 Plan Set Exhibit A 242
APPLICATION ZOA15-0005 (CITYWIDE) – Application by the
City of Saratoga to amend portions of Chapter 15 of the City
Code.
Staff Report 250
Att. 1 - Resolution 253
2
Fifteen new capital projects are proposed for the Fiscal Year 15-
16 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). California Government
Code Section 65401 states that the local planning agency
should report on the conformity of the CIP with the agency’s
general plan. Attachment 4 contains a listing of the proposed
projects and the specific general plan policy(s) the project is
conforms to. Not all projects have a relationship to specific
policies. Staff has reviewed the projects and found that they are
not in conflict with general plan policies and a conformity finding
can be supported. The environmental determination will be
addressed project by project as they are funded for
construction. Staff Contact: Erwin Ordonez 408-868-1231.
Staff Report 260
Att. 1 - Memo from Public Works Director 261
Att. 2 - Resolution 262
Att. 3 - Project Summaries 263
Att. 4 - CIP Spreadsheet 278
3
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, May 27, 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 May 13, 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 ELN15-0004; 18349 Vanderbilt Drive (403-28-010)Ho/Yeh - 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 will result in expenditure of approximately 45.4% of the estimated construction
valuation of the existing structure. Contact: Justin Shui (408)868-1230.
Recommended action:
Adopt Resolution No. 15-019 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 PDR14-0028/ARB14-0065; 20455 Herriman Avenue (Saratoga Presbyterian Church);
Verizon Wireless on behalf of The Presbytery of San Jose – The applicant is requesting Design Review and
Conditional Use Permit Approval to install a new cellular telecommunication facility on the site. The
facility will be located in an enclosure that will be located atop the classroom building and would increase
the height of the 31.6’ tall building by 9’-8”. The installation would include nine antennas, ground
mounted electrical equipment, and associated cabling. The enclosure would be constructed to match the
4
materials of the existing building. The project would include the removal of one 19 inch Liquid Amber tree.
Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235.
Recommended action:
Staff is recommending continuance to a date certain of June 10, 2015.
2. APPLICATION PDR11-0003 & VAR11-0001; 21794 Heber Way (503-31-067); Eric Keng / Steve Sheng
– The project is a Design Review and Variance to construct a new two-story residence with a three-car
garage on a hillside lot. The height will be no taller than 26 feet from average grade. The variance is
required because the applicant is proposing a 99 foot front setback (when 131 foot setback is required) and
a 20 foot and 35 foot side setback (when a 45 foot side setback is required). No protected trees are being
proposed for removal. This meeting is continued from the October 22, 2014 Planning Commission
Meeting. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212.
Recommended action:
Adopt Resolution No. 14-044 approving Design Review PDR11-0003 and Variance 11-0001 subject to
conditions of approval.
3. Application PDR15-0009/ARB15-0023; 19990 Bella Vista Ave (397-20-059); Terry Martin on behalf of
Paghu Pai and Sahana Pai - The applicant is requesting approval for a new 26 foot tall, 6,530 square foot
two-story house with a basement. Planning Commission design review is required because the project
consists of a new two-story residence. Staff Contact: Justin Shiu, (408)868-1230
Recommended action:
Adopt Resolution No. 15-020 approving the project subject to conditions of approval.
4. APPLICATION PDR15-0010; South Side of Saratoga Ave. and 140’ East of Douglass Lane (Right-of-
Way): Verizon Wireless – The applicant is requesting approval for the replacement of an existing 29 foot, 9
inch utility pole with a new 35 foot utility pole, 2 foot pole extension, 4 foot tall wireless antenna and
associated equipment located on the south side of Saratoga Avenue and 140 feet east of Douglass Lane.
The installation also includes three Radio Remote Units (RRU’s), one ground mounted cabinet, an
electrical meter, and associated cabling. The height of the utility pole with the antenna would increase
from approximately 29 feet 9 inches to 41 feet. The antenna and associated equipment would be painted
“Mesa Brown” in order to match the existing utility pole. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212.
Recommended action:
Approve Resolution No. 15-018 approving the project subject to conditions of approval.
5. APPLICATION ZOA15-0005 (CITYWIDE) – Application by the City of Saratoga to amend portions of
Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Recommended action:
Adopt Resolution 15-023 and recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance which includes various
amendments to Chapter 15 (Zoning) of the Saratoga City Code.
OTHER ITEMS
1. Fifteen new capital projects are proposed for the Fiscal Year 15-16 Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
California Government Code Section 65401 states that the local planning agency should report on the
conformity of the CIP with the agency’s general plan. Attachment 4 contains a listing of the proposed
projects and the specific general plan policy(s) the project is conforms to. Not all projects have a
relationship to specific policies. Staff has reviewed the projects and found that they are not in conflict with
general plan policies and a conformity finding can be supported. The environmental determination will be
addressed project by project as they are funded for construction. Staff Contact: Erwin Ordonez 408-868-
1231.
5
DIRECTOR ITEMS
COMMISSION ITEMS
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 May 21, 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
6
ACTION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777
FRUITVALE AVENUE
ROLL CALL
PRESENT Commissioners Sunil Ahuja, Leonard Almalech, Wendy Chang, Kookie
Fitzsimmons, Joyce Hlava, Dede Smullen, Tina Walia, Chair Leonard Almalech
ABSENT None
ALSO PRESENT Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director
Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner
Michael Fossati, Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 22, 2015
Action:
WALIA/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO APPROVE THE APRIL 22, 2015 MINUTES. MOTION PASSED.
AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE.
ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
DIRECTOR ITEMS
1. FCC Rule Changes for Wireless Facility Collocation.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Application ELN15-0007;18950 Cyril Place /386-20-038; Jacintha & Vach Kompella; The applicant is
requesting approval of an Expansion of a Legal Non-Conforming residence to remodel an existing single-
family home which encroaches into the exterior side setback. The site is 10,000 square feet and is zoned R-
1-10,000. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235.
Action:
HLAVA/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 15-015 APPROVING THE
PROJECT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA,
ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE.
ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
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 PDR15-0004; Utility Pole Near 19848 Prospect Road (386-26-070); Verizon Wireless - The
applicant is requesting approval for the installation of a Small Cell wireless antenna and associated
equipment on an existing utility pole located on the south side of Prospect Road, near 19848 Prospect
Road. The installation includes one antenna on a pole top extension, three Radio Remote Units (RRU’s),
7
one ground mounted cabinet, an electrical meter, and associated cabling. The height of the utility pole with
the antenna would increase from approximately 45 feet to 54 feet. The antenna and associated equipment
would be painted “Mesa Brown” in order to match the existing utility pole. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati
(408) 868-1212.
Action:
HLAVA/WALIA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 15-012 WITH CHANGES TO THE
CONDITIONS:
Amend resolution finding #4 to reflect text from required finding language regarding colocation on utility
pole.
MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA,
SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
2. Application PDR15-0006; Utility Pole Near 19700 Prospect Road (386-35-070); Verizon Wireless - The
applicant is requesting approval for the installation of a Small Cell wireless antenna and associated
equipment on an existing utility pole located on the south side of Prospect Road, near Congregation Beth
David & Church of the Ascension. The installation includes one antenna on a pole top extension; three
Radio Remote Units (RRU’s), one ground mounted cabinet, an electrical meter, and associated cabling.
The height of the utility pole with the antenna would increase from approximately 43 feet to 52 feet. The
antenna and associated equipment would be painted “Mesa Brown” in order to match the existing utility
pole. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212.
Action:
HLAVA/SMULLEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 15-013 WITH CHANGES TO THE
CONDTIONS:
Amend resolution finding #4 to reflect text from required finding language regarding colocation on utility
pole.
MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA,
SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
3. Application PDR15-0005; Utility Pole Near Prospect Road and West of Kristy Lane (Right-of-Way);
Verizon Wireless - The applicant is requesting approval for the installation of a Small Cell wireless antenna
and associated equipment on an existing utility pole located on the south side of Prospect Road and west
side of Kristy Lane. The installation includes one antenna on a pole top extension; three Radio Remote
Units (RRU’s), one ground mounted cabinet, an electrical meter, and associated cabling. The height of the
utility pole with the antenna would increase from approximately 43 feet to 52 feet. The antenna and
associated equipment would be painted “Mesa Brown” in order to match the existing utility pole. Staff
Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212.
Action:
HLAVA/SMULLEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 15-014 WITH CHANGES TO THE
CONDTIONS:
Amend resolution finding #4 to reflect text from required finding language regarding colocation on utility
pole.
MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA,
SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
4. Application PDR14-0027/ARB14-0056; 14800 Montalvo Road (517-20-005); David Britt on behalf of
Stuart Wells - The applicant is requesting approval for a new 25 foot tall, 4,970 square foot two-story home
with a basement. Planning Commission design review is required because the project consists of a new
two-story residence. Seven protected trees are being proposed for removal. Staff Contact: Justin Shiu,
(408)868-1230.
8
Action:
WALIA/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO JUNE 10, 2015 MEETING TO
ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSIONS COMMENTS:
Address appearance of bulk and mass from street (reduce prominence of appearance as possibly
“largest house” on street given lot size).
Reduce number of fire place chimney’s to be more in keeping with “architectural style”.
Additional screening along south property line to soften appearance of 2nd story.
Address Commissioner concern of “look of a compound” w/ proposed hedge wall.
MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA,
SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
COMMISSION ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
HLAVA/SMULLEN MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 11:35 PM. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH,
CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
ABSTAIN: NONE.
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 May 7, 2015 at the City of Saratoga,
13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us.
9
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
Meeting Date: May 27, 2015
Application: ELN15-0004
Location / APN: 18349 Vanderbilt Dr /403-28-010
Owner/Applicant: Chun Chin Ho/ Chiawang Yeh
Staff Planner: Justin Shiu
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 will result in expenditure of
approximately 45.4% 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. 15-019 approving the major alteration subject
to conditions of approval.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing a remodel and addition to a legal non-
conforming one story single-family residence located at 18349 Vanderbilt Dr. The structure is
classified as nonconforming because it encroaches into the front setback by about two feet and the
rear setback by about two feet.
The project will result in the increase of 609 square feet. The addition accommodates a new garage,
entryway, and part of the new living room area. The existing garage will become the new living
room and kitchen after the remodel. Other remodel work includes the conversion of existing living
space into a new bedroom, bathroom, laundry room, and dining room. The facades of the new areas
have been designed to match the style, material and colors of the existing structure.
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 $573,742,
while the value of the construction being proposed is $260,507, or approximately 45.4% 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.
10
PROJECT DATA:
Net Site Area: 8,040 SF
Zoning District: R-1-10,000
Proposed Allowed/Required
Total Site Coverage 4,739 sq. ft. (45%) 60% Max.
Total Floor Area 2,978 sq. ft. 3,040 sq. ft. Max.
Height 13 ft. – 2.75 in. 26 ft. Max.
Setbacks
Front:
Left Side:
Right Side:
Rear:
23’
8’-3.5”
7’-8.5”
23’-3”
25’
6’-8.5”
6’-8.5”
25’
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 in the affirmative because the project consists of a remodel and addition to a residential
structure that is located in a residentially zoned district within the City.
(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 in affirmative in that the project is adding floor area located within the
allowable building footprint and outside of required setbacks. The applicant is not proposing
additions to the non-conforming portions of the home.
(3) 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. This finding may be
made in the affirmative in that the project is proposing expansion in areas conforming to City
Code. The project does not perpetuate the useful life of nonconforming portions of the structure.
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.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval
2. Development Plans (Exhibit "A")
Page 2 of 2
11
RESOLUTION NO: 15-019
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING AN APPLICATION (ELN 15-0004) FOR A REMODEL AND ADDITION TO
A NON-CONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED AT
18349 VANDERBILT DR, SARATOGA CA 95070 (403-28-010)
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2015 an application was submitted by Chiawang Yeh
requesting approval for the alteration of a legal non-conforming single-family residence located
at 18349 Vanderbilt Dr.
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 May 27 , 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.
Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves ELN15-0004
located at 18349 Vanderbilt Dr subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto
as Exhibit 1.
12
Resolution No. 15-00X
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 27th day of
May 2015 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Leonard Almalech
Chair, Planning Commission
13
Resolution No. 15-00X
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ELN15-0004
18349 Vanderbilt Dr / 403-28-010
1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of
time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s
successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, or grading for
this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval
documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by
the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to 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 City Code incorporated herein by this reference.
4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and
hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers
harmless from and against:
a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action
on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done
or made prior to said action; and
b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any
manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or
grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting
on their behalf.
In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate
agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold harmless and
Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney.
5. 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
14
Resolution No. 15-00X
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. 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 the limits of any expansion and/or intensification
of the non-conforming structure.
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.
9. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted
to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to
issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the
following:
a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A”
on file with the Community Development Department.
b. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, notes, and/or materials required by the
Building Division.
c. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages.
d. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation
inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written
certification that all building setbacks comply with the Approved Plans,” which note shall
represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance with this Approval.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Christopher Riordan
DATE: May 27, 2015
RE: PDR14-0028 / 20455 Herriman Avenue
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to install a new cellular telecommunications
facility on an existing building at Saratoga Presbyterian Church located at 20455 Herriman
Avenue. The panel antennas will be located within a new ten foot tall cupola to be constructed
on the roof of the classroom building.
Staff discovered an irregularity with the mailed notices for this item after the public hearing
notice was published in the newspaper. As a result, staff is recommending continuance to a date
certain of June 10, 2015 so that the item can be re-noticed.
24
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: May 27, 2015 (Continued from Oct 22, 2014)
Application: PDR11-0003 / VAR11-0001
Location / APN: 21794 Heber Way / 503-31-067
Owner / Applicant: Eric Keng / Steve Sheng
Staff Planner: Michael Fossati
21794 Heber Way
25
2
SUMMARY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant previously submitted an application requesting design review approval to
build a new 5,039 sq. ft. (including a 665 sq. ft. attached garage) two-story residence on a
vacant lot and variance approval for the front and side yard setbacks. The variance
requested approval of a 97 foot front setback (when 131 foot setback is required), a 20
foot side setback (when 43 foot setback is required) along the southeast property line, and
a 30 foot side setback (when 43 foot setback is required) along the eastern property line.
The Planning Commission reviewed the project on October 22, 2014 and continued the
application to address the following design considerations and requests for information:
· Establish consistency with architectural design
· Smaller Structure
· Decrease mass by delineating roof lines
· Staff report for Subdivision, dated March 14, 1979.
The applicant has revised the design and is now requesting design review approval to
build a new 4,989 sq. ft. (that includes an attached 665 sq. ft. garage) two-story residence
on a vacant lot and variance approval for the front and side yard setbacks. The variance
requested is for a 99 foot front setback (131 foot setback required), a 20 foot side setback
(43 foot setback required) along the southeast property line, and a 35 foot side setback
(43 foot setback required) along the eastern property line. No protected trees are
proposed for removal. Staff has also provided the Planning Commission the subdivision
staff report (Attachment 2).
Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required for any new multi-story
main structure or multi-story accessory structure - City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(1).
Variance Approval by Planning Commission is required with respect to allowable setbacks
for front and side areas within the Hillside-Residential Zoning district – City Code Section
15-70.020(a).
S TAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. 14-044 approving Design Review PDR11-0003 and Variance 11-
0001 subject to conditions of approval.
SITE AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Project Description
A full detailed analysis of the project can be found within the October 22, 2014 staff report
(Attachment 3). The project was continued to a date uncertain in order for the applicant to
address concerns made by the Planning Commission. The applicant has revised the project
in order to address those concerns. The project was re-noticed to property owners within
500 feet of the project. The list below summarizes the design changes made by the
applicant to the project:
26
3
· Increased the eastern side yard setback from 30 feet to 35 feet.
· Increased the front yard setback from 97 feet to 99 feet.
· Decreased the total floor area from 5,039 sq. ft. to 4,989 sq. ft.
· Decreased the overall height to less than 25 feet.
Along with the changes regarding setbacks, floor area and heights, the applicant has revised
the design of the proposed home by incorporating the following items:
· Simplified window fenestration and building forms by using more compatible
shapes and form of proposed windows and building walls.
· Changing proposed roof forms from gable roof elements to hipped roof elements to
break up the mass and reduce the bulk of the structure.
· Incorporating exterior exposed roof rafters to provide additional architectural interest
and detailing along the eave line and building elevations
· Deemphasized the 2nd floor north facing balcony by removing the exterior balusters
and incorporating a solid guardrail wall into the proposed building façade and
introducing a wraparound roof eave along the front elevation.
· Added gable roofs to the single car garage and side east facing door.
The roof changes, such as incorporating cascading roof forms, and simplifications, such as
reducing the number of window and building form shapes has assisted in breaking up the
overall massing of the project and creating a better overall design that is a better fit for the
site contextually. Staff has provided a “before and after” attachment to assist in reviewing
the new design changes (Attachment 4).
Property Site Development Constraints
As previously stated in the October 22, 2014 report, the site is heavily constrained by an
existing open space easement that covers approximately 93% of the property. The gross lot
size of the parcel is approximately 6.05 acres. Within the gross lot size, the open space
easement covers 5.61 acres. This leaves the applicant an approximate buildable area of .44
acres (or 19,305 sq. ft.).
Furthermore within the buildable area, there are additional geologic constraints that exist.
Of the 19,305 sq. ft. of buildable area, approximately 7,738 sq. ft. are within an area that is
geologically stable. If current setbacks were to be required, the 7,738 sq. ft. would reduce to
1,321 sq. ft. of allowable buildable area.
Neighborhood Compatibility
The proposed project consists of a 4,989 sq. ft. residence which is consistent with the
setbacks and square footage of residences in the neighborhood as illustrated in the following
table:
27
4
Address Lot size House Size Setbacks
21790 Heber Way 1.6 acres 6,190 sq. ft.
Front: 87 ft
Rear: 132 ft
Right Side: 30 ft
Left Side: 25 ft
21781 Heber Way 1.2 acres 3,683 sq. ft.
Front: 58 ft.
Rear: 132 ft.
Right Side: 20 ft.
Left Side: 90 ft.
21780 Heber Way 1.1 acres 4,498 sq. ft.
Front: 42 ft.
Rear: N/A
Right Side: 25 ft.
Left Side: 140 ft.
21771 Heber Way 1.18 acres 5,615 sq. ft.
Front: 30 ft.
