The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-14-2012 Planning Commission PacketTable of Contents Agenda 2 October 24, 2012 draft minutes 4 Application ADR12-0024 & GRE12-0001; 15781 Hidden Hill Road (510-24-015); Peter and Lina Liou / Modern House - The applicant requests Design Review approval to replace an existing 5,262 square foot home with a new 5,002 square foot one-story home and approval of a Grading Exception for 1,637 cubic yards of additional grading. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408)868-1235 Staff Report 6 Attachment 1 - Resolution 14 Attachment 2 - Applicant's Project Description 19 Attachment 3 - Arborist Report 21 Attachment 4 - Geotechnical Conditions 32 Attachment 5 - Public Hearing Notice 33 Attachment 6 - Neighbor Notification Forms 35 Attachment 7 - Development Plans 39 Application PDR09-0006 & VAR08-0003; 14660 Quito Road (407-14-004); Dang / Rockwood Design - The applicant requests approval to replace an existing 926 sq. ft. one-story main residence with a 2,697 sq. ft. two-story residence. The design review application is due to the request to convert a single-story structure into a multi-story structure. The variance application is due to the request to allow construction within the front and rear setbacks. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212. Staff Report - 14660 Quito Road 64 Att. 1 - Resolution - 14660 Quito 72 Att. 2 - Arborist Report - 14660 Quito Rd.77 Att. 3 - Schaff & Wheeler Letter 85 Att. 4 - Neighbor Notification 88 Att. 5 - Public Hearing Notice 95 Att. 6 - Plan Set - 14460 Quito Rd 98 1 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, November 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 October 24, 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. 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 and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. Application ADR12-0024 & GRE12-0001; 15781 Hidden Hill Road (510-24-015); Peter and Lina Liou / Modern House - The applicant requests Design Review approval to replace an existing 5,262 square foot home with a new 5,002 square foot one-story home and approval of a Grading Exception for 1,637 cubic yards of additional grading. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408)868-1235 Recommended action: Adopt Resolution No. 12-047 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. 2. Application PDR09-0006 & VAR08-0003; 14660 Quito Road (407-14-004); Dang / Rockwood Design - The applicant requests approval to replace an existing 926 sq. ft. one-story main residence with a 2,697 sq. ft. two-story residence. The design review application is due to the request to convert a single-story structure into a multi-story structure. The variance application is due to the request to allow construction within the front and rear setbacks. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212. Recommended action: Adopt Resolution No. 12-046 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. 2 NEW BUSINESS DIRECTOR/COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ADJOURNMENT In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the Planning Commission by City Staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the Community Development at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the Planning Commission concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of agenda are available for public review at the Community Development Department at the time they are distributed to the Planning Commission. 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 November 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 3 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, October 24, 2012 REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ABSENT Commissioner Almalech APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 26, 2012 (Approved, 6:0:1) COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSION & PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an “Appeal Application” with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, 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 and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. Application FER12-0003; 19870 Mendelsohn Lane (510-01-004); Peter & Rita Redford - The applicant is requesting a fence exception to construct an approximately 10’ tall, concrete wall with 10’ tall concrete pilasters along the front and side property lines. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408)868-1235 Recommended action: Adopted Resolution No.12-044 approving the project subject to conditions of approval which include limiting the wall height to six feet within the front setback and eight feet along the eastern side property line for a length of 35 feet. (Approved, 6:0:1(Almalech)) 2. Application SUB 12-0002; 20400 Hill Avenue (517-18-048) MTNRMT, LLC / Gregory Howell - The applicant proposes to subdivide a 6.27 acre lot located at 20400 Hill Avenue into five parcels ranging in size from 1.08 acres to 1.38 acres. The project has been the subject of a Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act which became available for review by the public beginning October 1, 2012. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230. 4 Recommended action: Adopted Resolution No. 12-045 adopting the Negative Declaration and approving the Tentative Map subject to the conditions of approval. (Approved, 6:0:1(Almalech)) 15c. Identify potential traffic impacts related to the subdivision and make any improvements to the intersection of Hill Avenue and Montalvo Heights Drive deemed necessary by the City Traffic Engineer. 3. Application PDR09-0006 / VAR08-0006; 14660 Quito Road (407-14-004); Dang / Rockwood Design - The applicant requests approval to replace an existing 926 sq. ft. one-story main residence with a 2,697 sq. ft. two-story residence. The design review application is due to the request to convert a single-story structure into a multi-story structure. The variance application is due to the request to allow construction within a required setback. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212 Recommended action: Continued to November 14, 2012. (Approved, 6:0:1(Almalech)) NEW BUSINESS DIRECTOR/COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ADJOURNMENT In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the Planning Commission by City Staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the Community Development at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the Planning Commission concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of agenda are available for public review at the Community Development Department at the time they are distributed to the Planning Commission. 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 October 18, 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 5 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: November 14, 2012 Application: ADR12-0024, GRE12-0001 Location / APN: 15781 Hidden Hill Road / 510-24-015 Owner/Applicant: Peter and Lina Liou / Modern House Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan 15781 Hidden Hill Road 6 15781 Hidden Hill Road Summary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review approval to replace an existing 5,262 square foot home with a new 5,002 square foot one-story home and approval of a Grading Exception for 1,637 cubic yards of additional grading. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 12-047 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060. Grading Exception approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to City Code Section 15-13.050(f). PROJECT DATA: Net Site Area: 39,487 SF Average Slope: 7.7% General Plan Designation: RHC (Residential Hillside Conservation) Zoning: HR Proposed Allowed/Required Proposed Site Coverage Residential Footprint Driveway Decks/Walkways Accessory Structures (pond) Total Proposed Site Coverage 4,965 sq. ft. 1,065 sq. ft. 3,576 sq. ft. 185 sq. ft. 9,791 sq. ft. (24.8%) Maximum Coverage allowed is 9,872 SF (25%) or 15,000 square feet, whichever is less. Floor Area First Floor Basement/Garage Total 4,988.5 sq. ft. 14 sq. ft. 5,002.5 sq. ft. Maximum Floor Area allowed is 6,000 sq. ft. Grading Driveway Site Shrinkage Cut 832 CY 193 CY 0 CY 1,025CY Fill 0 CY 1402 CY 210 CY 1,612 CY Total 832 CY 1,595 CY 210 CY 2,637 CY 1,000 CY (Grading Exception Requested for an Additional 1,637 CY) Height (Residence) Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: 569 572 570.5 581.5 (11.00 Ft.) Maximum Building Height is 26 Feet Page 2 of 8 7 15781 Hidden Hill Road Setbacks Front: Left Side: Right Side: Rear: 1st Story 30’ 20’ 50’ 50’ 2nd Story n/a n/a n/a n/a 1st Story 30’ 20’ 20’ 50’ 2nd Story n/a n/a n/a n/a PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS Site Description: The project is located at 15781 Hidden Hill Road at the intersection of Hidden Hill Place. Existing on the site is a 5,262 square foot one story single-family home. An asphalt tennis court, pool and spa are located in the rear yard. A row of mature pine trees are located along the eastern and rear property line, a row of cedar trees are located along the western property line, and two large oak trees are located in the lots northwest corner. Single story homes are located on both adjacent properties. The average slope of the lot is 7.7 percent with a 13 foot reduction in elevation from the southwestern corner of the lot to its northwestern corner. Photographs of the existing site are included on page A0.9 of the development plans. Project Description and Architectural Style: The project would include the removal of the existing house and all hardscape including the tennis court, pool and driveway. Trees to be removed are discussed later in this report. The new 5,002 square foot, 11 feet tall residence with a 2,241 square foot basement/garage would have a modern contemporary design and would be located on the site in approximately the same location as the existing house. Architectural features would include a recessed entry courtyard and exterior rooms that include a family room, dining room, and view deck. Exterior building materials would include horizontal cedar siding, zinc metal panels, smooth finished stucco, both clear and tinted glass wall panels, and aluminum windows and doors. To maintain consistency with the height and massing of adjacent homes the proposed residence was designed as a single-story with a maximum height of approximately 11 feet and will include horizontally proportioned one story massing to blend with the streetscape. Neighborhood compatibility was also maintained by not including a second story element in the design of the project, limiting the projects floor area to 83% allowed per city code, and locating 2,241 square feet of living/garage space in a below grade basement. Vehicular access from the street to the garage would be provided by a 12.5% down sloped cobblestone driveway. The proposed landscape plan illustrates that the project would predominantly include evergreen drought tolerant landscaping. This includes native “mow free” sod on opposite sides of the driveway and in the rear yard, a driveway entry court of “grasspave”, which is a permeable material, and a variety of flowing shrubs along the northwestern portion of the site. Ginko trees would be planted in the southwest and southeast corners of the site and Carpinus trees would be planted behind the driveway courtyard. Grasses w grow to a height of 48 inches would be planted on opposite sides of the driveway entrance so as to soften the view of the sloped driveway from the street. No accessory structures, swimming pools, or spas are proposed. The project meets all City Code requirements including floor area, height, setbacks, and lot coverage. Page 3 of 8 8 15781 Hidden Hill Road Materials and Colors: Detail Colors and Materials Exterior 1 x 3 Channel Groove White Cedar Wood