Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-28-2012 Planning Commission PacketTable of Contents Agenda 3 March 14, 2012 Draft Minutes 5 Application MOD11-0002; 13915 Saratoga Creek Drive (386-21- 039); Saratoga Woods Community Association - The applicant is requesting modifications of conditions of approval for an existing Conditional Use Permit allowing the use of a private recreational area by the Saratoga Woods Community Association; Staff Contact: Christopher A. Riordan (408)868- 1235. Staff Report 8 Attachment 1: Resolution 13 Attachment 2: Copy of existing Conditional Use Permit 18 Attachment 3: Articles of Incorporation 23 Attachment 4: Applicant's written request for modification to the existing Conditional Use Permit 30 Attachment 5: Table of Proposed Conditional Use Permit Modifications 32 Attachment 6: Correspondence in support of the application 36 Attachment 7: Correspondence not in support of the application 143 Attachment 8: Public Notice 157 Applications PDR11-0026 & GRE11-0001 & VAR11-0005; 22551 Mount Eden Road (503-13-117); Carl Smit - The applicant is requesting Design Review approval of a proposed 4,179 square foot new two story home and a 442 square foot detached guest house with a grading exception. The applicant is also requesting a Variance for a reduced front yard setback, retaining walls with heights, and placing stuctures on slopes exceeding 40%. Staff Contact: Christopher A. Riordan (408)868 -1235. Staff Report 162 Attachment 1: Resolution 176 Attachment 2: Design Review and Variance Findings 184 Attachment 3: Project Description 187 Attachment 4: Variance request to exceed maximum retaining wall height 188 Attachment 5: GreenPoint Rated Checklist 189 Attachment 6: Arborist Report 201 Attachment 7: Neighbor Notification Forms.209 Attachment 8: Public hearing notice and copy of mailing labels 218 Attachment 9: Site Photos 219 Attachment 10: Reduced Plans (Exhibit A)224 1 Application PDR 09-0019; 14190 Palomino Way (503-68-002); Michael Oveyssi / William Ambrose - The applicant is requesting design review approval to build a new 5,830 square foot residence on a two-acre vacant lot. The new residence would include a basement and attached garage. The project requires a grading exception permit due to excavation required to maintain a slope at or below 18% on the shared driveway. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230. Staff Report 246 Resolution 252 Attachment 2 - Neighbor Forms 256 Attachment 3 - Notice 264 Attachment 4 - Arborist 265 Attachment 5 - Geo Clearance 277 Attachment 6 - Build it Green 279 Plans - Exhibit A 284 Color Board 298 Application PDR11-0030; 14760 Live Oak Lane (397-18-069); Rivers / Kellond Architects - The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to replace an existing 3,515 sq. ft. single-story, single-family residence with a new 5,805 sq. ft. two-story, single -family residence. The site is approximately 44,000 sq. ft. and is located within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212. Staff Report - 14760 Live Oak Lane 300 Att. 1 - E-mail requesting continuance 301 Application ZOA12-0002; City of Saratoga. The proposed zoning ordinance amendment would update the definition of impervious surface and provide a consistent review process for considering site coverage exemptions for driveways and related emergency vehicle turnarounds. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230. staff report 302 Resolution 306 Proposed Amendments 308 1998 Ordinance 309 1998 staff report 311 1998 minutes 313 Measure G text 314 1999 Memo to City Council re: interpretation and implementation of Measure G 322 Correspondence from resident 334 2012 Planning Commission Summer Recess Staff Report - PC Summer Recess 2012 337 2 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, March 28, 2012 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 March 14, 2012 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. Oral Communications – 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, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). PUBLIC HEARING All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants 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. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. Application MOD11-0002; 13915 Saratoga Creek Drive (386-21-039); Saratoga Woods Community Association - The applicant is requesting modifications of conditions of approval for an existing Conditional Use Permit allowing the use of a private recreational area by the Saratoga Woods Community Association; Staff Contact: Christopher A. Riordan (408)868-1235. Recommended action: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution modifying the conditions of approval. 2. Applications PDR11-0026 & GRE11-0001 & VAR11-0005; 22551 Mount Eden Road (503-13-117); Carl Smit - The applicant is requesting Design Review approval of a proposed 4,179 square foot new two story home and a 442 square foot detached guest house with a grading exception. The applicant is also requesting a Variance for a reduced front yard setback, retaining walls with heights, and placing structures on slopes exceeding 40%. Staff Contact: Christopher A. Riordan (408)868-1235. 3 Recommended action: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 12-001 approving Design Review PDR11-00026, Grading Exception GRE11-001, and Variance VAR11-0005 subject to conditions of approval. 3. Application PDR 09-0019; 14190 Palomino Way (503-68-002); Michael Oveyssi / William Ambrose - The applicant is requesting design review approval to build a new 5,830 square foot residence on a two-acre vacant lot. The new residence would include a basement and attached garage. The project requires a grading exception permit due to excavation required to maintain a slope at or below 18% on the shared driveway. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230. Recommended action: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution approving the project with conditions. 4. Application PDR11-0030; 14760 Live Oak Lane (397-18-069); Rivers / Kellond Architects - The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to replace an existing 3,515 sq. ft. single-story, single-family residence with a new 5,805 sq. ft. two-story, single-family residence. The site is approximately 44,000 sq. ft. and is located within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212. Recommended action: Continue to May 9, 2012. 5. Application ZOA12-0002; City of Saratoga. The proposed zoning ordinance amendment would update the definition of impervious surface and provide a consistent review process for considering site coverage exemptions for driveways and related emergency vehicle turnarounds. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230. Recommended action: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 12-011 recommending the City Council adopt the Ordinance amending City Code Sections 15-06.370, 15-11.080, 15-13.080, and 15- 20.080. NEW BUSINESS 1. 2012 Planning Commission Summer Recess Recommended action: Approve the cancellation of the August 8th, 2012 meeting for summer recess. DIRECTOR/COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ADJOURNMENT TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, April 25, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). 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 Subject will go here at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us. You can also sign up to receive email notifications when Commission agendas and minutes have been added to the City at website http://www.saratoga.ca.us/contact/email_subscriptions.asp. NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us 4 ACTION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, March 14, 2012 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 February 22, 2012 (Approved, 5:0:2(Robertson & Reis-abstain)) 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. Oral Communications – 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, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). PUBLIC HEARING All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants 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. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. Application PDR 11-0021; 14422 Big Basin Way (517-09-017) MBA Architects & Klear - The applicant is requesting approval of a Design Review application to construct a 3,994 square foot, 35-feet tall three story office building located at 14422 Big Basin Way behind the Mint Leaf Restaurant. The existing two story single family home will be removed. The existing driveway/alley would be remodeled into a landscape courtyard to include an outdoor dining area for the Mint Leaf Restaurant. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408)868-1235 (Approved as amended with a change to the conditions: Section 2. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans dated February 27, 2012 denominated Exhibit "A" except that the faux window on the side of the building facing Saratoga-Los Gatos Road shall be made of glass and not tile. 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. 6:1(Zhao)) 5 2. Application PDR 10-0021 & SUB 11-0003 & CUP 12-0001; 14651 Big Basin Way (503-25-015); John and Sue Kang / Tom Sloan - The applicant is requesting approval to replace an existing 2,430 square foot building with a new 11,557 square foot mixed-use building. The new building would include three residential condominium units, one apartment unit, 1,246 square feet of retail space, and a 7,090 square foot basement parking garage. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230. (Continued to April 25, 2012 meeting, 6:0:1(Hlava- recuse)) 3. Application ZOA 11-0004; City of Saratoga - . The proposed changes to City Code Article 15-30 (Sign Ordinance) (1) eliminate direct references to content in conformance with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; (2) generally keep or increase the standards for sign size, design, placement, lighting, materials, and type of sign structures; and (3) include the creation of sign districts. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230. (Approved as amended with changes to the ordinance, 7:0) • Delete the words “and banners erected on light poles by a governmental entity” at the end of 15-30.050(e) • Change the standard for ‘Temporary On-Site Signs on Lots in any Sign District’ from 4 SF in area and 3 feet in height to “6 SF in area and 4 feet in height” • Change the beginning of 15-30.160 from “Describe how” to “Description of how” • Change the requirement to bring a ‘legal non-conforming sign’ in conformity by deleting ‘or other land use entitlement’ and amending the language as follows: “A conditional use permit for a new use, or design review pursuant to City Code Section 15-46.060, is required for the property on which the ‘legal nonconforming sign’ is located.” • Add the following language for clarification of non-conforming signs: “Temporary signs and window signs are not considered permanent legal non-conforming signs for the purposes of this Article” 4. Application PDR 08-0029 & VAR08-0001; 21216 Bank Mill Road 503-55-005); Sharma / Nielsen Architects - Per City Code Section 15.45.060 (a)(1), the applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new two-story, single-family residence with a basement. The total floor area (not including the 1,413 sq. ft. of basement not included) would be 4,178 sq. ft. Per City Code 15.12.061 (a), the applicant requests a variance to locate the building footprint underneath the dwelling unit that exceeds thirty percent slope. Eight trees are requested for removal to construct the project. Those trees have met the criteria for removal, and may be removed and replaced once Building Division permits have been issued for the project. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408)868-1212. (Approved as amended with a change to the conditions: Staff to investigate additional screening for adjoining neighboring properties, as deemed necessary, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department, 7:0) NEW BUSINESS DIRECTOR/COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ADJOURNMENT TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, March 28, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF AGENDA 6 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 March 8, 2012 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 7 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: March 28, 2012 Application: Conditional Use Permit Modification MOD11-0002 Location / APN: 13915 Saratoga Creek Drive / 386-21-039 Owner / Applicant: Saratoga Woods Community Association Staff Planner: Christopher A. Riordan, AICP 12341 Saratoga Creek Drive 8 SUMMARY ZONING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION R-1-10,000 M-10 (Medium Density Residential) PARCEL SIZE AVERAGE SLOPE 37,053 square feet LEVEL SITE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting modification of conditions of approval for an existing Conditional Use Permit allowing the use of a private recreational area by the Saratoga Woods Community Association located at 12341 Saratoga Creek Drive. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution modifying the conditions of approval. Page 2 of 5 9 Application No., MOD11-0002 / 12341 Saratoga Creek Drive PROJECT DETAILS: This project is subject to Zoning Code Section 15-12.030(b) which allows Community Facilities in the R-1 district upon the granting of a conditional use permit. Background On April 28, 1958, the Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (# V-73- 1) for the Westview Subdivision “Non-Profit Recreation Area” (which includes a pool, recreation room, pool house, and outdoor lawn areas) located at 12341 Saratoga Woods Drive. A copy of this use permit is included as Attachment #2. In subsequent revisions to the City Code the definition of “Non-Profit Recreation Area” was incorporated into the current definition of “Community Facility”. A community facility remains a conditional use in all R-1 Single Family Residential Districts. Saratoga City Code Section 15-06.160 defines community facility as “a place, structure, area or other facility used for and providing fraternal, social or recreational programs or activities generally open to the public. The definition includes parks, swimming pools, recreational courts, community centers, libraries, museums, and golf courses”. The recreation area subject to this CUP is herein referred to as the Pool Facility. Existing Conditional Use Permit The existing CUP has eleven conditions of approval that cover operating parameters such as hours of operation, membership caps, and parking (refer to Attachment #2). The CUP has not been modified over the 54 years the Saratoga Woods Community Association has been operating the Pool Facility. Proposed CUP Modifications The Association is requesting modifications to the CUP conditions to reflect the manner in which the Pool Facility is operated. The Association has prepared a table that lists each condition from the existing 1958 CUP and the requested modifications to the conditions. This table is included as Attachment #5. Other modifications to the CUP, as discussed in the following paragraphs, are being proposed to address some of the concerns of the adjacent neighbors. Neighbor Correspondence Staff has received numerous emails and letters in support of the Saratoga Woods Community Association’s request to modify their existing CUP. Copies of this correspondence are included as Attachment #6. The adjacent neighbor to the south has had extensive conversations and numerous meetings with Board Members of the Saratoga Woods Community Association and City staff concerning the current operations of the Pool Facility and the proposed changes to the CUP. This neighbor has expressed concerns primarily over the noise from activities that take place outside the current CUP operating hours (7:00 A.M. to one hour after sunset) and the number of Pool Facility members living outside the boundaries of the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood. Staff has also received correspondence from additional neighbors who live across the street from the Pool Facility and on the opposite side of Saratoga Creek expressing their Page 3 of 5 10 Application No., MOD11-0002 / 12341 Saratoga Creek Drive concerns with the noise and parking impacts related to events at the Pool Facility. Copies of these emails are included as Attachment #7. Some of the proposed modifications to the CUP as listed below are the Association’s response to address the neighbors concerns: • Limiting to 35 the number of memberships that can held by persons living beyond the original boundaries of the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood. • Proposing separate operating hours for outdoor uses involving the pool/grounds and indoor uses of the clubhouse. • Agreeing to notify adjacent neighbors 30 days in advance of all outside events to be held outside the clubhouse that would extend beyond 10:00 P.M. and ending at 12:00 A.M. (including one overnight event). • The planting of a hedge along the southern property line to provide a physical separation and noise/light buffer for the adjacent neighbor. • Controls on reducing the glare from security lighting. • Designating an Association board member as a contact to address any concerns related to the operations of the facility. Staff has contacted these neighbors to inform them of both the current status of the conditional use permit for the Pool Facility and the date and time of the Planning Commission meeting. Conditional Use Permit Findings The application is consistent with all the following Conditional Use Permit findings stated in Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-55.040: (a) The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located. The project meets this finding in that the Pool Facility of the Saratoga Woods Community Association is appropriately located to provide a neighborhood recreational amenity to the residents and guests of the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood. (b) The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed modifications to the existing Conditional Use Permit meet this finding in that the Pool Facility of the Saratoga Woods Community Association has been in operation since April 1958 and the City has no record until recently of negative impacts related to noise and parking; the applicant is aware of the neighbors recent concerns and has agreed to conditions on the Conditional Use Permit that would minimize potential impacts. (c) The proposed establishment will comply with all applicable provisions of the Saratoga City Code. The proposed modifications to the existing Conditional Use Permit for the Pool Facility of the Saratoga Woods Community Association meets this finding in that as conditioned the Conditional Use Permit will include conditions that will include measures to reduce adverse impacts on adjacent neighbors and will comply with all applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. Page 4 of 5 11 Application No., MOD11-0002 / 12341 Saratoga Creek Drive Page 5 of 5 (d) The proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. The proposed modifications to the existing Conditional Use Permit for the Pool Facility of the Saratoga Woods Community Association meet this finding in that conditions have been placed on the project to reduce the potential adverse affects of noise and parking impacts on surrounding properties. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed modification to an existing Conditional Use Permit is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 15061(b)(3). CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed the Association’s application and their requested modifications to their existing CUP and is recommending approval with the following changes to the operating hours: • On an annual basis, between April 1 and October 15, eight exceptions to 12:00 A.M. 11:00 P.M. and one overnight campout would be allowed; provided that the Association notifies (such notification by any reasonable means including email) the adjoining residences all properties within 150 feet specifying dates and times of such events at least 30 calendar days in advance. • Indoor Use Hours of Operation Between April 1 and October 15 6:30 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. Sunday 6:30 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Monday – Thursday 6:30 A.M. to 12:00 A.M. 11:00 P.M. Friday – Saturday Between October 16 and March 31 8:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Sunday 10:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Monday – Thursday 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 A.M. 11:00 P.M. Friday – Saturday ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of approval for Conditional Use Permit. 2. Copy of existing Conditional Use Permit. 3. Articles of Incorporation. 4. Applicant’s written request for modification to the existing Conditional Use Permit 5. Table of Proposed Conditional Use Permit Modifications (prepared by applicant). 6. Correspondence in support of the application. 7. Correspondence not in support of the application 8. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 12 RESOLUTION NO: 12-010 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING MODIFICATIONS TO AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SARATOGA WOODS COMMUNITY ASSOCATION LOCATED AT 13915 SARATGOA CREEK DRIVE WHEREAS, on July 14, 2011, an application was submitted by the Saratoga Woods Community Association requesting Conditional Use Permit Modification for an existing Community Facility including pool, grounds, and clubhouse located at 13915 Saratoga Creek Drive. The site is located in the R-1-10,000 Zoning District (APN 386-21-039). 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 March 28, 2012, 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. 15061(b)(3). , CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use Element Policy LU 1.1 which states that the City shall continue to be predominately a community of single-family detached homes; and Noise Element Policy 2.0 which provides the promotion and preservation of land uses which are compatible with each other and with a minimal noise environment. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the Conditional Use Permit findings can be made in that the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located; the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; the proposed establishment will comply with all applicable provisions of the Saratoga City Code; and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. 13 Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves MOD11-0002 of Conditional Use Permit V-73-1 for the Saratoga Woods Community Association located at 12341 Saratoga Creek Drive, subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 28th day of March 2012 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Tina K. Walia Chair, Planning Commission 14 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MOD11-0002 CUP #V-73-1 12341 Saratoga Creek Drive (APN 386-21-039) A. GENERAL 1. Conditions may be modified only by the Planning Commission unless modification is expressly otherwise allowed by the City Code including but not limited to Sections 15-80.120 and/or 16- 05.035, as applicable. 2. The City shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice in writing, on or after the time the Resolution granting this Approval is duly executed containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). THIS APPROVAL OR PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE SIXTY (60) DAYS AFTER THE DATE SAID NOTICE IS MAILED IF ALL PROCESSING FEES CONTAINED IN THE NOTICE HAVE NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL. 3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference. 4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, or alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, 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 5. Membership. The Saratoga Woods Community Association shall not exceed 200 memberships in total, and in no event shall more than 35 of such memberships be held by owners or residents residing outside of the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood defined as the area between Saratoga Avenue, Cox Avenue, Saratoga Creek, and Lawrence Expressway 15 6. Swimming Instructions. Swimming instructions for which a fee may be charged may be given by a person or persons engaged and approved by the Corporation to children under twelve (12) years of age, but the number of such children under instruction at any time shall not exceed 75. The children under instruction need not be residents of Westview subdivision. Other activities such as a Nursery School for which a fee is charged may be approved by the Planning Commission under conditions to be established when proposed and approved. 7. Hours of Operation. Outdoor Use Between April 1 and October 15 6:30 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Sunday through Saturday Between October 16 and March 31 9:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. Sunday 10:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. Monday – Thursday 8:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. Friday – Saturday Indoor Use Between April 1 and October 15 6:30 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. Sunday 6:30 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Monday – Thursday 6:30 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. Friday – Saturday Between October 16 and March 31 8:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Sunday 10:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Monday – Thursday 8:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. Friday – Saturday 8. Outdoor Special Events. On an annual basis, between April 1 and October 15, eight exceptions to 11:00 P.M. and one overnight campout would be allowed; provided that the Association notifies (such notification by any reasonable means including email) all properties within 150 feet specifying dates and times of such events at least 30 calendar days in advance. 9. Maintenance: Incidental maintenance of the facility, such as the removal or placement of pool covers and clean up, shall occur no earlier than 30 minutes prior to and after the hours of operation. 10. Parking. The Association shall provide for 24 off-street parking spaces and bicycle parking. Safe ingress and egress shall be provided to all activities. 11. Lighting. Lighting shall be screened or positioned so that the bulbs are not visible from adjacent residential properties during hours of operation and no lighting shall be on during closed hours except security lighting. Security lighting shall be screened or positioned so that the bulbs are not visible from adjacent residential properties. 12. Fencing and Landscaping. The entire recreation area shall be fenced in such a manner as to prohibit unauthorized access thereto. A hedge shall be planted to the satisfaction of the City Arborist along the common property line with 12371 Saratoga Creek Drive. 13. Rules and Regulations. The Association shall adopt rules and regulations for its operation including but not restricted to those essential for operation and control of swimming pool 16 general activities, safety, health, guests and noise. These rules and regulations shall require that the Saratoga Woods Community Association designate a person (or persons) to be a public contact for all issues related to the operation of the pool facility. 14. Modifications. All plans and layouts for any modification or addition to the Saratoga Woods Community Association’s premises shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. 15. Jurisdiction. The Planning Commission retains continuing jurisdiction to impose such additional regulations and restrictions concerning the use of the facilities as may be necessary to prevent unreasonable interference with the quiet enjoyment of other property in the area. 16. Uses. All uses associated with the Saratoga Wood Community Association may include: • Recreational swimming • Swim team practice • Up to 4 Swim meets per year (which may include participant and spectators from outside of the Association) • Social gatherings of the members and/or guests (e.g., picnics, BBQs, happy hours) • Meetings of the members and guests • Parties (e.g., swim parties, birthday parties, graduation parties) 17. The use of amplified sound and other noise making equipment including swim meet starting systems shall be permitted during operating hours, but shall not be used before 8:00 A.M. All emitted noise shall comply with Saratoga City Code Article 7-30 (Noise Control). 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29   Saratoga Woods Community Association  12341 Saratoga Creek Drive ‧ Saratoga, CA 95070      March 20, 2012      City of Saratoga  13777 Fruitvale Avenue   Saratoga, CA 95070    Re: Modification of the Saratoga Woods Community Association’s Conditional Use  Permit    Dear Saratoga City Planning Commission and Planners:      Please let this correspondence serve as Saratoga Woods Community  Association’s (or “club”) cover letter for its use permit modification request.       The original use permit was granted at the outset of the club in 1958 and has  since never been updated or modified.  Our modification request reflects the club’s  consistent operations over the last 54 years and our desire to be a good neighbor.  In  preparing our proposal, we have listened to city representatives and Mr. Olcott, the only  neighbor to have come forward in the process to raise concerns about the club’s  operations, and have added a number of restrictions/requirements not previously in the  use permit in an effort to be a better neighbor, such as predictable hours of operation,  shades on our lighting, gate modifications (for quieter operation), a hedge or other  buffer between our property and Mr. Olcott’s, and a contact telephone number for  neighbors and/or city representatives to reach a responsible individual at all times.     We are proposing to add hours of operation for inside our clubhouse use even  though the other clubs in Saratoga have no restrictions for their clubhouse uses.  Again,  this is an effort to be a good neighbor and try to be predictable and make the permit  enforceable.     The modification request reflects, as with all swim focused clubs, many of our  activities are outdoors in the summer months and revolve around the pool.  We are  seeking limited exceptions to our proposed normal operating hours for those few events  which occur outside of those times in order that neighbors feel comfortable that the  club does not intend to change its past operating history.     30 City of Saratoga  Saratoga Woods Community Association  March 20, 2012   With respect to membership, the club currently operates with approximately  165 memberships, 35 of which are held by members outside of the Saratoga Woods  neighborhood.  As was one of the significant considerations in granting the original use  permit, allowing 35 outside members helps to assure the economic viability of the club,  which could not continue to operate without the additional revenue.  The bylaws  specifically restrict the number of outside members at 35 and has been in effect for  more than 10 years.     Please note, that implementing the proposed modifications would not expand  any of the club’s operations, but would only mirror or limit the club’s activities from the  last 54 years.  We appreciate your attention to the foregoing request and look forward  to working towards a successful conclusion.    Sincerely,      Greg Dean  President, Saratoga Woods Community Association, Board of Directors                  31 1    PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO RESOLUTION V‐73‐1  Use Permit for a non‐profit recreation area in the Westview Tract (Dated 28 April 1958)  PURPOSE:  The purpose of this proposed modification is to make the terms and conditions of the conditional  use permit for the Saratoga Woods Community Association’s (fka the Westview Community Non‐Profit  Recreation Activity Center, the “Association”) premises (including all associated structures, facilities and  fixtures) located at 12341 Saratoga Creek Drive, Saratoga, CA 95070 consistent with the past and current use  of such premises and benefit the membership of the Association and the residents of the Westview subdivision  and the broader Saratoga Woods neighborhood (i.e., the neighborhood bordered by Saratoga Avenue on the  east, Cox Avenue on the south, Saratoga Creek on the west, and Prospect High School and Lawrence  Expressway on the north).   Paragraph  Reference  Original Use Permit (UP‐37) Proposed Modifications  Paragraph a.    The Association established to  operate and control the Westview  Community Non‐Profit Recreation  Activity [Center] shall be organized as  a Non‐Profit Corporation in  accordance with the applicable laws  of the State of California. A copy of  the legal documents setting up this  corporation shall be submitted with  application for Use Permit and the  Use Permit when granted shall not be  effective until the corporation exists  legally.    NONE  Paragraph b.   MEMBERSHIP  The membership of this Association  shall not be in excess of 200 and shall  be owners of property or residents of  Westview subdivision except that  following incorporation and for a  period of two years thereafter there  may be temporary members not  owners or residents but the total  number of members either owner,  resident, or temporary shall not  exceed 200 at any time.     The Association shall not exceed 200  memberships in total, and in no event shall more  than 35 of such memberships be held by owners  or residents residing outside of the Saratoga  Woods neighborhood (described above).    Paragraph c.  SWIMMING  INSTRUCTIONS    Swimming instructions for which a  fee may be charged may be given by  a person or persons engaged and  approved by the Corporation to  children under twelve 12 years of  age, but the number of such children  under instruction at any time shall  not exceed 75.  The children under  NONE  32 2    instruction need not be residents of  Westview subdivision.  Other  activities such as a Nursery School for  which a fee is charged may be  approved by the Planning  Commission under conditions to be  established when proposed and  approved.    Paragraph d.   PRIMARY HOURS  OF OPERATION 1 :  7:00 A.M. to 1 hour after sunset. FOR OUTDOOR USES:    • Between April 1 and October 15:   Everyday:6:30AM to 10:00PM 2    • Between October 16 and March 31:  Sunday:  9:00AM to 9:00PM  Monday–Thursday: 10:00AM to 9:00PM  Friday – Saturday: 8:00 AM to 900PM    FOR INDOOR USES 3 :    • Between April 1 and October 15:  Sunday: 6:30AM to 11:00PM  Monday–Thursday:6:30AM to 10:00PM  Friday – Saturday: 6:30AM to 12:00AM    • Between October 16 and March 31:  Sunday: 8:00AM to 10:00PM  Monday–Thursday: 10:00AM to 10:00PM Friday – Saturday: 8:00AM to 12:00AM    Paragraph e.   PARKING  Adequate automobile and bicycle  parking as approved by the Planning  Commission shall be provided.  Safe  ingress and egress shall be provided  to this activity. All parking shall be off  street.  The Association shall provide for 24 off‐street  parking spaces and bicycle parking.  Safe ingress  and egress shall be provided to all activities.  Paragraph f.   LIGHTING  Adequate lighting as approved by the  Planning Commission shall be  provided.  Lighting shall be screened or positioned so that  the bulbs are not visible from adjacent  residential properties during hours of operation  and no lighting shall be on during closed hours  except security lighting. Security lighting shall be  screened or positioned so that the bulbs are not                                                               1 30 minutes of setup, cleanup/tear down and maintenance before or after the hours of operation shall be allowed.  2 On an annual basis, 8 special events held on Friday or Saturday and ending by 12:00AM and one overnight campout shall  be allowed; provided the Association notifies (such notification by any reasonable means including email) the adjoining  residences specifying date and times of such events at least 30 calendar days in advance.  3 “Indoor uses” means activities within the clubhouse and includes use of outdoor cooking equipment and ingress and  egress to the clubhouse during such activities.  33 3    visible from adjacent residential properties.  Paragraph g.   FENCING  The entire recreation area shall be  fenced in such a manner as to  prohibit unauthorized access thereto.  The entire recreation area shall be fenced in such  a manner as to prohibit unauthorized access  thereto.  [In addition, the Association agrees to  plant within 3 months of the approval of this  conditional use permit a hedge on the south end  of the premises and thereafter maintain such  hedge.  NOTE:  the foregoing is subject to review  and approval by the city’s arborist.]  Paragraph h.   The corporation shall adopt rules and  regulations for its operation including  but not restricted to those essential  for operation and control of  swimming pool general activities,  safety, health, guests and noise.  The  rules and regulations shall be  submitted with application.  The Association shall adopt rules and regulations  for its operation including but not restricted to  those essential for operation and control of  swimming pool, general activities, safety, health,  guests and noise.  The rules and regulations shall  be submitted with application.    