Rear: 196 ft.
Right Side: 20 ft.
Left Side: 24 ft.
21770 Heber Way 1.43 acres 5,271 sq. ft.
Front: 60 ft.
Rear: 250 ft.
Right Side: 50 ft.
Left Side: 20 ft.
21760 Heber Way 1.40 acres 5,615 sq. ft.
Front: 177 ft.
Rear: 120 ft.
Right Side: 45 ft.
Left Side: 50 ft.
21791 Heber Way 6.63 acres 6,297 sq. ft.
Front: 120 ft.*
Rear: 550 ft.
Right Side: 70 ft.
Left Side: 213 ft.
* 21791 Heber Way received a variance to build in the front setback in 1996. The required front setback was
147 feet.
Vacant Lot vs. Existing Construction
21794 Heber Way is located in the Hillside-Residential (HR) zoning district. The table
below demonstrates the allowable setback for properties in that district:
Setback for all lots with the
exception of vacant lots
and lots created after May
Setback for vacant lots and
lots created after May 15,
1992.
28
5
15, 1992
Front Setback Area 30 feet 30 feet or 20% of lot depth,
whichever is greater
Side Setback Area 20 feet or 25 feet for exterior
side setbacks
20 feet or 25 feet for exterior
side setbacks, or 10% of the
lit width, whichever is
greater
Rear Setback Area 50 feet for a single-story and
60 feet for a multi-story
structure
50 feet for a single-story and
60 feet for a multi-story
structure, or 25% of the lot
depth, whichever is greater.
The table above confirms that if an existing residence was currently located on the project
property, the proposed residence would be in conformance with the HR setback
requirements. Since the lot is vacant, it must follow the requirements associated with a
vacant lot.
The issue is that the requirement subjects the applicant into a very small footprint. The
setbacks required do not take into consideration the size of the site and the open space
easement and geologic restrictions placed upon the property. As previously stated, if all
required setbacks, open space easements, and geologic restrictions were mandated for
development of the property, the allowable building footprint would be approximately 1,321
sq. ft. These are the reasons why a variance may be warranted for the project site.
Existing and Proposed Landscaping
The applicant has submitted a conceptual landscape plan for the project. The nearest home
to the property is located at 21790 Heber Way, which is located to the east of the project
site. The landscape plan shows approximately 18 existing California Pepper and Australian
Willow trees located on the shared property line. Currently, the existing trees demonstrate
heavy screening between the project site and neighboring property. If approved, the
applicant has proposed to plant an additional 31 photinia shrubs along the adjacent property
line. Per staff research, photinia can reach a height of up to 15 feet at maturity. The
photinia shrubs along with existing California Peppers and Australian Willows should
provide sufficient privacy screening between both properties.
Neighbor Correspondence
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 owners of 21790 Heber Way have seen the proposed changes, yet they still have
expressed major concerns regarding the proposed project. Concerns include, but are not
limited to, integrity of the geologic review, privacy impacts, view impacts, bad design, etc.
Staff has also received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Kundtz (former owners of 21790 Heber
Way), opposing the project. Both of their letters have been included in this staff report at
29
6
Attachment 5. A letter from the attorney representing Mr. Sheng has been included as
Attachment 6.
As stated in the previous staff report, the project has received Geotechnical Clearance from
the City Geologist (Attachment 7). Staff has included an updated memo for Planning
Commissions review. In the memo, the City Geologist concludes that the applicant’s
consultant geologist has credibly addressed the concerns of the City.
DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS
The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code
Section 15-45.080 are set forth below and the applicant has met the burden of proof to
support making all of those required findings:
(a) Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is
appropriate given the property's natural constraints. This finding can be made in the
affirmative in that the proposed construction is within the most level portion of the site.
The development steps up the hillside (via the stairwell midway through the first floor)
so as to minimize grading and follow the natural contours of the site.
(b) All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations).
If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and
native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal
of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be
minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. This finding can be made
in the affirmative in that the proposed construction would not require the removal of any
protected trees.
(c) The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are
designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to
community viewsheds. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the residence
is significantly pushed back from the edge of the street. Privacy has been mitigated by
the applicant relocating the second floor terrace away from the side facing the
immediate neighbor, by altering the location of the high traffic areas on the first floor
away, and having five foot sills for all windows on the second floor facing the eastern
property line. Furthermore, additional measures to address privacy are a row of 31 new
photinia that have been proposed for planting adjacent to the eastern property line.
(d) The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in
scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. This finding can be made in
the affirmative in that the proposed residence has been built into the hillside thereby
reducing the bulk of the structure and integrating it into the natural environment. The
varying, cascading rooflines and stone veneer break up the appearance of the front
facade while adding character and interest to the structure. The proposed size is
consistent with nearby structures thereby increasing compatibility with the
neighborhood.
30
7
(e) The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains
elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape. This finding can be
made in the affirmative in that landscaping plan proposes a driveway in the front,
surrounded by native trees, such as manzinita, California Live oak, and California bay
trees. The applicant has also proposed to plant new photinia along the eastern property
line to soften the elevation and provide a landscape buffer for the adjacent neighbor as
well as perennial beds to soften the views from the end of the cul-de-sac.
(f) Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining
properties to utilize solar energy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
project's proposed height and setback from the nearest adjacent structure (+/- 80 feet)
would not unreasonably impair the adjoining property from utilizing solar energy.
(g) The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the
Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. This finding can be
made in the affirmative in that the project incorporates design techniques such as
incorporating simple lines, appropriate setbacks, and a material selection which includes
a natural color exterior that would complement the streetscape and neighborhood. The
applicant has also incorporated front and side wall plan that are in scale with adjacent
residences and incorporated cascading, hip roof forms to minimized large expanses of
roof seen from the street. Lastly, the project has setback the second story in proportion
to the size of the lot and proximity to the neighbors.
(h) On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable
impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in
compliance with Section 15-13.100. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
the project is not located on a ridgeline, significant hillside feature, nor community
viewshed.
VARIANCE FINDINGS
The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code
Section 15-45.080 are set forth below and the applicant has met the burden of proof to
support making all of those required findings:
(a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. This finding can be
made in the affirmative in that the uniqueness of the site would restrict development to a
relatively small portion of the lot due to steep slopes, a restrictive open space easement,
and geological constraints. The lot is 6.05 acres in size and only one other lot in the
neighborhood is of comparable size. Due to the 5.61 acre open space easements and
geological constraints, the City Code requirement that the setbacks be based on a
percentage of the lot width and depth would result in a building envelope of
approximately 1,100 sq. ft. The small building envelope is not consistent with the larger
size residences currently in the neighborhood. The strict enforcement of the setback
regulations would result in the development of a residence that would not be in scale
31
8
with the neighborhood or the property. Furthermore, the proposed setbacks are
consistent with the majority of residences within the area and will not look out of place,
nor impact neighboring properties regarding views or privacy impacts.
(b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the
same zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the lot is unique
with special circumstances not typical of lots in the vicinity. Over 90% of the lot is
covered by open space easement which is not taken into account when determining
setback requirements. The existing easements and zoning regulations regarding
determination of setback area heavily constricts the buildable area for the site. The
granting of the setback variance would not constitute a special privilege because the
proposed setbacks are similar to the majority of residences in the neighborhood. The
granting of the variance would allow the project the same privileges enjoyed by the
neighboring developed parcels.
(c) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. This
finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed structure would not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare as it received Geotechnical Clearance
from the City Geologist. The project, as conditioned, would either need meet or exceed
building permit requirements when constructed.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The project is Categorically Exempt from the
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This
exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval
2. Teerlink Subdivision Staff Report, dated March 14, 1979.
3. 21794 Heber Way PC Staff Report with Attachments, dated Oct. 22, 2014.
4. “Before and After” exhibit.
5. Letters in Opposition, dated May 19, 2015
6. Letter in support, dated May 21, 2015
7. Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review, dated May 14, 2015.
8. Reduced Plan Set, Exhibit ‘A’
32
RESOLUTION NO: 14-044
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION (PDR11-0003) FOR A NEW TWO
STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND VARIANCE (VAR11-0001) REQUESTS
FOR A REDUCED FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS,
LOCATED AT 21794 HEBER WAY (APN 503-31-067)
WHEREAS, on February 3, 2011, an application was submitted by Eric Keng and Steve
Sheng requesting Design Review and Variance approval to construct a new two story home located
at 21794 Heber Way. The project has a total floor area of 4,989 square feet. The height of the
proposed residence is approximately 25 feet. Variances approval is required because the project
includes a 99 foot front setback (131 foot setback required), a 20 foot side setback (43 foot
setback required) along the southeast property line, and a 35 foot side setback (43 foot setback
required) along the eastern property line. The site is located within the Hillside Residential Zoning
District (APN 503-31-067). 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 September 24, 2014, the Planning Commissions opened the public hearing
agenda and continued the project at the request of the applicant to the meeting of October 22, 2014.
WHEREAS, on October 22, 2014 and May 27, 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 California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Smaller
Structures”, of the Public Resources Code. The proposed project is one single-family residence in
an urbanized area.
Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies:
Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that
the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent
surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require
that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a
residence prior to issuance of permits; Land Use Element Goal 10 which minimizes the impact of
development proposals in hillside areas by requiring visual analyses and imposition of conditions to
prevent or reduce significant visual impacts; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides
33
Resolution No. 14-044
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’s site development
follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property's
natural constraints; all protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree
Regulations) and if constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees,
and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any
smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the
criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080; and the height of the structure, its location on the site, and its
architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining
properties and to community viewsheds; and the overall mass and the height of the structure, and its
architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood; and the
landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are
complementary to the neighborhood streetscape; and the development of the site does not
unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy; and the design of the
structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook,
pursuant to Section 15-45.055; and that if the project is a hillside lot, that the location and the design
of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community
viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100 of the City Code.
Section 5: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the variance
exception findings can be made in that because of special circumstances applicable to the property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the
vicinity and classified in the same zoning district; and that the granting of the variance will not
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the
vicinity and classified in the same zoning district; and that the granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
Section 6: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR11-0003 and
VAR11-0001, located at 21794 Heber Way, subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval
attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 27th day of
May 2015 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: ____________________________
Leonard Almalech
Chair, Planning Commission
34
Resolution No. 14-044
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PDR11-0003 AND VAR11-0001
21794 HEBER WAY
(APN 503-31-067)
A. GENERAL
1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of
time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s
successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this
project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting
all applicable permanent of other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant
with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community
Development Director.
2. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until
the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent.
3. Conditions may be modified only by the Planning Commission unless modification is expressly
otherwise allowed by the City Code including but not limited to Sections 15-80.120 and/or 16-
05.035, as applicable.
4. The City shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice in writing, on or after the time the
Resolution granting this Approval is duly executed containing a statement of all amounts due to
the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively
“processing fees”). THIS APPROVAL OR PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE SIXTY (60) DAYS
AFTER THE DATE SAID NOTICE IS MAILED IF ALL PROCESSING FEES
CONTAINED IN THE NOTICE HAVE NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL. No Zoning
Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the Community
Development Director certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit
accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained).
5. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date
of adoption of this Resolution or the Design Review and Variance Approval will expire unless
extended in accordance with the City Code.
6. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City
and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the
requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference.
35
Resolution No. 14-044
7. Prior to issuance of any Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit to implement this Design
Review Approval the Owner or Applicant shall obtain a “Zoning Clearance” from the
Community Development Director by submitting final plans for the requested permit to the
Community Development Department for review to ascertain compliance with the requirements
of this Resolution.
8. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and
hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and
volunteers harmless from and against:
a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on
the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made
prior to said action; and
b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner
relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by
the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf.
In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner
and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required
Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval
as to form and content by the City Attorney.
B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
9. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those
features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans received May 19, 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 A.3, above.
10. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted per habitable structure (e.g., main
house or guest house). All other fireplaces shall be gas burning.
11. Fences. Fences and walls shall comply with City Code Chapter 15-29.
12. All building exterior lighting shall be on a timer or motion detector to ensure that the lights do
not remain on during the evening when the building is not in use. Prior to building permit
issuance, the Applicant shall submit a final exterior lighting plan that complies with Section 15-
35.040(i) of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the plan shall indicate that no exterior lighting
fixtures shall allow direct light rays to leave the project site, or allow direct light sources
(incandescent, fluorescent, or other forms of electric illumination) to be directly visible from
off-site locations. The plan shall also show that light levels will not exceed 100 foot lamberts
anywhere on the property. The plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning
Division of the Community Development Department prior to building permit issuance
36
Resolution No. 14-044
13. Front yard landscaping. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or a
bond satisfactory to the Community Development Department 150% of the estimated cost of the
installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City.
14. Landscape installation and replacement for screening or ornamentation. A landscaped area
required as a condition of any Design Review Approval shall be planted with materials suitable
for screening or ornamenting the site, whichever is appropriate, and plant materials shall be
replaced as needed to screen or ornament the site.
15. Landscape maintenance. Landscaped areas shall be watered, weeded, pruned, fertilized,
sprayed or otherwise maintained by the Owner as may be prescribed by the Community
Development Department;
16. Plumbing. All plumbing fixtures or irrigation systems shall be water conserving and otherwise
comply with City Code Section 16-75.030.
18 Noise limitations during construction. The noise level at any point twenty-five feet from the
source of noise shall not exceed 83 dBA during residential construction, and residential
construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid City permit, or do not
require the issuance of a City permit, may be conducted only between the hours of 7:30 A.M.
and 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on
Saturday. Residential construction shall be prohibited on Sunday and weekday holidays, with
the exception of that construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid
City permit and which do not exceed fifty percent of the existing main or accessory structure
may be conducted between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Sunday and weekday
holidays. A notice of applicable construction hour restrictions shall be posted conspicuously on
site at all times for all exterior residential construction activity requiring a City permit.
19. Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Plan. Because this Design Review Approval
authorizes a construction, remodeling, or demolition project affecting more than two thousand
five hundred square feet of floor space the Applicant is required to provide to the Building
Official a construction and demolition debris recycling plan prior to the issuance of any
Demolition, Grading or Building Permit.
20. Maintenance of Construction Project Sites. Because this Design Review Approval authorizes a
project which requires a Building Permit, compliance with City Code Section 16-75.050
governing maintenance of construction project sites is required.
21. Stormwater. Disposition and treatment of stormwater shall comply with the applicable
requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit issued
to the City of Saratoga and the implementation standards established by the Santa Clara Valley
Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (collectively the “NPDES Permit Standards”).
Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Demolition, Grading or Building Permit for this
Project, a Stormwater Detention Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development
Director for review and approval demonstrating how all storm water will be detained on-site and
in compliance with the NPDES Permit Standards. If not all stormwater can be detained on-site
due to topographic, soils or other constraints, and if complete detention is not otherwise required
37
Resolution No. 14-044
by the NPDES Permit Standards, the Project shall be designed to detain on-site the maximum
reasonably feasible amount of stormwater and to direct all excess stormwater away from
adjoining property and toward stormwater drains, drainageways, streets or road right-of- ways
and otherwise comply with the NPDES Permit Standards and applicable City Codes.
22. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to
the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Community
Development Department Director or designee prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The
construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following:
a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A”
on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. B.1
above;
b. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation
inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written
certification that all building setbacks comply with the Approved Plans,” which note shall
represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance with this Design
Review Approval;
c. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages;
d. A boundary survey, wet-stamped and wet-signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil
Engineer authorized to practice land surveying. The stamp shall reflect a current license for
the land surveyor/engineer, the document shall be labeled “Boundary Survey,” and the
document shall not contain any disclaimers;
e. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building
Division.
C. PUBLIC WORKS
23. Broken Gutter and Curb – Applicant (owner) shall replace any and all broken section of
concrete curb and gutter along the property frontage per City standard specifications prior to
final occupancy approval.
24. Encroachment Permit – Applicant (owner) shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all
improvements in any City right-of-way or City easement including curb and gutter replacement
prior to commencement of the work to implement this Design Review.
D. CITY GEOLOGIST
25. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the
development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design
parameters for foundations, and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been
properly incorporated. The consultant shall either review geotechnical aspects of supporting
structural calculations to verify that appropriate CBC 2010 seismic design parameters have been
utilized or prepare updated seismic design parameters. The consultant shall verify that the
proposed project design is consistent with recommendations of all referenced AESC documents.
The plan review shall be prepared and signed by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and
Engineering Geologist. Results of the Geotechnical Plan Review should be submitted to the
38
Resolution No. 14-044
City for review by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. The following items
should be performed prior to final (as-built) project approval.
26. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical
aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited
to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and
excavations for retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The consultant shall
inspect final installed site drainage improvements for conformance with geotechnical
recommendations. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project
shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter and submitted to the City
Engineer for review prior to final (as-built) project approval.
27. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical
Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance.
28. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from
any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure
or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: October 22, 2014
Application: PDR11-0003 / VAR11-0001
Location / APN: 21794 Heber Way / 503-31-067
Owner / Applicant: Eric Keng / Steve Sheng
Staff Planner: Michael Fossati
21794 Heber Way
55
2
SUMMARY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant requests Design Review approval to build a new two-story residence on a
vacant lot and a variance for the front and side yard setbacks. The proposed residence
would have a total floor area of 5,039 sq. ft. which includes a 665 sq. ft. garage. The
height of the structure would not exceed 25 feet. No protected trees are proposed for
removal.
Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required for any new multi-story
main structure or multi-story accessory structure - City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(1).
Variance Approval by Planning Commission is required with respect to allowable setbacks
for front and side areas within the Hillside-Residential Zoning district – City Code Section
15-70.020(a).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. 14-044 approving Design Review PDR11-0003 and Variance 11-
0001 subject to conditions of approval.
PROJECT DATA:
Gross Site Area: 158,384 square feet
Average Site Slope: 48%
General Plan Designation: RHC (Hillside Conservation Single-Family)
PROJECT DATA
Net Lot Size: 158,384 sq. ft.
Proposed Allowed
Floor Area
1st floor:
2nd floor:
Garage:
Total
2,357 sq. ft.
2,017 sq. ft.
665 sq. ft.
5,039 sq. ft.
7,060 sq. ft.
Site Coverage
Building Footprint
Patio / Walk
Driveway
Total
3,022 sq. ft.
2,358 sq. ft.