Siding Zinc Wall Panels Grey Colored Smooth Stucco w/sand finish Windows Tinted Glass w/ Black Colored Aluminum Trim Garage Door Acid Etched Glass w/ Black Colored Aluminum Trim Entry Door Pre Finished Steel Flat Roof EPDM (ethylene propylene diene monomer) rubber Geotechnical Clearance: Geoforensics, Inc. prepared a Geotechnical Investigation report for the proposed project, dated May 9, 2012. On July 12, 2012, the project received geotechnical clearance to proceed with conditions from Cotton Shires and Associates (the City’s Geotechnical Consultant) and the Saratoga Public Works Department. A copy of the geotechnical clearance is included as Attachment 4. Grading: The Grading and Drainage plan prepared by Westfall Engineers indicates that the total quantity of grading (cut and fill) for the site would be 3,261 CY which includes excavation for the basement. Excavation for the basement would be 624 cubic yards and per City Code this amount is not included in a projects overall grading quantity. Exempting the basement excavation would reduce the project overall grading to 2,637 CY. Per City Code Section 15-13.050(f) the combined cut and fill of grading in the Hillside Residential zoning district is limited to 1,000 CY. Provided that the City Code allows 1,000 CY of grading the project would include 1,637 CY of additional grading. Not including the basement, project related excavation of 1,025 CY would include 832 CY of cut for the construction of the sloped driveway and the vehicle court located adjacent to the garage. An additional 193 cubic yards of cut would be used to contour the site for the primary purpose of directing site drainage. A goal of the projects civil engineer was to limit the amount of soil export by keeping the majority of it on site to be used as fill. A fill depth of approximately three feet would be used in the rear yard for the construction of the “meadow”. This is the area that is presently used as a tennis court. Fill would also be used to construct areas of the building pad as well as on other portions of the site where it would be used to control site drainage. Another 210 cubic yards of fill would be used to accommodate the shrinkage associated with soil compaction and moisture loss. Utilizing the cut material as fill reduced the soil export from 1,649 cubic yards to 37 cubic yards thereby lowering the total number of dump trucks needed to haul the soil off site from 165 trucks to approximately three. Trees: The City Arborist inventoried 34 protected trees on the project site and made the findings to approve the removal of 29 of these trees. These include 26 Monterey pines located along the northeast and rear property line, one valley oak, and two flowering plums. Non-protected trees to Page 4 of 8 9 15781 Hidden Hill Road be removed include the line of cedar trees along the northwest property line and a number of miscellaneous fruit trees located to the right of the existing house. Details of the arborist findings and descriptions of the trees to be removed are included in the Arborist report which is included as Attachment 3. Green Points: The Greenpoints checklist shows a total value of 95 points (see page AO.1 of the plans). Some of the proposed green features would include: • Engineered Lumber for beams, headers, floor joints and trusses; • Replacing Portland cement in concrete with at least 20% fly ash; • Plumbing for future solar water heating; • Wiring for a future roof mounted photovoltaic system; • High Efficiency Plumbing Fixtures; • Whole house fans; • 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 Notification and Correspondence: The applicant sent Neighbor Notification Forms for the project to all adjacent neighbors. Four neighbors signed the forms and forwarded them back to the applicant with no negative project related comments. A Public Notice was also sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site. No concerns have been brought to the City’s attention as of the writing of this staff report. FINDINGS Design Review Findings: The findings required for issuance of a Design Review approval pursuant to City Code Article 15- 45 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: (a) The project avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project meets this finding in that the proposed single-story building is 11 feet tall without any second story elements or windows to interfere with views and privacy. The existing and proposed fences and landscaping and the absence of second story windows would preserve the existing privacy for adjacent neighbors. The height of the proposed residence is shorter than the existing house therefore it would not interfere with the views of neighboring property owners. (b) The project preserves the natural landscape. The project meets this finding in that the existing site does not have significant natural landscape to preserve. The site is substantially covered with hardscape such as a pool, patio, and a tennis court and the health of the majority of trees on Page 5 of 8 10 15781 Hidden Hill Road site are in decline. The proposed project includes a landscape plan which illustrates that the majority of the site (75%) outside the building footprint will be landscaped. (c) The project preserves protected, native and heritage trees. The project meets this finding in that no heritage trees are proposed for removal. The City Arborist inventoried 34 protected trees on the project site and made the findings to approve the removal of 29 trees. The trees to be removed include 26 Monterey pines, one valley oak, and two flowering plums. The Arborist made the determination that the trees to be removed are either in declining health, are located to close to adjacent trees, or would most likely not survive the impact of project construction. Two oak trees and one coast redwood can be adequately protected and are to be preserved. (d) The project minimizes the perception of excessive bulk. The project meets this finding in that the home would be designed as an 11 feet tall single-story home with horizontal building forms, roof lines and building materials which help distinguish the proportions and contemporary style of the home. The design includes consistent roof forms with sufficient architectural articulation to reduce the impression of bulk. The garage would be located in the basement and would not be visible from the street. The neutral color pallet and natural material would aid in blending the home with the proposed landscaping. (e) The project is of compatible bulk and height. The project meets this finding in that the proposed residence would be approximately 11 feet in height and this height would be compatible with the taller one and two-story homes within the immediate neighborhood. Neighboring homes are predominantly ranch style homes with wide façades. The horizontal lines and subtractive massing of the proposed home would be compatible in bulk with neighboring homes. (f) 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. (g) The project follows appropriate design policies and techniques. Policy 1: Minimize Perception of Bulk – the use of material and colors to reduce bulk, minimizing building height and designing structure to fit with existing neighborhood. Policy 2: Integrate Structures with Environment – the use of natural materials and colors, using landscaping to blend with the environment and blending roof and parking surfaces with the environment. Policy 3: Avoid Interference with Privacy - controlling views to adjacent properties, locating buildings to minimize privacy impact, and using landscaping to enhance privacy. Policy 4: Preserve Views and Access to Views – locating structure to minimize view blockage and locating structure to reduce height impact. Policy 5: Design for Energy Efficiency – designing for maximum benefit of sun and wind as well as allowing light, air and solar access to adjacent homes, and incorporating energy-saving measures into the design. 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. Page 6 of 8 11 15781 Hidden Hill Road 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 proposed residence would be located in the approximate location as the existing structure. Site contours slope from west to east with a 13 foot drop in elevation. This change in elevation causes existing site drainage to flow off site. Additional grading would be necessary to 1) contour existing grades so that site drainage does not flow off the site but instead is directed to landscaped areas and rock dissipaters, and 2) to provide vehicle access to the basement garage. The basement garage would maximize the use of underground spaces thereby reducing the projects perceived bulk as viewed from offsite. The design of the garage would be subordinate to the house and landscaping and the neighborhoods pedestrian and aesthetic qualities would be preserved and enhanced. The grading would also improve the buildings integration into the natural topography of the site as recommended in the City’s Residential Design Handbook. 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. All the protected trees to be removed either are declining in health or would not survive impacts related to construction and have been approved for removal by the City Arborist. The natural land forms have already been modified because the project site is within a residential subdivision and was previously graded for construction of the existing residence. The site has a negative slope in the southeastern corner with a grade change of approximately seven feet. The grading for the driveway would contour the grades in this area but the orientation of the slope would remain the same. 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 improve the integration of the structure and the driveway/court into the existing natural terrain and would redirect site drainage back on to the site. The proposed residence is a one story residence with a below grade garage which was designed for the purpose of reducing the projects mass and bulk while not comprising the aesthetic design of the contemporary architecture. The majority of the grading would be used for the construction of the driveway. The landforms elsewhere on the site would not be substantially modified with the exception of areas where the existing grades would be modified to control offsite drainage by directing water to landscaped areas and rock dissipaters. 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 existing topography through the merger of the architectural design with the natural surroundings by the use of horizontal building forms and proportions. The basement garage would be subordinate to the house, landscaping, and main entry so as to enhance and preserve the neighborhoods pedestrian and aesthetic qualities. The landscaping includes both native and non-native trees, bushes, and groundcovers. This finding can be made in the affirmative. Page 7 of 8 12 15781 Hidden Hill Road Page 8 of 8 5. The increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views. The increased grading associated with the construction of the driveway for the basement garage would reduce the prominence of construction by reducing the projects mass and bulk by shortening the length of the building’s façade. 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 proposed residence would be located in approximately the same location as the existing pad which was previously graded when the existing house was originally constructed. The proposed project would not be substantially increasing the amount of flat area surrounding the structure. This finding can be made in the affirmative. Environmental Determination: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 12-039 approving the project, subject to conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval for Design Review and a Grading Exception. 2. Applicants written project description. 