HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-09-2011 Planning Commission PacketTable of Contents
Agenda 2
February 23, 2011
Draft Minutes 4
APPLICATION PDR11-0006 (Right-of-way) T-Mobile,
Intersection of Beaumont Avenue and Thelma Avenue
Staff Report - 13504 Beaumont 6
Att. 1 - Request for continuance 7
APPLICATION PDR11-0007 (Right-of-way) T-Mobile,
Intersection of Lutheria Way and Saratoga Avenue
Staff Report - 14221 Lutheria Way 8
Att. 1 - Request for continuance 9
Application PDR11-0004; T-Mobile/Sutro Consulting; 19700
Allendale Avenue (397-30-053)
Continuation Memo 10
Application PDR10-0023; Al and Jamie Abhari; 15488 El
Camino Grande (397-08-076)
Staff Report 11
Resolution 17
Neighbor Forms 25
Notice and Mailing Addresses 31
Green Points Checklist 34
Arborist Report 40
Fire 50
Geotechnical Clearance 52
PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002
Staff Report 54
Attachment 1 - Resolution 66
Attachment 2 - Finding by Applicant 81
Attachment 3 - GreenPoint Checklist 88
Attachment 4 - Water Storage Tank Info 93
Attachment 5 - Permable Paver Info 94
Attachment 6 - Arborist Reports 104
Attachment 7-Neighbor Comment Forms 117
Attachment 8 - Public Hearing Notice 124
Attachment 9 - Site Photos 127
1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
DATE: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 - 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROLL CALL
Commissioners - Chair Mary-Lynne Bernald, Vice-Chair- Douglas Robertson, Joyce Hlava, David Reis, Linda
Rodgers, Tina K. Walia and Yan Zhao
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 23, 2011
ORAL COMMUNICATION
Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not
on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items.
However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning
Commission direction to Staff.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 3, 2011
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).
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and
their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public
may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a
total of five minutes maximum for closing statements.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. APPLICATION PDR11-0006 (Right-of-way) T-Mobile, Intersection of Beaumont Avenue and
Thelma Avenue - The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a new wireless
telecommunication antenna facility. The proposal includes mounting a new cross arm wireless antenna
support on an existing 39 foot utility pole. The wireless antenna support will increase the height of the pole
to 53 feet. Three panel antennas (3.5 feet tall) will be attached to the antenna support and enclosed in a
cylinder structure known as a Radome. Associated antenna equipment will be attached to the lower portion
of the utility pole. All proposed antennas, cabinets and miscellaneous equipment will be painted to match
the existing pole. The facility is considered a “micro site” because the antennas and associated equipment
are smaller in size than a standard wireless facility. The property is located in the R1-12,500 zoning
district. (Michael Fossati)
2. APPLICATION PDR11-0007 (Right-of-way) T-Mobile, Intersection of Lutheria Way and Saratoga
Avenue - The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a wireless telecommunication antenna on
a wooden utility pool. The existing 29 foot utility pole would be replaced with a new utility pole, identical
in height. A seven foot extension would be installed on top of the pole. Three panel antennas (3.5 feet
2
tall) will be attached to the extension. Associated antenna equipment will be attached to the lower portion
of the utility pole. The top of the extension will be approximately 52 feet from the ground. The facility is
considered a “micro site” because the antennas and associated equipment are smaller in size than a standard
wireless facility. The property is located in the R1-10,000 zoning district. (Michael Fossati)
3. APPLICATION PDR11-0004; T-Mobile/Sutro Consulting; 19700 Allendale Avenue (397-30-053) -
This item has been continued to March 23, 2011. (Cynthia McCormick, Assistant Planner, AICP)
4. APPLICATION PDR10-0023; Al and Jamie Abhari; 15488 El Camino Grande (397-08-076) - The
applicant requests Design Review approval for a new two-story single-family dwelling, a new secondary
dwelling, and a new carport. The applicant would receive a 10% increase in allowable floor area because
the secondary dwelling would be deed restricted so that any rental of the unit would be to below market
rate households. The total proposed floor area of both homes is 7,068 square-feet. The applicant is
requesting to remove four (4) trees protected by City Code. The lot is 61,887 square feet and the site is
zoned R-1-40,000. City Code Section 15-45.060 states any new two-story structure requires Design Review
approval by the Planning Commission. The proposed home is two stories and therefore requires Planning
Commission review. (Cynthia McCormick, Assistant Planner, AICP)
5. APPLICATION PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002, 21955 Via Regina - Design Review
application for a proposed 7,425 square foot new two story home and a 735 square foot secondary dwelling
unit at 21955 Via Regina with a request for a Variance for the project to exceed the maximum 16,500
square foot site coverage and a Grading Exception to exceed 1,000 cubic yards of grading. (Christopher
Riordan, Senior Planner)
DIRECTORS ITEM
COMMISSION ITEMS
COMMUNICATIONS
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
- Wednesday, February 23, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to
the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR
35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).
POSTING
Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Abby Ayende, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the
foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on February 3,
2011, at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for
public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us
If you would like to receive the Agenda’s via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us
NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at
www.saratoga.ca.us
3
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 - 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROLL CALL
Commissioners - Chair Mary-Lynne Bernald, Vice-Chair- Douglas Robertson, Joyce Hlava, David Reis, Linda
Rodgers, Tina K. Walia and Yan Zhao
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 2011 (Approved 6:0) (Commissioner
Rodgers arrived at 7:03 pm))
ORAL COMMUNICATION
Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not
on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items.
However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning
Commission direction to Staff.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 17, 2011
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).
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and
their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public
may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a
total of five minutes maximum for closing statements.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. APPLICATION CUP10-0012 (389-12-019) Midtown Food Stores, Inc. DBA Gene's Fine Foods,
18850 Cox Avenue - Modification of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a full retail liquor section within
an existing grocery market. (Michael Fossati) (Approved, 7:0)
2. APPLICATION PDR10-0019; T-Mobile (Sutro Consulting); Vickery Avenue Right-of-Way - The
applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a wireless telecommunication antenna on an existing
wood utility pole. The antennas would be placed at the top of an extension to the pole and the associated
equipment would be placed on the lower half of the pole. The top of the antenna would be approximately
53 feet from the ground and would be similar in height to other utility poles in the vicinity. The facility is
considered a “micro site” because the antennas and associated equipment are smaller in size than a standard
wireless facility. The site is zoned R1-20,000. (Cynthia McCormick, AICP) (Approved, 7:0)
4
DIRECTORS ITEM
COMMISSION ITEMS
COMMUNICATIONS
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING – ADJOURNED 8:02 PM
- Wednesday, March 10, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to
the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR
35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).