2,680 sq. ft.
8,060 sq. ft. (5%)
15,000 sq. ft.
56
3
Setbacks
Front:
Side (Left):
Side (Right):
Rear
Proposed
97’
20’ & 35’
93’
470’
Required
131’
45’
45’
160’
Height
Lowest Elevation Point:
Highest Elevation Point:
Average Elevation Point:
Proposed Topmost Point:
741’
759’
749’
772.5’ (23.5’)
Maximum Building
Height is 26 Feet
(775’)
SITE AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Site Description
The existing 6.05 acre vacant site is located at 21794 Heber Way. Although the site is
6.05 acres in size, 60% of the site area has been deducted (to calculate buildable floor
area) due to its steep average slope and geotechnical instability. The site is located at the
end of Heber Way and is surrounded by large developed lots with many two story homes.
The project was originally submitted in 1999. In December 2004 the Planning
Commission reviewed plans for a proposed 6,483 square foot two-story residence for the
site. The project was continued and eventually withdrawn. Minutes from the meeting are
included as Attachment 2. The applicant resubmitted the project in February 2011.
Building Design
The proposed project is for a new two-story residence. Exterior materials would include
smooth stucco and trim, precast concrete railings, Eldorado stone base veneer, lightweight
concrete tile roofing, and a semi-custom wood garage door and louver vent. The proposed
color scheme is earth-tone with varying shades of tans and browns. A color and sample
board will be available at the public hearing.
Detail Colors and Materials
Building ext. ‘La Habra’ beige stucco
Trim & Fascia ‘Western Pursuit’ brown trim and fascia
Roofing ‘Bel Air, Nantucket Blend’ lightweight concrete tile roof
Windows ‘Brown’ Anderson 400 Series
Base ‘Eldorado Stone’ stone veneer
Landscaping & Trees
The project would not affect any protected trees. Any trees that would need to be removed
would be no greater than 4 inches in diameter. The landscaping plan indicates that new
trees would be planted (i.e. Live Oak, Bay) near the proposed driveway and near the front
entrance. City Arborist review was not required.
57
4
Variance for Setbacks
Setbacks in the Hillside-Residential District are different for developed and vacant lots as
illustrated in the below table:
Setback Requirements Developed Lots Vacant Lots
Front 30 ft. 20% of Lot Depth
Side 20 ft. 10% of Lot Width
Rear (1st Floor) 50 ft. 25% of Lot Depth
Rear (2nd Floor) 60 ft. 25% of Lot Depth
As previously stated, the project site is vacant. Due to the size of the site the standard
setbacks are larger than what are required for developed lots. The required front setback for
the front is 131 feet when 30 feet is required for developed lots. The required side setback is
45 feet, when 20 feet is required for developed lots.
The applicant has applied for a variance for an exception to the front and side yard setbacks
due to the sites limited building envelope. The western portion of the 6.05 acre site is
constrained by an open space easement and proximity to the Berrocal fault with anticipated
strong seismic ground shaking and potential slope instability associated with steep slopes,
per the City Geologist Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review Memorandum, dated June
18, 2013 (Attachment 2). To address the issues raised by the City Geologist, the applicant
reduced the amount of proposed grading and located the residence along the northeastern
portion of the site.
The residence complies with zoning standards for the right side and rear setback, but does
not comply with the front setback and two left side setbacks. The variances are for the
following:
Front setback of 97 ft. when 131 ft. is required.
Side setback of 30 ft. when 45 ft. is required (along eastern property line)
Side setback of 20 ft. when 45 ft is required (along southeastern property line)
If the applicant were to adhere to the required setbacks than the project would be located in
an area with unstable soils and steep slopes and constructing the residence to conform to the
131 foot front yard setback would require a variance to build on a slope in excess of 30%.
In lieu of requesting such a variance, the applicant is proposing to locate the project closer to
the front and side yard setbacks in a level area with stable soil.
58
5
Existing Development Pattern
The proposed project consists of a 5,039 sq. ft. residence which is consistent with the
setbacks and square footage of residences in the neighborhood as illustrated in the following
table:
Address Lot size House Size Setbacks
21790 Heber Way 1.6 acres 6,190 sq. ft.
Front: 87 ft
Rear: 132 ft
Right Side: 30 ft
Left Side: 25 ft
21781 Heber Way 1.2 acres 3,683 sq. ft.
Front: 58 ft.
Rear: 132 ft.
Right Side: 20 ft.
Left Side: 90 ft.
21780 Heber Way 1.1 acres 4,498 sq. ft.
Front: 42 ft.
Rear: N/A
Right Side: 25 ft.
Left Side: 140 ft.
21771 Heber Way 1.18 acres 5,615 sq. ft.
Front: 30 ft.
Rear: 196 ft.
Right Side: 20 ft.
Left Side: 24 ft.
21770 Heber Way 1.43 acres 5,271 sq. ft.
Front: 60 ft.
Rear: 250 ft.
Right Side: 50 ft.
Left Side: 20 ft.
21760 Heber Way 1.40 acres 5,615 sq. ft.
Front: 177 ft.
Rear: 120 ft.
Right Side: 45 ft.
Left Side: 50 ft.
21791 Heber Way 6.63 acres 6,297 sq. ft.
Front: 120 ft.*
Rear: 550 ft.
Right Side: 70 ft.
Left Side: 213 ft.
* 21791 Heber Way received a variance to build in the front setback in 1996. The required front setback was
147 feet.
59
6
Neighbor Correspondence
The applicant submitted three neighbor notification forms from neighboring property
owners (Attachment 3). Staff also sent a “Notice of Public Hearing” to all property owners
within 500 feet of the subject property. The public hearing notice and description of the
project was published in the Saratoga News.
The owner's of 21790 Heber Way have submitted multiple letters (Attachment 5-7)
specifying their concerns with the project which include the granting of a special privilege to
the applicant, misleading noticing regarding the setbacks, violation of the rear open space
easement, safety concerns, and violation of privacy. Staff’s responses to these concerns are
located below. The applicant met with the neighbor on three occasions in an attempt to
address their concerns and staff has included documents from the applicant demonstrating
these efforts (Attachment 8). The applicant’s attorney has also prepared a letter addressing
the neighbors’ concerns (Attachment 9 & 10). Staff has received one additional letter from
the former owner of 21790 Heber Way regarding the project (Attachment 11).
Comment #1 – Granting a Special Privilege. Variances are associated with the property,
not with the owner. The applicant did receive a variance to construct a residence on a
different property but this is not related to the current variance request.
Comment #2 – Misleading Setback Information. The project was noticed for a second
time. Staff included in the notice that the applicant has applied for a variance to build within
the front setback and within the side setback along the eastern property line (30 feet when
45 feet is required) and southern property line (20 feet when 45 feet is required).
Comment #3 – Granting Another Special Privilege. The applicant’s Geologist provided
a detailed letter (see Attachment 11) addressing the neighbor’s concerns regarding the
granting of special privilege.
Comment #4 – Violation of Open Space Easement. A proposed retaining wall that was
partially encroaching into a portion of the open space easement has been relocated outside of
the easement.
Comment #5 – Detrimental to Health, Safety and Welfare. This comment has been
answered by the applicant’s Geologist (see Attachment 12).
Comment #6 – Violation of Privacy – The proposed setback along the shared property line
is 30 feet (not 20 feet as the letter states). The shared property line contains a row of
existing California Pepper and Australian Willow trees. The applicant has proposed to
increase the landscape screening by planting new photinia trees which could reach a height
of 20 feet at maturity. Lastly, the property line would be separated by a 15 foot driveway
between the project location and the property line of 21790 Heber Way. Revisions have
been made by the applicant to minimize privacy impacts for the residence at 21790 Heber
Way. These revisions include moving the garage from the left side to the right side of the
site, relocation of the second floor terrace away from the shared property line, and proposing
60
7
to install windows with five foot sills along all areas of the second floor facing the
neighboring property.
DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS
The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code
Section 15-45.080 are set forth below and the applicant has met the burden of proof to
support making all of those required findings:
(a) Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is
appropriate given the property's natural constraints. This finding can be made in the
affirmative in that the proposed construction is within the most level portion of the site.
The development steps up the hillside (via the stairwell midway through the first floor)
so as to minimize grading and follow the natural contours of the site.
(b) All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations).
If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and
native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal
of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be
minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. This finding can be made
in the affirmative in that the proposed construction would not require the removal of any
protected trees.
(c) The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are
designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to
community viewsheds. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the residence
is significantly pushed back from the edge of the street. Privacy has been mitigated by
the applicant relocating the second floor terrace away from the side facing the
immediate neighbor, by altering the location of the high traffic areas on the first floor
away, and having five foot sills for all windows on the second floor facing the eastern
property line.
(d) The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in
scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. This finding can be made in
the affirmative in that the proposed residence has been built into the hillside thereby
reducing the bulk of the structure and integrating it into the natural environment. The
varying rooflines and stone veneer break up the appearance of the front facade while
adding character and interest to the structure. The proposed size is consistent with
nearby structures thereby increasing compatibility with the neighborhood.
(e) The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains
elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape. This finding can be
made in the affirmative in that landscaping plan proposes a driveway in the front,
surrounded by native trees, such as manzinita, California Live oak, and California bay
trees. The applicant has also proposed to plant new photinia along the eastern property
line to soften the elevation and provide a landscape buffer for the adjacent neighbor as
well as perennial beds to soften the views from the end of the cul-de-sac.
61
8
(f) Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining
properties to utilize solar energy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
project's proposed height and setback from the nearest adjacent structure (+/- 97 feet)
would not unreasonably impair the adjoining property from utilizing solar energy.
(g) The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the
Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. This finding can be
made in the affirmative in that the project incorporates design techniques such as
incorporating simple lines, appropriate setbacks, and a material selection which includes
a natural color exterior that would complement the streetscape and neighborhood.
(h) On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable
impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in
compliance with Section 15-13.100. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
the project is not located on a ridgeline, significant hillside feature, nor community
viewshed.
VARIANCE FINDINGS
The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code
Section 15-45.080 are set forth below and the applicant has met the burden of proof to
support making all of those required findings:
(a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. This finding can be
made in the affirmative in that the uniqueness of the site would restrict development to a
relatively small portion of the lot due to steep slopes, a restrictive open space easement,
and geological constraints. The lot is 3.6 acres in size and only one other lot in the
neighborhood is of comparable size. Due to the lot size and geological constraints, the
City Code requirement that the setbacks be based on a percentage of the lot width and
depth would result in a building envelope of approximately 1,100 sq. ft. The relatively
small building envelope is not consistent with the larger size residences currently in the
neighborhood. The strict enforcement of the setback regulations would result in the
development of a residence that would not be in scale with the neighborhood or the
property. Furthermore, the proposed setbacks are consistent with the majority of
residences within the area.
(b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the
same zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the lot is unique
with special circumstances not typical of lots in the vicinity. The granting of the setback
variance would not constitute a special privilege because the proposed setbacks are
similar to the majority of residences in the neighborhood. The granting of the variance
62
9
would allow the project the same privileges enjoyed by the neighboring developed
parcels.
(c) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. This
finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed structure would not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare as it received Geotechnical Clearance
from the City Geologist. The project, as conditioned, would either need meet or exceed
building permit requirements when constructed.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The project is Categorically Exempt from the
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This
exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval
2. Minutes of Previous PC Meeting, dated December 8, 2004
3. Geotechnical Clearance, dated June 18, 2013
4. Neighbor Notification
5. Letter from Lin, dated February 24, 2011
6. Letter from Lin, dated September 13, 2014
7. Letter from Lin, dated October 14, 2014
8. Letters from DL Architecture, dated May 25, 2011, Sept. 12, 2012 & e-mail from
Steve Sheng, dated Nov. 12, 2013.
9. Letter from Mattoni, dated September 16, 2014
10. Letter from Mattoni, dated October 14, 2014
11. Letter from Kundtz, dated October 14, 2014
12. Letter from Geologist Manzagol, dated September 18, 2014
13. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A.”, dated October 1, 2014
63
RESOLUTION NO: 14-044
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION (PDR11-0003) FOR A NEW TWO
STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND VARIANCE (VAR11-0001) REQUESTS
FOR A REDUCED FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS,
LOCATED AT 21794 HEBER WAY (APN 503-31-067)
WHEREAS, on February 3, 2011, an application was submitted by Eric Keng and Steve
Sheng requesting Design Review and Variance approval to construct a new two story home located
at 21794 Heber Way. The project has a total floor area of 5,039 square feet. The height of the
proposed residence is approximately 25 feet. The site is located within the Hillside Residential
Zoning District (APN 503-31-067).
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental
assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt.
WHEREAS, on September 24, 2014, the Planning Commissions opened the public hearing
agenda and continued the project at the request of the applicant to the meeting of October 22, 2014.
WHEREAS, on October 22, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant,
and other interested parties.
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds,
determines and resolves as follows:
Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Smaller
Structures”, of the Public Resources Code. The proposed project is one single-family residence in
an urbanized area.
Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies:
Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that
the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent
surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require
that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a
residence prior to issuance of permits; Land Use Element Goal 10 which minimizes the impact of
development proposals in hillside areas by requiring visual analyses and imposition of conditions to
prevent or reduce significant visual impacts; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides
that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the
visual impact of new development.
64
Resolution No. 14-044
Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and
improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project’s site development
follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property's
natural constraints; all protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree
Regulations) and if constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees,
and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any
smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the
criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080; and the height of the structure, its location on the site, and its
architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining
properties and to community viewsheds; and the overall mass and the height of the structure, and its
architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood; and the
landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are
complementary to the neighborhood streetscape; and the development of the site does not
unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy; and the design of the
structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook,
pursuant to Section 15-45.055; and that if the project is a hillside lot, that the location and the design
of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community
viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100 of the City Code.
Section 5: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the variance
exception findings can be made in that because of special circumstances applicable to the property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the
vicinity and classified in the same zoning district; and that the granting of the variance will not
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the
vicinity and classified in the same zoning district; and that the granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
Section 6: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR11-0003 and
VAR11-0001, located at 21794 Heber Way, subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval
attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 22nd day of
October 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: ____________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Chair, Planning Commission
65
Resolution No. 14-044
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PDR11-0003 AND VAR11-0001
21794 HEBER WAY
(APN 503-31-067)
A. GENERAL
1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of
time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s
successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this
project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting
all applicable permanent of other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant
with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community
Development Director.
2. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until
the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent.
3. Conditions may be modified only by the Planning Commission unless modification is expressly
otherwise allowed by the City Code including but not limited to Sections 15-80.120 and/or 16-
05.035, as applicable.
4. The City shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice in writing, on or after the time the
Resolution granting this Approval is duly executed containing a statement of all amounts due to
the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively
“processing fees”). THIS APPROVAL OR PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE SIXTY (60) DAYS
AFTER THE DATE SAID NOTICE IS MAILED IF ALL PROCESSING FEES
CONTAINED IN THE NOTICE HAVE NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL. No Zoning
Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the Community
Development Director certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit
accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained).
5. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 24 months from the date
of adoption of this Resolution or the Variance Approval will expire unless extended in
accordance with the City Code.
6. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City
and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the
requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference.
7. Prior to issuance of any Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit to implement this Design
Review Approval the Owner or Applicant shall obtain a “Zoning Clearance” from the
Community Development Director by submitting final plans for the requested permit to the
66
Resolution No. 14-044
Community Development Department for review to ascertain compliance with the requirements
of this Resolution.
8. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and
hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and
volunteers harmless from and against:
a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on
the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made
prior to said action; and
b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner
relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by
the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf.
In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner
and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required
Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval
as to form and content by the City Attorney.
B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
9. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those
features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans received October 1, 2014
denominated Exhibit "A". All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in
writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the
changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with Condition A.3, above.
10. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted per habitable structure (e.g., main
house or guest house). All other fireplaces shall be gas burning.
11. Fences. Fences and walls shall comply with City Code Chapter 15-29.
12. All building exterior lighting shall be on a timer or motion detector to ensure that the lights do
not remain on during the evening when the building is not in use. Prior to building permit
issuance, the Applicant shall submit a final exterior lighting plan that complies with Section 15-
35.040(i) of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the plan shall indicate that no exterior lighting
fixtures shall allow direct light rays to leave the project site, or allow direct light sources
(incandescent, fluorescent, or other forms of electric illumination) to be directly visible from
off-site locations. The plan shall also show that light levels will not exceed 100 foot lamberts
anywhere on the property. The plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning
Division of the Community Development Department prior to building permit issuance
13. Front yard landscaping. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or a
bond satisfactory to the Community Development Department 150% of the estimated cost of the
installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City.
67
Resolution No. 14-044
14. Landscape installation and replacement for screening or ornamentation. A landscaped area
required as a condition of any Design Review Approval shall be planted with materials suitable
for screening or ornamenting the site, whichever is appropriate, and plant materials shall be
replaced as needed to screen or ornament the site.
15. Landscape maintenance. Landscaped areas shall be watered, weeded, pruned, fertilized,
sprayed or otherwise maintained by the Owner as may be prescribed by the Community
Development Department;
16. Plumbing. All plumbing fixtures or irrigation systems shall be water conserving and otherwise
comply with City Code Section 16-75.030.
18 Noise limitations during construction. The noise level at any point twenty-five feet from the
source of noise shall not exceed 83 dBA during residential construction, and residential
construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid City permit, or do not
require the issuance of a City permit, may be conducted only between the hours of 7:30 A.M.
and 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on
Saturday. Residential construction shall be prohibited on Sunday and weekday holidays, with
the exception of that construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid
City permit and which do not exceed fifty percent of the existing main or accessory structure
may be conducted between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Sunday and weekday
holidays. A notice of applicable construction hour restrictions shall be posted conspicuously on
site at all times for all exterior residential construction activity requiring a City permit.
19. Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Plan. Because this Design Review Approval
authorizes a construction, remodeling, or demolition project affecting more than two thousand
five hundred square feet of floor space the Applicant is required to provide to the Building
Official a construction and demolition debris recycling plan prior to the issuance of any
Demolition, Grading or Building Permit.
20. Maintenance of Construction Project Sites. Because this Design Review Approval authorizes a
project which requires a Building Permit, compliance with City Code Section 16-75.050
governing maintenance of construction project sites is required.