3. Arborist Report 4. Geotechnical Conditions 5. Public Hearing Notice, Mailing Addresses for Project Notification 6. Neighbor Notification Forms 7. Development Plans (Exhibit "A") 13 RESOLUTION NO: 12-047 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A NEW ONE STORY, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A GRADING EXCEPTION TO EXCEED 1,000 CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING, LOCATED AT 15781 HIDDEN HILLS ROAD WHEREAS, on June 14, 2012, an application was submitted by Peter Liou requesting Design Review and Grading Exception approval to construct a new one story contemporary designed home located at 15781 Hidden Hills Road. The project has a total floor area of 5,002 square feet. The height of the proposed residence is approximately 11 feet. The site is located within the Hillside Residential Zoning District (APN 510-024-015). 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 November 14, 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 following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits; Land Use Element Goal 10 which minimizes the impact of development proposals in hillside areas by requiring visual analyses and imposition of conditions to prevent or reduce significant visual impacts; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. 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; 14 Resolution No. 12-047 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 5: 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 6: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves ADR12-0024, and GRE12-0001, located at 15781 Hidden Hill 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 14th day of November 2012 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Tina K. Walia Chair, Planning Commission 15 Resolution No. 12-047 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ADR12-0024 AND GRE11-0001 15781 HIDDEN HILL ROAD (APN 510-24-015) 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga City Code incorporated herein by this reference. 4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. 16 Resolution No. 12-047 In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 5. Site Drainage. The owner/applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding drainage, including but not limited to complying with the city approved stormwater management plan. The project shall retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site, that is created by the proposed construction and grading project, such that adjacent down slope properties will not be negatively impacted by any increase in flow. Design must follow the 2007 Santa Clara County Drainage Manual method criteria, as required by the building department. Retention/detention element design must follow the Drainage Manual guidelines, as required by the building department. Additionally, the site development plan must not restrict, obstruct or alter the existing natural drainage swale along the rear property in any way that would cause or increase erosion. 6. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans denominated Exhibit "A". All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with City Code. 7. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department. b. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, notes, and/or materials required by the Building Division. c. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages. d. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks comply with the Approved Plans,” which note shall represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance with this Design Review Approval. 8. The owner/applicant shall agree to all conditions required by the Saratoga Building Department. 9. The owner/applicant shall agree to all conditions required by the City Engineer, as applicable. 10. The owner/applicant shall agree to all conditions required by the City Arborist, as applicable, prior to issuance of building permits. 11. The owner/applicant shall agree to all conditions required by the Santa Clara County Fire Department, as applicable. 17 Resolution No. 12-047 12. The owner/applicant shall agree to all conditions required by the Sewer District, as applicable, prior to issuance of building permits. 18 19 20 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. Application #: ARB12-0030 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 15781 Hidden Hills Road Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Peter and Lina Liou Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 510-24-015 Email: peter.liou@intel.com Report History: #1 Date: Plans received May 24, 2012 Report completed July 3, 2012 #2 – This report replaces report #1 Revised plans received September 6, 2012 Revised civil drawing received September 19, 2012 Report completed September 21, 2012 PROJECT SCOPE The applicant has submitted plans to the City to demolish the existing house and build a new one story house with a basement garage. Twenty nine trees are requested for removal. They include 26 Monterey pines, two flowering plums and one valley oak. These trees meet the criteria for removal, and may be removed and replaced as part of the project. CLEARANCE – with conditions This project has clearance from the arborist to proceed, with the conditions noted below in the Requirements section. PLAN REVIEW Plans Reviewed: Architectural plans were prepared by Modern House Architecture and Design and dated December 29, 2011. Plan sheets reviewed for this report include Sheet A0.0, Cover Sheet; Sheet A2.0, Basement Floor Plan; Sheet A2.1, First Floor Plan; Sheets A3.1, A3.2, A3.3, and A3.4, Elevations; and Sheets A4.1 and A4.2, Longitudinal Sections. Civil plans were prepared by Westfall Engineers, Inc. and dated March 2012. Plan sheets reviewed for this report include Sheet 1, Grading and Drainage, Sheet 2, Sections and Details, and Sheet A0.4, Boundary and Topographic Survey. A revised Grading and Drainage Plan (Sheet C-1) was received September 19, 2012. It shows the storm drain line in a different location so that it remains 25 feet from tree #31. This new location is acceptable. 21 15781 Hidden Hills Road Page 2 of 8 Landscape plans were prepared by Christopher Yates Landscape Architecture and dated June 8, 2012. Plan sheets reviewed for this report include Sheet L-1.0, Site Plan; Sheet L-2.0, Landscape Plan; Sheet I-1.0, Irrigation Plan; and Sheet I-2.0, Irrigation Legend. Revised landscape plans were received September 6, 2012. They indicate that the existing grade will be preserved within 14 feet of tree #29 and 25 feet of tree #31, and remove elements of the landscape such as retaining walls and planters within this distance. This new plan is acceptable. TREE INFORMATION Tree Inventory: Thirty four trees protected by City Code were inventoried for the project. Inventoried trees include 26 Monterey pines (#1 – 3 and 6 – 28), two Arizona cypress trees (#3 and 4), one coast live oak (#29), two valley oaks (#30 and 31), one coast redwood (#32), and two flowering plums (#33 and 34). Data for each tree is included in a Tree Inventory Table at the end of this report, and their locations are shown on the map attached to this report. Security Deposit for the Projection of Trees: Per City Ordinance 15-50.080, a Tree Protection security deposit equal to 100% of the appraised value of trees impacted by the project is required. 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. The required security deposit for this project is $15,780 and is equal to the total appraised value of trees #4, 5, 29, 31 and 32. This deposit will be held until completion of the project and acceptance by the City. 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. This was used in conjunction with the Species Classification and Group Assignment, published by the Western Chapter of the ISA, 2004. Tree Removals: Twenty nine trees are requested for removal to construct the project. They include 26 Monterey pines, two flowering plums and one valley oak. Whenever trees are requested for removal as part of a project, specific tree removal criteria must be met and certain findings made. See the Findings section below for a detailed discussion. These trees qualify for removal and replacement with new trees as part of the project. Tree Protection: Chain link fencing is required around individual trees or groups of trees for protection during construction, and work is not permitted within fenced areas. Fenced areas are shown on the attached site map. See the Requirements section for fence specifications. Coast live oak #29: This coast live oak is between two fences along the property line. It is in good health and the applicant wishes to retain and protect it. The revised plans have preserved the existing grade to a distance of 14 feet from the trunk of this oak. This is acceptable. 22 15781 Hidden Hills Road Page 3 of 8 Valley oak #31: This healthy oak is the focal point of the back yard with a canopy spread of about 50 feet. The plans have been modified so that no work is required within 25 feet of this oak and the existing grade will be preserved. The storm drain has been relocated and is now in an acceptable location. The planters and sculptures within the 25 foot radius of the tree have been deleted from the project and this is acceptable. Coast redwood #32: This tree can be adequately protected with chain link fencing and retention of the existing grade for a distance of 12 feet from the tree’s trunks. This tree should also be regularly watered during the summer months. FINDINGS Tree Removal The perimeter of the property is lined with about 30 Monterey pines that are in fair condition but declining. Most have poor structure and all were planted too close to neighboring trees or retaining walls to allow retention. Pines #1 – 28 and flowering plums #33 and 34 are requested for removal to construct the project. Removal of the pines will cause a significant impact to the shade, scenic beauty and aesthetics of the property and the neighbors’ view. However, most of them are not in good enough condition to warrant preserving, or are in conflict with removal of existing structures and would not survive construction. The pines as well as two flowering plums meet the criteria for removal, overall, and may be removed and replaced as part of the project. Several pines are not protected by City Code as their trunk diameter at 4½ feet above grade is less than 10 inches. They may be removed without a permit at any time and were not included in this inventory. The table below summarizes which of the criteria are met, allowing removal. The tree removal criteria are attached to the end of this report for reference. Summary of tree removal criteria that are met Tree # Criteria met Criteria not met Pines 1, 2 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 2, 8 Pines 3, 6, 7, 8 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9 3, 6, 8 Pines 9 – 28 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 4, 8 Valley oak #30 1, 4, 6, 7, 9 2, 3, 5, 8 Flowering plums 33 and 34 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 2, 5, 8 Trees #1 and 2 – Monterey pines: These trees meet criterion #1 in that they are in decline, and not likely to live much longer even if the project were not constructed. They do not threaten damage to structures, so they do not meet criterion #2. Removal of these trees will have an insignificant impact on erosion as there are other trees nearby, so criterion #3 is met. Removal of these trees will improve the property’s aesthetic beauty, so criterion #4 is met. These trees are too close to neighboring trees for good forestry practices, so criterion #5 is met. There is no way to return these two trees to good health, so criterion #6 is met. Removal and replacement of these trees meets criterion #7, which is to replace trees when 23 15781 Hidden Hills Road Page 4 of 8 it is not reasonable to retain and preserve them. These trees do not