POSTING
Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Abby Ayende, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the
foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on February 17,
2011, at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for
public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us
If you would like to receive the Agenda’s via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us
NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at
www.saratoga.ca.us
5
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael Fossati, Assistant Planner
MEETING DATE: March 9, 2011
ITEM: PDR11-0006 / Right-of-Way – Intersection of Beaumont Ave. &
Thelma Ave.
This item has been continued to a date certain (March 23, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a new
wireless telecommunication antenna facility. The proposal includes mounting a new cross arm
wireless antenna support on an existing 39 foot utility pole. The wireless antenna support will
increase the height of the pole to 53 feet. Three panel antennas (3.5 feet tall) will be attached to
the antenna support and enclosed in a cylinder structure known as a Radome. Associated
antenna equipment will be attached to the lower portion of the utility pole. All proposed
antennas, cabinets and miscellaneous equipment will be painted to match the existing pole. The
facility is considered a “micro site” because the antennas and associated equipment are smaller in
size than a standard wireless facility. The property is located in the R1-12,500 zoning district.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. E-mail from applicant requesting continuance
6
1
Michael Fossati
From:Anne Hersch [ahersch@sutroconsulting.com]
Sent:Wednesday, February 23, 2011 6:51 PM
To:Michael Fossati; Cynthia McCormick
Cc:william.brinkley1@t-mobile.com; 'Dipiero, Mike'; 'Hill, Mohammed'; 'Delarosa, Rod'; 'Crowley,
Ryan (Sutro Consulting)'
Subject:T-Mobile Pending Applications
Importance:High
Good evening Michael and Cynthia,
After further review of the pending applications T-Mobile has on file with City, we respectfully request a
continuance as detailed below.
• The proposed Beaumont pole cap application be continued to the March 23, 2011 Planning
Commission hearing.
• The proposed Saratoga Corp Yard site be continued to the April 13, 2011 Planning Commission hearing.
After further discussion based upon our field meeting with Michael, we have decided to put the Lutheria site on
hold so that we may assess alternative site locations. At this time, we do not anticipate moving forward with the
March 8, 2011 Historical Review Commission hearing.
Prior to the public hearing for the Corporation Yard site, we would like to hold an information public outreach
meeting to explain the project and answer related questions of concerned citizens. Would we be able to host
this meeting at Saratoga City Hall in the evening on Tuesday March 15, 2011? If this time is not feasible, could
you please let us know what date and time might be more convenient?
Thank you in advance for all of your assistance with these projects.
Sincerely,
Anne Hersch, AICP
Land Use Manager
Sutro Consulting, LLC
(216) 272-9627 cell
E-mail: ahersch@sutroconsulting.com
7
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael Fossati, Assistant Planner
MEETING DATE: March 9, 2011
ITEM: PDR11-0007 / Right-of-Way – Intersection of Lutheria Way and
Saratoga Avenue.
This item has been continued to a date uncertain.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a
wireless telecommunication antenna on a wooden utility pool. The existing 29 foot utility pole
would be replaced with a new utility pole, identical in height. A seven foot extension would be
installed on top of the pole. Three panel antennas (3.5 feet tall) will be attached to the extension.
Associated antenna equipment will be attached to the lower portion of the utility pole. The top
of the extension will be approximately 52 feet from the ground. The facility is considered a
“micro site” because the antennas and associated equipment are smaller in size than a standard
wireless facility. The property is located in the R1-10,000 zoning district.
The applicant is no longer interested in the Lutheria site. The applicant is exploring alternative
sites near the area of the proposed antenna. A site has not been found to date.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. E-mail from applicant requesting continuance
8
1
Michael Fossati
From:Anne Hersch [ahersch@sutroconsulting.com]
Sent:Tuesday, March 01, 2011 3:28 PM
To:Michael Fossati
Cc:'Crowley, Ryan (Sutro Consulting)'; 'Hill, Mohammed'
Subject:SF 54270 14221 Lutheria Way
Good afternoon Michael,
At this time, we request that the Conditional Use Permit application for 14221 Lutheria Way, PG&E Pole Cap, be
tabled from further review. Tabling this item will allow T-Mobile time to consider other sites more suitable to the
community as well as the network.
If you have any questions regarding our request, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Anne Hersch, AICP
Land Use Manager
Sutro Consulting, LLC
(216) 272-9627 cell
E-mail: ahersch@sutroconsulting.com
9
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Cynthia McCormick, Assistant Planner
MEETING DATE: March 9, 2011
ITEM: PDR11-0004; 19700 Allendale Avenue
This item has been continued to April 27, 2011.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a
wireless telecommunication antenna on a new 92 foot tall light pole. The pole would initially
include six antennas and could be a co-location for additional antennas and equipment. The
equipment would be located at the base of the pole and would be screened by a slatted fence. The
maximum radio-frequency exposure level was calculated at .026% of the public exposure limit
set by the Federal Communications Commission.
10
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: March 9, 2011
Application No. PDR10-0023
Location / APN: 15488 El Camino Grande / 397-08-076
Type of Application: Design Review for a New Two-Story Residence
Owner: Al and Jamie Abhari
Staff Planner: Cynthia McCormick, Assistant Planner, AICP
Department Head:
Chris Riordan, AICP
15488 El Camino Grande
Page 1 of 6
11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed: 11/18/10
Application complete: 02/07/11
Notice published: 02/22/11
Mailing completed: 02/22/11
Posting completed: 03/03/11
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant requests Design Review approval for a new two-story single-family dwelling, a new
secondary dwelling, and a new carport. The applicant would receive a 10% increase in allowable
floor area because the secondary dwelling would be deed restricted so that any rental of the unit
would be to below market rate households. The total proposed floor area of both homes is 7,068
square-feet. The applicant is requesting to remove four (4) trees protected by City Code. The lot is
61,887 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. City Code Section 15-45.060 states any new
two-story structure requires Design Review approval by the Planning Commission. The proposed
home is two stories and therefore requires Planning Commission review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find this application exempt from CEQA and
approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the
attached Resolution. Staff is not recommending any permanent conditions for this project.
Application No. PDR 09-0023; 15488 El Camino Grande Page 2 of 6
12
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R-1-40,000
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Very Low Density (RVLD)
MEASURE G: Not Applicable
PARCEL SIZE: 61,887 square feet
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The single-family residence is Class 3 categorically exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 California Code of
Regulations, Chapter 3. Article 19, Section 15303 (“State CEQA Guidelines”). Class 3 exemptions
include the construction of a single-family residence in a residential zone.