21. Stormwater. Disposition and treatment of stormwater shall comply with the applicable
requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit issued
to the City of Saratoga and the implementation standards established by the Santa Clara Valley
Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (collectively the “NPDES Permit Standards”).
Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Demolition, Grading or Building Permit for this
Project, a Stormwater Detention Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development
Director for review and approval demonstrating how all storm water will be detained on-site and
in compliance with the NPDES Permit Standards. If not all stormwater can be detained on-site
due to topographic, soils or other constraints, and if complete detention is not otherwise required
by the NPDES Permit Standards, the Project shall be designed to detain on-site the maximum
reasonably feasible amount of stormwater and to direct all excess stormwater away from
adjoining property and toward stormwater drains, drainageways, streets or road right-of- ways
and otherwise comply with the NPDES Permit Standards and applicable City Codes.
68
Resolution No. 14-044
22. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to
the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Community
Development Department Director or designee prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The
construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following:
a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A”
on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. B.1
above;
b. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation
inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written
certification that all building setbacks comply with the Approved Plans,” which note shall
represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance with this Design
Review Approval;
c. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages;
d. A boundary survey, wet-stamped and wet-signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil
Engineer authorized to practice land surveying. The stamp shall reflect a current license for
the land surveyor/engineer, the document shall be labeled “Boundary Survey,” and the
document shall not contain any disclaimers;
e. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building
Division.
C. PUBLIC WORKS
23. Broken Gutter and Curb – Applicant (owner) shall replace any and all broken section of
concrete curb and gutter along the property frontage per City standard specifications prior to
final occupancy approval.
24. Encroachment Permit – Applicant (owner) shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all
improvements in any City right-of-way or City easement including curb and gutter replacement
prior to commencement of the work to implement this Design Review
D. CITY GEOLOGIST
25. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the
development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design
parameters for foundations, and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been
properly incorporated. The consultant shall either review geotechnical aspects of supporting
structural calculations to verify that appropriate CBC 2010 seismic design parameters have been
utilized or prepare updated seismic design parameters. The consultant shall verify that the
proposed project design is consistent with recommendations of all referenced AESC documents.
The plan review shall be prepared and signed by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and
Engineering Geologist. Results of the Geotechnical Plan Review should be submitted to the
City for review by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. The following items
should be performed prior to final (as-built) project approval.
69
Resolution No. 14-044
26. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical
aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited
to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and
excavations for retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The consultant shall
inspect final installed site drainage improvements for conformance with geotechnical
recommendations. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project
shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter and submitted to the City
Engineer for review prior to final (as-built) project approval.
27. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical
Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance.
28. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from
any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure
or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions.
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
September 2014
Dear Saratoga City Planning Commission,
We are the homeowners at 21781 Heber Way, and would like to write to express
our support of the proposed project at 21794 Heber Way.
We have had the opportunity to review the proposed plans for the development
of the property, and feel that the current proposal is architecturally pleasing, in
line with the character of our street, and will be of benefit to us as neighbors.
These benefits include utilizing a currently empty lot (the last street-facing lot on
Heber Way), which will reduce a potential fire hazard, improving the aesthetics
of our street with finished landscaping in place, and potentially raise property
values as our street will be matured and fully developed.
In conclusion, we fully support the development project at 21794 Heber Way.
Regards,
Anandi and Dhiren Unadkat
83
84
85
86
87
Han C. Lin and Huoy-Bing Lim
21790 Heber Way,
Saratoga, CA 95070
City of Saratoga Planning Commissioner Sep 13, 2014
13777 Fruitvale Avenue,
Saratoga, CA 95070-5151
Re: Objections to the Building Plans on 21794 Heber Way, Saratoga, CA
Dear commissioner:
We are the residents and owners of 21790 Heber Way. We are writing to you regarding
the proposed building project of our neighbor Mr. Steve Sheng on his vacant lot at 21794
Heber Way (Lot #14 of Teerlink Ranch).
We are opposing the proposed building project. Here are our reasons:
1. Granting of a Special Privilege
In 1996, the city granted a special privilege to Mr. Sheng by giving him front setback
variance to build his residence at 21791 Heber Way. His house is the only house on
Heber Way that was granted a setback variance. All other houses on Heber Way followed
the city's building codes and regulations. Now the city is about to grant Mr. Sheng the
same special privilege for the second time by approving him not only the front setback
variance but also the side setback variance to build another house. This is simply not fair
to all the other neighbors.
2. Misleading Setback Variance Information
Neighbors and general public were misled regarding the setback distance. In the public
hearing notice, all neighbors were informed that the side setback variance requested is 30
feet (when 45 feet is required) but in fact the requested side setback is actually only 20
feet. 20 foot side setback is tabulated and marked on Mr. Sheng's building plan submitted
to the city. We believe granting a setback variance to Mr. Sheng by misleading the
neighbors is wrong.
3. Granting of Another Special Privilege
In the latest geological report (please refer to attached Tim J. Manzagol’s map) Mr.
Sheng submitted to the city for his building proposal, the Berrocal fault line was
suggested to be 10 - 40 feet outside of Mr. Sheng’s property line (Lot #14), and inside of
our property line (Lot #15).
The report confirmed that the fault line originates from Lot #13 (the lot which Mr.
Sheng’s residence sits on and adjacent to Lot #14 in the north). However, instead of
continuing in a rather straight line fashion into Lot #14, the report suggested the fault line
88
bends and enters Lot #15. On the contrary, in two earlier geological reports Mr. Sheng
submitted (please refer to attached Hydro-Geo’s map), Berrocal fault line is confirmed to
be inside Lot #14. When our house was built in 1990, a separate geological study was
conducted on our lot (Lot #15) and no fault line was found in the area suggested by Mr.
Sheng’s latest geological report. When we purchased our house in 2010, the disclosure
reports from JCP-LGS also did not reveal any fault line in our lot. If there were any fault
lines within our property, we would not have made the decision to buy our house.
Furthermore, in another different geological study conducted by the Rekhi family on their
vacant lot (Lot #23) adjacent to Mr. Sheng’s lot (Lot #14) in the south and behind our lot
(Lot #15), the Berrocal fault line was found to be entering Lot #23 from the border
between Lot #14 and Lot #23.
If one sums up the pictures from Mr. Sheng’s first two reports, our reports, and the
Rekhi’s report; one can see that the Berrocal fault line actually originates from Lot #13,
continues into Lot #14 and later Lot #23; instead of originating from Lot #13, changes
direction and enters Lot #15, and then magically reappears in Lot #23 from the border of
Lot #14 in a discontinuous fashion.
In 1996, the city gave approval to Mr. Sheng to build his house on Lot #13 in close
distance to the Berrocal fault line. Now the city also plans to allow him to build another
house on Lot #14 after the fault line conveniently disappeared from his Lot #14. On the
other hand, the city disallowed the Rekhis to build theirs near the same fault line. This
seems like yet another grant of special privilege and huge favor from the city to Mr.
Sheng.
To us, agreeing with Mr. Sheng’s building proposal is like admitting that the Berrocal
fault line is inside our property line. Not only will our property value plummet, our house
will also become not up to code. We have absolutely no choice but to oppose the plan.
4. Violation of Open Space Easement
Part of Mr. Sheng's proposed building is in the open space easement. His plan also calls
for construction of a retaining wall in the open space easement on the hillside. All lots on
Heber Way are subdivisions of Teerlink Ranch. According to the county code, any
development or construction on this kind of open space easement is prohibited. The 1974
Open Space Easement Act grants standing to government and owner of any property to
seek injunctive relief to prevent construction on open space easement. Any resident may
seek an injunction if the city or county fails to do so. It is everyone’s job to bring this
violation to the attention of the city.
5. Detrimental to Health, Safety and Welfare
In his latest geological report, some landslide areas in Mr. Sheng’s lot appear smaller
than they are as reported in his first two geological reports and City of Saratoga Geology
Map created in 1980.
This significant discrepancy should be carefully investigated before any decision on the
building plan is even made. Mr. Sheng’s building plan also calls for removing soil from
89
the steep hillside on his lot. The plan calls for removing soils from the open space
easement which is strictly prohibited. Should a landslide occurs due to Mr. Sheng's
construction, even if the landslide does not physically affects any of the neighbors’
houses or lots, the property values in the neighborhood will surely be negatively impacted.
6. Violation of Privacy
Mr. Sheng’s request of setback variances is not only unfair to the neighbors, but is also a
violation to our privacy. If the left side setback variance is approved, the left side of the
proposed building which faces our house will appear as a huge, tall, and long wall. This
intimidating long wall with windows and balcony will not only block our entire view of
the open space but also seriously invade our privacy. Noise impact caused by the 20 foot
side setback (45 feet is the setback requirement) is also a major concern to us. There is no
space to plant any trees or plants along our side of the property line to screen the building
from view or to buffer the noise.
The reasons we bought our house in 2010 is because of the privacy, the open space view,
and the tranquility offered by its location. All these reasons will be taken away by Mr.
Sheng’s proposed building. In additions to the negative effects on privacy, view, and
noise, our property value will also decrease.
Mr. Sheng bought a piece of land with an intention to build a big house and sell it for
maximal profit. He knew at the time when he purchased the lot that 5.5 acres of the land
is dedicated as open space and only 0.5 acre is buildable, and the site has multiple
geologic problems. However, instead of building a house within his legal rights, he is
asking the city for multiple special treatments and violating our property rights at the
same time. We are pleading the planning commission to reject this proposed building
plan based on the all the objections and concerns mentioned above.
Thank you.
Regards,
Han C. Lin & Huoy-Bing Lim
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
ExistingProposed21794 Heber Way –North Elevation131
21794 Heber Way –West ElevationExistingProposed132
ExistingProposed21794 Heber Way –South Elevation133
ExistingProposed21794 Heber Way –East Elevation134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 868-1274
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael Fossati, Planner DATE: May 14, 2015
FROM: Cotton Shires and Associates, Inc., City Geotechnical Consultant
SUBJECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review
RE: Sheng, Proposed Two-Story Residence (S5121C)
GEO11-0008
21794 Heber Way (Lot 14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical peer review of permit applications for
residential development using:
Response to Concerns and Questions (letter) prepared by Applied Earth Sciences Consultants,
dated May 27, 2013;
Architectural Plans, Elevations and Sections (6 sheets, various scales) prepared by DL Architectural
& Planning, latest revision dated September 18, 2014;
Grading Plan (Sheet C-1, 10-scale) prepared by Kam Leung, dated May 2013;
Geotechnical Inspection and Site Condition Update (letter) prepared by Applied Earth Sciences
Consultants, dated July 8, 2011;
Response to the City of Saratoga – City Geotechnical Consultant (letter) prepared by Applied Earth
Sciences Consultants, dated February 26, 2001; and
Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (report) prepared by Applied Earth Sciences
Consultants, dated June 19, 1998.
In addition, we have reviewed pertinent project documents from our office files.
DISCUSSION
The applicant is proposing to construct a single-family residence and driveway on Lot 14 of the Teerlink
Subdivision. In our previous geotechnical peer review (dated June 18, 2013), we recommended approval of
proposed Project Geotechnical Clearance with the conditions of Geotechnical Plan Review and Updated
Seismic Parameters, along with our standard condition of Geotechnical Construction Inspections. Our
approval came after extensive site geologic investigation had been completed including use of deep, large
diameter borings which are deemed the best exploration tool for detection and characterization of landslides
and other subsurface geologic conditions.
167
Iveta Harvancik May 14, 2015
Page 2 S5121C
We understand that the owners of the downslope adjoining property (Lot 15) have disputed the findings of
Applied Earth Sciences Consultants (AESC) regarding geologic conditions on Lot 14. Specifically, we
understand that there are disagreements regarding the position of the Berrocal Fault and the existence of a
large previously mapped landslide on lot 14. As part of our current review we evaluated the referenced
Response to Concerns and Questions letter by AESC (7 pages of text and 4 pages of figures). We have also
reviewed pertinent portions of our project file.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
Based on our review of the AESC Response letter, we conclude that the Consultant has credibly addressed
the questions presented by the adjoining property owner. In our capacity as geologic and geotechnical peer
reviewer for more than a dozen Bay Area communities, we have been exposed to a wide range of competence
of consultants who perform geologic and geotechnical investigations. In our experience, Applied Earth
Sciences Consultants is a highly respected firm that consistently performs some of the most complete and
accurate geologic investigations we review. The work submitted by AESC regarding 21794 Heber Way is
consistent with this high level of professional practice.
We have reviewed our project file and find no basis to change our recommendation of Project Geotechnical
Clearance approval to the City. We recommend that the conclusions and recommendation of our last project
memorandum (June 18, 2013) remain unchanged.
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:kd
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
REPORT TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: May 27, 2015
Application: PDR15-0009/ARB15-0023
Location / APN: 19990 Bella Vista Ave / 397-20-059
Applicant/Owner: Terry Martin / Raghu and Sahana Pai
Staff Planner: Justin Shiu, Contract Planner
19990 Bella Vista Ave
Page 1 of 6
180
Summary
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval to construct a new 26 foot tall two-
story 6,530 square foot house with a three-car garage and a 2,163 square foot basement at 19990
Bella Vista Ave. Three protected trees on the site are in poor condition and have been approved by
the City Arborist for removal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 15-020 approving the project subject to
conditions of approval.
Design Review approval is required pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060.
PROJECT DATA:
Site Area: 66,816 sf gross/net
Average Slope: 4.6%
Grading: 62 cy of cut and 1518 cy of fill
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (RVLD)
Zoning: Single-Family Residential (R1-40,000)
Proposed Allowed/Required
Site Coverage
Main House & Garage
Driveway
Walkways/ Decks/ Patios
Total Site Coverage
Front Yard Impervious
4,974 sf
2,759 sf
1,599 sf
9,332 sf (13.9%)
540 sf (12.4%)
23,386 sf (35%)
2,177 sf (50% of 4,354 sf )
Floor Area
First Floor
Second Floor
Basement (excluded)
Total Floor Area
3,826 sf
2,704 sf
(2,163 sf)
6,530 sf
6,540 sf
Height
Lowest Elevation Point:
Highest Elevation Point:
Average Elevation Point:
Proposed Topmost Point:
522.0’
524.2’
523.1’
549.1’ (26’0”)
26 feet Maximum
Setbacks
Front:
Left Side:
Right Side:
Rear:
1st Story
68.3’
76.7’
34.8’
87.1’
1st Story
30’
20’
20’
50’
Application PDR15-0009; 19990 Bella Vista Ave/397-20-059 Page 2 of 6
181
Left Side:
Right Side:
Rear:
2nd Story
81.7’
52.2’
94.7’
2nd Story
25’
25’
60’
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/DISCUSSION
DESIGN REVIEW
Site and Neighborhood Description: The 66,816 square foot property is located at 19990 Bella
Vista Ave. The residential neighborhood includes both single-story and two-story homes with
various architectural styles. An existing 2,919 single-story square foot home, an 806 square foot
detached garage and a 173 square foot shed are proposed for demolition in order to construct the
new 6,530 square foot home with a 2,163 square foot basement. The current property features a
nonconforming garage that encroaches into the right side setback, which is proposed for removal as
part of this project. The new home conforms to current setback requirements. Three protected trees
are in poor condition and have been proposed for removal.
Architectural Design: The new two-story home has elements of the “Italian Renaissance” style
architecture. The proposed residence is 26 feet in height. The proposed exterior materials
include cementious plaster exterior and trim, sectional garage doors, wood windows, iron doors
with tempered glass, and a concrete s-tile roof. The design includes accents such as decorative
metal railing and limestone wainscot.
Trees/Landscaping: Three trees meeting City Code thresholds for protection are requested for
removal (Attachment 2). The City Arborist has approved the removal of the requested trees (two
Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees and one Victorian box tree). The City Arborist is able to make the
findings for removal based on her review. The applicant is required to place a tree deposit of
$20,200 and install tree protection fencing prior to the issuance of building permits. Trees
proposed for removal were not appraised due to poor health. Three 15-gallon trees can be planted
anywhere on the property to replace the trees proposed for removal.
Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: The applicant submitted neighbor notification
forms (Attachment 3) and responded to comments.
Neighbors to the east of the property at 19980 Bella Vista Ave expressed concerns that the
second story and the front setback distance would lead to a loss of privacy. They have included a
request to reduce the size of the second floor covered porch to prevent outdoor seating and to
reduce the size of the bow windows to have a five foot sill or use obscured glass (Attachment 3).
Detail Colors and Materials
Exterior Cementious Plaster “Mesa Verde Tan” Light Brown
Trim Cementious Plaster “Mushroom Risotto 20-1C” Beige
Wainscot Limestone
Roof “Capistrano” Black/Gray
Application PDR15-0009; 19990 Bella Vista Ave/397-20-059 Page 3 of 6
182
The applicant replied to these comments by noting that the proposed second floor is more than
75 feet from the left side property line, rotated away from the neighbor’s line of sight, and is
heavily screened by existing mature trees. The owner also set up a frame on the existing house
showing the location of the proposed second story viewpoint to illustrate that there would not be
significant privacy impacts on the neighbors (Attachment 4).
Staff has visited the site and believes that the existing mature vegetation and the location of the
building adequately mitigate potential privacy impacts. No trees along the east property line will
be removed, and the current concentration of existing trees provides a visual barrier between the
two properties. These trees, including a large Southern Magnolia approximately 26 inches in
diameter, prevent uninhibited direct views of the neighboring home from the windows and
balcony. In addition, the location of the proposed home, approximately 75 feet from the property
line, is well over the minimum 25 foot required setback and the large distance between the
neighboring buildings further reduces the ability to see into the neighboring property. After
seeing the frame set up by the owner and the story poles that were installed, Staff has determined
that proposed project, through the size and concentration of trees and the location of the home
can adequately mitigate privacy impacts.
Neighbors across the street at 20011 Bella Vista Ave expressed that they would “prefer a single
story home.” They are concerned about noise and congestion with demolition and construction
on a dead end road. The applicant has responded that they will comply with construction
management standards required by the City that would minimize the impact of demolition and
construction on the neighborhood.
Neighbors to the southeast of the property at 19950 Bella Vista Ave stated that they are
concerned at what will be seen from their yard. The applicant believes that existing mature trees
along the left side of the property mitigate potential privacy impacts. The project is not proposing
removal of trees on this side of the property. Staff agrees with this assessment and determines
that existing vegetation is able to mitigate privacy impacts.