present a safety or public health concern in that they are not about to fail, so criterion #8 is not met. Removal of these trees will provide economic and other enjoyment to the property owner, when there is no practical alternative, so criterion #9 is met. Trees #3, 6, 7 and 8 – Monterey pines: These trees meet criterion #1 in that they are in conflict with proposed grading, and trees #3 and 8 are in conflict with proposed retaining walls. If left in place they might threaten damage to existing structures, and would probably not survive construction of the proposed structures as designed, so they meet criterion #2. Removal of these trees will have an impact on erosion, so criterion #3 is not met. Removal of these trees will impact the property’s shade, privacy and aesthetic beauty, in that they are beginning to decline and will continue to have more dead branches in the canopy, so criterion #4 is met. Trees #3 and 6 are too close to the neighbor’s trees for good forestry practices, but they are in better health than the neighbor’s trees, and their retention provides valuable screening from the adjacent property. Trees #7 and 8 are not too close to neighboring trees, so criterion #5 is partially met for trees #3 and 6, and not met for trees #7 and 8. The alternative to removing these four trees is to modify the project so that no grading or retaining walls are needed within 15 feet of these four trees, so criterion #6 is not met. Removal of these trees and replacement with new trees that can reforest the property does meet criterion #7, which is to replace trees whenever it is not practical to retain them. These trees do not present a safety or public health concern in that they are not about to fail, so criterion #8 is not met. Removal of these trees will provide economic and other enjoyment to the property owner, so criterion #9 is met. Trees #9 –28 – Monterey pines: These trees meet criterion #1 in that they are in conflict with a proposed replacement retaining wall along the property line, very close to an existing retaining wall on another property line, or within a foot of the tennis court which will be removed. They threaten damage to the retaining wall if left in place, so they meet criterion #2. Removal of these trees will have an impact on erosion, but can be replaced with screening shrubs, so criterion #3 is met. Removal of these trees will have an impact on shade, privacy and the property’s aesthetic beauty, so criterion #4 is not met. These trees are planted too close together for good forestry practices and have relatively poor structure as a result, so criterion #5 is met. There is no way to prevent damage to the retaining walls if the trees remain, so criterion #6 is met. Removal and replacement of these trees meets criterion #7, which is to replace trees when it is not feasible or practical to retain them. These trees do not present a safety or public health concern in that they are not about to fail, so criterion #8 is not met. Removal of these trees will provide economic and other enjoyment to the property owner, so criterion #9 is met. Tree #30 - Valley oak: This is a young valley oak with multiple trunks, and poor structure. It cannot be retained and preserved because it grows right next to a fence and retaining wall that will be removed. It is also fairly close to the main focal point of the property, valley oak #31. It meets criterion #1 in that it is in conflict with the proposed design. This tree will not threaten damage to structures, so it does not meet criterion #2. It does not meet criterion #3 because its removal will have an impact on erosion control. Removal of this tree will have a minor impact on shade and aesthetic beauty, and no impact on privacy, so criterion #4 is met. This tree is not too close to tree #31 for good forestry practices so it does not meet criterion #5. There is no feasible alternative that would permit the retention of this tree because of its location by structures that require removal, so criterion #6 is met. Removal of this tree does meet criterion #7, which is to replace trees when there is no feasible alternative to 24 15781 Hidden Hills Road Page 5 of 8 removing them. This tree does not present a safety or public health concern in that it is not about to fail, so criterion #8 is not met. Removal of this tree will provide economic and other enjoyment to the property owner, so criterion #9 is met. Trees #33 and 34 – flowering plums: These trees are in poor condition with poor branching structure, and they are in conflict with proposed grading for the new house, so they meet criterion #1. They do not threaten damage to existing structures, so criterion #2 is not met. Removal of these trees will have an insignificant impact on erosion, so criterion #3 is met. Removal of these trees will have a minor impact on shade, privacy and the property’s aesthetic beauty, so criterion #4 is met. These trees are not planted too close together for good forestry practices, so criterion #5 is not met. There is no way to improve the structure of these two trees, so criterion #6 is met. Removal of these trees does meet criterion #7, which is to replace trees when there is no feasible alternative to removing them. These trees do not present a safety or public health concern in that they are not about to fail, so criterion #8 is not met. Removal of these trees will provide economic and other enjoyment to the property owner, so criterion #9 is met. Replacement Trees: The total appraised value of trees #1, 2, 3, 6 – 28, 33 and 34 is $17,480. New trees equal to this appraised value will be required as a condition of the project. The replacement values for new trees are: 15 gallon - $150; 24 inch box - $500; 36 inch box - $1,500; 48 inch box - $5,000; 60 inch box - $7,000; and 72 inch box - $15,000. Replacement tree requirements are: 1. 4 trees in the front yard; 2. 6 trees that reach a height of 40+ feet at maturity; 3. 2 trees from the City’s list of native species (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)) The project proposes four ginkgo trees in the front yard. This is acceptable. Two more trees are needed in the front yard, two more trees are needed that will grow to a height of 40 or more feet and two trees from the list of native species are needed. New Construction Based on a review of the information provided, the project complies with the requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15-50.120 of the City Code. The existing grade will be preserved for a distance of 14 feet from oak tree #29, and 25 feet from oak tree #31. No excavation or installation of utilities will be permitted within these distances. REQUIREMENTS 1. This entire arborist report, including the Tree Inventory Table and the attached map shall be copied onto a plan sheet, titled “Tree Preservation” and included in the final set of plans. 25 15781 Hidden Hills Road Page 6 of 8 2. Tree Protection Security Deposit - $15,780 a. Owner shall obtain, and file with the Community Development Director, a Tree Protection security deposit for trees #4, 5, 29, 31 and 32 prior to obtaining 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 bond will be released. 3. Tree Protection Fencing: a. Shall be installed as shown on the attached map. b. Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. c. Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. d. Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST”. e. Call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection fencing once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division permits. f. Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final inspection. If contractor feels that work must be done inside the fenced area, call City Arborist to arrange a field meeting. 4. No protected tree authorized for encroachment or removal pursuant to this project may be encroached upon or removed until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building division for the approved project. All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing. These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 5. Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities to protect trees per City Code Article 15-50. 6. Trees #1, 2, 3, 6 – 28, 33 and 34 are approved for removal once Building Division permits have been obtained. 7. New trees equal to $17,480 shall be planted to replace removed trees. Replacement values for trees are: 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 8. At least 4 replacement trees shall be planted in the front yard. The rest of the replacement trees may be planted anywhere on the property. If there is insufficient room on the property to plant all of the required trees, some of the replacement value may be paid in to the City’s Tree Fund. 9. At least 6 replacement trees shall reach a height at maturity of 40 feet or more. 26 15781 Hidden Hills Road Page 7 of 8 10. At least 2 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). 11. The existing grade shall be preserved within 12 feet of coast redwood #32. 12. The existing grade shall be preserved within 14 feet of coast live oak tree #29. 13. The existing grade shall be preserved within 25 feet of valley oak tree #31. 14. Planting under oak trees #29 and 31 shall be as follows: a. Grass shall remain at least 15 feet from tree #29 and 25 feet from tree #31. b. Only drought tolerant plants may be planted under the outside half of the tree’s canopy. c. Plants under the tree shall be watered using drip irrigation. d. Any new trees shall be planted outside the canopy of these trees. 15. Any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site shall be performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. 16. Coast redwood #32 shall be watered regularly (at least weekly) during the summer. 17. 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. 18. At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing and have the tree protection security deposit released by the City, call City Arborist for a final inspection. ATTACHMENTS: Tree Removal Criteria Tree Inventory Table Map showing locations of trees and protective fencing around trees 27 15781 Hidden Hills Road 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. 