MATERIALS AND COLORS: Exterior colors include “British Khaki” colored stucco, “mahogany”
wood clad windows and trim, and brown and grey blended clay roof tiles. Design accents include
“limestone” cast stone window ledges and “antique bronze” wrought iron railing. The wood
garage door and wood and glass entry door would be stained with a complimentary wood grain
color. A colors and materials board is available on file with the Community Development
Department and will be presented at the site visit and public hearing.
Detail Colors and Material
Exterior “British Khaki” stucco
Windows “Mahogany” Wood Clad windows
Roof “Brown” and “Grey” blended Clay roof tiles
Front Door Stain finish Wood and Glass
Garage Door Stain finish Wood
Application No. PDR 09-0023; 15488 El Camino Grande Page 3 of 6
13
PROJECT DATA:
Zoning: R-1-40,000
Net Site Area: 61,887 SF
Proposed Code
Site Coverage
Maximum Allowable
= 21,660 SF (35%)
+ 10% bonus
= 23,826 SF
Residence/Garage: 4,350.0 SF
Driveway: 5,453.0 SF
Walkways/Patio: 3,037.0 SF
Porch: 438.0 SF
Carport: 324.0 SF
Pool: 606.0 SF
2nd Unit with Porch 798.3 SF
TOTAL Site Coverage (24%) 15,006.3 SF
Floor Area
Maximum Allowable
= 6,440 SF
+ 10% bonus
= 7,084 SF
Proposed First Floor Area: 3,617.6 SF
Proposed Second Floor Area: 1,985.7 SF
Proposed Garage Area: 667.0 SF
Enclosed Porch 66.5 SF
Ceiling Height over 15 feet 82.9 SF
2nd unit 648.3 SF
TOTAL Proposed Floor Area 7,068 SF
Setbacks First
Floor
Second
Floor
First
Floor
Second
Floor
Front: 30 Feet 98 Feet 30 Feet 30 Feet
Rear: 94 Feet 114 Feet 20 Feet 20 Feet
Interior Side: 25 Feet 37 Feet 20 Feet 25 Feet
Exterior Side (El Camino Grande): 68 Feet 87 Feet 25 Feet 30 Feet
Height
Residence 2nd Unit
Maximum Height =
582.89
(26 Feet)
Lowest Elevation Point: 533.8 535.0
Highest Elevation Point: 536.6 536.75
Average Elevation Point: 535.2 535.88
Proposed Topmost Point: 560.7
(25 Feet
6 Inches)
551.88
(16 Feet)
Application No. PDR 09-0023; 15488 El Camino Grande Page 4 of 6
14
PROJECT DISCUSSION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Project Description
The applicant requests Design Review approval for a new 25.5 foot tall two-story single-family
dwelling. The home includes an attached garage and enclosed porch for a total floor area of 6,420
square feet. The project also includes a new 16 foot tall secondary dwelling with 798 square feet of
floor area. The applicant would deed restrict the secondary dwelling so that any rental would be to
below market rate households; entitling the applicant to a 10% increase in allowable floor area. The
total proposed floor area of both homes is 7,067 square-feet. The total proposed lot coverage,
including a detached carport and swimming pool is 15,006 square feet (or 24% of the lot). The
applicant is requesting to remove four (4) trees protected by City Code; with clearance from the City
Arborist. The lot is 61,887 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000.
Architectural Style
The architect has described the proposed home as Mediterranean in style. The proposed exterior
is a khaki colored stucco finish with stained wood garage doors, mahogany colored wood trim,
and earthtone colored stone accents. The wood and glass entry door would be encased by an
arched cast stone surround while the recessed wood clad windows would have a limestone
colored cast stone ledge. The roof would consist of a neutral blend of grey and brown colored
clay tiles. Design accents include antique bronze colored wrought iron railing along the balcony
and a capped faux chimney typical of the Spanish Mediterranean style.
Energy Efficiency / Green Strategies
The project includes high efficiency fixtures, low VOC paint and finishes, energy efficient
appliances, and non-invasive drought tolerant landscaping. Additional information is included in
Attachment 4.
Fireplaces
The proposal includes one (1) wood-burning fireplace in the family room and one (1) gas
fireplace in the living room.
Trees
Four trees protected by City Code are requested for removal to construct the house. These trees
meet the findings for removal and must be replaced with trees equal to their appraised value of
$13,610. A Tree Protection security deposit in the amount of $64,940 is required for 11 trees that
are potentially impacted by construction. An Arborist Report describing these requirements and the
tree removal findings is included in Attachment 5.
Neighbor Correspondence
Application No. PDR 09-0023; 15488 El Camino Grande Page 5 of 6
15
Application No. PDR 09-0023; 15488 El Camino Grande Page 6 of 6
The applicant provided notification letters to six (6) adjacent neighbors (Attachment 2). No
comments were received on these forms and staff has not received any negative comments as of the
writing of this staff report.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find this application exempt from CEQA and
approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the
attached Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval
2. Neighbor Notification Forms
3. Mailed Notice, Address Labels
4. Green Points Checklist
5. Arborist Report dated 2-3-11
6. Fire Department Comments dated 12-1-10
7. Geotechnical Clearance dated 1-13-11
8. Exhibit "A"; Reduced plans
9. Exhibit "B"; Color Board
16
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. FOR APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW
Application PDR 10-0023
15488 El Camino Grande
The City of Saratoga Planning Commission finds and determines as follows with respect to the
above-described application:
I. Project Summary
The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review
Approval for the Project shown in Exhibit "A" including the Color Board denominated Exhibit “B”
date stamped February 23, 2011 incorporated by this reference. The foregoing work is described as
the “Project” in this Resolution. The project is a new two-story single-family dwelling with attached
garage, detached carport, secondary dwelling unit, and pool. The total proposed floor area of both
homes is 7,068 square-feet. The additional floor is allowed under the City’s 10% density bonus for
secondary dwelling units that are deed restricted so that any rental of the unit would be to below
market rate households. The applicant is requesting to remove four (4) trees protected by City Code.
The lot is 61,887 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000.
II. Design Review Requirement
City Code Section 15-45.060 requires Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission for a
two-story single-family main structure. This requirement implements the Saratoga General Plan,
including, but not limited to: (1) 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; (2) Open Space Element Policy 11.a which
provides that the City shall ensure that projects are designed in a manner that minimizes disruption
to important wildlife, riparian and plant habitats; and (3) 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.
III. Planning Commission Review
On March 9, 2011 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the Project at
which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence
and argument. The Planning Commission considered the Project, the Staff Report on the Project,
CEQA documentation, correspondence, presentations from the Applicant and the public, and all
testimony and other evidence presented at the Public Hearing.