Neighbors to the west of the property commented that the project “…looks nice. Congrats!”
Public notices were sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site. Staff received no comments
as of the drafting of this report.
Application PDR15-0009; 19990 Bella Vista Ave/397-20-059 Page 4 of 6
183
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 a relatively flat portion of the lot. The residence
proposed is located in roughly the same area developed with the existing house.
(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 locate the new structure to minimize the number of trees
that would need to be removed. The three trees proposed for removal are in poor condition.
The City Arborist has determined that the criteria for tree removal under Article 15-50 has
been met and has approved the removal of the trees, with conditions.
(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 side and rear property lines.
The second floor is set back more than 50 feet from the right side property line and 75 feet
from the left side property line, well beyond the minimum required setbacks. Existing trees
along the property lines will also be preserved to mitigate potential privacy impacts. 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 would be located on a street with a
few currently existing two story homes. The smaller footprint and larger side setbacks of the
proposed structure, compared to the existing layout, helps reduce the impact of the two-story
home’s mass. The project also includes other elements that help reduce perceived bulk, such as
varied wall plates on the facade, a hipped roof, and lower eaves. The roof style, exterior
materials, color scheme and entry scale shared similarities with those of neighboring homes.
(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 only about 12 percent of the front
setback area. Permeable walkways are also located in the front setback area.
Application PDR15-0009; 19990 Bella Vista Ave/397-20-059 Page 5 of 6
184
(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 would not
impact solar access for adjacent properties. The distance between adjacent structures is
sufficient to allow solar access.
(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 sideyard setbacks adjacent to smaller homes; incorporating
single story elements in the front, designing first story eave heights that are in scale with
adjacent residences; facing garage doors perpendicular to the street; 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
2. Arborist Report
3. Neighbor Notification Forms
4. View from the Balcony and Bedroom
5. Story Pole Certification Letter
6. Development Plans (Exhibit "A")
Application PDR15-0009; 19990 Bella Vista Ave/397-20-059 Page 6 of 6
185
RESOLUTION NO: 15-020
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PDR15-0009 AND ARBORIST REPORT ARB15-0023
LOCATED AT 19990 BELLA VISTA AVE
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2015 an application was submitted by Terry Martin on behalf
of Raghu and Sahana Pai requesting Design Review approval to construct a new two story home, a
basement, and related site improvements located at 19990 Bella Vista Ave. Three protected trees
are proposed for removal. The project has a total floor area of 6,530 square feet (not including the
2,163 square foot basement). The height of the proposed residence is approximately 26 feet. The
site is located within the R-1-40,000 Zoning District (APN 397-20-059).
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 May 27, 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
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
186
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 PDR15-0009 and
ARB15-0023 located at 19990 Bella Vista Ave, 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 27th day of
May 2015 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Leonard Almalech
Chair, Planning Commission
187
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of
time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s
successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this
project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting
all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant
with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community
Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it
shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or
its equivalent.
2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this
approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection
with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This
approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all
processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or
Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all
processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is
maintained).
3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City
and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the
requirements of the Saratoga City Code incorporated herein by this reference.
4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and
hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers
harmless from and against:
a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action
on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done
or made prior to said action; and
b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any
manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or
grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting
on their behalf.
In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate
agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and
Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney.
5. Site Drainage. The owner/applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding drainage,
including but not limited to complying with the city approved stormwater management plan.
The project shall retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site, that is created by
188
the proposed construction and grading project, such that adjacent down slope properties will not
be negatively impacted by any increase in flow. Design must follow the current Santa Clara
County Drainage Manual method criteria, as required by the building department.
Retention/detention element design must follow the Drainage Manual guidelines, as required by
the building department.
6. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those
features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans denominated Exhibit "A"
dated stamped April 20, 2015. All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted
in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the
changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with City Code.
7. All requirements in the City Arborist Report dated May 6 , 2015 are hereby adopted as
conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans.
8. The owner/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.
9. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to
the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to
issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the
following:
a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A”
on file with the Community Development Department.
b. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, notes, and/or materials required by the
Building Division.
c. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages.
d. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation
inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written
certification that all building setbacks comply with the Approved Plans,” which note shall
represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance with this Design
Review Approval.
189
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
ARBORIST REPORT
Application No. ARB15-0023
Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 19990 Bella Vista Avenue
Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner:Raghu and Sahana Pai
Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 397-20-059
Email:nightingale@outloo.com
Report History:
Report 1
Date:
Plans received April 20, 2015
Arborist report received May 4, 2015
Report completed May 6, 2015
PROJECT SCOPE:
The applicant has submitted plans to the City to demolish the existing house and build a new two
story house with a basement and attached three car garage.
STATUS: Approved by City Arborist, with conditions.
PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF:
Tree protection
security deposit –
Required - $20,200
For trees 1, 5, 6, 7
Tree fencing – Required – See Conditions of Approval and attached map.
Tree removals – Trees 2 – 4 are permitted for removal once building permit has
been issued.
Replacement trees – Required = 3 15-gallon trees.
FINDINGS:
Tree Removals
Whenever a tree is requested for removal as part of a project, certain findings must be made and
specific tree removal criteria met. Two blue gum eucalyptus (trees 2 and 3) and one Victorian box
(tree 4) are in poor condition and recommended for removal. The blue gum eucalyptus trees are
sprouts from a stump with a high likelihood of failure. The Victorina box leans and has begun to
uproot. All three trees meet the City’s criteria allowing them 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.
1
190
19990 Bella Vista Avenue
Table 1: Summary of Tree Removal Criteria that are met
Tree No. Criteria met Criteria not met
2 – 4 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 2, 3, 5, 10
Replacement Trees
Trees 2 – 4 were not appraised due to their poor condition and risk of failure. Three trees from 15
gallon containers should replace these three trees. Replacement trees may be of any species and
planted anywhere on the property.
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.
Tree Preservation Plan
The submitted arborist report prepared by Katherine Naegele of Anderson Tree Care Specialists and
dated May 4, 2015, once included in the final set of plans, will satisfy the requirement for a Tree
Preservation Plan under Section 15-50.140 of the City Code.
This report is also to be included in the final set of plans.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 – Plans and reports reviewed
2 – Tree Removal Criteria
3 – Conditions of Approval
4 – Map of Site showing locations of tree protective fencing
2
191
19990 Bella Vista Attachment 1
PLAN REVIEW:
Architectural Plans reviewed:
Preparer: Terry Martin Associates, A.I.A
Date of Plans: March 2015
Sheet A-1 Title Sheet
Sheet A-2.1 Demolition Plan
Sheet A-2.2 Site Plan
Sheet A-3.1 Basement Floor Plan
Sheet A-3.2 Main Level Floor Plan
Sheet A-3.3 Upper Level Floor Plan
Sheets A-5.1 and A5.2 Elevations
Sheet A-6.1 Sections
Sheet LS-1 Landscape Plan
Civil Plans reviewed:
Preparer: RW Engineering, Inc.
Date of Plans: December 25, 2014
Sheet C-1 Topographic Map and Boundary Survey
Sheet C-2 Grading and Drainage Plan
TREE INFORMATION:
Arborist report reviewed:
Preparer: Katherine Naegele, Anderson Tree Care Specialists, Inc.
Date of Plans: May 4, 2015
A report submitted was submitted that inventoried seven trees potentially impacted by the
proposed project. It provided conditions of each tree, appraised values of those likely to be
impacted, and recommendations for protection during construction.
Three trees protected by Saratoga City Code (trees 2 – 4) are requested for removal to
construct this project.
3
192
19990 Bella Vista Avenue 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.
4
193
19990 Bella Vista Avenue 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. The submitted arborist report dated May 4, 2015, shall be copied on to a plan sheet, titled
“Tree Preservation” and included in the final job copy set of plans.
3. This arborist report shall be copied on to a plan sheet and included in the final set of plans.
4. All conditions of approval in the May 4, 2015arborist report shall become conditions of
approval for the project.
5. The designated Project Arborist shall be Katherine Naegele of Anderson Tree Care
Specialists, Inc. unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist.
6. Tree Protection Security Deposit
a. Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080.
b. Shall be $20,200 be for tree(s) 1, 5, 6 and 7.
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.
7. Tree Protection Fencing:
a. Shall be installed as shown on the attached map and according to conditions 5, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16 and 17 in the May 4, 2015 report.
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.
8. The Project Arborist shall visit the site every two weeks during grading activities and
monthly thereafter.
5
194
19990 Bella Vista Avenue Attachment 3
9. The Project Arborist shall be on site to monitor all work:
a. Within 15 feet of trees 5 and 6.
b. Within 25 feet of tree 7
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
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. Trees 2 – 4 meet 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. Three trees from 15-gallon containers shall be planted before final inspection and occupancy of
the new home.
17. New trees may be of any species and planted anywhere on the property as long as they do not
encroach on retained trees.
18. Only drought tolerant plants that are compatible with oaks are permitted under the outer half
of the canopy of oak trees on site.
19. Water loving plants and lawns are not permitted under oak tree canopies.
20. 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.
21. At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing and
have the tree protection security deposit released by the City, call City Arborist for a final
inspection.
6
195
1
Attachment 4
Legend
Tree Canopy
Tree Protection
Fencing
2
3
4
19990 Bella Vista Avenue
7
6
5
7
196
197
198
199
200
201
Attachment 4: View from the Balcony and Bedroom to East (Left Side) Property Line
Approximate view of the neighbor’s side from the balcony.
View of the neighbor’s side from the proposed bedroom window.
202
203
204
ABBREVIATIONS
Build It Green
PROJECT TEAM
P, | |, //
PARALLEL
PA
PUBLIC ADDRESS
PC
PIECEPERP, ˵
PERPENDICULAR
PH
PANIC HARDWARE
PL
PLATE
PLAM
PLASTIC LAMINATEPLAS
PLASTERPLMBG
PLUMBING
PLYWD
PLYWOOD
PNL
PANEL
POL
POLISHED
PR
PAIRPREFAB
PREFABRICATEDPSF
POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT
PSI
POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH
PT
POINT, PRESSURE TREATED
PTN
PARTITION
R
RISER
RAD
RADIAL, RADIUS
RCP
REFLECTED CEILING PLAN
RD
ROOF DRAIN
RECPT
RECEPTACLE
REF
REFERENCEREINF
REINFORCE(MENT)
REQD
REQUIRED
REQMTS
REQUIREMENTS
RESIL
RESILIENT
REV
REVISION
RM
ROOMRPM
REVOLUTIONS PER MINUTE
RV
ROOF VENT
RWL
RAIN WATER LEADER
S
SOUTH
SAD
SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGSSAN
SANITARY
SASM
SELF ADHERED SHEET MEMBRANE
SC
SOLID CORE
SCD
SEAT COVER DISPENSER
SCHED
SCHEDULE
SEC, SECT
SECTIONSF
SQUARE FOOT, FEET
SHT
SHEET
SHWR
SHOWER
SIM
SIMILAR (TO)
SJ
SEISMIC JOINTSLD
SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGSSM
SHEET METAL
SMS
SHEET METAL SCREW
SND
SANITARY NAPKIN DISPENSER
SNR
SANITARY NAPKIN RECEPTACLE
SPEC(S)
SPECIFICATION(S)SPN
SOLE PLATE NAILING
SQ
SQUARE
SQ FT
SQUARE FOOT, FEET
SS, SSTL
STAINLESS STEEL
ST
STRAP TIE, STREET
STA, STN
STATIONSTE
SUITE
STL
STEEL
SUSP
SUSPENDED
SY, SQ YD
SQUARE YARD(S)
SYM
SYMMETRICAL
SW
SHEAR WALL
T, TRD
TREAD
TB
TOWEL BAR
T&B
TOP AND BOTTOM
TBC
TO BE CONFIRMED
TBS
TO BE SELECTEDTD
TIE DOWN
TEL
TELEPHONE
TEMP
TEMPORARY, TEMPERATURE
TEMPD
TEMPERED
TER
TERAZZO
THRESH
THRESHOLDT&G
TONGUE AND GRROVE
THK
THICK(NESS)
THRU
THROUGH
TOC
TOP OF CONCRETE
TOS, TS
TOP OF SLABTP
TOP PLATETRANS
TRANSFORMER
TSTAT
THERMOSTAT
TV
TELEVISION
TYP
TYPICAL
UL
UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES
UNF
UNFINISHED
UNO
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
UON
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
UR
URINAL
V
VOLT
VB
VAPOR BARRIER
VCT
VINYL COMPOSTION TILE
VEN
VENEER
VERT
VERTICAL
VEST
VESTIBULEVIF
VERIFY IN FIELD
VOL
VOLUME
W
WEST
W/
WITH
W/O
WITHOUTWC
WATER CLOSET
WD
WOOD
WDW
WINDOW
WH
WATER HEATER
WO
WHERE OCCURS
WP
WATERPROOF(ING)WT
WEIGHT
YD
YARD
ARCHITECT
TERRY MARTIN ASSOCIATES, A.I.A.
61 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE D
LOS GATOS, CA 95030
(408) 395-8016
TERRY MARTIN, BRAD MCCURDY
PROJECT ADDRESS:
19990 Bella Vista
OWNER:
Raghu & Sahana Pai
APN:
397-20-059
ZONING:
R1-40,000
LOT AREA:
66,816 sf ± (1.53 Acres ±), NET & GROSS
BUILDING AREA:
See Area Calculations on this sheet
STORIES:
2 Story Residence w/ Basement
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:
TYPE VB – Sprinklered
OCCUPANCY:
Group R-3 Single Family Residence, Group U Private Garage
APPLICABLE CODES:
Saratoga Municipal Code
2013 CA Bldg Code, 2013 CA Res Bldg Code, 2013 CA Elec Code
2013 CA Mech Code, 2013 CA Plmbg Code, 2013 CA Energy Code
2013 CA Fire Code, 2013 CalGreen Code, 2013 CA Ref Stds Code
All as amended by The State Of California and Local Jurisdiction(s).
&
AND˴ �"/(-&
@
AT
°
DEGREE (ANGLE, BEARING, TEMP)
Ø
DIAMETER
∆
DELTA, REVIISION
/
DIVIDE, DIVIDED BY, SEQUENCE=, ≠
EQUAL (TO), NOT EQUAL (TO)'
FOOT/FEET, MINUTES (BEARING)
"
INCH(ES), SECONDS (BEARING)
>, ≥
GREATER THAN, OR EQUAL TO
<, ≤
LESS THAN, OR EQUAL TO
-
MINUS, SUBTRACT(ED)#
NUMBER, POUND(S)%
PERCENT
+
PLUS, ADD(ED)
±
PLUS/MINUS (APPROXIMATELY)
AB
ANCHOR BOLTABV
ABOVE
AC
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE
A/C
AIR CONDITIONING
ACOUST
ACOUSTIC(AL)
AD
AREA DRAIN
ADDL
ADDITIONALADJ
ADJUST(ABLE)
AEJ
ALL EDGE JOINTS
AFF
ABOVE FINISH FLOOR
AHJ
AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION
AIA
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
ALT
ALTERNATE, ALTERNATIVEALUM
ALUMINUM
AMP
AMPERE
ARCH
ARCHITECT(URAL)
ASPH
ASPHALT
ASSOC
ASSOCIATION
AWN
AWNING
BD
BOARD
BEL
BELOW
BLDG
BUILDING
BLK, BLKG
BLOCK, BLOCKING
BM
BEAMBN
BOUNDARY NAIL
BOT
BOTTOM
BS
BOTH SIDES
BTU
BRITISH THERMAL UNIT
BTWN
BETWEEN
CAB
CABINET
CB
COLUMN BASE
CBC
CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
CEC
CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE
CEM
CEMENT(ITIOUS)CER
CERAMIC
CF
CUBIC FEET
CFC
CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
CFM, CFS
CUBIC FEET PER MINUTE, SECOND
CI
CAST IRON
CIR
CIRCLE, CIRCULARCIRC
CIRCULATION
CJ
CONTROL JOINT
CL
CENTER LINE
CLG
CEILING
CLO
CLOSET
CLR
CLEARCMC
CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE
CNTR
COUNTER
CO
CLEAN OUT, COMPANY
COL
COLUMN
COMP
COMPOSITE
CONC
CONCRETECONN
CONNECT(ION)
CONST
CONSTRUCTION
CONT
CONTIN UE/UAL/UOUS
COR
CORNER
CORR
CORRIDOR
CPC
CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODECPR
COPPER
CPT
CARPET
CSMT
CASEMENT
CW
COLD WATER
CU
CUBIC
DBL
DOUBLE
DBL HNG
DOUBLE HUNG
DEG
DEGREE
DEPT
DEPARTMENT
DET
DETAILDF
DOUGLAS FIR, DRINKING FOUNTAIN
DIA
DIAMETER
DIAG
DIAGONAL
DIM
DIMENSION
DISP
DISPENSER, DISPOSAL
DIST
DISTANCEDIV
DIVIDE, DIVISION
DN
DOWN
DOUG
DOUGLAS (FIR)
DR
DRAIN, DOOR
DWG
DRAWING
DTL
DETAILDW
DISHWASHER
DWR
DRAWER
E
EAST
EA
EACH
EL
ELEVATIONELEC
ELECTRICAL
ELEV
ELEVATION, ELEVATOR
EMER
EMERGENCY
EN
EDGE NAILING
ENCL
ENCLOSURE
ENGR
ENGINEEREP
ELECTRICAL PANEL
EQ
EQUAL
SOILS
JF CONSULTING, INC.
P.O. BOX 0536
SARATOGA, CA 95071
(408) 568-1005
JERRY FREEMAN
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
DJ ENGINEERS & ASSOCIATES
480 ST JOHN ST, SUITE 220
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
(925) 846-9429
DANIEL J. DREMALAS, P.E.