28 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 PlansOn Adjacent ProprtyAppraised ValueMonterey pine 1 Pinus radiata 20.5 25 40 60 Poor Low 1 X $1,100 Monterey pine 2 Pinus radiata 14 20 40 60 Poor Low 1 X $520 Monterey pine 3 Pinus radiata 17 25 50 40 Fair Moderate 1 X $610 Arizona cypress 4 Cupressus glabra 30 30 40 50 Fair High 3 X $820 Arizona cypress 5 Cupressus glabra 30 30 40 50 Fair High 3 X $820 Monterey pine 6 Pinus radiata 19 20 60 80 Fair Moderate 1 X $1,250 Monterey pine 7 Pinus radiata 21 25 60 50 Fair Moderate 3 $1,260 Monterey pine 8 Pinus radiata 13 20 60 50 Fair Moderate 3 $500 Monterey pineMonterey pine 9 Pinus radiata 14 30 60 50 Fair Low 1 X $500 Monterey pine 10 Pinus radiata 24 25 60 50 Fair Low 1 X $1,460 Monterey pine 11 Pinus radiata 17 25 50 50 Fair Low 1 X $670 Monterey pine 12 Pinus radiata 13.5 20 50 40 Poor Low 1 X $360 Monterey pine 13 Pinus radiata 19 35 60 50 Fair Low 1 X $920 Monterey pine 14 Pinus radiata 12 20 50 30 Poor Low 1 X $280 Monterey pine 15 Pinus radiata 20 45 50 40 Fair Moderate 1 X $890 Monterey pine 16 Pinus radiata 16.5 30 50 40 Poor Low 1 X $500 Monterey pine 17 Pinus radiata 19 25 40 40 Poor Low 1 X $590 15781 Hidden Hills Road September 21, 2012 29 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 PlansOn Adjacent ProprtyAppraised ValueMonterey pine 18 Pinus radiata 15 25 50 50 Fair Moderate 1 X $560 Monterey pine 19 Pinus radiata 16 30 50 30 Fair Moderate 1 X $510 Monterey pine 20 Pinus radiata 13 20 30 70 Poor Low 1 X $330 Monterey pine 21 Pinus radiata 15 25 40 40 Poor Low 1 X $420 Monterey pine 22 Pinus radiata 18 30 50 50 Fair Moderate 1 X $800 Monterey pine 23 Pinus radiata 17.5 30 40 50 Fair Moderate 1 X $680 Monterey pine 24 Pinus radiata 12.5 20 50 40 Fair Low 1 X $210 Monterey pine 25 Pinus radiata 12 20 50 40 Fair Low 1 X $190 Monterey pine 26 Pinus radiata 12 20 50 40 Fair Low 1 X $190 Monterey pine 27 Pinus radiata 12 20 40 40 Poor Low 1 X $310 Monterey pine 28 Pinus radiata 14 25 50 40 Fair Moderate 1 X $440 Coast live oak 29 Quercus agrifolia 14 20 80 50 Good High 2 $2,520 Valley oak 30 Quercus lobata 6 15 80 40 Good Moderate 1 X $890 Valley oak 31 Quercus lobata 18 50 70 70 Good High 2 $10,000 Coast redwood 32 Sequoia sempervirens 8, 7 20 80 50 Good High 4 $1,620 Purple leaf plum 33 Prunus cerasifera 11 15 80 40 Good Low 1 X $860 Purple leaf plum 34 Prunus cerasifera 12 15 80 40 Good Low 1 X $1,010 Total appraised value $34,590 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 = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 15781 Hidden Hills Road September 21, 2012 30 Legend Tree Canopy Tree Protective Fence NP Not protected 6 5 4 3 2 1 11 10 9 8 7 13 12 21 19 18 17 16 15 14 23 22 15781 Hidden Hills Road 28 30 32 33 20 26 NP NP 29 27 31 NP NP 34 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP 31 Memorandum of Geotechnical Clearance Conditions Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Chris Riordan, Project Planner, Community Development Department CC: Peter Liou (Owner) / Modern House (Applicant) FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Senior Engineer SUBJECT: Geotechnical Clearance Conditions for GEO12-0012 at 15781 Hidden Hill Road DATE: July 16, 2012 1. The consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final project construction plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements, and design parameters for retaining walls) to ensure that provided recommendations have been properly incorporated. The consultant should examine whether foundation design and associated loads have been adequately considered in the design of basement retaining walls. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review along with other documents for building permit plan- check. 2. The geotechnical consultant 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 foundation footings or piers prior to placement of steel or concrete. As-built locations of the proposed improvements shall be recorded and documented. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (as-built) project approval. 3. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 4. 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. 32 33 34 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 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: November 14, 2012 Application: PDR09-0006 / VAR08-0003 Location / APN 14660 Quito Road / 407-14-004 Applicant/Owner: Rockwood Design / Dang Staff Planner: Michael Fossati 14660 Quito Road Page 1 of 8 64 Application No. PDR09-0006/VAR08-0003 /14660 Quito Road SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests approval to replace an existing 926 sq. ft. one-story main residence with a 2,697 sq. ft. two-story residence. The design review application is due to the request to convert a single-story structure into a multi-story structure. The variance application is due to the request to allow construction within the front and rear setbacks. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 12-046 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC) Section 15-45.060 in that the project consists of a multi-story residence. Variance approval is required pursuant to SMC Section 15-70.020 in that the project is requesting to build within the required front and rear setbacks. PROJECT DATA: Net Site Area: 34,848 sq. ft. Average Slope: 25.01% General Plan Designation: RVLD Zoning: R-1-40.000 Proposed Allowable/Required Proposed Site Coverage Main House: Driveway: Walkway: Deck: Total Proposed Site Coverage 1,886 sq. ft. 1,967 sq. ft. 515 sq. ft. 178 sq. ft. 4,546 sq. ft. (12 %) 12,196 sq. ft. (35%) Floor Area First Floor: Second Floor Garage: Total Proposed Floor Area 1,503 sq. ft. 811 sq. ft. 383 sq. ft. 2,697 sq. ft. 4,362 sq. ft. (which includes slope reduction) Height (Residence) Lowest Elevation Point Highest Elevation Point Average Elevation Point Proposed Topmost Point 339.77’ 340.35’ 340.06’ 364.22’ (24’2”) Maximum Height = 366.06’ (26 Feet) GRADING None proposed No Limit Page 2 of 8 65 Application No. PDR09-0006/VAR08-0003 /14660 Quito Road Setbacks Front: Rear: Left Side: Right Side: 1st Floor 2nd Floor 1st Floor 2nd Floor 14’2” 3’6” 176’ 32’6” 11’ 20’6” 176’ 83’1” 30’ 50’ 20’ 20’ 30’ 60’ 25’ 25’ PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Description The project site is located along Quito Road at Vessing Road. The 1.04 acre parcel has the San Tomas Aquino Creek traversing through it. The creek flows right in the center of the property and approximately six feet away from the existing 926 sq. ft. single-story bungalow. The creek is controlled by a concrete channel that directs the water westerly underneath Quito Road. Approximately one quarter of the lot (along the eastern border) is located within the Town of Los Gatos jurisdiction, which is significantly sloped. The southwestern portion of the property which lies between the creek and the road (where the existing house is located) is relatively flat. Project Description and Architectural Style The architectural features include a low-pitched, gabled roof with prominent, overhanging eaves, a rectangular shape, and the mixture of horizontal wood siding along the first floor and wood shingle siding along the second. The proposed colors emphasize natural colors, which include “Alexandria Beige” body, “Whitall Brown” accents, and “Night Horizon” trim, fascia and windows. A color board will be available for the site visit and public hearing. Materials and Colors Detail Colors and Materials Exterior “Alexandria Beige” horizontal siding Trim “Night Horizon” trim, fascia, trellis and windows Windows “Night Horizon” aluminum clad wood windows Entry Door Wood Door Garage Door Wood Carriage Style Garage Door Roof “Weathered Sage” composition roof Variance The applicant has proposed a variance to build within the front and rear setback because the lot has no allowable building footprint due to the unique features of the property. The front property line lies within the centerline of the street, and per City Code Section 15-06.588(d), when a lot line is located in a street, the setback area shall be measured from the street line or right-of-way line. By utilizing this definition, approximately 40% of the existing structure is currently in the front setback. Page 3 of 8 66 Application No. PDR09-0006/VAR08-0003 /14660 Quito Road Furthermore, City Code Section 15-45.045 (a) states “where a protected creek passes through or along a building site or is otherwise located on the site, building setbacks for any new construction shall be measured from the top of the creek bank on the site rather than the property line. The required setback shall be the minimum setback prescribed for the applicable zoning district”. Since the applicable zoning district is R1-40,000, the rear setback is 50 feet. By utilizing the top bank of the creek rather than the rear property line to determine setback, the existing and proposed residence are located completely within the rear setback. Staff believes a front and rear setback variances are appropriate because the only buildable area on the site is within those required setbacks. The property is constrained by the existing slope to the east, the existing creek through the middle of the lot, the existing right-of-way along the western portion of the lot, and a number of protected trees dispersed within the site. The shape, topography, location, and natural surroundings create a special circumstance applicable to this property. Due to the size of the lot, the allowable floor area is 4,362 sq. ft. The applicant is proposing a 2,697 sq. ft. residence. The applicant has applied for two-stories in order to limit the amount of 1) impervious coverage on the property and 2) construction within the required setbacks. The applicant has complied with all other zoning requirements, including the proposed construction of a two-car garage, which currently does not exist on the lot. The allowance of construction within the required setbacks will not unreasonably impact views or privacy or impede on the existing protection of the creek. The proposed residence (even at two stories) will not affect the views or privacy from adjacent neighbors because the property is within a valley and substantially setback from neighboring residences. The creek will not be significantly impacted by erosion because the creek is already protected by a concrete channel. The existing house and portions of the new house are located within the San Tomas Aquino Creek floodway. Per City Code Section 16-66.140, new construction is prohibited in a floodway unless certification by a registered professional engineer or architect is provided demonstrating that encroachment shall not result in any increase in the base flood elevation (BFE) during the occurrence of a base flood discharge. The applicant has provided a written certification from Schaff and Wheeler (see Attachment 3) that the proposed addition will not increase the base flood elevation. The applicant has also submitted proof, via an elevation certificate, that the height of the finish floor of the existing residence and therefore the new construction is in compliance with City Code standards which requires finish floor height being one foot greater than BFE as established per Schaff & Wheeler (see Table 1 in Attachment 3). Lastly, the applicant has applied for the installation of a HVAC unit within a setback. As previously stated, the proposed structure is completely within the rear setback. The addition of an air conditioning unit will require a variance also, as there is no other area to place the unit. Any noise impacts will be mitigated in the fact the HVAC system would be substantially setback from all adjacent residences. Page 4 of 8 67 Application No. PDR09-0006/VAR08-0003 /14660 Quito Road Trees Eight protected trees by City ordinance have been identified on the site. The applicant has completed numerous design revisions in order to avoid removal of the identified protected trees. The most prominent design feature used to not harm a protected tree was the location of the second floor. The second floor is located near the northern portion of the lot in order to provide sufficient drip line clearance for the existing Coast Live oak located on the southern portion of the lot (near the proposed entrance of the residence). The arborist has reviewed the project and granted clearance to proceed. Energy Efficiency The project applicant used the Residential Design Guidelines to provide direction in incorporating energy efficient features into the project. For example, the proposed garage has been placed along the northern elevation (Policy 5, Technique #1), where the maximum benefit of sun is not as critical. The applicant has proposed keeping all existing trees on the property in order to use the existing established landscape to buffer the wind (Policy 5, Technique #2). The applicant has also proposed to insulate more than 50% of any hot water pipes, install high-efficiency toilets and dishwasher, properly seal combustion units such as the furnace and water heater, an install effective ductwork to properly exhaust the new residence. Neighbor Notification and Correspondence The applicant has submitted six neighbor notification forms regarding the project. Staff sent a “Notice of Public Hearing” to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. The public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga News. Two comments were received. A call was placed to the concerned party and voicemail left for the concerned party. Staff has not received any additional comments from that party. A second party came in to review the plans. They informed staff that they believed the house was too tall and too large for the site. FINDINGS Design Review Findings The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Section Article 15-45.080 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: (a) The project avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy. For the following reasons, the height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main structure, when considered with reference to: (1) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (2) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy in that the proposed residence is substantially setback from all other residences in the nearby vicinity. The most nearest residence is located more than 150 feet easterly on a grade that is approximately 15 feet taller. Views and privacy will not be affected per the proposed project. Page 5 of 8 68 Application No. PDR09-0006/VAR08-0003 /14660 Quito Road (b) The project preserves the natural landscape. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the building footprint has been designed to maintain all existing trees on site, with the exception of one 15 foot tall tree stump, which has met the findings for approval per the City Arborist, and preserve existing vegetation currently located on the site. This was completed by incorporating the existing building footprint into the design and placing the second story portion onto the proposed garage. (c) The project preserves native and heritage trees. This finding can be made in the affirmative because the building footprint was cited and created taking the existing native trees into account. As previously stated, no tree removal will be required to allow construction of the proposed project. (d) The project minimizes the perception of excessive bulk. This finding can be made in the affirmative in the use of natural, earthtone colors and materials. Those colors include light and dark shades of brown siding and trim. A weathered sage composition shingle would cover the roof of the residence, which provides an additional component that blends with the natural environment. By placing the residence within an area that does not require excessive vegetation removal and utilizing earthtone colors and materials, the project demonstrates that it respects the natural surroundings. (e) The project is of compatible bulk and height. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed residence has been designed with a floor area substantially less than what is allowed for lots with similar sizes. The project is compatible with the height of the natural environment as it will remain significantly shorter than the existing well established native trees currently on site. As there are no other existing residences on adjacent lots that can be seen from the project location, it is difficult to establish a sense of compatibility with nearby homes. Excessive bulk has been mitigated by the use of earthtone colors and natural materials, such as wood siding and stone wainscoting. (f) The project uses current grading and erosion control methods. This finding can be made in the affirmative because the applicant will be required to follow appropriate grading and erosion control standards as per the International and State building code. Both grading and erosion impacts are minimal as the project is on a flat building pad and the nearby creek is channelized with concrete walls. (g) The project follows appropriate design policies and techniques. This finding can be made in the affirmative because the project in using different exterior materials in order to soften the elevation (Policy 1, Technique #3), using natural-color materials for the foundation and lower part of the house (Policy 1, Technique #3), avoiding excessive soil removal and fill (Policy 1, Technique #1), utilize a combination of vertical (i.e. wood shingle) and horizontal (i.e. wood siding) articulations (Policy 1, Technique #6), utilize wood and stone materials that blend with the natural environment (Policy 2, Technique #1), preserving existing vegetation as much as Page 6 of 8 69 Application No. PDR09-0006/VAR08-0003 /14660 Quito Road possible (Policy 2, Technique #3), avoids placing the structure in direct line-of-sight to neighboring residences (Policy 3, Technique #2), and designing for maximum benefit of sun by locating the main living areas along the south elevation and the garage area along the north elevation (Policy 5, Technique #1). VARIANCE FINDINGS The findings required for issuance of a Variance Approval pursuant to City Code Section 15-12.061 and Section 15-70.060 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district: This finding can be made in the affirmative because the 1.04 acre lot technically has not allowable building envelope, due to the City Code setback requirements of the zoning district and the property lines in proximity of the public right-of-way and protected creek. The applicant is proposing to construct a home with a floor area that is 40 percent less than what would be allowed for a similar sized lot. The location of the existing established native trees on the site have created a 1,865 sq. ft. building footprint for the 1.04 acres site. It is due to the special circumstances and site conditions addressed above that warrant the approval of a variance. (b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district: This finding can be made in the affirmative because the existing configuration of the existing legal lot is atypical within the City limits. The fact that property line is located in the middle of the street and a protected creek runs right through the middle of the lot gives the applicant a practical difficulty to construct a residence similar in size and scale to residences within the immediate area, without the use of a variance. Granting of this variance would not constitute a special property because most properties within the general vicinity do not have similar site conditions as the applicant. (c) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity: This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed development would be required to follow the design review process as any other proposed new residence. The proposed residence seems to make the findings that are consistent with the goals and policies that are established per the Residential Design Handbook, such as minimize the perception of bulk, integrate structures within the environment, avoid interference with privacy, preserve views and design for energy efficiency. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Page 7 of 8 70 Application No. PDR09-0006/VAR08-0003 /14660 Quito Road Page 8 of 8 The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of one single- family residence in a residential area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 12-046 approving the project, subject to conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Arborist Report, dated 10/25/2012 3. Letter from Schaff & Wheeler, dated 11/22/2010 4. Neighbor Notification Forms. 5. Public hearing notice and copy of mailing labels for project notification. 6. Reduced Plans (Exhibit A) 71 RESOLUTION NO. 12-046 Attachment 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW NO. PDR09-0006 AND VARIANCE NO. VAR08-0003 FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A NEW TWO-STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 14660 QUITO ROAD WHEREAS, an application was submitted by Rockwood Design, requesting Design Review and Variance approval to replace an existing 926 sq. ft. single-story, single-family residence with a new 2,697 sq. ft. two-story, single-family residence. Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060(a)(1). Variance approval is required due to the proposed construction within the front and rear setbacks. The net site is approximately 34,848 sq. ft. and is located within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt. WHEREAS, on October 24, 2012 and November 14, 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 15302, Class 2 “Replacement or Reconstruction”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced. 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. 72 Resolution No. 12-046 Page 2 Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves applications PDR09-0006 and VAR08-0003, for the project located at 14660 Quito Road, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 14th day of November 2012 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ___________________________________ Tina K. Walia Chair, Planning Commission 73 Resolution No. 12-046 Page 3 EXHIBIT 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR09-0006 / VAR08-0003 14660 QUITO RD. (407-14-004) 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, or grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. 2. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 3. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement, after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 4. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference. 5. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 74 Resolution No. 12-046 Page 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans dated November 1, 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 4, above. 7. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. 6 above; b. City Arborist Reports dated October 25, 2012 onto separate construction plan pages; c. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall be parked or stored within the root zone of any Ordinance- protected tree on the site; d. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks comply with the Approved Plans,” which note shall represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance with this Design Review Approval; e. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages; f. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building Division. 8. Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine on adjacent properties or public right-of-way. 9. Maintenance of Construction Project Sites. Because this Design Review Approval authorizes a project which requires a Building Permit, compliance with City Code Section 16-75.050 governing maintenance of construction project sites is required. 10. Stormwater. A stormwater retention plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval demonstrating how all stormwater will be retained on-site to the maximum extent feasible, and incorporating the New Development and Construction – Best Management Practices on file with the City. If all stormwater cannot be retained on-site, an explanatory note shall be provided on the approved plans and subject to prior City review and approval. Stormwater runoff from the project site (if any after compliance with this paragraph) shall not be directed toward the adjacent properties. 75 Resolution No. 12-046 Page 5 ARBORIST 11. Tree Protection Bond. A Tree Protection security deposit equal to 100% of the appraised value of trees impacted by the project is required. 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. The required security deposit for this project is $114,520 and is equal to the total appraised value of trees #1 – 6. This deposit will be held until completion of the project and acceptance by the City. 1 2. Tree Fencing. Tree Protection fencing, as conditioned per the City Arborist Report, dated October 25, 2012, must be installed and inspected prior to zoning clearance. PUBLIC WORKS 13. Geotechnical Review Letter. The applicant’s geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project grading and construction plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements, and design parameters for foundations) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review along with other documents for building permit plan-check. 