In addition, such rules and regulations shall  require that the Association designate a contact  number that the City and adjoining neighbors  can use to address issues at the premises.  Paragraph i.  ARCHITECTURAL  AND SITE  CONTROL  All plans and layouts shall be  submitted to the Planning  Commission for approval  All plans and layouts for any modification or  addition to the Saratoga Woods Community  Association’s premises shall be submitted to the  Planning Commission for approval.  Paragraph j.  REVIEW  There shall be an automatic review of  the Use Permit 18 months from date  of its issuance but the corporation or  Planning Commission may request  such a review at an earlier date.  Use  Permit shall be terminated in 18  months if not being exercised.  TO BE DELETED  Paragraph k. The Planning Commission retains  continuing jurisdiction to impose such  additional regulations and restrictions  concerning the use of the facilities as  may be necessary to prevent  unreasonable interference with the  quiet enjoyment of other property in  the area.  NONE  New Paragraph l: NA l.  In addition to the uses specified above, the  uses of the Association premises (including all  associated structures, facilities and fixtures)  located at 12341 Saratoga Creek Drive may  include:  • Swimming and diving  • Swim team practices  • Up to 4 swim meets per year (which may  include participants and spectators from  outside of the Association)  34 4    • Social gatherings of the members and/or  guests (e.g., picnics, BBQs, happy hours)  • Meetings of the members and guests  • Parties (e.g., swim parties, birthday  parties, graduation parties)    The use of amplified sound and other noise  making equipment including swim meet starting  systems shall be permitted during operating  hours, but shall not be used before 8:00AM.    For clarity, except with respect to the proposed modifications, the existing permit would remain in effect.  35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: PDR11-0026, GRE11-0001, and VAR11-0005 - 22551 Mount Eden Road Type of Application: Design Review application for a proposed 4,179 square foot new two story home and a 442 square foot detached guest house; Variance requests for the project to have a reduced front yard setback, retaining walls with heights in excess of five feet and greater than three feet in the front setback, and to be constructed on slopes exceeding 40% under the building footprint; and a Grading Exception to exceed 1,000 cubic yards of grading. Applicant/Owner: Carl Smit Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan, AICP, Senior Planner Meeting Date: March 28, 2012 APN: 503-13-117 22551 MOUNT EDEN ROAD 162 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ZONING: HR (Hillside Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RHC (Hillside Conservation) MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: Net: 1.42 acres / 61,855 square feet AVERAGE SLOPE: 31% GRADING REQUIRED: 1,662 cubic yards of cut and 192 cubic yards of fill (total of 1,814 cubic yards). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review, Variance and Grading Exception approval to construct a proposed 4,179 square foot, two story single-family dwelling, a 442 square foot detached accessory building, a swimming pool, and related site landscaping. The vacant 1.42 acre (net) project site has an average slope of 31%. The site drops 80 feet in elevation from north to south. Oaks, eucalyptus, and fruit trees are located on the lower portion of the site. Variances are requested from the regulations contained in the Zoning Regulations of the City Code. These include requests to reduce the width of the required front setback, to construct retaining walls with heights in excess of five feet and greater than three feet in the front setback, and to locate structures on slopes exceeding 40 percent under a building footprint. The project would include 1,854 cubic yards of grading (combined cut and fill). The project includes a request for a Grading Exception to exceed 1,000 cubic yards of grading in the HR zoning district. The City Arborist inventoried 35 trees protected by City ordinance with the potential of being impacted by construction. Four of these trees are in conflict with the project and meet the arborist’s criteria for removal and replacement. Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060; Variance approval pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-70.020; and Grading Exception approval pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-13.050(f). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 12-001 approving Design Review PDR11-00026, Grading Exception GRE11-001, and Variance VAR11-0005 subject to conditions of approval. Page 2 of 14 163 Application No. PDR11-0026, GRE11-0001, and VAR11-0005 / 22551 Mount Eden Road STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT DISCUSSION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS The 1.42 acre (net) project site has an average slope of 31%. The site topography is characterized by steep southwest facing slopes. Previous grading activities of an unknown origin have resulted in a relatively level pad near the northern side of the property. Single family homes are located on adjacent parcels. The site is located in an area of abundant landslides, according to the City’s Geotechnical Engineer, and relatively large inactive landslides dominate its southwestern portion. These landslides are part of a larger series of landslides directly to the west. A 25 foot wide “landslide setback” from the edge of the landslide areas was defined by the applicants Geotechnical Engineer with agreement by City’s Public Works Department. This “landslide setback” is depicted on the Site Plan (Attachment # 9). No buildings can be constructed to the south of this setback line. These landslides restrain the area of development to the northern one-third (24,742 square feet) of the site thereby leaving the remainder as undevelopable. The average slope of this developable area is 31% with maximum slopes of 50%. The site does not have street frontage on Mount Eden Road. Access is provided from Mount Eden Road by an existing right-of-way easement that passes through the southeastern corner of 22530 Mount Eden Road and the southwest corner of 22188 Villa Oaks Lane. Surrounding properties include a vacant 29.28 acre parcel to the east which previously received tentative map approval for a five lot subdivision (the Ho Subdivision); the tentative map expired in October 2009. To the south is a single-family home located on a .98 parcel. Mount Eden Road is located to the West and the subject property. A single-family home on a 2.54 acre parcel is located to the north. Background October 24, 2001 On October 24, 2001 the Planning Commission (Commission) approved a project for the subject site for a former property owner. That project included a 4,326 square foot two story single-family residence, a 504 square feet detached garage, and a 1,260 square foot basement and with a variance to build on a slope in excess of 30 percent under the building footprint and a Conditional Use Permit to construct an accessory structure in excess of 12 feet in height. The project included 853 cubic yards of grading. A building permit or grading permit was never issued and all entitlements have expired. February 8, 2012 On February 8, 2012 the Commission reviewed the proposed project. The Commission discussed the project, provided project related comments to the applicant, and continued the Public Hearing to the meeting of March 28, 2012 to allow sufficient time for the applicant to apply for a Variance for the retaining walls to exceed the maximum allowable height. The Commission requested that the applicant provide additional information concerning the appearance of the retaining walls and details of the proposed vegetative screening; Page 3 of 14 164 Application No. PDR11-0026, GRE11-0001, and VAR11-0005 / 22551 Mount Eden Road especially the appearance of the retaining wall for the driveway and auto court as viewed by the adjacent neighbor to the south. The applicant has submitted revised project plans. Included in the plans are the following modifications: • The proposed spa has been moved out of the setback on the eastern side of the property. • The total grading quantity has been reduced from 1,914 cubic yards to 1,854 cubic yards; a 60 cubic yard reduction. • Vegetative screening for the western side of the driveway retaining wall is depicted on the landscape plan (Sheet L1.02). Climbing Fig, which is an evergreen vine, is proposed to be planted along the entire length of the wall. Additional screening plants would include Ginko and Oak trees as well as Manzanita, Ceanothus, and Toyon shrubs. • Two artist renderings depicting the proposed landscaping and retaining walls have been included in the plan set (L1.05 – 06). - L1.05 illustrates the view of the retaining wall and steps on the north side of the auto court near the front property line. - L1.06 depicts the view of the driveway retaining wall, guest house, residence, and landscape screening as viewed from the adjacent neighbor to the west. • Two drawings detailing the height of the retaining walls (L1.04 & L1.07). - L1.04 provides detail of the proposed heights of the retaining walls. - L1.07 illustrates the view of the retaining wall at the western edge of the auto court without landscaping. The purpose of this drawing is to illustrate the wall without landscaping and to illustrate the range of wall heights. Proposed Project and Architectural Style The project architect has prepared a written narrative of the projects design which details the applicant’s desire to integrate the project into the site and the surroundings. A copy of this project description is included as Attachment #3. PROJECT DATA: HR Zoning Net Site Area: 1.42 acres Existing/Proposed Allowable/Required Proposed Site Coverage Main House: Guest House: Driveway/Autocourt: Hardscape/Walkways/Decks: Pool Total Proposed Site Coverage 2,868 SF 442 SF 2,220 SF 1,573 SF 416 SF 7,519 SF (12.2%) 15,000 SF Page 4 of 14 165 Application No. PDR11-0026, GRE11-0001, and VAR11-0005 / 22551 Mount Eden Road Floor Area Residence First Floor: Second Floor: Guest House: Basement/Garage: Total Proposed Floor Area 2,824 SF 874 SF 442 SF 481 SF 4,621 SF 4,830 SF Grading Driveway Residence Landscape/Parking Area Total Grading Cut 0 CY 521 CY 1,201 CY 1,722 CY Fill 142 CY CY 50 CY 192 CY Total CY CY CY 1,914 CY 1,000 Cubic Yards (Grading Exception Requested) Height (Residence) Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: 987.50 FT 1,008.50 FT 997.75 FT 1,022.75 (25.00 FT) Maximum Height = 1023.75(26 Feet) Setbacks Front: Rear: Left Side: Right Side: 30’-0” 174’-0” 20’-0” 20’-0” 70’-7” 88’-3” 20’-3” 20’-3” MATERIALS AND COLORS: The exterior finish materials would be both grey colored board and batten siding and natural colored stucco walls. The wood windows would be painted to match the color of the siding. The roof would be covered with weathered zinc. Details of the materials are included the following table. A colors and materials board is on file with the Community Development Department and will be present at the site visit and public hearing. Detail Colors and Materials Building Exterior Grey Colored Painted Board and Batten Siding / Stucco Windows Grey Colored Fiberglass Covered Wood Windows Doors Dark Stained Wood Roof Weathered Zinc Variances The project includes a request for three variances. These include a setback variance to reduce the front building setback from 70’-7” feet to 30 feet, a retaining wall height variance to construct wall in excess of five feet and three feet within a front setback, and a variance to build a structure on an area of a lot where the maximum slope of the footprint underneath a structure would exceed forty percent slope. The details of these variances are discussed in the following paragraphs. Page 5 of 14 166 Application No. PDR11-0026, GRE11-0001, and VAR11-0005 / 22551 Mount Eden Road Setback The minimum front setback within the HR zoning district is 30 feet however, if a lot is vacant or was created after May 15, 1992, the front setback is 30 feet or 20 percent of the lot depth; whichever is greater. The subject site is vacant and has not been developed previously so therefore the front setback as a percentage of lot depth would be applicable. The subject site has a calculated lot depth of 353 feet which requires a front setback of 70’-7” (353 x .20 = 70’-7”). As mentioned in a preceding paragraph, approximately two-thirds of the site is located within a mapped landslide area thereby leaving the northerly one-third available for development. The 25 foot “landslide setback” from the edge of the landslide areas as defined by the Geotechnical Engineer further restricts the development area. The effect of the required 70’-7” building setback would shift the proposed development to the south, beyond the “landslide setback”, and into the area of the site that is geologically unstable. The applicant is requesting a setback variance to reduce the required front yard building setback to 30 feet (the minimum front setback for a lot in the HR zoning district). This would allow the residence and associated site improvements to be constructed on the geologically stable portion of the site and located in a previously graded area. Slope The average slope of the site is 31%. Within the proposed building envelope the average slope is 31% with maximum slopes exceeding 40%. Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-13.050(e)(2) “Location of Building Sites” states that the average slope under a structure or pool shall not exceed 30% and that no structure or pool shall be built on a slope which exceeds 40% at any location under the footprint between two five-foot contour lines. The maximum proposed slopes under the residence, guesthouse, and pool are all in excess of 40%. As discussed earlier, the site is constrained by the existing landslide area which restricts development to the northern third of the site. This portion has a relatively small level graded area where the project would be located however the entire project as proposed extends beyond its bounds and is conterminous with the area of steeper slopes. Retaining Walls The site does not have street frontage on Mount Eden Road. Access is provided from Mount Eden Road by an existing right-of-way easement that passes through the southeastern corner of 22530 Mount Eden Road and the southwest corner of 22188 Villa Oaks Lane. This easement is twenty feet wide at the northwest corner of the lot thereby limiting driveway access and the required fire department turnaround to this one location. The slope at this access point is approximately 40 percent. The turnaround has specific dimensions and minimum slope requirements. The maximum existing slope in the area of the proposed turnaround is 50%. City Code Section §15-29.010(l) limits retaining walls to a maximum height of five feet and three feet in a front setback. The requirement to construct a turnaround that conforms to all fire department standards would cause the retaining walls to exceed the maximum allowable heights in two locations. The retaining walls to the north side of the garage and adjacent to Page 6 of 14 167 Application No. PDR11-0026, GRE11-0001, and VAR11-0005 / 22551 Mount Eden Road the steps would range in heights from 3.23 feet to 6.25 feet. The height of the retaining wall along the western edge of the auto court and facing the adjacent neighbor would range in heights from 10.03 feet at the corner with the guest house to 8.00 feet on the eastern side of the driveway near the concrete drainage structure. The previously approved project for the subject site included a variance for retaining wall height to construct an emergency vehicle turnaround in approximately the same location as the current project. Geotechnical Clearance Romig Engineers prepared a Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed project, dated October 18, 2011. On January 24, 2012, the project received geotechnical clearance to proceed with special conditions from Cotton Shires and Associates (the City’s Geotechnical Consultant) and the Public Works Department. Trees The City Arborist inventoried 35 trees protected by City ordinance potentially impacted by construction. The applicant did not intend to remove any protected trees however the City Arborist made the determination that three eucalyptus trees are in conflict with the proposed storm drain line, and a protected oak tree is in potential conflict with the proposed driveway. All four of these trees meet the City Arborists criteria for removal and can be replaced with new trees with an appraised value of $3,310. Replacement trees may be planted anywhere on the property. Eight trees protected by City Code have been requested for removal through a tree removal permit application independent of the subject project. These include seven fruit trees that are in decline and one eucalyptus that has sprouted from the stump after it had been previous cut down by a previous property owner. The Arborist has approved the removal of these trees. A $38,080 security deposit would be required for tree protection. The project has Arborist Clearance to proceed. Grading over one thousand cubic yards City Code section 15-13.050 limits the combined cut and fill of any grading for a project in the Hillside Residential (HR) zone district to one thousand (1,000) cubic yards, including any excavation for a swimming pool, unless a larger quantity is approved by the Planning Commission. The project includes a request for a grading exception for a combined cut and fill of 1,854 cubic yards (1,622 cut and 192 fill). The 83 cubic yards of cut for the basement areas are not included in the grading quantity per City Code. The project would be partially constructed on the most level portion of the site and grading would be required to integrate and terrace the structures into the steeper portions of the site. The fire department requires a relatively level turnaround area for their vehicles providing a fire truck an opportunity to reverse direction and fire access must be provided around the entire structure. Additional grading is proposed so as to provide a reasonable amount of Page 7 of 14 168 Application No. PDR11-0026, GRE11-0001, and VAR11-0005 / 22551 Mount Eden Road level space beyond the building footprint for outside activities. Constructing the required fire department access would require 192 cubic yards of fill. The grading would improve the building integration into the natural topography of the site as recommended in the City’s Residential Design Handbook thereby potentially offsetting negative views of the project as viewed from Mount Eden Road and adjacent sites. Energy Efficiency The applicant submitted a GreenPoint Rated Checklist (Attachment #3). Article 16-47 (Green Building Regulations) Section 16.47.040 of the City Code requires all new residential projects to meet the minimum GreenPoint Rated requirements of 50 points. The “green features” proposed for the project would earn a score of 119 points and would exceed the minimum in each category to be considered GreenPoint Rated. Some of the proposed green features would include: • Engineered Lumber for beams, headers, floor joints and trusses, and roof rafters. Engineered Lumber, also called composite wood, man-made wood, or manufactured board (often referred to as Oriented Strand Board, or OSB); includes a range of derivative wood products which are manufactured by binding the strands, particles, fibers, or veneers of wood, together with adhesives, to form composite materials. These products are engineered to precise design specifications which are tested to meet national or international standards; • High Efficiency Plumbing Fixtures; • Whole house fans; • Photovoltaic (PV) panels; • Green Roof; • Low-Volatile Organic Compounds interior paints, coatings, caulks, adhesives, and sealants. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted as gases from certain solids or liquids; • Energy star appliances. Other “green features” would include installation of efficient ductwork, high-efficiency drip landscape irrigation systems, minimal use of turf for landscaping, and the use of high-efficiency lighting. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has shown the proposed plans to neighbors as indicated in the attached neighbor notification forms (Attachment #6). All neighbors were in support of the project and only the immediate neighbor to the south at 22461 Mount Eden Road provided minor comments. This neighbor would be most impacted by the development and requested that two rows of fast growing trees be planted between the two properties for privacy screening and that no site drainage be directed towards their property. As designed the site drainage will be collected on site to the maximum extent possible with the use of water detention chambers with only a small portion of the site to the north of the building footprint being directed to an existing storm drain. The applicant has spoken to the neighbor about the request for fast growing trees and they both have agreed that screening would include a Page 8 of 14 169 Application No. PDR11-0026, GRE11-0001, and VAR11-0005 / 22551 Mount Eden Road mixture of both large and medium sized trees with several large shrubs and will include a mix of evergreens and deciduous varieties to add fall color and seasonal interest. The design layout for these plantings would be in a more natural hedgerow that is conducive to the existing setting. These plants are not indicated on the landscape plan but the requirement to have them installed prior to building final has been added as a condition of approval 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. No public comments, either positive or negative, have been received at the time of the writing of this Staff Report. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.080: (a) The project avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project has been designed in a manner to minimize interference with neighboring views and privacy by proposing the following: • Integrating the project into the site to reduce the visibility of the structures as viewed from off site. • The use of natural materials and colors to blend the project with the environment. • Limiting the building height to 25 feet. • The views from the home are primarily oriented to the south and away from structures on adjacent sites. • The use of landscaping to screen and minimize views from off site. As discussed above, the finding can be made in the affirmative. (b) The project preserves the natural landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and by orientating structures to follow its forms. No ordinance sized trees are proposed for removal. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (c) The project preserves native and heritage trees. No heritage trees exist on site. All native trees designated for protection pursuant to Section 15-50.050 will be preserved. The City Arborist inventoried 35 trees protected by City ordinance with a potential of being impacted by construction. None of these trees are proposed for removal. The City Arborist made the determination that three eucalyptus trees are in conflict with the proposed storm drain line, and a protected oak tree is in potential conflict with the proposed driveway. All four of these trees meet the City Arborists criteria for removal and can be replaced with new trees. Additionally, the project is required to install and maintain tree protection measures, to comply with the applicable report(s) of the City Arborist and to bond for assurance thereof. This finding can be made in the affirmative. Page 9 of 14 170 Application No. PDR11-0026, GRE11-0001, and VAR11-0005 / 22551 Mount Eden Road (d) The project minimizes the perception of excessive bulk. The design of the main and/or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment in that the building has been designed to conform to the natural contours of the site. The perception of excessive bulk is minimized by the use of varying architectural forms, both one and two story structural elements, varying exterior materials and textures, and varying rooflines that break up the massing and reduce the perception of height and mass. The applicant’s choice of a neutral color palette for the exterior of the building will help to integrate the project with the natural environment of the site and its surroundings. The projects physical distance from the nearest property will help minimize the appearance of mass when compared with structures on adjacent lots. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (e) The project is of compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood. Adjacent properties are both one and two story structures. The residences on adjacent lots are all on sites that are equal or larger in size and are similar in terms of bulk and height. The proposal is compatible with the natural environment as to bulk and height and does not unreasonably impair access to light and air or the solar potential of adjacent properties. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (f) The project uses current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. Drainage from parking and driveway hardscape areas would be minimized by the use of permeable interlocking concrete pavers and drainage rock underlayment. In addition, the Project is conditioned to conform to the City’s current grading and erosion control standards and comply with applicable NPDES Standards. The Project is also conditioned to require detention of stormwater on site where feasible. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (g) The project follows appropriate design policies and techniques. The proposed main and accessory structure will conform to the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook as required by Section 15-45.055. The proposed Project has been reviewed by staff and determined to conform to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook, which includes minimizing the perception of bulk, integrating the residential buildings with the environment, and designing for energy efficiency. This finding can be made in the affirmative. Variance Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Variance findings stated in Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-70.060: (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified Page 10 of 14 171 Application No. PDR11-0026, GRE11-0001, and VAR11-0005 / 22551 Mount Eden Road regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in same zoning district. The project as proposed does meet this finding in that there are special circumstances applicable to the property to support the variances for a reduction in the width of the front setback, to construct on steep slopes, and to install retaining walls exceeding maximum allowable height. The request for the setback and slope variance are; 1) based on the existing landslide that restricts development to the northern third of the site; and 2) the average slope of the proposed building envelope is 31% with maximum slopes exceeding 40% under the building footprints. Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-13.050(e)(2) states that the average slope under a structure or pool shall not exceed 30% and that no structure or pool shall be built on a slope which exceeds 40% at any location under the footprint between two five-foot contour lines. The maximum proposed slopes under the residence, guesthouse, and pool are all in excess of 40%. Approximately two-thirds of the site is located within a mapped landslide area thereby leaving the northerly one-third available for development. The 25 foot “landslide setback” from the edge of the landslide areas restricts the development area. The variance for a 30 foot front setback would allow the project to be constructed on a geologically stable portion of the site and located in a previously graded area. Strict enforcement of the specified regulations defining slopes and setbacks would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in same zoning district. That is because if the project was required to provide a front building setback of 70’-7” the proposed development would shift to the south, beyond the “landslide setback”, and into the area of the site that is geologically unstable. In addition, the limited area of the site available for development exceeds the maximum slopes that are allowable under a building footprint or pool. A variance for retaining walls to exceed the five feet maximum height, including the three foot maximum height within a front setback, is requested so as to comply with fire department site access requirements which require the construction of an emergency vehicle turnaround. The turnaround has specific dimensions and cannot have a slope exceeding 15 percent. The maximum existing slope in the area of the proposed turnaround is 50 percent. Site access is provided from Mount Eden Road by an existing right-of-way easement that passes through the southeastern corner of 22530 Mount Eden Road and the southwest corner of 22188 Villa Oaks Lane. This easement is twenty feet wide at the northwest corner of the lot thereby limiting driveway access and the required fire department turnaround to this one location. The slope at this access point is approximately 40 percent. Additional constraint on the location of the turnaround is the landslide setback that limits the developable area to the northern portion of the site. Because the turnaround located in an area with steep slopes, and would be located near both the front and western side property line, retaining walls with heights exceeding five feet, and three feet in a front setback, would be required. Strict enforcement of the specified regulations defining retaining wall height would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in same zoning district. That is because a residence on the subject lot could not be constructed without the required emergency vehicle turnaround, and since the location of this is Page 11 of 14 172 Application No. PDR11-0026, GRE11-0001, and VAR11-0005 / 22551 Mount Eden Road limited to an area of steep slopes, retaining walls exceeding City Code height limitations would be required to construct the turnaround. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. . The project does meet this finding in that the variance will not constitute a special privilege in that the adjacent sites are developed with similar sized single family homes, the variances would allow the project to be developed on a geologically stable portion of the site, and the setbacks would be consistent with the minimum allowable setbacks of the HR Zoning District. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (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. The proposed building site is on the portion of the site that is the most geologically stable. Geological reports indicate that the sloped areas of the site are potentially unstable due to the location of dormant landslides. These areas are susceptible to erosion and slope failure which can be exacerbated by existing drainage patterns. The project would locate development on the northerly third of the site where site stability is improved. The project has received Geotechnical Clearance from the Public Works Department. The project as currently designed will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; it will enhance it as compared to the previously existing improvements. Nor will the project be materially injurious to properties or improvement in the vicinity; instead it will reduce the potential for adverse impacts. This finding can be made in the affirmative. Findings for Grading Over One Thousand Cubic Yards Zoning Code section 15-13.050(f) states that the combined cut and fill of any grading for a project in the Hillside Residential zone district shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) cubic yards, including any excavation for a swimming pool, unless a larger quantity is approved by the Planning Commission based upon making all of the below listed findings. 1. The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site. The project would be partially constructed on the most level portion of the site and 521 cubic yards of cut would be required to integrate and terrace the structures into the site. The fire department requires a relatively level turnaround area for their vehicles so that a fire truck can reverse direction and exit the site in a forward direction and fire access is required around the entire structure. Grading is required to daylight the graded areas into non-graded areas thereby reducing the number and height of retaining walls as well as contouring the site to reduce erosion by channeling storm water runoff into storm drains for release down slope and away from the structure and neighboring properties. Grading is also proposed to provide a reasonable amount of space beyond the building footprint for outside and recreational activities. Constructing the fire truck turnaround, landscaped areas, walkways, pool, and erosion control would require 1,662 cubic yards of cut and 192 cubic yards of fill. The grading would also improve the buildings integration into the natural topography of the site as recommended in the City’s Page 12 of 14 173 Application No. PDR11-0026, GRE11-0001, and VAR11-0005 / 22551 Mount Eden Road Residential Design Handbook and potential negative offsite views of the project could be reduced as viewed from Mount Eden Road and adjacent sites. This finding can be made in the affirmative. 2. The natural land forms and vegetation are being preserved and protected. The natural vegetation on the site consists of both native and non native trees and none of these trees are being removed. Portions of the site have been previously graded and the proposed project will utilize this area for the development. The City Arborist inventoried 35 trees protected by City ordinance with a potential of being impacted by construction. None of these trees are proposed for removal. Four trees may be impacted by the development and the applicant has the option of removing these trees and planting replacement trees. This finding can be made in the affirmative. 3. The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain. The increased grading quantity would assist in the integration of the structure into the existing natural terrain and to reduce the perception of the structures bulk; and the majority of the grading would be used for landscaped areas to minimize the perception of excessive bulk as viewed from off site. This finding can be made in the affirmative. 4. The increased grading is necessary to integrate an architectural design into the natural topography. The increased grading would integrate the proposed architectural design into the natural topography; integration of the architectural design with the natural surroundings would be increased by project terracing and landscaping that includes both native and non-native trees, bushes, and groundcovers. This finding can be made in the affirmative. 5. The increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views. The grading of the site will reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from off site or from distinct community views by integrating the graded contours of the project site with the natural contours near the edges and the building will be constructed to follow the contours of the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative. 6. No building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure. The building site is graded to provide a reasonable amount of level areas for outside recreational activities; the site is not excessively graded thereby resulting in a flat visible building pad; landscaping and natural open space will cover approximately 88% of the site thereby decreasing the appearance of graded site. This finding can be made in the affirmative. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposal is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15332, “In-Fill Development Projects”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). Page 13 of 14 174 Application No. PDR11-0026, GRE11-0001, and VAR11-0005 / 22551 Mount Eden Road Page 14 of 14 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 12-001 approving Design Review PDR11-00026, Grading Exception GRE11-001, and Variance VAR11-0005 subject to conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Design Review and Variance Findings (prepared by project architect) 3. Project Description (prepared by project architect) 4. Variance request to exceed maximum retaining wall height (prepared by architect) 5. GreenPoint Rated Checklist (prepared by applicant) 6. Arborist Report dated 16 December 2011. 7. Neighbor Notification Forms. 8. Public hearing notice and copy of mailing labels for project notification. 9. Site Photos (submitted by applicant) 10. Reduced Plans (Exhibit A) 175 RESOLUTION NO: 12-001 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A NEW TWO STORY, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A 442 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GUEST HOUSE; VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR A REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK AND TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON SLOPES EXCEEDING 40% UNDER THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT; AND A GRADING EXCEPTION TO EXCEED 1,000 CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING, LOCATED AT 22551 MOUNT EDEN ROAD WHEREAS, on November 25, 2011, an application was submitted by Carl Smit requesting Design Review, Variance, and Grading Exception approval to construct a new two story home, detached guest house, pool, and related site improvements located at 22551 Mount Eden Road. The project has a total floor area of 4,621 square feet. The height of the proposed residence is approximately 25 feet. The site is located within the Hillside Residential Zoning District (APN 503-13-117). 