IV. Environmental Review
The Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. Section 15303) “New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures.” This exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of
new, small facilities or structures such as a residence.
17
2
Application No. PDR 10-0023; 15488 El Camino Grande
V. 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:
Finding #1: The project avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project
meets this finding. The proposed home and secondary dwelling unit meets all setback requirements.
The distance from the home to the rear property line is over 94 feet where only 20 feet is required.
The closest homes are separated by a street or existing landscaping, minimizing view and privacy
impacts.
Finding #2: The project preserves the natural landscape. The project meets this finding in that a
minimum amount of grading is required. The applicant is required to implement tree protective
measures and post a security deposit to ensure protection of those trees potentially impacted by
construction. The applicant is also required to replace trees that will be removed to construct the
project.
Finding #3: The project preserves native and heritage trees. No heritage trees exist on the
property. One native tree, a coast live oak, was evaluated by the City Arborist and found to be in
fair structure and does not warrant preserving. The applicant is required to replace this tree with
another native tree.
Finding #4: The project minimizes the perception of excessive bulk. The project meets this
finding in that the proposed architecture is well articulated. Earthtone colors and wood accents help
integrate the home into the natural environment. Varying rooflines and exterior wall heights helps
reduce the perception of bulk.
Finding #5: The project is of compatible bulk and height. The project meets this finding. The
proposed height is consistent with other homes in the neighborhood. The proposed colors and
materials are complimentary to the neighboring residences.
Finding #6: The project uses current grading and erosion control methods. The project meets
this finding in that the proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and
erosion control standards used by the City.
Finding #7: The project follows appropriate design policies and techniques. The project meets
this finding in that the proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and
techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook as required by Section 15-45.055. The
project uses architectural features to break up massing, colors and materials to reduce bulk, and
existing landscaping to enhance privacy.
VI. Project Approval
After careful consideration of the application, site plan, architectural drawings, plans, CEQA
documentation, and other materials, exhibits and evidence submitted to the City in connection with
18
3
Application No. PDR 10-0023; 15488 El Camino Grande
this matter, Application No. PDR10-0023 for Design Review Approval is approved subject to the
conditions set forth below.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. GENERAL
1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of
time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s
successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading, or
building permit for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate
of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been
recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office in form and content
acceptable to the community development director.
2. If a condition is not “permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until
the issuance by the city of Saratoga of a certificate of occupancy or its equivalent.
3. Conditions may be modified only by the Planning Commission unless modification is expressly
otherwise allowed by the city code including but not limited to sections 15-80.120 and/or 16-
05.035, as applicable.
4. The Community Development Director shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice in
writing, on or after the time the Resolution granting this Approval is duly executed by the City,
containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application,
including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall
expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the
notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building
Permit may be issued until the Community Development Director certifies that all processing
fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained).
5. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date
of adoption of this Resolution or the Design Review Approval will expire unless extended in
accordance with the City Code.
6. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City
and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the
requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference.
7. Prior to issuance of any Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit to implement this Design
Review Approval the Owner or Applicant shall obtain a “Zoning Clearance” from the
Community Development Director by submitting final plans for the requested permit to the
Community Development Department for review to ascertain compliance with the requirements
of this Resolution.
19
4
Application No. PDR 10-0023; 15488 El Camino Grande
8. Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend City as to Action Challenging Approval of
Application and as to Damage from Performance of Work Authorized by Design Review
Approval. 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 Community Development Director.
B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
9. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those
features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans denominated Exhibit "A" and
the Color Board denominated Exhibit “B”, date stamped October 13, 2010, both incorporated
by this reference.
25. Changes to Plans. 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. No
downgrading in the exterior appearance of the approved residence will be approved by staff.
Downgrades may include but are not limited to garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework,
columns, shutters, driveway materials, or similar items. Any exterior changes to approved plans
resulting in a downgrade shall require filing an additional application and fees for review by the
Planning Commission as a modification to approved plans. Any other exterior changes to the
approved plans, which are not deemed a downgrade by staff, shall require approval in
compliance with condition A.3 above.
10. Wood-burning fireplace limitation. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted
per habitable structure (e.g., main house). All other fireplaces shall be gas burning.
11. HVAC. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment shall comply with City Code
Section 15-80.030(l).
12. Fences. Fences and walls shall comply with City Code Chapter 15-29, unless otherwise
specified by a fence exception approved by the Planning Commission.
20
5
Application No. PDR 10-0023; 15488 El Camino Grande
13. Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine on adjacent properties.
14. Front yard landscaping. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or a
bond satisfactory to the Community Development Director for 150% of the estimated cost of the
installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City.
15. Landscape maintenance. Landscaped areas shall be watered, weeded, pruned, fertilized,
sprayed or otherwise maintained by the Owner as may be prescribed by the Community
Development Director;
26. Water Efficient Landscaping. Project shall comply with the State of California “Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance” pursuant to State Law AB 1881.
20. Landscape and Irrigation Plan. The Landscape and Irrigation Plan required by City Code
Section 15-45.070(a)(9) shall be designed to the maximum extent reasonably feasible to:
a. utilize efficient irrigation (where irrigation is necessary), to eliminate or reduce runoff, to
promote surface infiltration, and to minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that have the
potential to contribute to water pollution;
b. treat stormwater and irrigation runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and
infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated
soil conditions and prolonged exposure to water shall be specified in the Plan, installed and
maintained;
c. be comprised of pest resistant landscaping plants throughout the landscaped area, especially
along any hardscape area;
d. be comprised of plant materials selected to be appropriate to site specific characteristics
such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds,
rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to
ensure successful establishment;
e. protect the roots of Ordinance-protected trees from any proposed or required
undergrounding of utilities;
f. retain and incorporate existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover into the Plan; and
g. comply with Section 16-75.030 of the City Code to the extent applicable.
16. Stormwater. Disposition and treatment of stormwater shall comply with the applicable
requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit issued
to the City of Saratoga and the implementation standards established by the Santa Clara Valley
Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (collectively the “NPDES Permit Standards”).
Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Demolition, Grading or Building Permit for this
Project, a Stormwater Detention Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development
Director for review and approval demonstrating how all storm water will be detained on-site and
in compliance with the NPDES Permit Standards. If not all stormwater can be detained on-site
due to topographic, soils or other constraints, and if complete detention is not otherwise required
by the NPDES Permit Standards, the Project shall be designed to detain on-site the maximum
reasonably feasible amount of stormwater and to direct all excess stormwater away from
adjoining property and toward stormwater drains, drainageways, streets or road right-of- ways
and otherwise comply with the NPDES Permit Standards and applicable City Codes.