14. Geotechnical Inspection. The geotechnical consultant 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, observation of foundation excavations prior to placement of steel and concrete, and testing of engineered fill placement. The consultant shall perform a final inspection of completed project drainage improvements around the residence and property. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (as-built) project approval. 15. Associated Fees. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 16. Hold Harmless Agreement. 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. 17. Encroachment Permit. Applicant (owner) shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all improvements in any City right-of-way or City easement prior to commencement of the work to implement this Design Review. 76 Page 1 of 6 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. Application #: ARB 08-0086 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 14660 Quito Road Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Dan Dang Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 407-14-004 Email: Report History: #1 Date: Plans received December 10, 2008 Report completed January 29, 2009 #2 – Report replaces report #1 Revised plans received March 25, 2009 Report completed April 15, 2009 #3 – Report replaces report #2 Revised plans received October 17, 2012 Report completed October 25, 2012 PROJECT SCOPE The applicant has submitted plans to add on to the existing non-conforming house to create a two story residence with attached garage. The Historic Preservation Commission has recommended that all trees on site be retained and preserved. No trees are requested for removal to construct the project. There is a 15 foot tall sycamore trunk/stump (#8 in the inventory) that meets the criteria for removal as part of this project. CLEARANCE – with conditions This project has clearance from the arborist to proceed, with the conditions noted below in the Requirements section. PLAN REVIEW Plans Reviewed: Revised plans for this project were prepared by Rockwood Design and dated November 23, 2010. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheet G1, Cover Sheet and Site Plan; Sheet G-2, Setback Diagram; Sheet G-4, Landscape Plan; Sheet A1, Proposed First Floor Plan; Sheet A2, Proposed Second Floor Plan; Sheets A3 – A5, Exterior Elevations by. Also reviewed was a Topographic Survey and Partial Boundary Survey by Associated Terra Consultants, Inc. dated August 15, 2008. 77 14660 Quito Road Page 2 of 6 TREE INFORMATION Tree Inventory: Eight trees protected by City ordinance and potentially impacted by construction were inventoried for this report. Data for each tree is included in a Tree Inventory Table at the end of this report and locations of trees are marked on the attached copy of the Site Plan. Inventoried trees include three coast live oaks (#1, 2 and 6), one black walnut (#3), one valley oak (#4), one redwood (#5), and two California sycamores (#7 and 8). Tree Protection: In order to adequately protect trees #1 – 4, the driveway should be constructed out of pervious materials entirely on top of grade. Construction of the driveway will require the use of biaxial geogrid under the base material. This is a material used on roads to spread the load of vehicles and prevent soil compaction. Base material can be CU Structural soil or sand. The structural soil can be obtained at TMT Enterprises on Oakland Road in San Jose. Acceptable surface materials for the driveway include gravel, decomposed granite, or pavers. A concrete curb on top of grade may be used to contain the pavers or other driveway materials. No tree roots should be cut to construct the driveway. Landscaping area under oaks #1, 2 and 4 should consist of drought tolerant plants compatible with oaks. No plants or irrigation should be placed within 10 feet these tree trunks. It is acceptable to place mulch or wood chips under the oaks. Only drip irrigation should be used for irrigation under oaks. No trenching for irrigation lines is permitted under the oaks. The book, Compatible Plants Under and Around Oaks, by the California Oak Foundation, may be helpful in selecting plants for the landscape. The design of the house has been modified so that the front entrance is midway between trees #2 and #3, and this location is acceptable. Excavation for the foundation of the entry should be no more than 12 inches deep. It should be hand dug, and any roots found should be cut cleanly with pruning tools prior to pouring the foundation. Because the area of the entry is small, impacts to these two trees will be relatively low. The walkways around the house should consist of pervious materials on top of grade. Acceptable materials include flagstone set on sand or gravel (or with drought tolerant plants between them), stepping stones, gravel, pavers on sand, or other materials that do not require excavation or cement to install. Excavation for concrete is not permitted. Once a building permit has been issued for the project, the 15 foot high stump of sycamore tree #8 may be removed. Security Deposit for the Projection of Trees: Per City Ordinance 15-50.080, a Tree Protection security deposit equal to 100% of the appraised value of trees impacted by the project is required. 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. The required security deposit for this project is $114,520 and is equal to the total appraised value of trees #1 – 6. This deposit will be held until completion of the project and acceptance by the City. 78 14660 Quito Road Page 3 of 6 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. This was used in conjunction with the Species Classification and Group Assignment, published by the Western Chapter of the ISA, 2004. FINDINGS Tree Removal Tree #8 is a 15 foot tall dead sycamore stump. It meets the criteria for removal as part of the project and may be removed once Building Division permits have been received. The tree removal criteria are attached to the end of this report for reference. The table below summarizes which of the criteria are met, allowing removal of the tree stump. Summary of tree removal criteria that are met Tree # Criteria met Criteria not met 8 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 3, 8 New Construction Based on the 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 of the City Code. REQUIREMENTS 1. This entire arborist report, including the attached Tree Inventory Table and map showing locations for tree protection fencing shall be included in the final job copy set of plans. 2. This designated Project Arborist for this project is Straun Edwards of Trees 360 Degrees. 3. Tree Protection Security Deposit - $114,520 a. Owner shall obtain, and file with the Community Development Director, a Tree Protection security deposit for trees #1 – 6 prior to obtaining 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 bond will be released. 4. Tree Protection Fencing: a. Shall be installed as shown on the attached map. b. Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. c. Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. d. Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST”. 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. 79 14660 Quito Road Page 4 of 6 f. Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final inspection. If contractor feels that work must be done inside the fenced area, call City Arborist to arrange a field meeting. 5. Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities for protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 during all construction work. 6. No protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project may be removed or encroached upon until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building division for the approved project. 7. All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing. These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 8. No excavation, trenching for utilities or addition of fill soil is permitted within the distances listed below. a. 13 feet from trees #1, 4 and 5 b. 10 feet from tree #2, 3 and 6 9. The following mitigating measures shall be incorporated into construction of the driveway and walkways: a. Biaxial geogrid material shall be used under the driveway. b. Driveway and walkways shall be constructed entirely on top of grade. c. No excavation or cutting of tree roots is permitted. d. Acceptable materials include gravel, flagstones, stepping stones (for walkways), pavers on sand, or other pervious materials. e. Materials may be contained with a concrete curb on top of grade. 10. The project arborist shall monitor and document installation of the driveway and walkways to ensure that the project requirements are met. Following installation, the project arborist shall provide a letter with photos to the City verifying that mitigating measures were implemented. 11. A note shall be included on the plans stating that the foundation for the entrance between trees #2 and 3 shall be hand dug and no deeper than 12 inches below existing grade. Any roots that require cutting for the foundation shall be cut using a sharp pruning tool under the supervision of an ISA Certified arborist. 12. Should any tree be damaged beyond repair, new trees shall be required to replace the tree. If there is insufficient room to plant new trees, some or all of the replacement value for trees may be paid into the City’s Tree Fund. 13. Any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site shall be performed under the supervision of the Project Arborist and according to ISA standards. 80 14660 Quito Road Page 5 of 6 14. Irrigation shall be designed as follows: a. So that it does not spray trunks of trees. b. Valve boxes, controllers and irrigation lines shall be located outside of tree canopies and away from tree trunks. c. Select plants with similar water requirements to the trees under which they will be placed. d. Do not plant lawn under the canopy of oak trees #1, 2, 4 or 6. e. Plant only drought tolerant plants compatible with oaks under oaks, and keep plants at least 10 feet from tree trunk. Mulch under the canopy is recommended. f. Design topdressings so that they remain at least one foot from the trunks of retained trees and 6 inches from the trunks of new trees. g. Do not allow tilling or stripping of the topsoil beneath the trees’ canopies. 15. 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. 16. At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing and have the tree protection security deposit released by the City, call City Arborist for a final inspection. ATTACHMENTS: Tree Removal Criteria Tree Inventory Table dated April 15, 2009 Map showing locations of trees and protective fencing around trees 81 14660 Quito Road Page 6 of 6 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. 82 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 PlansOn Adjacent ProprtyAppraised ValueCoast live oak 1 Quercus agrifolia 49 50 80 80 Good High 2 $44,400 Coast live oak 2 Quercus agrifolia 34.7 60 80 70 Good High 1 $20,600 Black walnut 3 Juglans hindsii 31.3 30 70 70 Good High 2 $8,600 Valley oak 4 Quercus lobata 24.8 30 70 70 Good High 2 $14,900 Coast redwood 5 Sequoia sempervirens 41, 12 25 90 70 Good High 2 $23,000 Coast live oak 6 Quercus agrifolia 11.9 20 90 70 Good High2X $3,020Qgfg$, California sycamore 7 Platanus racemosa 36 40 50 40 Poor Moderate 3 $5,600 California sycamore 8 Platanus racemosa 36 0 0 0 Poor Low 3 $0 Replacement Tree Values $114,520 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 52 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 Should any tree listed above become damaged owner will be required to repair the damage. Should any tree listed above be removed owner will be required to replace that tree with trees equal in value to its assessed value. 