Note:Setbacks based on Site orientation per Section 15-06.430
CIVIL ENGINEER
RW ENGINEERING, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING
505 ALTAMONT DRIVE,
MILPITAS, CA 95035
(408) 262-1899
TITLE 24 ENERGY
NICHOLAS BIGNARDI
FRI ENERGY CONSULTANTS, LLC
21 N HARRISON AVE, SUITE 210
CAMPBELL, CA 95008
(408) 866-1620
OWNER
RAGHU & SAHANA PAI
10348 SOUTH TANTAU AVENUE
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
(408) 406-7047
EQUIP
EQUIPMENT
ETC
ET CETERA, AND OTHER THINGS
EW
EACH WAYEXT
EXTERIOR
(E)
EXISTING
EQ
EQUAL
EW
EACH WAY
EXH
EXHAUST
EXP
EXPANSION, EXPANDINGEXT
EXTERIOR
FAB
FABRICATE, FABRICATION
FD
FLOOR DRAIN
FDN
FOUNDATION
FE, FEC
FIRE EXTINGUISHER, FE CABINETFF
FINISH FLOOR
FG
FIBERGLASS
FH
FIRE HYDRANT
FIN
FINISH
FLR
FLOORFOC
FACE OF CONCRETEFOS
FACE OF STUD
FRP
FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PANEL
FS
FAR SIDE
FT
FOOT, FEET
FTG
FOOTINGFURR
FURRING
FUT
FUTURE
FV
FIELD VERIFY
GA
GAUGE
GAL
GALLONGALV
GALVANIZED
GB
GRAB BAR
GC
GENERAL CONTRACOR
GD
GARBAGE DISPOSAL
GL
GLASS
GND
GROUNDGSM
GALVANIZED SHEET METAL
GYP
GYPSUM
HB
HOSEBIB
HD
HOLDDOWN
HDR
HEADERHDWD
HARDWOOD
HDWR
HARDWARE
HGR
HANGER
HM
HOLLOW METAL
HORIZ
HORIZONTAL
HT
HEIGHTHVAC
HEATING VENTILATION &
AIR CONDITIONING
ID
INSIDE DIAMETER
IN
INCHINCL
INCLUDE(S), INCLUDINGINFO
INFORMATION
INSUL
INSULATION
INV
INVERTED
INT
INTERIOR
JAN
JANITORJBOX
JUNCTION BOX
JCT
JUNCTION
JH
JOINT HANGER
JT
JOINT
KIT
KITCHEN
KW
KILOWAT
LAB
LABORATORY
LAV
LAVATORY
LAT
LATERALLB
POUND
LF
LINEAL FEET, LINEAR FEET
LIN
LINEAL, LINEAR
LT
LIGHT
LVR
LOUVER
M, m
METER
MATL
MATERIAL
MAX
MAXIMUM
MB
MACHINE BOLTS
MAX
MAXIMUM
MECH
MECHANICALMEMB
MEMBRANE
MFR, MNF
MANUFACTURER
MIN
MINIMUM, MINUTE
MIR
MIRROR
MISC
MISCELLANEOUS
MTD
MOUNTEDMTL
METAL
MUL
MULLION
N
NORTH
NEC
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODENIC
NOT IN CONTRACTNO
NUMBER
NOM
NOMINAL
NS
NEAR SIDE
NTS
NOT TO SCALE
(N)
NEW
O/
OVER (ORDER OF INSTALLATION)
OAI
OUTSIDE AIR INTAKE
OC
ON CENTER
OD
OUTSIDE DIAMETER
OFCI
OWNER FURNISHED GC INSTALLEDOFOI
OWNER FURNISHED & INSTALLED
OPNG
OPENING
OL
OCCUPANT LOAD
OPG
OPENING
OPP
OPPOSITE
ORIG
ORIGINAL
(INCLUDING GARAGE)(EXCLUDING BASEMENT AND COVERED PORCHES)
AVERAGE ENTIRE SITE SLOPE:
S= .00229 (5') (617 L.ft) / 1.53 Ac = 4.62%BLOCK DIAGRAM - New Residence
Main Level Floor:
A:
B:
C:
D:
E:
F:
G:
H:
I:
J:
K:
TOTAL:
SLOPE AT BUILDINGS EDGE:
SITE IS LEVEL W/ 5% SLOPE AWAY FROM BUILD'G
(E) RESIDENCE: (To Be Demolished)
2,919 SqFt
(E) GARAGE: (To Be Demolished)
807 SqFt
58.6 SF
2,518.9 SF
29.1 SF
68.3 SF
29.1 SF
2,704 SF
Master Covered Porch
204 Sq Ft
Suite 3 Covered Porch
63 Sq FtSuite 2 Covered Porch
25 Sq Ft
+ Light Well
471 Sq Ft
Plus Basement Level
2163 Sq Ft
Upper Level Floor:
A:
B:
C:
D:
E:
TOTAL:
Upper Level
2704 Sq Ft(Including Stair & 2 Story Area)
1
C U S T O M E S T A T E
PAI RESIDENCE
19990 BELLA VISTA
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
•
Demo (E) 1950's Single-Story Ranch Style Home, Detached Garage, Pool & Shed.
Add (N) 2 Two-Story Home W/ Basement & 3-Car Attached Garage, 1 Tree to be Removed.
PROJECT SCOPE
SHEET INDEX
PARCEL MAP VICINITY MAP
MANDATORY CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION
PROJECT DATA
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS & REQUIREMENTS
COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECT
SEE MANDATORY CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION NOTE ON THIS SHEET. PROVIDE ARCHITECT WITH MINIMUM 48HOUR ADVANCE NOTICE OF MILESTONE REQUIRING CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION. PROVIDE ARCHITECT NOTICE &OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT FOR SITE VISITS & CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION ATTENDED BY GEOTECHNICAL,STRUCTURAL, AND/OR CIVIL ENGINEERS. SUBMIT ALL REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION TO ARCHITECT. COPYARCHITECT ON ALL CORRESPONDENCE WITH ALL PROJECT CONSULTANTS.
COORDINATE WITH GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
PROVIDE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER WITH MINIMUM 48 HOURS ADVANCE NOTIFICATION PRIOR TO ANY EARTHWORKOPERATIONS. ENGINEER SHALL BE PRESENT TO OBSERVE & TEST, AS NECESSARY, AT EARTHWORK & FOUNDATIONINSTALLATION PHASES OF THE PROJECT.
COORDINATE WITH STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECT & STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TO PROVIDE REQUIRED NOTICE & TO SCHEDULEMANDATORY CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION. PROVIDE ARCHITECT & STRUCTURAL ENGINEER WITH MINIMUM 48HOURS ADVANCE NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT FOR ANY & ALL SITE VISITS & CONSTRUCTIONOBSERVATION ATTENDED BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. SUBMIT ALL REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION TOARCHITECT.
AFTER FINISH REMOVAL, PRIOR TO STRUCTURAL DEMOLITION
PRIOR TO POURING CONCRETE FOR FOUNDATIONS
ROUGH FRAMING
WINDOW SELECTION, PRIOR TO ORDERING WINDOWS
ROUGH ELECTRICAL, MOUNTED BOXES PRIOR TO PULLING WIRE
FINAL FRAMING, PRIOR TO COVERING FRAMING W/ FINISHES
ADDITIONALLY, CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE A MANDATORY WALKTHRU WITH ARCHITECT &
OWNER PRESENT AT SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION.
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION PRIOR TO GRANTING OCCUPANCY
GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO: PROVIDE ARCHITECT & OWNER WITH A CRITICAL PATH SCHEDULE
SHOWING THE FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION MILESTONES PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK, SCHEDULE
MANDATORY CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION SITE VISITS WITH ARCHITECT PRESENT AT THE FOLLOWING
MILESTONES, & TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO ARCHITECT AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO SUCH VISITS.
ARCHITECT'S CHECKMARK & INITIALS ARE REQUIRED TO THE LEFT OF EACH LISTED MILESTONE PRIOR TO
INSPECTION BY AHJ AND PRIOR TO PROCEDING WITH SUBSEQUENT WORK AND/OR WORK THAT WILL
COVER/OBSCURE ITEMS TO BE OBSERVED. SUCH CHECKMARK & INITIALS INDICATE ONLY THAT ARCHITECT
WAS PRESENT & WAS PROVIDED WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE CONSTRUCTION AT THAT PHASE.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION / SOIL REPORT
GEOLOGIC & GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, GLEN UNA PROPERTY, PROJECT TBD, DATED TBD, PREPARED BYPACIFIC GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, PROJECT GEOLOGIST & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, IS PART OFCONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. ALL WORK MUST COMPLY WITH SOIL REPORT REQUIREMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS,CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL CODE, AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE CODES & ORDINANCES ASADOPTED, AMENDED, & ENFORCED BY LOCAL JURISDICTION.
ALL EARTHWORK & SITE DRAINAGE, INCLUDING EXCAVATIONS FOR BASEMENT & DRILLED PIER FOUNDATIONS,PLACEMENT OF ENGINEERED FILL, PREPARATION OF SUBGRADE BENEATH BASEMENT MAT & SLABS-ON-GRADE,BASEMENT RETAINING WALL BACKFILL, AND FINAL SURFACE DRAINAGE INSTALLATION SHALL BE PERFORMED INACCORDANCE WITH SOIL REPORT. COPY ARCHITECT ON ALL CORRESPONDENCE WITH GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS.
TITLE 24 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE
REPORT ENTITLED TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE REPORT FOR 15690 GLEN UNA DRIVE, DATED TBD, PREPARED BYTBD, TITLE 24 ENERGY CONSULTANT, IS PART OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. ALL WORK MUST COMPLY WITHENERGY REPORT REQUIREMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS, CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL CODE,AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE CODES & ORDINANCES AS ADOPTED, AMENDED, & ENFORCED BY LOCAL JURISDICTION.COPY ARCHITECT ON ALL CORRESPONDENCE WITH ENERGY CONSULTANT.
DEFERRED SUBMITTAL OR UNDER SEPERATE PERMIT:
a.
FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMb.
HVAC SYSTEMc.
ROOF TRUSSES, OWNER OPTION FOR DEFERRED SUBMITTAL
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT FINAL APPROVAL, THE PROPERTY SHALL BE IN A COMPLIANCEWITH THE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED IN CALIFORNIA FIRE CODESECTION 4906, INCLUDING CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE 4291 OR CALIFORNIAGOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 51182 PER CRC R327.1.5.
Smart Solutions From The Ground Up
Terry J. Martin & Associates, A.I.A.
A Certified Build It Green Rater
Required Proposed
HEIGHT:
* Lowest Elevation Point, at the building edge from natual grade
= Elev 522.00'
* Highest Elevation Point, at the buildings edge from natual grade
= Elev 524.20'
* Average Elevation Point, (Based on highest and lowest points above)
= Elev 523.10'
* Top most elevation point-measured from average point (above) to top
most point of the roof.
SET BACKS:
Front
30 Ft
68.3 Ft ±Left Side First Floor
20 Ft
76.7 Ft ±Left Side Second Floor
25 Ft
81.7 Ft ±Right Side First Floor
20 Ft
34.8 Ft ±Right Side Second Floor
25 Ft
52.2 Ft ±Rear First Floor
50 Ft
87.1 Ft ±Rear Second Floor
60 Ft
94.7 Ft ±
SETBACKS & HEIGHT
= Elev 549.10'Max Height 26.0'
SITE COVERAGE
BUILDING AREA CALCULATIONS
TJ
COVER SHEET
PROJECT DATA
N/A
# 15005
MAR 2015
Sheet Title:
Drawn by:
Project:
Scale:
Date:License # C23221RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL ARCHITECTURETERRY J. MARTIN ASSOCIATES, A.I.A.61 East Main Street, Suite DLos Gatos, CA 95030Phone: 408-395-8016Fax: 408-395-5732terry@tma-arch.comDate:RevDescriptionProject 1PAI ResidenceCustom Home19990 Bella VistaSaratoga, CA 9507003/19/2015Planning, Design Review SubmittalNORTH
E
A
C
B
D
F
MAIN LEVEL FLOOR
B
C
E
A
D
UPPER LEVEL FLOOR
SITE COVERAGE:
Footprint of Home
4,974 Sq Ft
7.4 % (Incl. Roof Overhang)
Driveway
2,759 Sq Ft
4.1 %Walkways / Decks
1,599 Sq Ft
2.4 %
Total
9,332 Sq Ft
13.9 %
Total Allowable
23,368 Sq Ft
35.0%
(E) Site Coverage: (To Be Demolished)
11,998 Sq FtSee demo site plan for additional information
% of NetLot SizeSquareFootage
A-1
ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: (No slope reduction)
6,000 SF + 27(20) SF = 6,540 Sq Ft
I
J
K
1
Main Level
3826 Sq Ft(Including Stair & Garage)
Total
6530 Sq Ft(Excluding Basement Area)
1
1
Plus:Rear Covered Porch
584 Sq Ft
Entry Covered Porch
109 Sq Ft
G
H
1
OVERALL
TOTAL: 6,530 SF
Planning, Design Review Resubmittal04/17/2015A-1
COVER SHEET, PROJECT DATA
A-2.1
DEMOLITION SITE PLAN
A-2.2
SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN
A-3.1
BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
A-3.2
MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
A-3.3
UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
A-4
ROOF PLAN
A-5.1
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS, FRONT & LEFT SIDE
A-5.2
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS, REAR & RIGHT SIDE
A-6.1
BUILDING CROSS-SECTIONS A-A & B-B
C-1
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP & BOUNDARY SURVEY
C-2
GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN
LS-1
LANDSCAPE PLAN
LS-2
TREE PRESERVATION
2 2Planning Commission Submittal05/11/2015Print Date: 05/11/2015
208.7 SF
441.0 SF
27.8 SF
984.8 SF
97.0 SF
1,720.2 SF
25.0 SF
56.2 SF
170.0 SF
56.3 SF
39.0 SF
3,826 SF
205
443.81'Demo (E) WallEDGE OF PAVEMENTCONCRETEDemo (E) Conc.Sheet Title:
Drawn by:
Project:
Scale:
Date:License # C23221RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL ARCHITECTURETERRY J. MARTIN ASSOCIATES, A.I.A.61 East Main Street, Suite DLos Gatos, CA 95030Phone: 408-395-8016Fax: 408-395-5732terry@tma-arch.comDate:RevDescriptionProject 1TJ
# 15005
FEB 2015PAI ResidenceCustom Home19990 Bella VistaSaratoga, CA 95070NORTH
Garage
3,271 SF
925 SF
4,402 SF
2,280 SF
234 SF
886 SF
11,998 SF
(E) 6' Wood Fenceto be Removed
16"T
Temporary TreeProtectionFencing (See Notes)
525 52052052516"T
525
10"T
525525
530
53018"T18"T
18"T
30"T
32"T
Demo (E)Wall
Demo (E)Wall
12",14"T
32"T
32"T
28",36"T
6",12",14"T
28"T
Demo (E)
Garage
(806.6 SF)
6"T
7"T
6"T
13",16"T
32"T
9"T10"T
6"T
6"T
20",24"T22"T
12"T
6"T
6"T
6",9"T
30"T
14"T
17"T
12"T
6"T
12"T
12",20"T
7"T
10",11",12"T
8"T 6"T
14"T
9"T
8"T
8"T
8"T
50"T
(4)6",9"T
6"T
30"T32"T
6"T
6"T 6"T
6"T
12"T
32"T
14"T
6",12"T
10",28"T
22"T
6"T
24"T
24"T
6"T
12"T
56"T
8",8"T
12"T
8"T
14"T
14"T
12"T28"T24"T
28"T 8",12",14"T
18"T
10"T12"T
(2)6",12"T
14"T6",(2)12"T
28"T
8"T
14"T
24"T
18"T
(2)6"T
(E) OpenSpace
Demo (E) Conc. CurbDemo (E) BrickDEMOLITION
SITE PLAN
Demo (E) Wall 25'-0"Side Yard SetbackSecond Floor20'-0"Side Yard SetbackFirst FloorDemo (E) Tile PatioDemo (E)Wall
Demo (E)Conc. Pad
Demo (E) SingleStory Residential
Structure
(2,919.0 SF)EDGE OF PAVEMENT25'-0"Side Yard SetbackSecond FloorB E L L A V I S T A A V E N U E
6
0
'
-
0
"
R
e
a
r
Y
a
r
d
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
30'-0"
Front Yard Setback
1/16"=1'-0"
5
0
'
-
0
"
R
e
a
r
Y
a
r
d
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
Fi
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
20'-0"Side Yard SetbackFirst Floor211.91'311.27'(E) 6' Wood Fenceto be Removed
12"T
26"T
184.00'A-2.1EDGE OF PAVEMENTDemo (E
)
C
o
n
c.
C
u
r
b
S
A
R
A
T
O
G
A
-
L
O
S
G
A
T
O
S
R
O
A
D
(
S
T
A
T
E
H
W
Y
9
)
11"T
Demo (E)Wall
6"TTo Be Removed
DEAD 30"TRemoved byPG&E
De
m
o
(
E
)
She
d(17
3
.
6
S
F
)
(E) Spe
e
d
B
u
m
p
Demo (E) Pool
(E) Speed
Bump
Demo (E)Conc. Patio
Temporary Tree ProtectionFencing (See Notes)
(E) CONCRETE
Demo (E)Brick Walkway
(E)ConcreteDrivewayto be Removed
(4,402 SF)
24"T
CLUMP
SEE SHEET C-1 TOPO SURVEY FOR (E) SITE CONDITIONS DEMO (E) STRUCTURES
VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS & SITE CONDITIONS IN FIELD. NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF DISCREPANCIES IMMEDIATELY IN WRITING.
PREP SITE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION PER SOILS REPORT BY JF CONSULTING
Demo (E)Conc. Patio
DOORS:a.
COMPLETELY REMOVE INDICATED EXISTING DOORS, DELIVER TO OWNER OR REPAIR,REWORK, REFINISH, AND REINSTALL AS INDICATED. NOTE: OWNER'S OPTION TO REUSEDOORS EVEN WHEN NOT SCHEDULED FOR REUSE.
TILE:a.
REMOVE AND DISCARD EXISTING CERAMIC FLOOR TILE, MARBLE THRESHOLDS, AND SETTINGBEDS IN BATHROOMS WHERE INDICATED.
BRICK:a.
REMOVE EXISTING FACE BRICK TO MAKE WAY FOR NEW WORK. SEPARATE, CLEAN, ANDSTACK REMOVED BRICK FOR REUSE.
FLOORS:a.
WHERE CONTRACT REQUIRES REMOVING EXISTING CONCRETE SLABS, ALSO REMOVEREINFORCEMENT.b.
REMOVE EXISTING WOOD FLOORS WHERE REQUIRED.