21
6
Application No. PDR 10-0023; 15488 El Camino Grande
17. GreenPoint Requirement. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit
verification by a certified green building rater that the dwelling design qualifies for a minimum
score of 50 points under the GreenPoint rating system. This includes meeting the minimum
points required in each specific category.
18. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted
to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Community
Development Department Director or designee prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The
construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following:
a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A”
on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. B.1
above;
b. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private
vehicles shall be parked or stored within the root zone (five feet beyond the dripline (the
area under the canopy) or a greater distance as determined by the City Arborist) of any
Ordinance-protected tree on the site;
c. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation
inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written
certification that all building setbacks comply with the Approved Plans,” which note shall
represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance with this Design
Review Approval;
d. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages;
e. A boundary survey, wet-stamped and wet-signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil
Engineer authorized to practice land surveying. The stamp shall reflect a current license for
the land surveyor/engineer, the document shall be labeled “Boundary Survey,” and the
document shall not contain any disclaimers;
f. City Arborist Report printed collectively onto separate construction plan pages;
g. A final Drainage and Grading Plan stamped by a registered Civil Engineer combined with
the above-required Stormwater Detention Plan;
h. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building
Division.
19. Construction truck routes. Construction trucks shall only use designated truck routes.
20. Noise limitations during construction. The noise level at any point twenty-five feet from the
source of noise shall not exceed 83 dBA during residential construction, and residential
construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid City permit, or do not
require the issuance of a City permit, may be conducted only between the hours of 7:30 A.M.
and 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on
Saturday. Residential construction shall be prohibited on Sunday and weekday holidays, with
the exception of that construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid
City permit and which do not exceed fifty percent of the existing main or accessory structure
may be conducted between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Sunday and weekday
holidays. A notice of applicable construction hour restrictions shall be posted conspicuously on
site at all times for all exterior residential construction activity requiring a City permit.
22
7
Application No. PDR 10-0023; 15488 El Camino Grande
21. Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Plan. Because this Design Review Approval
authorizes a construction, remodeling, or demolition project affecting more than two thousand
five hundred square feet of floor space the Applicant is required to provide to the Building
Official a construction and demolition debris recycling plan prior to the issuance of any
Demolition, Grading or Building Permit.
22. 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.
C. CITY ARBORIST.
21. Compliance with Tree Regulations and City Arborist Reports. Applicant shall comply with
all City tree regulations and requirements of the City Arborist. This includes, but is not limited
to all requirements in the City Arborist Report dated February 3, 2011.
22. Tree protective fencing. Tree protective fencing shall be installed as shown in the Arborist
Report and established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. The
applicant must obtain clearance from the City Arborist prior to zoning clearance.
23. Tree Protection Security Deposit. Owner shall obtain, and file with the Community
Development Director, a Tree Protection security deposit in the amount of $64,940 prior to
zoning clearance.
24. Replacement trees. Replacement trees equal to $13,610 shall be planted as described in the
Arborist Report. At least four of the replacement trees shall be from the City’s list of natives.
D. PUBLIC WORKS
25. Public Works Department. Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City Public
Works Department.
26. Geotechnical Clearance. Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Geotechnical
Clearance, including but not limited to conditions in the Geotechnical Clearance memorandum
dated January 13, 2011.
E. FIRE SAFETY OR FIRE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS
27. Fire Agency Conditions. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Agency conditions.
23
8
Application No. PDR 10-0023; 15488 El Camino Grande
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 9th day of March 2011
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Chris Riordan, AICP
Secretary to the Planning Commission
ACCEPTANCE BY APPLICANT AND OWNER
This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no
force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant and Property Owner or
Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and
agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the time required in
this Resolution by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission.
__________________________________ ____________________________
Applicant Date
__________________________________ ____________________________
Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Page 1 of 7
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
ARBORIST REPORT
Application #:ARB10-0053
Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist 15488 El Camino Grande
Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Al and Jamie Abhari
Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN 397-08-076
Report History: #1 replaced with report #2 Date: December 21, 2010
#2 revises and replaces report #1 February 3, 2011
INTRODUCTION
This report revises and replaces the report dated December 21, 2010 for the project. This revised
report, Tree Inventory Table and map should be included in the revised plans and the previous report
deleted.
The applicant has submitted grading and drainage plans to review, along with revised architectural
plans. The project proposes to demolish the existing house and build a new two story house and
second unit.
Four trees (#3, 4, 5 and 6) protected by City Code are requested for removal to construct the house.
Two acacia trees located between trees #2 and 3 are not protected by City Code, and may be
removed at any time without a permit; these two trees were not included in the attached inventory.
The Tree Inventory Table has been revised to include additional trees potentially impacted by the
project.
This project has clearance to proceed, with the conditions noted at the end of this report.
SITE VISIT, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION
Architectural plans submitted to the City for this project were prepared by Chris Spaulding,
Architect, and dated November 16, 2010. Civil plans were prepared by Westfall Engineers, Inc. and
dated January 2011. Architectural plans reviewed for this report include Sheet 1, Site Plan; Sheet 2,
First Floor Plan; Sheet 3, Second Floor Plan; Sheets 4 and 5, Elevations; Sheet 6, Sections; Sheet 7,
Second Unit; Sheet 8, Landscape Plans. Civil plans reviewed for this report include Sheet 1, Grading
and Drainage Plan, and Sheet 2, Sections and Details. No topographic or boundary survey was
submitted for review.
The attached map for locations of tree protection has been revised so that the storm drains and the
energy dissipater can be installed without entering tree protection areas. The drainage swale along
the rear of the property should stop at the edge of the canopy of tree #21.
The Tree Inventory Table has been revised to include additional trees. Twenty four trees protected
by City ordinance and potentially impacted by construction were inventoried for this report. Data
40
15488 El Camino Grande
Page 2 of 7
for each tree is included in the Tree Inventory Table at the end of this report. Locations of trees are
marked on the attached site map. Inventoried trees include one valley oak (#1), two bailey acacias
(#2 and 3), three fig trees (#4, 9 and 21), one European olive (#5), thirteen coast live oak trees (#6, 7,
10 – 18, 20 and 23), one Scotch pine (#8), one Aleppo pine (#19), one Italian stone pine (#22) and
one pinon pine (#24). Trees should be numbered on the Site Plan for ease of reference.
Two bailey acacias are indicated for removal on the plans. They are small enough that they are not
considered protected by City Code Section 15-50.080, and may be removed without a permit.