14660 Quito Road April 15, 2009 83 1 2 5 6 7 8 4 3 Legend Tree Protective Fencing Tree Canopy 14660 Quito Road 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 12'-0" 101'-6" 35'-3"46'-2"10'-0"21'-2"5'-0"5'-4"5'-0"20'-6"S24°48'00" E 76.54' 23.64'EX.BRIDGES47°52'45"E 68.80' S29°55'30"E EXISTING HOUSE S22°30' 0 0 " E 133.32' EX. BRIDGE S39°55'50 "W90.86 ' QUITO ROAD CREEK EX. STEEL A N D WOOD BRI D G E SITE DATUM = 341.14'T.B. S61°45' 0 0 " E 102.30' 37.16' S50°03'00 " E N84°07'30"W58.53'Prope r ty L ine Proposed single story 17'(E) Paved st r e e t City limit s l i n e a n d original c e n t e r l i n e o f creek per 8 6 M a p s 4 7 Paved st r e e t Proposed single story Driveway Parking / Driveway FALLEN TREE28" OAK18" DOUBLE TREE12" TREE24" OAK12" TREE36" REDWOOD25" 23" DOUBLE SYCAMORE22" OAK34" OAK49" OAK15" OAK8" TREE31" Black Walnut24" OAK41" REDWOOD12" OAK36" SYCAMORE36" SYCAMORE12" REDWOODProposed two story Top of bank AC Drawn by: Mohammad Sadeh G1 Date: 7/7/2012 N Design Firm: Rockwood Design Associates, Inc. 14554 Big Basin Way, Suite A Saratoga, CA. 95070 Project manager: Adam Rockwood, AIA Assoc. Project Designer: Mohammad Sadeh 408-741-0189 408-741-5085 www.rockwooddesign.net Project Owner: Dan Dang 14660 Quito Road Saratoga, CA, 95070 Project Description: Property Information: Existing use: Single Family Residence Address: 14660 Quito Road Saratoga, CA, 95070 Age of structure: C.1930 APN: 407-14-004 Zoning: R1- 40.000 Gross Lot Size: 1.04 Acres = 45,302.40 s.f. Net Lot: .80 Acres = 34,848 s.f. (Gross less easemets and R.O.W.'S) Adjusted Net per Slope (see below): 18,120.96 s.f. Net Lot determined by subtrating all land in R.O.W. No easement exist for Santa Clara Valley water district. Slope at building Edge: Nearly Flat at Building Pad Average Slope of Site: 25.01 % 25.01% average slope = Reduction of 30% + 3% for each 1% over 20% = 30% + 3% (6) = 48% Reduction. Net Lot = 34,848 s.f. less 48% =Adjusted Net Area per Slope: 18,120.96 s.f. Allowable Floor Area: 4,050 s.f. + 78 s.f. for each 1,000 s.f. over 15,000 s.f. = 4,050 + 78 (4) = 4,362 s.f Allowable Total Proposed Floor Area: 2,697 s.f. Includes existing and proposed first floor, second floor and garage. Index: G1 Title sheet / Vicinity Map / Site plan G2 Setback Diagram G2.1 Setback Diagram G2.2 Survey G3 Arborist Report / HPC Report G4 Landscape plan A1 First Floor plan A2 Second Floor plan A3 Elevation A4 Elevation A5 Elevation A6 Sections A7 Roof Plan Height: Lowest elevation point: Highest elevation point: Average of highest and lowest point: Top most elevation point: (From average point) Proposed Height of Second floor Floor Area: (E) (P) Total First Floor Second Floor Garage Total: Impervious Coverage: Site Coverage: SQFT % Of net lot size (A) Footprint of home (B) Driveway (C) Walkways (D) Deck Total Setbacks: Required / Proposed See G2- G2.1 Setback Diagram 577 811 1,388 383 1,771 926 0 926 0 926 1,503 811 2,314 383 2,697 339.77' 340.35' 340.06' 365.22' 25'-2" Addition and renovation to existing single family one-story non-conforming residence to include new second story and new 2 car garage. Proposal will require the following variances: Front setback encroachment, Rear first floor setback encroachment, Rear second floor setback encroachment, Creek setback encroachment. Net lot size per slope: 34,848 s.f. 5.4 % 5.6 % 1.4 % 0.05 % 12.45 % Total Front yard setback C. First floor from bldg to EDGE of R.O.W: E. Second floor from bldg to EDGE of R.O.W: Side yard setback G. First floor H. Second floor Side yard setback I. First floor J. Second floor Rear yard from building to top of the Bank setback L. First floor - From Bldg to top of the Bank M. Second floor - From Bldg to top of the Bank 30' / 14'-2" 30' / 11'-0" 20' / 32'-6" 25' /83'-1" 20' / 176'-0" 25' / 176'-0" 50' /3'-6" 60' / 20'-6"Dang Residence14660 Quito Road, Saratoga , CA 950701,886 1,967 515 178 4,546 SqFt (E): Existing (P): Proposed LEGENDS: Property Line Set back Creek set back /creek center line Edge of R.O.W. LEGENDS: First Floor Addition Second Floor Addition Scale 1"=10'-0" 1.Prior to foundation inspection by the city, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans. Site Plan / Landscape Plan12Vicinity Map Refer to sheets G2 - G2.1 for setback diagram Interlocking Pervious Pavers Landscape areas / Drought Tolerant shade Thriving Species Natural Vegetation 1 10/22/2012 Floodplain Notes: Per certificate of elevation dated 08/13/09, finish floor of (E) residence is 342.6 feet. Upstream Addition Floodplain Note this sheet 2. Upstream Addition shall be located on piers to allow the flood way to pass beneath them with the lowest chord of the building above the FEMA base flood water surface elevation calculated to include the floodway. Refer to water surface elevations under Schaff and Wheeler hydrology finding located on this sheet. 98 20'20'A BEFDCNOKL M N22°21' 1 0 " W 276.75' S24°48'00" E 76.54' 23.64'EX.BRIDGES47°52'45"E 68.80' S29°55'30"E EXISTING HOUSE S22°30'0 0 " E 133.32' EX. BRIDGE S39°55'50 "W90.86 ' SAN EX. PAVED D R I V E W A Y QUITO ROAD AQUINO CREEK EX. STEEL A N D WOOD BRI D G E 350350 350 T.B. T.B. S61°45' 0 0 " E 102.30' 25.53' S33°40'30"E 37.16' S50°03'00 " E N84°07'30"W58.53'TOMA S Prope r ty L ine Edge of R . O . W . Center Li n e o f t h e s t r e e t Edge of R . O . W .20' s ide se t back (F i rs t f loor)25'S ide se t back ( Second f loor) Proposed single storyProposed double story 30' Front s e t b a c k Property L i n e / Paved st r e e t City limits l i n e a n d original c e n t e r l i n e o f creek per 8 6 M a p s 4 7 50' creek s e t b a c k Paved str e e t Proposed single story Proposed single story / from to p o f b a n k11'-0"25'-6"36'-1"52'-2"Top of bank 14'-2"28'-6"60'-0".6'-2"3'-6"49'-0" 46'-7" S24°48'00" E 76.54' 23.64'EX.BRIDGES47°52'45"E 68.80' S29°55'30"E EXISTING HOUSE S22°30'0 0 " E 133.32' EX. BRIDGE S39°55'50 "W90.86 ' SAN EX. PAVED D R I V E W A Y AQUINO CREEK EX. STEEL A N D WOOD BRI D G E 350350 350 T.B. T.B. S61°45' 0 0 " E 102.30' 25.53' S33°40'30"E 37.16' S50°03'00 " E N84°07'30"WTOMA S Prope r ty L ine Proposed single storyProposed double story City limits l i n e a n d original c e n t e r l i n e o f creek per 8 6 M a p s 4 7 Paved st r e e t Proposed single story Proposed single story Top of bank Drawn by: Mohammad Sadeh G2 N Dang Residence14660 Quito Road, Saratoga , CA 95070single story addition Second story addition Front yard right/south setback(first floor only) A. from bldg to EDGE of R.O.W: B. from Bldg. to pavement at street - / 52'-2" Front yard left/north setback C. First floor from bldg to EDGE of R.O.W: D. First floor from bldg to pavement at street: E. Second floor from bldg to EDGE of R.O.W: F. Second floor from bldg to pavement at street: 30' / 36'-1" 30' / 14'-2" - / 28'-6" 30' / 11'-0" - / 25'-6" Setbacks: Required / Proposed Rear yard right/south setback (first floor only) K. First floor (only) Rear yard left/north setback L. First floor M. Second floor Creek setback (from top of the bank) O. right/ south: N. closest existing: 50' / 60'-0" 50' / 46'-7" 60' / 49'-0" 3'-6" 6'-2" 50' Required/ Proposed Scale 1/16"=1'-0"1 Date: 7/7/2012 Setback Diagram N Scale 1/16"=1'-0"2 Street Diagram 1 10/22/2012 99 Planing Notes Drawn by: Mohammad Sadeh G3Dang Residence14660 Quito Road, Saratoga , CA 95070Date: 7/7/2012 100 20'20'5'-0"10'-0" 10'-21/4"7'-63/4"13'-51/4"9'-91/4"9'-111/4" 5'-0 "5'-0"N22°21' 1 0 " W 276.75' S24°48'00" E 76.54' 23.64'EX. BRIDGES47°52'45"E 68.80' S29°55'30"E S22°30'0 0 " E 133.32' EX. BRIDGE S39°55'50"W90.86 ' SA N EX. PAVED DRIVEWAY QUITO ROAD AQUINO CREEK EX. STEEL A N D WOOD BRIDGE 350 350 350 360 340 T.B.T. B . S61°45' 0 0 " E 102.30' 25.53' S33°40'30"E 37.16' S50°03'00 " E N84°07'30"W58.53'TOMA S FALLEN TREE28" OAK18" DOUBLE TREE12" TREE24" OAK12" TREE16" TREE26" 13" DOUBLE OAK36" REDWOOD25" 23" DOUBLE SYCAMORE22" OAK14" OAK10" OAK34" OAK49" OAK15" OAK8" TREE31" OAK24" OAK41" REDWOOD12" OAK36" SYCAMORE36" SYCAMORE12" REDWOODPrope r tyLine Edge of R.O.W. Center Li n e o f t h e street Edge of R.O.W. Property Line / Paved st r e e t City limits l i n e a n d o r i g i n a l centerlin e o f c r e e k p e r 8 6 Maps 47 Paved st r e e t B D A DD DC C 1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7 D Landscape Plan Drawn by: Mohammad Sadeh G4 N Scale 1/8"=1'-0" (A) Footprint of home (B) Driveway (C) Walkways (D) Deck Total 1 1,886 1,967 515 178 4,546 SqFt Tree Notes: 1- 49" Coast live Oak 5'-0" set back to driveway 2- 34.7" Coast live Oak 3- 31.3" Black Walnut 4- 24.8" Valley Oak 5'-0" setback to driveway 5- 41" Coast Redwood 15'-0" setback to foundation 6- 11.9" Coast live Oak 10'-0" Setback to foundation 7- 36" California Sycamore 8- 36" California Sycamore Dang Residence14660 Quito Road, Saratoga , CA 95070Date: 7/7/2012 101 30'-7"6'-11"20'-5"7'-1"24'-7"10'-7"10'-0"18'-10" 91'-6"7'-10"18'-9"26'-7"27'-6" 10'-0"35'-3" 64'-0"15'-2"6'-0"12 Ref.Pantry Sink. Cook top/ Hood Living areaBedroom 1 UP F.P.Kitchen Dining Entry Closet Laundry 3 3 Closet Bathroom Bathroom Garage 188 sq ft 383 sq ft 520 sq ft 297 sq ft 286 sq ft212 sq ft 12 Ref.Pantry Sink. Cook top/ Hood Living areaBedroom 1 UP F.P.Kitchen Dining Entry Closet Laundry 3 3 Closet Bathroom Bathroom Garage First Floor Plan Drawn by: Mohammad Sadeh A1 N Scale 1/4"=1'-0" Demo wall New wall (E) Wall BCDF E 1 A A B C D E F Total Sq.Ft = Total Floor Area Combined: Second floor plan 15'-2" X 18'-0" = 286' 10'-0" X 21'-2" = 212' 10'-7" X 28'-1" = 297' 24'-7" X 21'-2" = 520' 26'-7" X 7'-1" = 188' 18'-9" X 20'-5" = 383' 1,886'Dang Residence14660 Quito Road, Saratoga , CA 95070Date: 7/7/2012 102 40'-10"2'-10"2'-0"19'-3"2'-6"26'-7"17'-0"3'-5"7'-1"13'-4" 40'-10" 14'-11"12'-7"13'-4" 12 3 Bedroom 2 Bathroom Closet Master Bath Master Bedroom Balcony Down Desk Closet Closet 3 111 sq ft 282 sq ft 53 sq ft 287 sq ft 78 sq ft 12 3 Bedroom 2 Bathroom Closet Master Bath Master Bedroom Balcony Down Desk Closet Closet 3 Second Floor plan Drawn by: Mohammad Sadeh A2 N Scale 1/4"=1'-0" A B D C 1 A B C D E Total Sq.Ft = 811 Total Floor Area Combined: Second floor plan 21'-2" X 13'-4" = 282' 7'-5" X 7'-1" = 53' 8'-10" X 12'-7" = 111' 78' 19'-3" X 14'-11" = 287' E Dang Residence14660 Quito Road, Saratoga , CA 95070Date: 7/7/2012 103 25'-2"13'-9"Dang Residence14660 Quito Road, Saratoga , CA 95070Proposed Front Elevation(West) Existing Front Elevation(West) Drawn by: Mohammad Sadeh A3 Scale 1/4"=1'-0" 1 2 (E) Finish Grade & (E) Natural Grade 339.77' (E) Finish Floor 0'-0" Finish Grade 339.77' Natural Grade 340.35' Second ﬂoor at 9'-6" Ceiling 8'-0" Highest point: From Average Grade 365.22' Average Grade 340.06'Average Grade 340.06'2'-0"2'-0"(E) Roof New Roof New Roof New Roof New elevation Exterior Material Roof Material Siding Date: 7/7/2012 104 Dang Residence14660 Quito Road, Saratoga , CA 95070Existing South Elevation Existing North Elevation Proposed North ElevationProposed South Elevation Drawn by: Mohammad SadehScale 1/4"=1'-0"2'-0"2'-0"(E) Roof New Roof New Roof New Roof 2'-0"2'-0"(E) Roof New Roof New Roof New Roof 1 2 3 4 A4 New elevation Exterior Material Roof Material Siding Date: 7/7/2012 105 Existing East Elevation Proposed East Elevation Scale 1/4"=1'-0"2'-0"2'-0"(E) Roof New Roof New Roof New Roof 1 2 Drawn by: Mohammad Sadeh A5 New elevation Exterior Material Roof Material Siding Dang Residence14660 Quito Road, Saratoga , CA 95070Date: 7/7/2012 106 13'-1"8'-0"8'-0"11'-0"8'-0"9'-10"13'-111/2"9'-71/2"Hall way living room Natural & Finish GradeEntry Hall way Bathroom Bedroom Bedroom Natural & Finish Grade closet Vaulted ceiling Vaulted ceiling Vaulted ceiling Master Closet Bathroom Living Room Dining Hall way Stair case Master Bedroom Bedroom Cross Section 1 Cross Section 2 Long Section 3 Drawn by: Mohammad Sadeh A6 Scale 1/4"=1'-0" 1 3 2 Dang Residence14660 Quito Road, Saratoga , CA 95070Date: 7/7/2012 107 2'-0" 2'-0"2'-0"2'-0"1'-1"2'-0"2'-0"(E) Roof New Roof New Roof New Roof Existing Roof Plan Proposed Roof Plan Drawn by: Mohammad Sadeh A7 Scale 1/4"=1'-0" New Roof 1 2 Dang Residence14660 Quito Road, Saratoga , CA 95070Date: 7/7/2012 Existing Roof 108