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 February 8, 2012, 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, and continued the project to the meeting of March 28, 2012. 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 15332, “In-Fill Development Projects”, of the Public Resources Code. 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; Open Space Element Policy 11.a which provides that the City shall ensure that projects are designed in a manner that minimizes disruption to important wildlife, riparian and plant habitats; 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. 176 Resolution No. 12-001 Section 4: The project would be in substantial conformance with the following Hillside Specific Plan policies: (1) Site Grading Policy which requires site grading to be contoured wherever possible even though this practice can increase grading quantities; (2) Site Grading Policy which prohibits homes from being built by creating a flat building pad; (3) Energy policies to promote both passive and solar energy systems and to promote energy conservation through building design; and (4) Aesthetic/Scenic Qualities by requiring all structures to be approved by Design Review prior to issuance of building permits. Section 5: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy; preserves the natural landscape; native and heritage trees; minimizes the perception of excessive bulk and is of compatible bulk and height; uses current grading and erosion methods; and follows appropriate design polices and techniques. Section 6: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the variance 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; the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district; the 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 7: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the grading exception findings can be made in that the additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site; the natural land forms and vegetation are being preserved and protected; the increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain; the increased grading is necessary to integrate an architectural design into the natural topography; the increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views; and no building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure. Section 8: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR11-0026, VAR11-0005, and GRE11-0001, located at 22551 Mount Eden Road, subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 28th day of March 2012 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Douglas R. Robertson Chair, Planning Commission 177 Resolution No. 12-001 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR11-0026, GRE11-0001, VAR11-0005 22551 Mount Eden Road (APN 503-13-117) 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 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 Community Development Department for review to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this Resolution. 178 Resolution No. 12-001 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 dated March 2, 2012 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. 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 179 Resolution No. 12-001 for screening or ornamenting the site, whichever is appropriate, and plant materials shall be replaced as needed to screen or ornament the site. The applicant shall plant landscape screening between the subject property and the property located at 22461 Mount Eden Road to include a mixture of both large and medium sized trees with several large shrubs and will include a mix of evergreens and deciduous varieties to add fall color and seasonal interest. The design layout for these plantings would be in a more natural hedgerow that is conducive to the existing setting. This landscape screening shall be installed prior to building department final and will be to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. 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. 17. Construction truck routes. Construction trucks shall only use designated truck routes. 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. Tree Preservation Plan. The Owner and Applicant shall sign and date the arborist report, include it in the final plan set (signifying that that they are submitting it as their Tree Preservation Plan for the project), and comply with all requirements of the Tree Preservation Plan in accordance with City Code § 15-50.140. 20. Protection of trees from grading and trenching. Grading and trenching (including for undergrounding electrical lines) shall be shown on the plans submitted to the Building Division and demonstrate adequate protection of trees to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, or, in the alternative, the City Arborist shall be present and have authority during the grading and trenching to require hand digging for any tree roots judged at the discretion of the City Arborist to need additional protection. 21. Protection of trees from harmful chemicals. Harmful chemicals shall not be disposed of near trees. 22. Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Plan. Because this Design Review Approval authorizes a construction, remodeling, or demolition project affecting more than two thousand 180 Resolution No. 12-001 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. 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. Landscape and Irrigation Plan. The Landscape and Irrigation Plan required by City Code Section 15-45.070(a)(9) shall be designed to the maximum extent reasonably feasible to: a. utilize efficient irrigation (where irrigation is necessary), to eliminate or reduce runoff, to promote surface infiltration, and to minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that have the potential to contribute to water pollution; b. treat stormwater and irrigation runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolonged exposure to water shall be specified in the Plan, installed and maintained; c. be comprised of pest resistant landscaping plants throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area; d. be comprised of plant materials selected to be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment; e. protect the roots of Ordinance-protected trees from any proposed or required undergrounding of utilities; f. retain and incorporate existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover into the Plan; and g. comply with Section 16-75.030 of the City Code to the extent applicable. 26. 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: 181 Resolution No. 12-001 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. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall be parked or stored within the root zone (five feet beyond the dripline (the area under the canopy) or a greater distance as determined by the City Arborist) of any Ordinance-protected tree on the site; c. 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; d. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages; e. 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; f. City Arborist Reports dated December 16, 2011shall be printed onto separate construction plan pages; g. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building Division. 27. Staff shall not approve downgrading to the exterior appearance of the approved residence. Downgrades may include, but are not limited to, garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, or similar items. Any exterior changes to approved plans resulting in a downgrade shall require filing an additional application and fees for review by the Planning Commission as a modification to approved plans. Any other exterior changes to the approved plans, which are not deemed a downgrade by staff, shall require approval in compliance with condition A.3 above. C. CITY ARBORIST. 28. Compliance with Tree Regulations and City Arborist Reports. All requirements in the City Arborist Reports dated December 16, 2011 are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. This includes, but is not limited to, all tree related conditions set forth above and the following standard conditions of approval: a. Tree Bond. Prior to issuance of any Building Permit or Grading Permit, the Project Applicant or Owner shall obtain and submit to the Community Development Department a Tree Bond, or similar funding mechanism satisfactory to the Community Development Department, in favor of the City, in the amount of $38,080 to guarantee: (1) the maintenance and preservation of all existing trees except any approved for removal under this Design Review Approval; and (2) the replacement of any removed trees or rehabilitation of any damaged trees in a manner satisfactory to the City Arborist. b. Release of Tree Bond. Prior to the City’s inspection for final approval of the completed Project, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with all conditions of approval related to trees. The Tree Bond required above shall be released after the planting of required 182 Resolution No. 12-001 replacement trees, a site inspection by the City Arborist finding compliance with all tree-related conditions contained in this Resolution, and payment of any outstanding City Arborist fees. D. PUBLIC WORKS 29. Public Works Department. Applicant shall comply will all Public Works Department conditions. E. FIRE SAFETY OR FIRE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS 30. Fire Agency Conditions. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Agency conditions. 183 184 185 186 BARARCHITECTS Building Design Approach Jacquelyn and Carl Smit have great respect for their property in Saratoga, and working sensitively with the site has been their goal from the beginning. In fact, their first instruction to BAR Architects was that they wanted their home to “appear integrated into the land, as if the house and plot were designed for each other”. Given that, BAR Architects’ overall guiding principle has been to harmonize the buildings with the steeply sloping site. Rather than starting the design process with the notion of any particular architectural style, the language of the buildings has grown out of these efforts. The buildings are made up of levels and terraces that step with the grade and follow the site’s natural contours. Low sloped roofs on the main house help to ground the building, and the guesthouse features a planted roof which blends into the existing foliage. Native plantings adjacent to the buildings and the terraces settle them into the landscape. A variety of outdoor rooms are integrated with the buildings and are as important as the inside spaces; perhaps even more so. They offer varying orientations, views and sun and wind protection at different times of the day, in all seasons. These spaces promote strong indoor- outdoor connections and provide a transition from the buildings to the natural surroundings. Openings, overhangs, and planted trellises have been carefully placed to take advantage of natural light and ventilation at varying times of the year. South facing roof mounted solar panels will utilize the sun’s energy for hot water heating. If the resulting architecture was to be categorized, it could be said that it derives from the tradition of California agricultural buildings. The material palette is traditional and organic. The building base, the guesthouse and the site walls are of concrete and stucco to emphasize the connection to the earth (in some areas concrete mixed with soil from the site may be used). The main living wing is clad in board and batten cedar siding washed in a creamy gray. The roofs will be of standing seam zinc weathered to a warm gray patina. The eaves feature exposed rafter tails, which, along with the board and batten siding, create texture and shadow. Planted wood trellises, located along the south and east facades, will create further shade and help nestle the buildings into their surroundings. 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 CITY OF SARATOGA Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga’s Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 8th day of February, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. A site visit will also be held by the Planning Commission at the subject property. Please contact the Planning Department for the date and time of the site visit. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION/ADDRESS: PDR11-0026, GRE11-0001, VAR11-0005/ 22551 Mount Eden Road APPLICANT/OWNER: Carl Smit APN: 503-13-117 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review, Variance and Grading Exception approval to construct a proposed 4,179 square foot, two story single-family dwelling, a 442 square foot detached accessory building, a swimming pool, and related site landscaping. Variances are requested from the regulations contained in the Zoning Regulations of the City Code. These include requests to reduce the width of the required front setback and a second request to locate structures on slopes exceeding 40 percent under a building footprint. The project would include 1,914 cubic yards of grading (combined cut and fill). The project includes a request for a Grading Exception to exceed 1,000 cubic yards of grading in the HR zoning district. The height of the proposed home is less than 26 feet. The gross lot size is approximately 1.42 acres acres and the site is zoned HR (Hillside Residential). All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission’s information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Wednesday, February 1, 2012. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor’s office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of-date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Christopher Alan Riordan, AICP Senior Planner (408) 868-1235 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. PDR 09-0019 Location/ APN: 14190 Palomino Way / 503-68-002 Type of Application: Design Review for a New Single Family Residence Owner / Applicant: Michael Oveyssi / William Ambrose Staff Planner: Cynthia McCormick, Planner, AICP Meeting Date: March 28, 2012 14190 Palomino Way Page 1 of 6 246 SUMMARY ZONING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Hillside Residential Residential Hillside Conservation PARCEL SIZE AVERAGE SLOPE 2.13 gross acres 25% GRADING REQUIRED 1,575 c.y. (1,393 c.y. cut, 182 c.y fill) / Basement 632 c.y. cut PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting design review approval to build a new 5,830 square foot residence on a two-acre vacant lot. The new residence would include a basement and attached garage. The project requires a grading exception permit due to excavation required to maintain a slope at or below 18% on the shared driveway. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution approving the project with conditions. PROJECT DATA: Net Lot Size: 1.58 acres Proposal Allowed Floor Area: Upper Floor Lower Floor Garage Total Floor Area Basement 3,571 SF 1,877 SF 382 SF 5,830 SF 1,180 SF 5,844 SF maximum Basement doesn’t count towards F.A. Building Coverage: 14,377 SF (22.5%) 15,000 SF maximum Setbacks: Front: Rear Interior Side Exterior Side ~78 ft. 60 ft. ~51 ft. ~131 ft. Minimum 30 ft. 60 ft. 20 ft. 30 ft. Height: Lowest elevation pt. Highest elevation pt. Average elevation pt. Height from avg. grade 706 ft. 718 ft. 712 ft. 20 ft. 26ft. Maximum Application No. PDR 09-0019; 14190 Palomino Way Page 2 of 6 247 PROJECT DISCUSSION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS The applicant is requesting approval pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060 to construct a single- family residence with basement on a vacant parcel accessed from Palomino Way. The project also requires a grading exception pursuant to City Code Section 15-13.050. The property is bordered on the west and north by Pierce Road and Palomino Way, respectively. Proposed site development includes construction of a swimming pool and various retaining walls. Architectural Style The contemporary design includes expansive windows and a low-pitched roof. The footprint of the home includes a cylindrical entryway flanked by angular living and sleeping areas on either side of the foyer. The lower level, which includes a partial basement, is built into the hillside and leads out to a covered patio and eternity swimming pool. Detail Colors and Materials Exterior Tan colored cement plaster Trim Cultured stone veneer, cast stone surround, and cast stone columns Windows Wood Clad Entry Door Wrought iron, glass, and stained wood Garage Door Stained wood with glass window lites Roof Neutral brown toned concrete tiles Trees Thirty-four trees protected by City Code were inventoried by the City Arborist (Attachment 4). A tree protection security deposit in the amount of $59,410 is required to ensure protection of 13 protected trees. Two oak trees and one Lombardy poplar meet the criteria for removal. New trees equal to their replacement value of $7,170 shall be planted following construction. Grading Exception for Driveway The Santa Clara County Fire Department has indicated the maximum grade generally allowed for a driveway shall not exceed 15% (6.75 degrees). However, grades up to 20% may be allowed by the Fire Chief under certain conditions. A condition of approval requires the applicant/owner to meet all Fire Department requirements. The existing driveway serves two parcels and is currently built at a 25% slope. Consequently, the entire length (280’) must be lowered by 7% for a net average drop of nearly eight feet to meet City Code. The grading required for the driveway represents 976 cubic yards of the proposed 1,575 cubic yards of cut and fill. City Code Section 15-45.050(f) requires a grading exception and required findings for a combined cut and fill of grading over 1,000 cubic yards. Findings for approval of the grading exception are provided below. Application No. PDR 09-0019; 14190 Palomino Way Page 3 of 6 248 Build-it-Green Strategies The total Build-it–Green points proposed for the project is 127. The project includes water efficient landscaping, engineered lumber, high efficiency toilets and HVAC system, low VOC finishes, environmentally preferred flooring, and energy star appliances. Additional information is included in Attachment 6. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant distributed notification letters to the adjacent neighbors (Attachment 2). One person has provided comments including keeping old growth trees if possible and using grading practices that avoid landslides. The project has been reviewed by and received clearance from the City Arborist and City Geotechnical consultant. The project is required to comply with standard grading and drainage controls. Only three of the many trees on this property are proposed for removal. Tree protection is required for all other protected trees in conflict with the project. Application No. PDR 09-0019; 14190 Palomino Way Page 4 of 6 249 FINDINGS Design Review Findings: The Applicant has met the burden of proof to support the findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Article 15-45 as set forth below. Finding #1: The project avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project meets this finding. The residence will be built towards the center of the two-acre lot and the setbacks to properties below the residence are well over one hundred feet, minimizing impacts on views and privacy of adjacent residences. Finding #2: The project preserves the natural landscape. The project meets this finding. Three trees will be removed; however several dozen trees will remain and new trees will be planted to replace the removed trees. Grading for the residence is minimized by building the home into the hillside while grading for the long and steep driveway is necessary to provide shared access to the proposed home and the adjacent home. Finding #3: The project preserves native and heritage trees. The project meets this finding. Two native trees and one non-native tree will be removed and replaced. The property contains numerous trees including several dozen native trees that will be protected and preserved. No heritage trees exist on the property. Finding #4: The project minimizes the perception of excessive bulk. The project meets this finding. The residence has been built into the hillside and significantly setback from lower lying properties, minimizing the perception of bulk and height. Expansive windows and doors leading out to the courtyard help break up the exterior walls. The home will also be well screened by mature landscaping. Finding #5: The project is of compatible bulk and height. The project meets this finding. Many of the nearby residences are compatible in terms of proportion, size, mass, and height. The home will be located near the center of the property and set behind mature landscaping screening it from the surrounding neighborhood. Finding #6: The project uses current grading and erosion control methods. The project meets this finding in that it is conditioned to meet required grading and erosion control standards. Finding #7: The project follows appropriate design policies and techniques. The project meets this finding. The proposal minimizes the perception of bulk by following hillside contours (Policy 1, Technique 2), integrates the residence with the environment by using existing landscaping to screen the residence (Policy 2, Technique 3), avoids interference with privacy by locating the residence to minimize privacy impact (Policy 3, Technique 2), preserves views and access to views by locating the residence to minimize view blockage (Policy 3, Technique 1), and is designed for energy efficiency by incorporating energy saving devices into the design (Policy 5, Technique 4). Grading Exception Findings: Application No. PDR 09-0019; 14190 Palomino Way Page 5 of 6 250 Application No. PDR 09-0019; 14190 Palomino Way Page 6 of 6 The Applicant has met the burden of proof to support the findings required for issuance of a Grading Exception pursuant to City Code Article 15-13 as set forth below. (1) The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site. The existing driveway serves two parcels and is currently built at a 25% slope. The entire length (280’) must be lowered by seven percent to meet the City Code maximum of 18% grade. The grading necessary for the required 16 foot wide driveway represents 976 cubic yards of the proposed 1,575 cubic yards of cut and fill. (2) The natural land forms and vegetation are being preserved and protected. Three large oak trees will be preserved through the use of a curved driveway alignment and retaining walls. (3) The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain. The 402 square feet of grading require for the residence and deck has been minimized by building the residence and basement to conform to the curvature of the face of the hill which slopes facing northwesterly. (4) The increased grading is necessary to integrate an architectural design into the natural topography. The existing driveway climbs straight up the face of the hill. A more sinuous alignment is proposed to meander across the terrain in an attempt to reduce excavation and preserve trees. (5) The increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views. The excavation of the residence and basement terraces the structure into the face of the hillside, thus reducing the perceived prominence of the building. (6) No building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure. The only areas of the site proposed to be relatively flat are the surface of the pool and the garage access. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Neighbor Notification Forms 3. Mailed Notice, Address List 4. Arborist Report 5. Geotechnical Clearance 6. Build it Green Checklist 7. Exhibit "A"; Reduced plans 8. Exhibit "B"; Color Board 251 Attachment 1  RESOLUTION NO. 12-00 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING APPLICATION NO. PDR 09-0019 FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 14190 PALOMINO WAY / 503-68-002 WHEREAS, on July 13, 2009 an application was resubmitted by William Ambrose, requesting Design Review approval for a new two-story, single-family residence to be constructed on a vacant lot at 14190 Palomino Way within a building envelope that has a 25% average grade. The total floor area of the main residence and garage would be 5,830 square feet (not including the 1,181 square foot basement). The height of the proposed residence would be approximately 20 feet, as measured from average grade. The property is located within the Hillside Residential Zoning District. WHEREAS, on March 28, 2012, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies. Section 3: The project is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan Policies LU 1.1 in that the City shall continue to be predominately a community of single-family detached residences and LU 1.2 to continue to review all residential development proposals to ensure consistency with Land Use Element goals and Policies. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy; preserves the natural landscape, native and heritage trees; minimizes the perception of excessive bulk and is of compatible bulk and height; uses current grading and erosion control methods; and follows appropriate design policies and techniques. Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves Application No. PDR09-0019 subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 28th day of March 2012 by the following vote: 252 Resolution No. 12‐00  Page 2    AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ___________________________________ Douglas R. Robertson Chair, Planning Com      mission 253 Resolution No. 12‐00  Page 3      EXHIBIT 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR 09­0019  14190 Palomino Way / 503­68­002  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. 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. 254 Resolution No. 12‐00  Page 4    COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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 dated March 22, 2012 denominated Exhibit "A". All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with City Code. 6. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. 6 above; 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. City Arborist Report dated January 12, 2012 onto separate construction plan pages;   e. 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; PUBLIC WORKS 7. he owner (applicant) shall agree to all conditions required by the City Engineer and per the eotechnical Clearance, dated July 7, 2011, or as amended by the City Engineer.   T G   8. If future land sliding takes place, further geotechnical analysis shall occur to analyze the post-slide configuration and to determine, what if any, further mitigation measures may be necessary. ARBORIST 9. The owner (applicant) shall agree to all conditions required by the City Arborist and per the Arborist Report, dated January 12, 2012, or as amended by the City Arborist. FIRE DEPARTMENT 10. The owner (applicant) shall agree to all conditions required by the Santa Clara County Fire Department, including but not limited to driveway slope, length, width, and materials, and per the Fire Department Memo, dated July 7, 2010, or as amended by the Fire Department. 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 CITY OF SARATOGA Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga’s Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, March 28 2012 at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. A site visit will also be held by the Planning Commission at the subject property. Please contact the Planning Department for the date and time of the site visit. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION: PDR 09-0019 OWNER/APPLICANT: Michael Oveyssi / William Ambrose ADDRESS/APN: 14190 Palomino Way; Saratoga, CA 95070 / 503-68-002 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting design review approval to build a new 5,830 square foot residence on a two-acre vacant lot. The new residence would include a basement and attached garage. Three trees protected by City Code are requested for removal to construct the project. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor’s office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of-date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Cynthia McCormick Assistant Planner (408) 868-1230 264 Page 1 of 8 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ARBORIST REPORT It is the responsibility of the owner, architect, and contractor to be familiar with the information in this report and implement the required conditions. Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Application #: ARB10-0027 Phone: (408) 868-1276 Address: 14190 Palomino Way Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us Owner: Oveyessi APN: 503-68-002 Email: mahassa@mahassa.com Report History: #1 Date: August 13, 2010 #2 October 27, 2010 #3 this report replaces reports #1 and 2 July 21, 2011 #4 this report replaces report #3 Additional funds to work on project received January 4, 2012 Report completed January 12, 2012 PROJECT SCOPE The applicant has submitted plans to the City to build a new house with attached garage, a pool and a spa. Slope stabilization piers are required to ensure that new structures are stable on the property and are an integral part of the project. Three trees protected by City Code are requested for removal to construct the project. They are oak trees #1 and 33, and Lombardy poplar #28. These three trees meet the criteria for removal, and may be removed and replaced as part of the project (see Findings below). CLEARANCE – with conditions This project has clearance from the arborist to proceed, with the conditions noted below in the Requirements section. PLAN REVIEW Architectural plans for this report were prepared by VBY Services and dated August 19, 2011. Plan sheets reviewed for this report include Sheet AT-1, Cover Sheet and General Project Information; Sheet A-1, Preliminary Site, Land-use Plan; Sheet A-2, Preliminary Site Plan; Sheet A-3, Preliminary Floor Plan; Sheet A-4, Elevations; Sheet A-5, Preliminary Sections; Sheet L-1, Landscape Plan; Sheet L-2, Arborist Report; and Sheet T-1 (labeled C-1), Boundary and Topographic Survey. Revised civil plans prepared by TS Civil Engineering, Inc. and dated August 3, 2011 were submitted for review. There are five sheets labeled C – 1 through C – 4. There are two C-1 Sheets; one is the Site Plan and the other is the Preliminary Grading Plan. Sheet C – 2 is the Section Plan; Sheet C – 3 is the Profile; and Sheet C – 4 is the Cross Sections. 265 14190 Palomino Way Page 2 of 8 Revised structural plans prepared by Ovisco, Inc. and dated June 9, 2009 were submitted for review. They include sheets SS – 1 through SS – 4. Sheet SS – 1 is the Site Plan; Sheet SS – 2 is Section A; Sheet SS – 3 is Section B; and Sheet SS – 4 is Notes and Details. Dimensions on the plans are different depending on which sheet is measured. This needs to be corrected so that any dimension measured on one sheet come to the same measurement on all other sheets, independent of preparer and scale used. Some sheets have the trees numbered and others do not. Trees should be numbered on all plan sheets. The engineer and designer have indicated that new utility connections and lines will run along the non-creek side of the driveway to Palomino Way. This is acceptable. TREE INFORMATION Tree Inventory Thirty four trees protected by City Code and potentially impacted by construction were inventoried for this project. They include 32 coast live oaks (#1 – 26 and 29 – 34), one almond (#27), and one Lombardy poplar (#28). Data for each tree is included in the Tree Inventory Table at the end of this report. Their locations are shown on the attached site map. Tree Removals: Three trees are requested for removal to construct the project. Whenever a tree is requested for removal to construct a project, certain findings must be met. See the Findings section below for a detailed discussion of trees #1, 28 and 33. Tree protection: Tree protection fencing shall be installed in locations that will best protect trees during both installation of slope stabilization piers and construction of the perimeter wall. The tree fencing is to remain in place during construction. If work needs to occur within the fenced area, a field meeting should be held with the City Arborist and approval for the work obtained prior to performing it. A layer of wood chips should be placed below protected trees to the edges of their canopies, whether they are enclosed within tree protection fencing or not. The wood chips can often be obtained at no charge from a tree contractor that has done removals. The chips should be spread by hand under the canopies of trees to a depth of 4 inches. The applicant will need to hire an ISA-certified arborist on site (Project Arborist) to ensure that trees are adequately protected during the installation of the slope stabilization piers. The Project Arborist should also attend the preconstruction meeting. A letter to the City from the Project Arborist will be required following installation of the piers. It should identify when they were on site, what they observed, where the equipment was placed, and any recommendations for tree health following installation of piers. The letter shall include photos of work being performed. When constructing the perimeter wall, holes for the footings should be hand dug for the first two feet. Roots measuring two inches or more in diameter should be retained, preserved and worked around. Roots measuring less than two inches in diameter may be cut using a sharp pruning tool. 266 14190 Palomino Way Page 3 of 8 Security Deposit for the Protection of Trees Per City Ordinance 15-50.080, a Tree Protection security deposit in the amount that is equal to 100% of the total appraised value of trees potentially impacted by the project. The amount of the security deposit shall be $59,410, for the protection of trees #2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19, 22, 29, 31 and 32. Owner shall obtain, and file with the Community Development Director, the required security deposit prior to the receipt of building permits. The security deposit may be in the form of a savings account, a certificate of deposit account or a bond. Appraisals: Appraised values were calculated using the Trunk Formula Method and according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. Along with this reference, the Species Classification and Group Assignment published by the Western Chapter of the ISA, 2004, was used to determine group assignment, species ratings, and unit cost. Appraised values in earlier reports included the cost to plant a replacement tree. This report includes only the cost of the tree itself. This value will be used to determine the required value of new trees if any protected tree on site is removed during the course of the project. FINDINGS Tree Removals The project was reviewed for the removal of trees #1, 28 and 33, three trees protected by City Code. Whenever a tree is requested for removal to construct a project, certain findings must be met per Article 15-50.080 of the City Code. A list of criteria permitting the removal of trees is attached to the end of this report for reference. The table below summarizes which of the criteria (noted by its number) have been met allowing the removal of each tree. Criteria allowing the removal of a tree are attached to the end of this report for reference. Summary of tree removal criteria met for each tree requested for removal Tree # Criteria met Criteria not met Criteria not pertinent 1 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 2, 5 8 28 1, 4, 6, 7, 9 2, 5 3, 8 33 1,4, 5, 6, 7, 9 2, 3, 5 8 Tree #1 – Coast live oak: Tree #1 is a coast live oak in good health, but with poor structure, that is in conflict with the proposed driveway. It is impacted by proposed retaining walls and the new driveway in addition to the shared driveway (criterion #1). The tree does not threaten damage to structures, so this criterion is not met. Allowing this tree to be removed and locating the shared driveway farther from the creek better protects more and better oaks (criteria #3 and #4). The tree is not crowded by other trees so criterion #5 is not met. Designs that retain this tree do not meet fire department slope requirements and require fill soil into a creek area, so there is no acceptable alternative to removing this tree (criterion #6). Removal of this tree and replacement with new trees on other parts of the property meet the intent of the tree regulations (criterion #7). Safety is not an issue with this tree, so criterion #8 is not pertinent to the situation. Removal of this tree and replacement with new trees provides the property owner with economic and other enjoyment of the property (criterion #9). 