DAMAGE CONTROL:a.
CAREFULLY REMOVE & PROTECT ITEMS INDICATED TO REMAIN, TO BE SALVAGED, AND/ORTO BE REUSED. STORE CAREFULLY IN A SAFE LOCATION UNTIL PROJECT COMPLETION,TRANSFERRED TO OWNER, OR REINSTALLED, AS APPLICABLE. ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FORSAFE REMOVAL, STORAGE & HANDLING.
CUTTING & DRILLING:a.
CUT & DRILL EXISTING CONSTRUCTION AS REQUIRED. INCLUDE CUTTING HOLES & OTHEROPENINGS FOR MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, AND OTHER WORK.b.
DO NOT DRILL OR CUT STRUCTURE SUPPORTING ELEMENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC APPROVALIN EACH CASE, UNLESS THE ELEMENT IS SHOWN ON STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS TO BEDRILLED OR CUT. DO NOT CUT EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB REINFORCEMENT INDICATED TOREMAIN.c.
COVER OPENINGS, EXPOSED CAVITIES, & OTHER EXPOSED CONSTRUCTION WHEN NOT INUSE, AND PATCH SUCH OPENINGS, CAVITIES, AND CONSTRUCTION AS SOON ASPRACTICABLE AS WORK PROCEEDS.
Demo (E)Conc. Pad
8.
DEMOLITION & REMOVAL:a.
PRIOR TO DEMOLITION/REMOVAL OF ANY STRUCTURAL COMPONENT OR SYSTEM, REMOVEFINISH MATERIALS TO THE EXTENT INDICATED ON THE DOCUMENTS AS AMENDED BY THEPRE-DEMOLITION SITE VISIT, ADDENDUM, BULLETIN, AND/OR WRITTEN NOTICE OF CHANGEIN DEMOLITION SCOPE.b.
UPON COMPLETION OF REMOVAL OF FINISH MATERIALS, PRIOR TO DEMOLITION/REMOVALOF ANY STRUCTURAL COMPONENT/SYSTEM AND/OR ANY ITEM(S) CONCEALED BY FINISHMATERIALS, CONDUCT THE DEMOLITION SITE VISIT.c.
DEMOLITION SITE VISIT: IN THE COMPANY OF THE ARCHITECT, STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, &OWNER, VISIT THE SITE & VERIFY THE LOCATIONS OF SELECTIVE DEMOLITION AND ANYCHANGES TO SCOPE OF DEMOLITION.d.
WHEN REMOVING ITEMS, WHETHER FOR SALVAGE, OWNER RETENTION, OR DISPOSAL,PROVIDE FOR A COMPLETE REMOVAL SUCH THAT REMAINING SURFACES ARE CLEAN, SOLID,AND READY TO RECEIVE NEW CONSTRUCTION.e.
AS WORK PROGRESSES, PROMPTLY REMOVE FROM PROJECT SITE ALL ITEMS NOT TO BEREUSED IN THIS PROJECT AND NOT INDICATED TO REMAIN. DO NOT BURN, BURY, BUY,STORE, SELL, OR OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF DEMOLISHED/REMOVED MATERIALS OR ITEMS ONOWNER’S PROPERTY.f.
PERFORM DEMOLITION & REMOVAL WITH DELIBERATE SPEED AND AS QUIETLY ASPRACTICABLE ONCE DEMOLITION WORK HAS BEGUN.g.
USE METHODS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE WORK WITHIN LIMITATIONS OF GOVERNINGREGULATIONS.h.
DEMOLISH CONCRETE & MASONRY IN SMALL SECTIONS.i.
DEMOLISH OR REMOVE WALLS, PARTITIONS, & OTHER LARGE ITEMS & ASSEMBLIES INSMALL SECTIONS WHATEVER THE MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION.j.
REMOVE MATERIALS SO AS TO NOT IMPOSE EXCESSIVE LOADS TO SUPPORTING WALLS,FLOORS, OR FRAMING.
9.
CONTRACTOR'S PROPERTY:a.
RUBBISH & DEBRIS CREATED BY DEMOLITION, ALTERATION, AND/OR CONSTRUCTION WORK,INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CUTTING, DRILLING, REMOVAL, PATCHING, REPAIR, ANDOTHER DEMOLISHED/REMOVED MATERIALS & ITEMS NOT TO BE REUSED IN THE WORKUNDER THIS CONTRACT, AND NOT INDICATED TO REMAIN OWNER'S PROPERTY, ORSELECTED BY OWNER TO REMAIN OWNER'S PROPERTY, SHALL BECOME GENERALCONTRACTOR'S PROPERTY.b.
GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL TRANSPORT SUCH MATERIALS & ITEMS AWAY FROM THESITE IN A TIMELY MANNER. DO NOT PERMIT RUBBISH & DEBRIS TO ACCUMULATE ON-SITE.c.
DO NOT BURN, BURY, BUY, STORE, SELL, OR OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF DEMOLISHED/REMOVED MATERIALS OR ITEMS ON OWNER’S PROPERTY.
10.
SITE DEMOLITION:a.
CLEAR ALL PAVING, BRUSH, TURF, ROOTS, PLANTS, AND OTHER MATERIAL WHERE NEWCONSTRUCTION IS INTRODUCED AND AS REQUIRED FOR FEATURES & CONDITIONS SHOWNON SITE PLANS, LANDSCAPE PLANS, AND CIVIL PLANS.b.
REMOVE & CAP EXISTING SPRINKLERS AS APPLICABLE AND AS REQUIRED TO KEEP CLEAR OFNEW CONSTRUCTION.c.
ALL STUMPS & ROOTS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SOIL TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 36"BELOW GRADE.d.
PEST CONTROL: EMPLOY A CERTIFIED EXTERMINATOR TO PROVIDE TREATMENT INACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNING HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR INSECT & RODENT CONTROL.
DEMOLITION AND REMOVALEXTENT AND METHODS OF DEMOLITION:DEMOLISH, REMOVE FOR SALVAGE, OR REMOVE AND REINSTALLAS APPLICABLE, ALL, OR PARTS OF, AS INDICATED:•
SITEWORK INTERFERING WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION•
MASONRY, CONCRETE, WALLS AND PARTITIONS•
FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION•
ROOFING, PARAPET CONSTRUCTION•
DOORS, FRAMES, FINISH HARDWARE•
PLASTER, GYPSUM BOARD•
ACOUSTICAL CEILINGS, SUSPENSION SYSTEMS•
FURRING, LATHING, FINISHES, CABINETRY•
VENTILATION ITEMS, PLUMBING, FIXTURES, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT,PIPING, LIGHTING•
OTHER MATERIALS & ITEMS AS NECESSARY TO DO THE WORK UNDER THIS CONTRACT AND,IN ADDITION, WHERE REMOVAL IS INDICATED ON THE DOCUMENTS OR DURING THE PRE-DEMOLITION SITE VISIT AND/OR DEMOLITION SITE VISIT.
TEMPORARY TREE PROTECTION FENCING NOTES
1.
TREE PROTECTION ZONE IS THE DISTANCE FROM THE TRUNK TO A POINT THAT IS 5'BEYOND THE CANOPY OF A TREE PROTECTED BY CITY CODE. TREE PROTECTION FENCINGSHALL BE LOCATED AS CLOSE TO THIS LOCATION AS POSSIBLE WHILE ALLOWING ROOMFOR CONSTRUCTION TO OCCUR.
2.
PROVIDE 6' HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCING MOUNTED ON 8' TALL, 2"Ø GALVANIZED POSTS,DRIVEN 24" INTO THE GROUND & SPACED NO MORE THAN 10' APART.
3.
POST WITH SIGNS SAYING "TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUTAPPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST - KATE BEAR 408 868-1276".
4.
THE CITY REQUIRES THAT TREE PROTECTION FENCING BE INSTALLED BEFORE ANYEQUIPMENT COMES ON SITE AND INSPECTED BY THE CITY ARBORIST BEFORE ISSUANCE OFPERMITS.
5.
TREE PROTECTION FENCING IS REQUIRED TO REMAIN IN PLACE THROUGHOUTCONSTRUCTION.
SELECTIVE DEMOLITION & REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS
1.
APPLICABILITY:a.
THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS SUPPLEMENT REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED ELSEWHERE IN THECONTRACT DOCUMENTS. ALL REQUIREMENTS SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE REGARDLESSOF WHERE THEY APPEAR IN THESE DOCUMENTS.b.
BECAUSE OF ALTERATION(S) TO, ADDITION(S) TO, AND PROXIMITY OF EXISTINGSTRUCTURE(S), THE SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES SELECTIVE DEMOLITION & REMOVAL.
2.
RESPONSIBILITIES:a.
GENERAL CONTRACTOR ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR MODIFYING DEMOLITION & REMOVALPROCESS ACCORDING TO ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS PRESENT AT TIME OF WORK ANDACCORDING TO REQUIREMENTS OF ANY AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION.b.
OWNER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTUAL CONDITION OF SITE OR PORTIONS OFSTRUCTURES TO BE DEMOLISHED. VARIATION FROM CONDITIONS AT TIME OF INSPECTIONFOR PRICING MAY OCCUR DUE TO OWNER'S REMOVAL & SALVAGE OPERATIONS AND/ORFOR OTHER REASONS.c.
ARCHITECT & ARCHITECT’S SUBCONSULTANTS ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTUALSITE CONDITIONS FOR ANY REASON AT ANY TIME. ALL SITE CONDITIONS SHALL BE FIELDVERIFIED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND ANY & ALL SUBCONTRACTORS PRIOR TOCOMMENCING WORK. COMMENCEMENT OF WORK SHALL CONSTITUTE ACCEPTANCE OF SITECONDITIONS. ANY CONDITION ALTERING SUCH CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THEATTENTION OF THE OWNER IMMEDIATELY IN WRITING.
3.
PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS & SAFETY:a.
GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR PROJECTSITE CONDITIONS & SAFETY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WORKER SAFETY, SAFETY OFALL PERSONS, SAFETY OF PROPERTY, SHORING, PROTECTION, CLEANING & COMPLIANCEWITH OSHA, CAL-OSHA, & ALL OTHER APPLICABLE SAFETY STANDARDS. REMOVE ALLRUBBISH & WASTE MATERIALS ON A REGULAR BASIS. EXERCISE STRICT CONTROL OVERPROJECT SITE CLEANING TO PREVENT ANY DIRT, DUST, AND/OR DEBRIS FROM AFFECTINGJOBSITE SAFETY, FINISHED WORK, MATERIALS, & AREAS IN OR OUTSIDE THE PROJECT SITE.b.
PROVIDE TEMPORARY BARRICADES, FENCES, SHORING, LIGHTS, BARRIERS, PARTITIONS,CASING OF OPENINGS, CHUTES, CLOSURES AND OTHER PROTECTION.c.
INVESTIGATE & BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS AND REASONABLYFORESEEABLE SITE CONDITIONS WHICH MAY OCCUR DURING THE COURSE OF THE WORK,INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO CONDITIONS CAUSED BY CHANGES IN TIME OF DAY,WEATHER, AND SEASONS.d.
DO NOT BEGIN DEMOLITION OPERATIONS UNTIL OWNER HAS VACATED THE DESIGNATEDPORTIONS OF EXISTING BUILDING, DISCONTINUED THEIR USE, COMPLETED NECESSARYPREPARATORY WORK IN THOSE SPACES, AND PROVIDED WRITTEN PERMISSION TO PROCEED.e.
EXECUTE DEMOLITION TO CAREFULLY MINIMIZE INTERFERENCE WITH EXISTING BUILDING &SITE OPERATIONS, INCONVENIENCE TO OCCUPANTS & THE PUBLIC, DANGER TO PERSONS,AND DAMAGE TO EXISTING MATERIALS TO REMAIN ARE ALL CAREFULLY MINIMIZED.f.
ENSURE SAFE PASSAGE OF PEOPLE AROUND AREA OF DEMOLITION. PREVENT INJURY TOADJACENT FACILITIES, AND TO PEOPLE. ERECT TEMPORARY COVERED PASSAGEWAYS IFREQUIRED BY AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION. PROVIDE SHORING, BRACING OR SUPPORTTO PREVENT MOVEMENT, SETTLEMENT, OR COLLAPSE OF STRUCTURES TO BE DEMOLISHEDAND ADJACENT FACILITIES TO REMAIN.g.
BY USING MEANS PERMISSIBLE & REQUIRED BY AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION,PREVENT DUST FROM BECOMING A NUISANCE OR HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC, TO NEIGHBORS,AND TO OTHER WORK BEING PERFORMED ON OR NEAR THE SITE.
4.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:a.
IN THE EVENT THAT SUSPECTED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING THECOURSE OF INVESTIGATIVE OR DEMOLITION WORK, THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALLINFORM THE OWNER IMMEDIATELY IN WRITING.b.
REMOVAL OF ANY & ALL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SHALL BE DONE BY A LICENSED HAZMATABATEMENT CONTRACTOR PER ALL APPLICABLE CODES & ORDINANCES AND AS REQUIREDBY AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION.c.
REMOVAL OF ANY & ALL ASBESTOS SHALL BE DONE BY A LICENSED ASBESTOSABATEMENT CONTRACTOR PER ALL APPLICABLE CODES & ORDINANCES AND AS REQUIREDBY AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION.d.
REMOVAL OF ANY & ALL LEAD SHALL BE DONE BY A LICENSED LEAD ABATEMENTCONTRACTOR PER ALL APPLICABLE CODES & ORDINANCES AND AS REQUIRED BYAUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION.
5.
PRIOR TO COMMENCING DEMOLITION:a.
GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE PROJECT SITE,EXISTING BUILDING, AND EXISTING SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTINGCONDITIONS. NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY IN WRITING UPON DISCOVERY OF ANYDETRIMENTAL CONDITION OR DISCREPANCY, WHICH MIGHT AFFECT THE EXISTINGCONSTRUCTION, NEW CONSTRUCTION, PROJECT QUALITY, COST, AND/OR SCHEDULE.b.
BY CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, DETERMINE THE LOCATION &EXTENT OF SELECTIVE DEMOLITION TO BE PERFORMED.c.
OBTAIN ANY & ALL REQUIRED APPROVALS & PERMITS FROM ALL AUTHORITIES HAVINGJURISDICTION INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO FEDERAL, STATE, & LOCAL AGENCIES.d.
PRE-DEMOLITION SITE VISIT: IN THE COMPANY OF BOTH THE ARCHITECT & OWNER, VISITTHE SITE & VERIFY THE LOCATIONS OF SELECTIVE DEMOLITION AND ANY CHANGES TOSCOPE OF DEMOLITION. SCHEDULE DEMOLITION SITE VISIT, SEE DESCRIPTION UNDERDEMOLITION BELOW.e.
CAREFULLY MARK THE LIMITS OF SELECTIVE DEMOLITION TO ENABLE WORKMEN TOIDENTIFY ITEMS TO BE PROTECTED & LEFT IN PLACE, ITEMS TO BE SALVAGED, ITEMS TO BEDEMOLISHED, AND ITEMS TO BE REMOVED.f.
PREPARE & FOLLOW AN ORGANIZED PLAN & METHODOLOGY FOR PROTECTION, SALVAGE,DEMOLITION, & REMOVAL OF DEBRIS. PROCEED SYSTEMATICALLY.g.
GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE PROJECT SITE,EXISTING BUILDING, AND EXISTING SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTINGCONDITIONS. NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY IN WRITING UPON DISCOVERY OF ANYDETRIMENTAL CONDITION OR DISCREPANCY, WHICH MIGHT AFFECT THE EXISTINGCONSTRUCTION, NEW CONSTRUCTION, PROJECT QUALITY, COST, AND/OR SCHEDULE.h.
PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, REMOVE (E) HVAC/MECHANICAL, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,FLEXIBLE & RIGID DUCTWORK, SUPPLY & RETURN REGISTERS AND GRILLES, THERMOSTATS,FROM WITHIN (E) WALLS, FLOORS, CEILINGS, AND OTHER ELEMENTS TO BE REMOVED.i.
PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, REMOVE (E) ELECTRICAL, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WIRING,OUTLETS, SWITCHES, AND FIXTURES FROM WITHIN (E) WALLS, FLOORS, CEILINGS, ANDOTHER ELEMENTS TO BE REMOVED.j.
PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, REMOVE PLUMBING, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, SUPPLY,DRAINAGE, VENT, & WASTE PIPING, FIXTURES, AND FITTINGS, FROM WITHIN (E) WALLS,FLOORS, CEILINGS, AND OTHER ELEMENTS TO BE REMOVED.
6.
DISCONNECTION OF SERVICES:a.
PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK, NOTIFY OWNER, UTILITY COMPANIES, AUTHORITIES HAVINGJURISDICTION, THOSE OWNING OR CONTROLLING SERVICES AFFECTED BY DEMOLITION AND/OR CONSTRUCTION, AND THOSE AFFECTED BY UTILITY DISCONNECTION AS APPLICABLE.b.
DISCONNECT & CAP PIPES AND SERVICES AS REQUIRED BY OWNER, UTILITY COMPANY, AND/OR AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION AND AS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE DEMOLITION WORK.
7.
SALVAGE:a.
ITEMS TO BE OFFERED TO OWNER:
BEFORE BEGINNING DEMOLITION, OFFER TO OWNER, FOR OWNER'S USE, EACH MATERIAL,DOOR, WINDOW, FRAME, ACCESSORY, ITEM OF HARDWARE, EQUIPMENT, FURNISHINGS,MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, AND EVERY OTHER MATERIAL, ITEM, COMPONENT,AND PRODUCT TO BE REMOVED. GENERATE A LIST OF ITEMS TO REMAIN OWNER'SPROPERTY PRIOR TO DECLARING SALVAGE. ANY & ALL SUCH MATERIALS & ITEMS REFUSEDBY OWNER SHALL BECOME GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S PROPERTY, SEE NOTE BELOW.b.
OWNER'S PROPERTY:
REMOVED EXISTING ITEMS SO SELECTED BY OWNER, WHETHER REMOVED, TRANSPORTED,AND/OR STORED BY OWNER OR CONTRACTOR, SHALL REMAIN OWNER'S PROPERTY.c.