Trees #3, 4, 5 and 6 are in conflict with the project. Tree #3 is an acacia tree in conflict with the
proposed driveway. It is a fast growing invasive species in fair condition with a low suitability for
preservation. Tree #4 is a fig tree in good condition at the edge of the proposed driveway. It is in
conflict with the project due to its location between the driveway and the house. The site has
another, larger fig tree that is to be preserved and serves the site better than this one. Tree #5 is a
European olive within the footprint of the house. This tree is relatively small and can be replaced
with new trees after construction of the house. Tree #6 is a coast live oak also in the footprint of the
house. It has fair structure and does not warrant preserving. See the section below on Findings, for
how these four trees meet the criteria set forth in the City Code for removal. Trees #3 – 6 shall be
replaced with new trees equal to their total appraised value of $13,610 as part of the project.
Sheet 8, Landscape Plan has a table listing trees to be removed and indicates that 10 – 36 inch box
replacement trees will be planted for the project. The new trees should be shown on the plans, and at
least four of them must be from the City’s list of native species. Acceptable natives 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). Replacement
values can be found at the bottom of the Tree Inventory Table attached to the end of this report.
Tree #1 is a young valley oak in good condition located fairly close to the proposed swimming pool.
This tree has the potential to grow to a height of more than 50 feet over the next 30 years and to
increase in girth to a trunk size of several feet. This could have a significant impact on the proposed
pool, shading it in the near term, and possibly damaging it in the long term. In addition, the pool will
require excavation fairly close to this tree which could cause its decline. In order to best protect this
tree, no excavation, trenching, grading or fill soil should occur within 15 feet of its trunk. The pool
location may be better in a location that is even farther from this tree to avoid long term impacts.
Grading for the building pad appears to impact trees #7 and 8 and is shown to occur inside of tree
protection fencing. In addition, a patio is proposed around oak tree #7 and pine tree #8. Although the
grade drops off right by tree #8, and it may be one foot or more lower, a two foot addition of soil
would end up covering up a portion of the trunks and will likely suffocate the roots from compaction
of the soil. Grading for the site and building pad should remain outside of tree protection fencing. It
may be necessary to install a short dry stack retaining wall around trees #7 and 8.
The patio at trees #7 and 8 should be constructed of pervious materials and entirely on top of grade
where it is under the canopies of these two trees. No excavation, trenching or addition of fill soil is
permitted within 10 feet of tree #7 or 15 feet of tree #8 for installation of the patio, the surrounding
curb, or irrigation lines.
41
15488 El Camino Grande
Page 3 of 7
Oak tree #10 is a large oak in good condition. The canopy of this tree extends twenty five feet from
the trunk in the direction of the turnaround, and this oak very likely has roots extending two to three
times this distance. The grading plan proposes to raise the grade by about two feet at a distance of
about eighteen feet from the tree’s trunk, and to install a storm drain between the driveway turn-
around and the tree. The turn-around and storm drain should be placed so that no excavation,
trenching, grading or fill soil is required within 20 feet of oak tree #10 in order to adequately protect
the tree. Raising the grade up to six inches can be tolerated by the tree, and if the materials for the
turn-around are pervious, such as pavers on sand, and on top of grade, the tree can be adequately
protected.
Both driveways will require removal by hand in the areas that occur under tree canopies. This will
impact trees #14 – 16 and stone pine #22. Once the driveway has been removed in these two
locations, tree fencing should be placed so that it is outside of the canopies of these trees.
Installation of storm drains and the energy dissipater is acceptable as shown on the plans, with the
exception of the storm drain by tree #10 (see previous paragraph about tree #10). The storm drain
between trees #19 and 20 should be placed at the edge of the canopy of tree #20. Tree protective
fencing around trees #11, 12, 16, 17, 19 and 20 should be installed so that it can remain in place
when storm drains are installed.
The drainage swale along the rear of the property is acceptable, and should remain outside of the
canopy of tree #21.
Per City Ordinance 15-50.080, a Tree Protection security deposit in the amount of $64,940, which is
equal to 100% of the appraised value of trees #1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, 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. Appraisal values are 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, in conjunction with the Species Classification
and Group Assignment published by the Western Chapter of the ISA, 2004.
FINDINGS
Per Article 15-50.080, the project was reviewed with respect to the removal of trees #3, 4, 5 and 6.
They meet criteria #1, 4, 6, 7 and 9 listed below, overall, and are approved for removal once all
building permits have been obtained.
Tree Removal Criteria:
(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;
42
15488 El Camino Grande
Page 4 of 7
(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.
Tree #3 is a bailey acacia and tree #4 is a fig tree. Both are in good condition and are in conflict with
the proposed driveway (criterion #1). Their removal does not have a significant impact on the scenic
beauty, privacy, shade or the general welfare of residents in the area (criterion #4), in that there are
many other better trees on the site. Although the driveway could be modified to preserve these two
trees, they do not serve the site very well. The acacia has poor structure and weed-like growth habit,
and there is another, larger fig tree on the site, so there are no better alternatives (criterion #6).
Removal of trees #3and 4 and replacement with new trees as part of the project is consistent with the
general purpose of this Article (criterion #7). Removal of these trees allows the owners to place the
house in the largest open area on the property, preserve a large number of trees, and maximize their
economic enjoyment of the property (criterion #9).
Tree #5 is an olive tree and tree #6 is a coast live oak. Both are in good condition and in conflict
with the proposed house (criterion #1). Their removal does not have a significant impact on the
scenic beauty, privacy, shade or general welfare of the residents in the area, as there are many other
good trees on the site (criterion #4). The location of the house is the best place on the lot to place it
and allows for the preservation of the greatest number of trees. If the house were placed elsewhere,
other trees and maybe more trees would require removal to construct it (criterion #6). Removal of
these two trees and replacement with new trees is consistent with the intent of this Article (criterion
#7), which is to balance the rights of the property owner with the preservation of trees. Removal of
these two trees allows economic enjoyment of the property in that the owners (criterion #9).
Per Section 15-50.120, this project does not yet meet the requirements for the setback of new
construction from protected trees. The design should be modified as conditioned below to provide
better protection to trees #1 and 10.
REQUIREMENTS
1. This entire report, including the revised Tree Inventory Table and map showing locations of
trees and protective fencing, shall be incorporated into the final set of plans and titled “Tree
Preservation”.
2. No protected tree authorized for removal, pruning or encroachment pursuant to this project
may be removed, pruned or encroached upon, until the issuance of the applicable permit from
the building division for the approved project. If no building permit is required for this
project, applicant shall obtain a no-fee tree removal/pruning/encroachment for the project.