267 14190 Palomino Way Page 4 of 8 Tree #28 – Lombardy poplar: Tree #28 is a Lombardy poplar that is half dead. It meets criterion #1 both by being in poor condition and by being in conflict with the proposed driveway. The poplar does not threaten damage to structures, and is not crowded by other trees, so criteria #2 and 5 are not met. There are numerous trees on the property that will be retained and preserved during construction, and many other trees will be planted as part of the project, so removal of this tree and replacing it with new trees would satisfy needs for privacy, creation of shade or scenic beauty (criterion #4). Removal of this tree and replacement with new trees is the best alternative given its health (criterion #6), is consistent with the tree regulations (criteria #7), and will provide economic and other enjoyment to the property owner (criterion #9). Safety and control of erosion or drainage is not an issue in this situation, so those two criteria do not pertain to the situation. Tree #33 – Coast live oak: Coast live oak tree #33 is a young oak in good condition that is in conflict with the proposed driveway. Currently the driveway is too steep to meet Fire Department requirements, and it must be reconfigured to bring it into compliance as part of the project (criterion #1). This tree does not threaten structures and does help control erosion, so it does not meet criteria #2 or 3. Removal of tree #33 will have an insignificant impact on shade, privacy, scenic beauty, or property values, because there are many other trees on the property, and new trees can be planted in optimum locations following construction of the driveway (criterion #4). This tree is not crowded by other trees so it does not meet criterion #5. Removal of tree #33 and replacement with new trees is consistent with the general intent of this article in that the new trees will be planted on parts of the property that currently do not have trees, while this tree is being removed from an area that has a fairly dense tree canopy cover (criterion #7). The project cannot be constructed without removing this tree and alternatives that allow its retention do not solve the problem of access to the site (criteria #6 and #9). Criterion #8 does not pertain to the situation because safety is not an issue for this tree on this site. Replacement Trees New trees, equal to the total appraised value of trees #1, 28 and 33, which is $7,170 are required as part of the project. Replacement values for trees can be found at the bottom of the Tree Inventory Table attached to this report. The landscape plan shows four big leaf maple trees, which meets the requirement of planting at least four replacement trees from the City’s list of natives, and is acceptable. The landscape plan also shows a total of four 24 inch box sized trees and thirty three 15 gallon sized trees being planted as part of the project. This provides a total replacement value of $6,950. Additional trees or larger trees are required to meet the condition of planting new trees equal to $7,170 as part of the project. Setback of New Construction from Trees Based on a review of information provided, and as conditioned, the project complies with the requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15-50.120. 268 14190 Palomino Way Page 5 of 8 REQUIREMENTS 1. This entire report, including the Tree Inventory Table and map showing locations of trees and protective fencing, shall be incorporated into the final set of plans and titled “Tree Preservation”. The previous reports do not need to be included in the plans. 2. No protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project may be removed or encroached upon, until the issuance of all applicable permits from the building division for the approved project. 3. Applicant is responsible for protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction work. Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities under this Code. 4. Trees shall be numbered on all plan sheets. 5. Plan sheets shall be consistent in their dimensions. Measurements on one sheet shall be the same as measurements on other sheets independent of the preparer or the scale used. 6. Applicant shall hire a Project Arborist, which shall: a. Attend the preconstruction meeting. b. Be on site to ensure adequate protection of trees during the installation of slope stabilization piers. c. Provide a letter to the City, with photos and observations, documenting the process of pier installation. d. Provide recommendations to the applicant, with a copy to the City, for trees as a consequence of pier installation. 7. Tree Protection Security Deposit - $59,410 a. Owner shall obtain, and file with the Community Development Director, a Tree Protection security deposit for trees #2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19, 22, 29, 31 and 32. a. Owner shall obtain the Tree Protection Security Deposit prior to receipt of building division permits. b. The tree protection security deposit shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project to ensure the protection of the trees. c. Once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City, the security deposit will be released. 8. Tree Protection Fencing: a. Shall be installed as shown on the attached map. b. Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. c. Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, 1 7/8- 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 REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST”. 269 14190 Palomino Way Page 6 of 8 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. If contractor feels that work must be done inside the fenced area, call City Arborist to arrange a field meeting. Failure to do so may lead to a hold on the Tree Protection Security Deposit put in place by the property owner for a period of up to five years after the completion of construction. 9. A four inch layer of clean wood chips shall be installed under protected trees on site, from 1 foot away from the trunk to the edge of the canopy. 10. It is acceptable to remove trees #1, 28 and 33 once building division permits for the project have been obtained. 11. New trees equal to the replacement value of $7,170 shall be planted following construction. Replacement values for trees may be found at the bottom of the Tree Inventory Table attached to the end of this report. 12. At least four replacement trees shall be from the City’s list of native species. Acceptable species include coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), black oak (Quercus kelloggii), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). 13. Columns of the perimeter fence around the property shall remain at least 15 feet from the trunk of any protected tree on the site (including for forms, utilities or other work). 14. The first two feet of excavation for the holes for the fence columns shall be hand dug. All roots measuring two inches or more shall be preserved and worked around. Roots measuring less than two inches may be cut using a sharp pruning tool. 15. Soil cuts or addition of fill soil for the driveway shall remain at least 10 feet from the trunk of any protected tree. 16. Slopes between retaining walls and trees shall conform to natural grade and not be cut or filled to attain the 2:1 slope often specified. 17. Fill soil shall be retained using dry stack type retaining walls where possible so that no additional excavation is required under the canopies of oaks. 18. Soil stabilization piers: a. Shall not be placed any closer than 10 feet from the trunk of any protected tree on site. b. Equipment used to install piers shall be situated outside of tree canopies and outside of tree protection fence when work is performed. c. During installation of piers, applicant shall have a Project Arborist (arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture) on site to ensure protection of trees. 270 14190 Palomino Way Page 7 of 8 d. Arborist shall provide a letter to the City indicating when they were on site, what they observed, where the equipment was placed, and any recommendations for tree health following installation of piers. 19. Utilities shall be shown on the plans. Utilities include, but are not limited to, electrical, drainage, water, sewer, gas and irrigation for landscaping. 20. Excavation for new utilities, if they are intended as part of the project, is not permitted under tree canopies. 21. Any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site must be performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. 22. Unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist, all construction activities must be conducted outside the designated fenced area (even after fencing is removed). 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. 23. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited under tree canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage to areas under tree canopies. Herbicides shall not be applied under tree canopies. 24. New landscape shall be designed and installed as follows: a. Design irrigation so that it does not spray trunks of trees. b. Locate valve boxes and controllers outside of tree canopies. c. Locate lateral lines outside of tree canopies. d. No more than 20% of the area under the tree canopies may be planted. Select plants with similar water requirements to the trees under which they will be placed. e. Do not install lawn under the canopy of oaks. f. Only drought tolerant plants compatible with oaks may be planted under oaks, and only in the outer 20% of the area under the canopy. g. Design topdressings so that mulch remains at least one foot from the trunks of retained trees and 6 inches from the trunks of new trees. 25. At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing, call City Arborist for a final inspection. Attachments: Tree Removal Criteria Tree Inventory Table Map showing tree locations and tree protective fencing 271 14190 Palomino Way Page 8 of 8 TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article 15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and replacement during construction. (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services; (2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property; (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes; (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area; (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices; (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree; (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article; (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010; and (9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. 272 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO. TREE NAME Trunk Diameter (in,) - per Guide for Plant AppraisalEstimated Canopy Spread (ft.)Health Condition (100% = best, 0% = worst)Structural Integrity (100% = best, 0% = worst)Overall ConditionSuitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Intensity of Impacts (1 = Highest, 5 = Lowest)In Conflict with Proposed DesignNot Shown on PlansAppraised ValueCoast live oak 5.3, 6.9, 11 1 Quercus agrifolia 7, 7.2, 6.9 30 70 30 Fair Moderate 1 X $6,200 Coast live oak 2 Quercus agrifolia 7.6 12 50 50 Fair Moderate 2 $540 Coast live oak 3 Quercus agrifolia 22.5 30 60 60 Fair High 2 $6,200 Coast live oak 4 Quercus agrifolia 9 15 80 80 Good High 2 $1,770 Coast live oak 5 Quercus agrifolia 36 35 80 80 Good High 2 $26,700 Coast live oak 6 Quercus agrifolia 6, 11 15 70 70 Good High 2 $3,620 Coast live oak 7 Quercus agrifolia 9.4 15 70 60 Good High 2 $1,560 Coast live oak 8 Quercus agrifolia 7 10 80 80 Good High 2 $1,110 Coast live oakCoast live oak 9 Quercus agrifolia 7 10 80 80 Good High 2 $1,110 Coast live oak 10 Quercus agrifolia 11, 11.1 20 80 70 Good High 2 $5,300 Coast live oak 11 Quercus agrifolia 10.7 20 80 80 Good High 2 $2,460 Coast live oak 12 Quercus agrifolia 14.6 25 80 80 Good High 2 $4,490 Coast live oak 13 Quercus agrifolia 6.2 10 80 80 Good High 2 $900 Coast live oak 14 Quercus agrifolia 9.2 15 90 80 Good High 2 $2,000 Coast live oak 15 Quercus agrifolia 7.8 15 90 80 Good High 2 $1,440 14190 Palomino Way January 12, 2012 273 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO. TREE NAME Trunk Diameter (in,) - per Guide for Plant AppraisalEstimated Canopy Spread (ft.)Health Condition (100% = best, 0% = worst)Structural Integrity (100% = best, 0% = worst)Overall ConditionSuitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Intensity of Impacts (1 = Highest, 5 = Lowest)In Conflict with Proposed DesignNot Shown on PlansAppraised ValueCoast live oak 16 Quercus agrifolia 8.9, 10.9 20 80 70 Good High 2 $4,700 Coast live oak 17 Quercus agrifolia 14 25 90 70 Good High 2 $4,130 Coast live oak 18 Quercus agrifolia 20 35 80 50 Good High 2 $4,230 Coast live oak 19 Quercus agrifolia 14 20 80 80 Good High 2 $2,580 Coast live oak 20 Quercus agrifolia 16 25 80 50 Good High 2 $2,730 Coast live oak 21 Quercus agrifolia 16 20 80 80 Good High 2 $3,350 Coast live oak 22 Quercus agrifolia 14 20 80 70 Good High 2 $3,070 Coast live oak 23 Quercus agrifolia 18.4 35 80 80 Good High 2 $4,420 Coast live oakCoast live oak 24 Quercus agrifolia 13.2 25 80 70 Good High 2 $1,730 Coast live oak 10, 6, 25 Quercus agrifolia 13.6 20 80 50 Good High 2 $7,220 Coast live oak 26 Quercus agrifolia 22.6 35 80 60 Good High 2 $9,700 Almond 7.7, 9.2, 27 Prunus amygdalus 11.3 15 40 30 Fair Low 2 $1,090 Lombardy poplar 6, 9, 4 28 Populus nigra 'Italica'4 102030PoorLow 2 X $0 Coast live oak 29 Quercus agrifolia 18 35 80 80 Good High 2 $5,900 Coast live oak 30 Quercus agrifolia 11.3 25 80 80 Good High 2 $2,390 14190 Palomino Way January 12, 2012 274 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO. TREE NAME Trunk Diameter (in,) - per Guide for Plant AppraisalEstimated Canopy Spread (ft.)Health Condition (100% = best, 0% = worst)Structural Integrity (100% = best, 0% = worst)Overall ConditionSuitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Intensity of Impacts (1 = Highest, 5 = Lowest)In Conflict with Proposed DesignNot Shown on PlansAppraised ValueCoast live oak 31 Quercus agrifolia 10 25 80 80 Good High 2 $1,890 Coast live oak 32 Quercus agrifolia 6 10 80 80 Good High 2 $630 Coast live oak 33 Quercus agrifolia 6, 2 10 80 80 Good High 1 X $970 Coast live oak 34 Quercus agrifolia 6.8 10 80 80 Good High 2 $920 *Total appraised value $127,050 * The values on this table aredifferent from previous reports in that they reflect the cost of the replacement tree only and do not include the cost of planting the new tree. This value will be used to determine the number of replacement trees, if any are needed. Should any tree listed above be removed owner will be required to replace that tree with trees equal to its appraised value. Replacement Tree Values 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500pg$ $ $, 48 inch box = $5,000 52 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 14190 Palomino Way January 12, 2012 275 14190 Palomino Way Legend Tree Protective Fencing Tree Canopy 2 5 6 7 8 9 14 13 12 11 10 16 15 19 18 17 21 20 22 23 25 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 1 4 276 Memorandum of Geotechnical Clearance Conditions GEO09-0012 Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Cynthia McCormick, Project Planner, Community Development Department CC: Mahassa Oveyssi, Applicant FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Senior Engineer SUBJECT: Geotechnical Clearance Conditions for GEO09-0012 and Public Works conditions for at 14190 Palomino Way DATE: July 7, 2011 1. The locations of site piers, retaining walls and project grading illustrated on the referenced plans by VBY Services (Sheets SS-1 through SS-4) shall take precedence over the locations of these improvements illustrated on other project plans. Any design changes from those indicated on the referenced VBY Services plans must be specifically approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer (Tharp & Associates). 2. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final project grading and construction plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements, and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that all geotechnical recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading and building permits. 3. The Project Engineering Geologist (Nolan Associate) shall review and approve all engineering geologic aspects of final project construction plans to verify conformance with geologic recommendations. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Engineering Geologist in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading and building permits. 4. The Project Engineering Geologist and 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 foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The Project Engineering Geologist shall inspect and prepare geologic logs of the building pad excavation, cut slopes and keyways to document site geologic conditions and provide a basis for supplemental analyses and design modification, if needed. The geologic logs shall be submitted with the final as-built report. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in reports and 277 Memorandum of Geotechnical Clearance Conditions GEO09-0012 Page 2 of 2 submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final (as-built) Project Approval. 5. 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. 6. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all improvements in any City right- of-way or City easement prior to commencement of the work to implement this Design Review Approval. 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. PDR11-0030 Location/ APN: 14760 Live Oak Lane / 397-18-069 Type of Application: Design Review for a New Single Family Residence Owner / Applicant: James and Suzanne Rivers /Steve Kellond Staff Planner: Michael Fossati, Planner Meeting Date: March 28, 2012 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to replace an existing 3,515 sq. ft. single-story, single-family residence with a new 5,805 sq. ft. two-story, single-family residence. The site is approximately 44,000 sq. ft. and is located within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue the item to May 9, 2012. ATTACHMENT: 1. E-mail from applicant requesting continuance Page 1 of 1 300 1 Michael Fossati From:Steve Kellond [steve@kellondarchitects.com] Sent:Monday, March 19, 2012 12:51 PM To:Michael Fossati Subject:Rivers Residence, 14760 Live Oak Lane Michael ‐ As discussed, the property owners are requesting a postponement of the planning commission hearing for  their project to the next available date. Thank you.    Steve Kellond, AIA Architect ___________________ Kellond Architects  408.741.0600 310.379.9504    301 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: March 28, 2012 Application No: ZOA12-0002 Type of Application: Zoning Amendment - Location / APN: Citywide Owner/Applicant: City of Saratoga Staff Planner: Cynthia McCormick, Planner, AICP SUMMARY The proposed zoning ordinance amendment would update the definition of impervious surface and provide a consistent review process for considering site coverage exemptions for driveways and related emergency vehicle turnarounds. BACKGROUND: At its meeting of February 15, 2012, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to: 1. Update the impervious surface definition to be consistent with the City’s Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance. 2. Provide consistency among site coverage exemptions for driveways and related emergency vehicle turnarounds within the Hillside Residential, Residential Open Space, and Agricultural zoning districts. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 12-011 recommending the City Council adopt the Ordinance amending City Code Sections 15-06.370, 15-11.080, 15-13.080, and 15-20.080. Page 1 of 4 302 DISCUSSION: Impervious Surface: In 2006, the City’s definition of impervious coverage in City Code Section 15-06.370 was amended as any structure or constructed surface that disrupts the natural aesthetic of the landscape, including, but not limited to, solid surface decks and patios, accessory structures, swimming pools, recreational courts, paved driveways and parking areas, and surfaces composed of gravel, decomposed granite, clay, and bricks with sand or concrete. This first half of this definition is partially consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element which states the “Impervious coverage is defined as any structure or constructed surface that disrupts the aesthetics of the landscape.” However, inclusion of the word natural is not necessary to preserve the aesthetic of the landscape objective and precludes technological advances in artificial pervious materials that can be both aesthetically pleasing and achieve water conservation and water quality goals. The General Plan further states that “Impervious coverage limitations are intended to minimize runoff resulting from development of the parcel. Likewise, the California Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance defines “pervious” as any surface or material that allows the passage of water through the material and into the underlying soil. This standard is different than the City’s impervious surface definition which includes materials such as gravel and decomposed granite. These materials are considered to be “mulch” in the Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance. A new definition for impervious surface that would capture the language used in the Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance and maintain conformance with the General Plan could be as follows: 15-30.020: "Impervious surface" means any structure or constructed surface that prevents the passage of water into the underlying soil or otherwise significantly increases runoff and disrupts the aesthetic of the landscape. Exemptions for Driveways & Emergency Vehicle Access In 1998, the City amended the Zoning Ordinance to remove the site coverage exemption for driveways in the R1-40,000 and Hillside Residential zoning districts, while maintaining this exclusion in the Agricultural and Residential Open Space zoning districts (Attachment 3). The explanation of these changes is limited to the following statement in the 1998 City Council staff report (Attachment 4): “In addition, amendments are being proposed to Lot Impervious Coverage requirements to match the language of the Measure G initiative.” However, Measure G (Attachment 6) did not create any new development standards. Measure G did readopt and reaffirm certain policies of the General Plan in effect at the time the initiative was filed. In addition, Measure G added several new policies that imposed a voter approval requirement for amendments to the policies that were reaffirmed and readopted by the Measure. Application No. ZOA12-0002 Page 2 of 4 303 The site coverage exemptions for R1-40,000 and HR were in place prior to the adoption of Measure G and were in conformance with the General Plan that was in effect at the time the initiative was filed. Therefore, re-establishing the exemption for the HR district is consistent with the General Plan. The terminology for the driveway exception that remained unchanged for the Agricultural and Residential Open Space districts is shown below. Section 15-20.080 (Residential Open Space site coverage) ….Driveways may be excluded from the calculation of site coverage, as determined and approved by the Planning Commission, subject to the findings described in Section 15-20.50(i), except for when a conditional use permit is granted by the Planning Commission for clustering development. Section 15-11.080 (Agricultural site coverage) …. In determining the amount of impervious surface, the area of a single driveway providing vehicular access from the street to the required enclosed parking spaces on the site, and any related turnaround area determined to be necessary for safety purposes, shall be excluded. Buildings in the hillsides are required to be sited in geologically stable areas which may not always be located near public access roads. In many cases this necessitates longer driveways which need to be wide enough to accommodate emergency vehicles and provide adequate turnaround areas for these vehicles. The larger driveway and turnaround areas significantly reduce the available site coverage available for structures. Consistent application of site coverage exemptions in the Agricultural, Residential Open Space, and Hillside Residential zoning districts is advisable. The following changes would provide that consistency and allow the driveway exemption to be approved by the Planning Commission subject to certain findings. 15-11.080: The maximum site coverage on any lot in an A district shall not exceed twenty- five percent or fifteen thousand square feet, whichever is less. In determining the amount of impervious surface, the area of a single driveway providing vehicular access from the street to the required enclosed parking spaces on the site, and any related emergency vehicle turnaround areas may be excluded from the calculation of site coverage, as determined and approved by the Planning Commission, subject to the findings described in Section 15- 45.080. 15-13.080: The maximum site coverage on any lot in an HR district shall not exceed twenty- five percent, or fifteen thousand square feet, whichever is less. In determining the amount of impervious surface, the area of a single driveway providing vehicular access from the street to the required enclosed parking spaces on the site, and any related emergency vehicle turnaround areas may be excluded from the calculation of site coverage, as determined and approved by the Planning Commission, subject to the findings described in Section 15- 45.080. Application No. ZOA12-0002 Page 3 of 4 304 Application No. ZOA12-0002 Page 4 of 4 15-20-080: The maximum site coverage on any lot in an R-OS district shall not exceed twenty-five percent or twelve thousand square feet, whichever is less. In determining the amount of impervious surface, the area of a single driveway providing vehicular access from the street to the required enclosed parking spaces on the site, and any related emergency vehicle turnaround areas may be excluded from the calculation of site coverage, as determined and approved by the Planning Commission, subject to the findings described in Section 15-45.080, except for when a conditional use permit is granted by the Planning Commission for clustering development. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the amendment is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. NEXT STEPS: The ordinance amendment is scheduled for a City Council Public Hearing on May 2nd. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Proposed Amendments (Exhibit A) 3. 1998 Ordinance Amendments to driveway exemption 4. 1998 City Council Report 5. 1998 City Council Minutes 6. Measure G text 7. 1999 memo to City Council re: interpretation and implementation of Measure G 8. Correspondence from resident 305 RESOLUTION NO. 12-00   A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AMENDING SARATOGA CITY CODE SECTIONS 15-06.370, 15-11.080, 15-13.080, and 15-20.080 WHEREAS, on February 15, 2012, the Saratoga City Council directed staff to update the City’s Sign Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the amendment is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, on March 28, 2012, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendments, and considered evidence presented by City staff, the public, and other interested parties. All comments raised during the Public Hearing on the Project were considered by the Planning Commission. 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 amendments are consistent with Saratoga General Plan Land Use Element Goal LU 6 which provides that the City should protect natural resources and amenities through appropriate land use and related programs and General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element Goal 9 which provides that the City should protect existing watercourses in the community and enhance water quality in surface and subsurface water sources. Section 3: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission finds: 1. The amendment to City Code Section 15-06.370 is more consistent with the City’s General Plan goal to minimize runoff from development by not penalizing property owners for using permeable materials. The revision is also consistent with the language used in the City’s Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance. 2. The amendments to City Code Sections 15-11.080, 15-13.080, and 15-20.080 unify the standards for site coverage in the Agricultural, Residential Open Space, and Hillside Residential zoning districts. The amendments also reestablish the impervious surface exemption for driveways and emergency turnaround areas in the Hillside Residential zoning district, an area which is characterized by large lots as found in the Agricultural and Residential Open Space district. Such lots may require a long driveway to access the site, which limits the amount of impervious coverage permitted for reasonable development of a site. Additional lot coverage for driveways in the Hillside Residential District, where lots tend to be large, is necessary to achieve reasonable vehicular access to a site without unreasonable restrictions on standard development of such site and to preserve the natural landscape insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimize tree and soil removal. 306 Resolution No. 12-00  Page 2    Section 4: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the Ordinance amending City Code Sections 15-06.370, 15-11.080, 15-13.080, and 15- 20.080. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 28th day of March 2012 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ___________________________________ Douglas R. Robertson Chair, Planning Commission 307 EXHIBIT A The Saratoga City Code is hereby amended by adding the text shown in bold italics (example) and deleting the text shown in strikeout (example) in the sections listed below: 15-06.370 - Impervious surface. "Impervious surface" means any structure or constructed surface that prevents the passage of water into the underlying soil or otherwise significantly increases runoff and disrupts the natural aesthetic of the landscape. including, but not limited to, solid surface decks and patios, accessory structures, swimming pools, recreational courts, paved driveways and parking areas, and surfaces composed of gravel, decomposed granite, clay, and bricks with sand or concrete. 15-11.080 - Site coverage. The maximum site coverage on any lot in an A district shall be as follows: (a) The maximum coverage shall be twenty-five percent or fifteen thousand square feet, whichever is less. (b) In determining the amount of impervious surface, the area of a single driveway providing vehicular access from the street to the required enclosed parking spaces on the site, and any related emergency vehicle turnaround areas determined to be necessary for safety purposes, shall may be excluded from the calculation of site coverage, as determined and approved by the Planning Commission, subject to the findings described in Section 15- 45.080. 15-13.080 - Site coverage. The maximum site coverage on any lot in the HR district shall be twenty-five percent, or fifteen thousand square feet, whichever is less. In determining the amount of impervious surface, the area of a Ssingle driveways providing vehicular access from the street to the required enclosed parking spaces on the site, and any related emergency vehicle turnaround areas may be excluded from the calculation of site coverage, as determined and approved by the Planning Commission, subject to the findings described in Section 15- 45.080. 15-20.080 - Site coverage. The maximum site impervious coverage on any lot in the R- OS district shall not exceed either twenty-five percent or twelve thousand square feet, whichever is less. In determining the amount of impervious surface, the area of a single Ddriveways providing vehicular access from the street to the required enclosed parking spaces on the site, and any related emergency vehicle turnaround areas may be excluded from the calculation of site coverage, as determined and approved by the Planning Commission, subject to the findings described in Section 15-45.080 15-20.50(i), except for when a conditional use permit is granted by the Planning Commission for clustering development. 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 Dear Planning Commission, 2/28/12 Below are some thoughts you may want to consider when discussing Impervious Coverage. I apologize for not being able to attend your meeting, as I will be out of town. When I applied for my Cabana building permit, my Artificial Turf and gravel area became an issue. I was told that it would be considered as Impervious Coverage because it was “manufactured and didn’t look like natural landscaping”, even though it percolated water faster than any rainfall in Saratoga, looked like grass and was in my enclosed (non-visible) back yard. This appeared like a subjective interpretation of the code and it seems we have an opportunity to clarify the real meaning of Impervious. I would like to offer some thoughts for your consideration: 1- Staff’s recommendation to remove the word “natural” definitely helps the situation. 2- Also suggest removing the words “constructed surface” in section 15-06.370. I kept running into Artificial Turf (also gravel) being considered as a “constructed surface”. New pervious materials are “manufactured” and I don’t think those words are needed anymore and could continue to create a conflict in future decision-making. 3- Even though Impervious Coverage has nothing to do with Aesthetics of Landscaping, I understand that eliminating the words “aesthetics of the landscape” from Impervious Coverage may create a legal problem with the General Plan. I would suggest the City Council give some general guidelines, or examples, as to what materials are allowable and considered “pervious”, otherwise it could be left up to the subjective interpretation in future decisions. This might be done with a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council. These could be: a. “The City is concerned about water percolation and water runoff. Therefore materials that allow water percolation and/or help retain water on the property, such as Artificial Turf, landscaping gravel, tree bark, recycled rubber (made to look like bark), open planked decks or other materials that allow water to flow and percolate into the ground should not be counted Impervious Coverage.” The Code could require 334 material have a percolation rate of ≥0.5”/hr. This would cover 99.99% of Saratoga’s rainfall, even if the percolation rate of the material is degraded by ~92% over the years. This might work for driveways as well. It also could solve the question/problem of assuring the materials stay clean enough to still percolate in the future. b. “The City is primarily concerned with the aesthetics of the property as seen by the public and not the non-visible areas of the property”. Hopefully Saratoga does not intend to become a “Big Brother” government by controlling the aesthetics of non- visible areas such as rear or side yards. In surveying 22 cities, including our neighbors, I could not find ny that try, or want, to control the non-visible yard aesthetics. a ote: most cities restrict visible areas to: N ‐ ‐ ≥50% be landscaped (can include AT, tree bark and/or rock, etc.). Some materials are used to retain irrigation water around trees or plants. ≤ 50% of area be paved (includes driveways) Planning could require applicants to submit samples of “manufactured materials”, as part of the “color board” or “landscaping plan” for permit approval to make sure materials are attractive. Remember that what appears acceptable to one person may not be to another. Some people don’t like gravel but in some cases may be the best choice. I would suggest not trying to over control appearances. 4- Saratoga could become a leading example of a forward looking “Green city” by developing an incentive plan that encourages homeowners to use materials that: e P a.Reduce use of irrigation wat r. b.rovide rainwater retention   c. Allow rainwater to percolate/penetrate into the ground to replenish aquifer.  d. Appear as well kept landscape. Especially true were real  grass has difficulty growing in the shade of trees or a  structure.  An example could be Artificial Turf (AT) as it does all these things.  Installing AT is much more expensive than real grass so Water  Districts are providing incentives (usually $1/ft2) in the form of  cash rebates to homeowners replacing grass lawns with AT.   Saratoga can’t afford money incentives but could encourage  335 people to do this but giving them a small credit (relief) on  Impervious Coverage limitations, or some other restriction.   Example could be:  for every 100ft2 of AT used, instead of real  grass, the city gives credit of 15ft2 (15%) on the Impervious  Coverage limit up to a maximum of 600ft2 credit.  Could even be a  higher % (such as 20% & 800‐1,000ft2 credit). Could give more  credit for exposed or visible yards than enclosed non‐visible  yards.  I hope these comments can be of benefit to you in resolving this issue. Sincerely, Ron Hills 18588 Woodbank Way, Saratoga, CA 408-221-8625 cell email: ron.hills@comcast.net 336 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. N/A Location/ APN: 13777 Fruitvale Ave. / 389-43-025 Type of Application: Summer Recess – Planning Commission Owner / Applicant: City of Saratoga Staff Planner: Michael Fossati, Planner Meeting Date: March 28, 2012 BACKGROUND: During the past two years, the Planning Commission has canceled one or more meetings for a summer recess. In 2010, the July 28th and August 25th meetings were canceled. In 2011, the August 10th meeting was cancelled. Given the continued effort to complete the City sponsored work plan and the number of projects requiring Planning Commission review, Staff is recommending cancelling the August 8, 2012 meeting for summer recess. RECOMMENDED ACTION Approve the cancellation of the August 8th, 2012 meeting for summer recess. ATTACHMENTS: None Page 1 of 1 337