ITEMS INDICATED TO BE SALVAGED/RETAINED FOR REUSE IN THE WORK:
CAREFULLY REMOVE & PROTECT MATERIALS & ITEMS FOR REUSE. MOVE TO & STORE IN ALOCATION PROVIDED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR & APPROVED BY OWNER. ITEMS MAY BESTORED ON OWNERS PREMISES ONLY IF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN WRITING BY OWNER.d.
ITEMS INDICATED TO BE SALVAGED/RETAINED BY OWNER:
CAREFULLY REMOVE & PROTECT MATERIALS & ITEMS TO REMAIN OWNER'S PROPERTY.MOVE TO & STORE IN A LOCATION PROVIDED & DESIGNATED BY OWNER.e.
CONTRACTOR SALVAGE OPTION:
CONTRACTOR MAY ELECT TO SALVAGE ANY ITEMS NOT OTHERWISE DESIGNATED FOROWNER SALVAGE, REUSE, OR RETENTION. TRANSPORT SALVAGED ITEMS FROM SITE ASTHEY ARE REMOVED.
APN:
397-20-059
LOT SIZE:
66,816 Sq Ft +/-
ZONING:
R-1-40,000
EXISTING SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE TO BE REMOVED
Edge of (E)Conc. Drive inPublic Right ofWay to Remain
SCHEMATIC DEMOLITION SITE PLAN 0'
NORTH
Demo (E)Conc. Drivein PublicRight of Way
32'
(E)ConcreteDriveway
Scale:1/16"=1'-0"
16'03/19/2015(E) SQUARE FOOTAGE TO BE REMOVED
Main Residence:
A:
B:
C:
D:
E:
F:
G:
H:
I:
J:
Main Residence Total:
+ Shed:
+ Garage:
OVERALL TOTAL:
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SITE COVERAGE TO BE REMOVED
Footprint of Home:
(Including Roof Overhang)
Footprint of Garage:
(Including Roof Overhang)
Driveway:
Walkways/Decks/Patio:
Other
Shed (Including Roof Overhang):
Pool:
TOTAL:
Shed
G
I
A
F H
J
E
D
B
C
Temporary Tree ProtectionFencing (See Notes)Planning, Design Review SubmittalIMPERVIOUS SITE COVERAGE ALLOWED:
23,386 Sq Ft @ 35%
F.A.R. ALLOWED (INCLUDING GARAGE):
6,540 Sq Ft 1 Planning, Design Review Resubmittal04/17/2015Print Date: 04/17/2015
580.1 SF
496.8 SF
223.0 SF
256.3 SF
304.3 SF
371.1 SF
90.6 SF
93.3 SF
332.6 SF
170.9 SF
2,919.0 SF
173.6 SF
806.6 SF
3899.2 SF
206
24"6'-0"A-2.2
SITE
PLAN184.00'(N) Conc. PatioFinal Layoutto be Designed
81'-8"±To BuildingSecond Floor52'-2"±To BuildingSecond Floor6",12",14"T
34'-10"±To BuildingFirst Floor6
7
'
-
6
"
±
T
o
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Fi
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
Approximate locationof address numbers,min 4" high and 1/2"Thick, Fire Inspectorto verify
Approx. Location of Windows(For Reference Only)
443.81'
Footprint of(N) Two StoryResidence
Trash
Approx. Location of Windows(For Reference Only)
SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN 0'
NORTH
32'
Scale:1/16"=1'-0"
16'
TEMPORARY TREE PROTECTION FENCING NOTES
1.
TREE PROTECTION ZONE IS THE DISTANCE FROM THE TRUNK TO A POINT THAT IS 5' BEYOND THECANOPY OF A TREE PROTECTED BY CITY CODE. TREE PROTECTION FENCING SHALL BE LOCATED ASCLOSE TO THIS LOCATION AS POSSIBLE WHILE ALLOWING ROOM FOR CONSTRUCTION TO OCCUR.
2.
PROVIDE 6' HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCING MOUNTED ON 8' TALL, 2"Ø GALVANIZED POSTS, DRIVEN 24"INTO THE GROUND & SPACED NO MORE THAN 10' APART.
3.
POST WITH SIGNS SAYING "TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUTAPPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST - KATE BEAR 408 868-1276".
4.
THE CITY REQUIRES THAT TREE PROTECTION FENCING BE INSTALLED BEFORE ANY EQUIPMENTCOMES ON SITE AND INSPECTED BY THE CITY ARBORIST BEFORE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS.
5.
TREE PROTECTION FENCING IS REQUIRED TO REMAIN IN PLACE THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION.
(E) 6' Wood Fenceto be Removed
(N) Light Wellto Below
(N) Conc.WalkwayFinal Layoutto be Designed
SEE SHEET C-1 TOPO SURVEY FOR (E) SITE CONDITIONS DEMO (E) STRUCTURES
VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS & SITE CONDITIONS IN FIELD. NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF DISCREPANCIES
IMMEDIATELY IN WRITING. PREP SITE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION PER GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES
BY JF CONSULTING, PROJECT #1609, DATED 3/4/15
SETBACK VERIFICATION NOTE:
PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION BY THE CITY, THE LLS OF
RECORD SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION THAT ALL
BUILDING SETBACKS ARE PER THE APPROVED PLANS.
STORMWATER RETENTION NOTE:
DISPOSITION AND TREATMENT OF STORMWATER WILL COMPLY
WITH THE NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
("NPDES") STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTATION STANDARDS
ESTABLISHED BY THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY URBAN RUNOFF
POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM.
(E)ConcreteDriveway
9
4
'
-
8
"
±
T
o
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
EDGE OF PAVEMENTCONCRETESheet Title:
Drawn by:
Project:
Scale:
Date:License # C23221RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL ARCHITECTURETERRY J. MARTIN ASSOCIATES, A.I.A.61 East Main Street, Suite DLos Gatos, CA 95030Phone: 408-395-8016Fax: 408-395-5732terry@tma-arch.comDate:RevDescriptionProject 1Adjacent Structure:19980 Bella Vista Ave
Adjacent Structure:20022 Bella Vista Ave
TJ
# 15005
FEB 2015PAI ResidenceCustom Home19990 Bella VistaSaratoga, CA 9507016"T
525 52052052516"T
525
10"T
525
530
53018"T18"T
18"T
30"T
32"T
Demo (E)Garage
12",14"T
32"T
32"T
28",36"T
28"T525 6"T
7"T
6"T
13",16"T
32"T
9"T10"T
6"T
6"T
20",24"T22"T
12"T
6"T
6"T
30"T
14"T
17"T
12"T
6"T
12"T
12",20"T
7"T
10",11",12"T
8"T 6"T
14"T
9"T
8"T
8"T
8"T
50"T
(4)6",9"T
6"T
30"T32"T
6"T
6"T 6"T
6"T
12"T
32"T
14"T
6",12"T
10",28"T
22"T
6"T
24"T
24"T
6"T
12"T
56"T
8",8"T
12"T
8"T
14"T
14"T
12"T28"T24"T
28"T 8",12",14"T
18"T
10"T12"T
(2)6",12"T
14"T6",(2)12"T
28"T
8"T
14"T
24"T
18"T
(2)6"T
De
m
o
(
E
)
She
d EDGE OF PAVEMENT25'-0"Side Yard SetbackSecond FloorB E L L A V I S T A A V E N U E
6
0
'
-
0
"
R
e
a
r
Y
a
r
d
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
30'-0"
Front Yard Setback
1/16"=1'-0"
5
0
'
-
0
"
R
e
a
r
Y
a
r
d
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
Fi
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
20'-0"Side Yard SetbackFirst Floor211.91'
A/CCondenser
311.27'12"T
26"T
EDGE OF PAVEMENTS
A
R
A
T
O
G
A
-
L
O
S
G
A
T
O
S
R
O
A
D
(
S
T
A
T
E
H
W
Y
9
)
11"T
(N) 6' Good Neighbor WoodFence, Final Layout TBD
Adjacent Structure:19950 Bella Vista Ave
Adjacent Structure:20011 Bella Vista Ave
(N)ConcreteDriveway
6",9"T
Dn
(N) CoveredPorch (N)CoveredEntry
24"T
CLUMP
68'-3"±
To Building
(E) OpenSpace
Temporary Tree ProtectionFencing (See Notes)
(E) Spe
e
d
B
u
m
p
(E) Speed
Bump
(N) Conc.WalkwayFinal Layoutto be Designed
(N) Conc.Drive inPublicRight ofWay
APN:
397-20-059
LOT SIZE:
66,816 Sq Ft +/-
ZONING:
R-1-40,000
EXISTING SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE TO BE REMOVED
Temporary Tree ProtectionFencing (See Notes)25'-0"Side Yard SetbackSecond Floor20'-0"Side Yard SetbackFirst FloorProvide Barrier system to filtersurface water prior to leavingsite per City standards(CALGreen Reqmn't)
NEW IMPERVIOUS SITE COVERAGE
Footprint of Home and Garage:
(Including Roof Overhang)
Driveway:
Walkways/Decks/Patio:
TOTAL:
Approx. Locationof Windows(For ReferenceOnly)
Approx. Locationof Windows(For ReferenceOnly)
Approx. Location of Windows(For Reference Only)
Approx. Location of Windows(For Reference Only)
TREE PROTECTION
NOT TO SCALE1 76'-8"±To BuildingFirst FloorFENCE PLACED 5'FROM EDGE OF DRIPLINE
(E) CONCRETE
Demo (E) Singlestory residentialstructure
(N) Conc.WalkwayFinal Layoutto be Designed
6"TTo Be Removed
FutureHot Tub
(N)Centerpiece
DEAD 30"TRemoved byPG&E18'-0"4,974 SF
2,759 SF
1,599 SF
9,332 SF
03/19/2015Planning, Design Review Submittal(E) 6' Wood Fenceto be Removed
(N) 6' Good Neighbor WoodFence, Final Layout TBD
IMPERVIOUS SITE COVERAGE ALLOWED:
23,386 Sq Ft @ 35%
F.A.R. ALLOWED (INCLUDING GARAGE):
6,540 Sq Ft 1 Planning, Design Review Resubmittal04/17/2015Print Date: 04/17/2015
207
10'-0"32'-1 1/2"62'-0"17'-0"45'-0"42'-1 1/2"62'-0"2070 ArchedTempered
Racks
2880License # C23221RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL ARCHITECTUREDate: TERRY J. MARTIN ASSOCIATES, A.I.A.Sheet Title:
Drawn by:
Project:
Scale:
Date:61 East Main Street, Suite DLos Gatos, CA 95030Phone: 408-395-8016Fax: 408-395-5732terry@tma-arch.comRevDescription1Project
1/4"=1'-0"
TJ
# 15005
FEB 2015PAI ResidenceCustom Home19990 Bella VistaSaratoga, CA 95070A-3.1
BASEMENT
LEVEL
FLOOR PLAN
SEE DEMO NOTES & GENERAL NOTES, SHEET A-1, S-1 FOR ADDITIONAL REQMTS
Note: Confirm Extent of Demolition, Removal, and Salvage with Owners prior to commencing work.Field Verify all Dimensions prior to commencing work.Architectural Drawing over ride structural drawings for design intent, All dimensions are to Face of Stud UNO
4'8'0'
Scale:1/4"=1'-0"
NORTHLavmirror20 x 1410' ClgCarpet Flr'g
Racks
towel3-3080 Bi-Pass Half Wall2880Pocket 2880Home Theater
Guest #2Bath
9' ClgTile Flr'g
3050S-Hung
BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
controlsdrainshowerw/temperedgls enclosure
W/C
towelOptionalBasement andRetaining walland sewer pumplocation
30 x 1710' ClgCarpet Flr'g
Stone veneerw/ radius tileroof
Drainface of 9' Soffitface of 9' Soffit3-2020AwningTempered
Drain
3080
Mech Rm
Lav
Pr2880Arched
Pr6080Patio sldrg glass door
3080
Dn 4"
LightWellMirror & Dance BarMech/Storage
W/CPowder9' ClgTile Flr'g
2880
Play Room
16 x 1610' ClgCarpet Flr'g
Exercise Rm
TerracedPlanter
UP
Guest Suite #2
11'-6" x 12'-6"10' ClgCarpet Flr'g
UP
9' Clg
OptionalBasement andRetaining walland sewer pumplocation
A
A6
RefIcebarsinkBarArea
WineCellar
Basement Level
2163 Sq Ft
+ Light Well
471 Sq Ft 03/19/2015Planning, Design Review SubmittalRoof above
A
A6
BA6BA6Planning, Design Review ResubmittalPrint Date: 04/17/2015
04/17/2015208
5'-0"17'-0"45'-0"14'-1"81'-1"81'-1"99'-0"
16'-0"51'-0"32'-0"
93'-0"
6'-0"41'-6"13'-0"27'-6"11'-0"15'-6 1/2"6'-0"14'-6"10'-0"14'-0 1/2"2'-0"19'-0"A
A6 License # C23221RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL ARCHITECTUREDate: TERRY J. MARTIN ASSOCIATES, A.I.A.Sheet Title:
Drawn by:
Project:
Scale:
Date:61 East Main Street, Suite DLos Gatos, CA 95030Phone: 408-395-8016Fax: 408-395-5732terry@tma-arch.comRevDescription1Project
1/4"=1'-0"
TJ
A-3.2
# 15005
FEB 2015PAI ResidenceCustom Home19990 Bella VistaSaratoga, CA 95070Built-inLower cab
Dn7 7/8"max"3050ArchedS-Hung11x 9' Archedopening 3050ArchedS-Hung3050ArchedS-HungDn7 7/8"max"Arched Opening - Typ3080S.C. w/Closer
16080 Sectional Garage doorTempered insert Panels2040ArchedCsmnt
8080 Sectional Garage doorTempered insert Panels
3080Tempered3050ArchedS-Hung
2880Opening
Limestone Wainscot
Dining Room
Arched Opening - Typ3-Car Garage
31 x 2010' +/- ClgSealed Concrete
Control JointControl JointControl Joint7080Bi-fold 3080Tempered+44"
+36"
Kitchen
Dn 1"
Short Wall w/step and hooksabove
Bench/Storage
TeslaChargestation#1
Elevator
10' ClgHardwdFlr'g
Hall
10' ClgTile Flr'g
10' ClgTile Flr'g
Vault
TeslaChargestation#2
Great Room
Slope
Slope
Butler'sPantry
D/W
Desk
Limestone columnsand veneer at LivingRoom Bay, Full Hgt
WarmerBelow
D/W
MicroBelow
14'-6" x 13'-6"10' ClgHardwd Flr'g2880Pocket
Pooja Rm
W/C
Sink w/disposal
Dn 1"
30803080
mirror
Custom ClosetSystem to beselected byowner
2880W/CSlope
towel Grabbar
Walk-inCloset
drainGrab barsshowerw/temperedgls enclosureGuest #1Bath controls9' ClgHeatedTile Flr'g
Lav Lav
Stonecolumns
Laundry
Washerw/pan
9' ClgTile Flr'g
DryerVent toexteriorSinkGuest Suite #1
Pr6080 Patio SldrTempered9' ClgHardwdFlr'g
3050ArchedS-Hung3050ArchedS-Hung21'-6" x16'9'/10' ClgHardwd Flr'g
15 x 2810' ClgStone Flr'g
Slope 2880Barn Sldr21 x 2820'-4" ClgHardwd Flr'g
Control JointSlope
Dn7 3/4"max20080 Slider systemtemperedDn 1"
CoveredPorchColonnade
Limestone Wainscot
3080TemperedArched Opening - TypCoveredPorch
10' ClgStone Flr'g
ConcLanding 3050ArchedS-HungDn 1"
Foyer
MAIN LEVEL
FLOOR PLAN
towel
OptionalBasement andRetaining walland sewer pumplocation
9'-6"+ x 9+Open to AboveTile Flr'g
Mud Room
9' ClgHardwdFlr'g
2880Barn SldrFace of Soffit 10'2880Pocket2'-4"Typ9' ClgHeatedTile Flr'g
Grab bars9'
9' ClgTile Flr'g
Powder
Verify curb-less optionLav 3050ArchedS-HungShrine
2880
2880
16
6
8
9
UP
12
15
7
10
11
13
17
3080DN
18
12' x 14'-6"10' ClgHardwd Flr'g
Home Office
9'
3050ArchedS-Hung
2040ArchedCsmnt
Dn
6050Bow Windoww/S-Hung
Face of balcony above
Light Wellto Below
42" h concbalastrade
Sink
seat
BarrelVault
BarrelVault
48"Range &Ovens
48"Ref/Freezerw/ waterAppliancePantrysink5
4
3
2
1
6090ArchedTempered
OptionalBasement andRetaining walland sewer pumplocation
SEE DEMO NOTES & GENERAL NOTES, SHEET A-1, S-1 FOR ADDITIONAL REQMTS
Note: Confirm Extent of Demolition, Removal, and Salvage with Owners prior to commencing work.Field Verify all Dimensions prior to commencing work.Architectural Drawing over ride structural drawings for design intent, All dimensions are to Face of Stud UNO
4'8'0'
Scale:1/4"=1'-0"
NORTH
MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
Planter Areato Below 2860ArchedCsmnt2860ArchedCsmnt2860ArchedCsmntSunTunnel
GasFirepit
CoveredEntry Porch
10' ClgStone Flr'g
Arched Opening- TypBA6A
A6
BA614' x 12'-0"10' ClgHardwd Flr'g
2640 CsmntVinyl orfiberglstempered
Living Room
+ Light Well
471 Sq Ft
Plus:Master Covered Porch
204 Sq Ft
Suite 3 Covered Porch
63 Sq FtSuite 2 Covered Porch
25 Sq Ft
+ Basement Level
2163 Sq Ft 03/19/2015Planning, Design Review SubmittalSunTunnel
BreakfastNook
10' toFlat ClgTile Flr'g
2880Pocket
Pantry
9' ClgTile Flr'g
2046S-HungArched
2046S-HungArched
Plus:Rear Covered Porch
584 Sq Ft
Entry Covered Porch
109 Sq Ft
Main Level
3826 Sq Ft
(Including Stair & Garage)
Upper Level
2704 Sq Ft
(Including Stair & 2 Story Area)
Total
6530 Sq Ft
(Excluding Basement Area)
14:12Optionalmedicine cabat mirrors
Face of Roof BelowFace of BowWindow aboveHip
1 Planning, Design Review Resubmittal04/17/2015Print Date: 04/17/2015
209