3. Tree protective fencing shall be installed as shown on the attached map and established prior
to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. It shall be comprised of six-foot
high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, 1 7/8-inch diameter galvanized posts,
driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established,
the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction
43
15488 El Camino Grande
Page 5 of 7
process until final inspection. Call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an
inspection after the fence has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building
division permits.
4. Signs shall be posted on tree protection fencing. Signs shall say “TREE PROTECTION
FENCE - DO NOT REMOVE WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST”.
This information shall also be translated into Spanish and posted on the fences.
5. Owner shall obtain, and file with the Community Development Director, a Tree Protection
security deposit in the amount of $64,940 (for trees #1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16),
prior to obtaining building division permits.
6. Trees #3, 4, 5 and 6 are approved for removal as part of this project. They shall not be
removed until all planning and building permits have been obtained.
7. Replacement trees equal to $13,610, which is the total appraised value of trees #3 – 6, shall
be planted as part of the project. At least four of the replacement trees shall be from the
City’s list of natives. 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). The plans indicate that
10 – 36 inch box trees shall be planted on the property which will adequately replace the
removed trees.
8. Sheet 8, Landscape plan, shall show the locations of proposed trees.
9. Excavation or addition of fill soil is not permitted within the following distances for any
aspect of the project:
a. 10 feet from tree #7
b. 15 feet from tree #1 and #8
c. 20 feet from tree #10
10. The turning area for the carport shall be no closer than 20 feet from the trunk of tree #10.
11. Excavation for the storm drain by tree #10 shall be at least 20 feet from the trunk of the tree.
12. The drainage swale along the rear of the property shall not encroach into the area under the
canopy of tree #21.
13. The energy dissipater shall remain outside of any tree’s canopy on site and outside of tree
protection zones.
14. No more than 6 inches of fill soil is permitted within 20 feet of tree 10.
15. The location of the swimming pool shall be adjusted so that no excavation for the pool or
surrounding coping is required within 15 feet of tree #1.
44
15488 El Camino Grande
Page 6 of 7
16. The patio in the back of the house shall be constructed of pervious materials and entirely on
top of grade. No roots of trees #7 or 8 shall be cut in order to construct the patio.
17. The driveways shall be removed by hand where they are under trees #14 – 16 and the stone
pine next to tree #1. Tree fencing shall be moved to the edge of the trees’ canopies after the
driveways have been removed in these areas.
18. Trees shall be watered as necessary to ensure good health through the warm dry months.
Watering may be done with a hose or soaker hose and should occur for a long enough period
of time that the soil is moistened to a depth of at least 8 inches. Intervals of watering should
be at least monthly and as often as weekly, as determined by the species and maturity of tree.
19. Excavation for new utilities, if they are intended as part of the project, is not permitted under
tree canopies. Utilities include, but are not limited to, electrical, drainage, water, sewer, gas
and irrigation for landscaping.
20. Any grading, trenching or excavation under a tree’s canopy is subject to approval by the City
Arborist before performing work. If approved, it shall be done manually using shovels or
an air spade for the first 18 inches. No roots measuring 2 inches or greater may be cut, but
instead shall be worked around and left in place.
21. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the
designated fenced area (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not
necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning,
stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and
parking.
22. Any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site must be performed by a state licensed
tree contractor under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to ISA
standards.
23. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited under
tree canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage to areas under tree canopies.
Herbicides shall not be applied under tree canopies.
24. Irrigation for new landscape shall be designed as follows:
a. Design irrigation so that it does not spray trunks of trees.
b. Locate valve boxes and controllers outside of tree canopies.
c. Locate lateral lines outside of tree canopies.
d. Irrigation heads shall not spray the trunk of any tree.
e. Any irrigation line that must extend under a tree canopy shall be radial to the trunk of the
tree and receive prior approval from the City Arborist.
f. Only drip irrigation is permitted under oak trees. It shall be placed on top of grade under
mulch and only in the outer have under the canopy of the tree.
25. Select plants with similar water requirements to the trees under which they will be placed.
45
15488 El Camino Grande
Page 7 of 7
26. Design lawns so that there is room between them and the trunk of any tree; confine lawn areas to
the outside 20% of the area under the canopy.
27. Landscaping under oak trees:
a. Shall not be planted within the inner half of the area under the canopy.
b. Shall only be mulch under area within the inner half under the canopy.
c. Only drought tolerant plants that are compatible with oaks are permitted under the outer
half of the canopy.
d. Water loving plants are not permitted under oaks.
e. Lawns are not permitted under the canopy of oaks.
28. Design topdressings so that mulch remains at least one foot from the trunks of retained trees and 6
inches from the trunks of new trees.
29. Removal of the topsoil under tree canopies is not permitted.
Attachments:
Revised Tree Inventory Table
Revised map showing tree locations and tree protective fencing
46
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE
NO. TREE NAME Trunk Diameter (in,) - per Guide for Plant AppraisalEstimated Canopy Spread (ft.)Health Condition (100% = best, 0% = worst)Structural Integrity (100% = best, 0% = worst)Overall ConditionSuitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Intensity of Impacts (1 = Highest, 5 = Lowest)In Conflict with Proposed DesignNot Shown on PlansAppraised ValueValley oak
1 Quercus lobata 11.5 25 80 80 Good High 2 $9,200
Bailey Acacia
2 Acacia baileyana 14.4, 9.2 30 80 50 Good Low 3 $730
Bailey Acacia 8.1, 7.2, 7.7, 6
3 Acacia baileyana 5.4, 4.5, 3.7, 4.2 40 80 40 Fair Low 1 X $1,830
Fig
4 Ficus carica 10.5 15 80 40 Good Moderate 1 X $2,400
European olive
5 Olea europaea 6.7, 4.9, 4.7 15 70 50 Good Moderate 1 X $2,380
Coast live oak
6 Quercus agrifolia 8.4, 6.9, 9.7 25 80 40 Good Moderate 1 X $7,000
Coast live oak
7 Quercus agrifolia 9.9 15 70 50 Good Moderate 2 $2,140
Scots pine
8 Pinus sylvestris 16.9 40 50 40 Fair Moderate 2 $6,200
FigFig
9 Ficus carica 9.8, 9.4 40 80 50 Good Low 2 $3,640
Coast live oak
10 Quercus agrifolia 15, 19.3 45 80 70 Good Moderate 2 $27,700
Coast live oak
11 Quercus agrifolia 4.5, 9.8 25 70 50 Good High 2 $3,510
Coast live oak
12 Quercus agrifolia 8.4, 7.5 15 70 50 Good High 2 $3,250
Coast live oak
13 Quercus agrifolia 8.5, 9.2 15 70 50 Good High 2 $3,980
Coast live oak
14 Quercus agrifolia 7.7 10 80 60 Good High 2 $1,510
15488 El Camino Grande February 3, 2011
47
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE
NO. TREE NAME Trunk Diameter (in,) - per Guide for Plant AppraisalEstimated Canopy Spread (ft.)Health Condition (100% = best, 0% = worst)Structural Integrity (100% = best, 0% = worst)Overall ConditionSuitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Intensity of Impacts (1 = Highest, 5 = Lowest)In Conflict with Proposed DesignNot Shown on PlansAppraised ValueCoast live oak
15 Quercus agrifolia 10.5 10 80 50 Good High 2 $2,610
Coast live oak
16 Quercus agrifolia 7.1 15 80 50 Good High 2 $1,200
Coast live oak 11.3,
17 Quercus agrifolia 10.5 30 80 70 Good High 2 $9,700
Coast live oak
18 Quercus agrifolia 11.6 15 60 70 Fair High 2 $3,400
Aleppo pine
19 Pinus halepensis 22 25 70 70 Fair High 2 $8,500
Coast live oak
20 Quercus agrifolia 28.6 35 80 80 Good High 2 $33,600
Fig 9.3, 3.2,
21 Ficus carica 9.1 25 80 70 Good High 2 $8,400
Italian stone pine
22 Pinus pinea 26.5 30 80 80 Good High 2 $17,200
Coast live oakCoast live oak
23 Quercus agrifolia 9.4 15 80 80 Good High 4 $3,630
Pinyon pine
24 Pinus edulis 12.8 20 80 80 Fair High 4 $7,100
Total Appraised Value $79,280
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 52 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000
15488 El Camino Grande February 3, 2011
48
15488 El Camino Grande
Legend
February 3, 2011
Tree Protective Fencing
Tree Canopy
6
5 4
3
2
1
11
10
9
8
7
12
18
15
14
16
Remove drive-
way by hand.
Then relocate
tree protection
fence to outside
of tree canopy.
17
23
24
22
20
19
21
49
50
51
Memorandum of Geotechnical Clearance Conditions
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cynthia McCormick, Project Planner, Community Development Department
CC: Jamie and Al Abhari, Owner / Applicant
FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Senior Engineer
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Clearance Conditions for GEO10-0021 at 15452 El Camino Grande
(existing house as 15488 El Camino Grande)
DATE: January 13, 2011
1. A site specific geotechnical investigation shall be completed as a basis for
preparation of recommended project geotechnical design parameters. Updated code
required seismic design parameters shall be included. An investigation summarizing
findings and recommendations shall be completed and submitted to the City along
with other documents for building permit plan‐check.
2. 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 Consultant
shall evaluate how surface drainage is to be collected and discharged for
conformance with prevailing geotechnical standards. Any appropriate drainage
design changes shall be addressed.
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.
52
Memorandum of Geotechnical Clearance Conditions
Page 2 of 2
3. 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.
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.
4. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City
Geotechnical Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance.
5. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga
harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope
instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions.
53
REPORT TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
Application No./Location: PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002
21955 Via Regina
Type of Application: Design Review application for a proposed 7,425 square
foot new two story home and a 735 square foot secondary
dwelling unit at 21955 Via Regina with a request for a
Variance for the project to exceed the maximum 16,500
square foot site coverage and a Grading Exception to
exceed 1,000 cubic yards of grading.
Applicant/Owner: Tom Sloan, AIA / Michael Chilcoat
Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner
Meeting Date: March 9, 2011
APN: 503-69-026 Department Head:
Christopher Riordan, AICP
21955 Via Regina
54
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROJECT HISTORY:
Application filed: …………………………………… 06/01/10
Application complete: ………………………………. 01/12/11
Notice published: …………………………………… 02/23/11
Mailing completed: …………………………………. 02/17/11
Posting completed: ………………………………….. 03/03/11
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting approval of Design Review, Variance and Grading Exception
applications to construct a proposed 7,179 square foot single-family dwelling with a 2,042
square foot basement. The residence would be two stories and approximately 26 feet tall.
Proposed accessory buildings would include a 735 square foot secondary dwelling unit and
a 247 square foot garage (559 square feet of the garage is classified as basement and not
considered floor area). The secondary dwelling unit would include a deed restriction
thereby limiting its rental use to below market rate households. This restriction would
provide the project a 10% increase in allowable floor area and impervious site coverage.
The total proposed floor area would be approximately 8,161 square feet. The maximum
allowable floor area for the site is 8,173 square feet.
The project site is approximately 5.66 acre (net) parcel with an average slope of 24%.
Single family homes are located on all adjacent parcels. Mature Oak and Walnut trees
are located in the northwest and southeast portions of the site.
A one-story 2,287 square feet one story single-family home was recently removed from
the site. A relatively level building pad remains at the center of the site. An existing
asphalt driveway located adjacent to the sites eastern property line provides access to the
building site. The driveway is approximately 860 feet long and covers 14,730 square feet
of the property. This driveway is bordered by existing Oak and Pine trees. Site slopes
increase to the northwest of the building pad and decreases to the west, south, and
southeast.
Prior to the removal of the single-family home the site had approximately 17,584 square
feet of site coverage which included buildings, porches, walkways, and driveway. The
project would include removal of all impervious coverage.
The proposed project would include 26,618 square feet of impervious coverage. The
maximum allowable impervious site coverage in the HR zone district is 16,500 square
feet (which includes a ten percent bonus for the deed restricted secondary dwelling unit).
26,618 square feet of impervious coverage is proposed. The project includes a request
for a variance to allow the project to exceed the maximum allowable impervious site
coverage by 10,118 square feet.
55
Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina
The project would include 1,202 cubic yards of grading (combined cut and fill). The
project includes a request for a Grading Exception to exceed 1,000 cubic yards of grading
in the HR zoning district.
The City Arborist inventoried 25 trees protected by City ordinance with the potential of
being impacted by construction. None of these trees are proposed for removal. A
$365,590 security deposit would be required for protection of these trees. The project
would remove seven fruit trees not protected by city ordinance. The project has Arborist
Clearance to proceed.
City Code Section 15-45.060 states that for any new single-story structure over eighteen feet
in height, or whenever, as a result of proposed construction, reconstruction or expansion, the
gross floor area of all structures on a site will exceed 6,000 square-feet, Design Review
approval is required by the Planning Commission. The proposal consists of a new
approximately 26 foot tall structure with a combined project floor area exceeding 6,000
square-feet; therefore, Planning Commission review is required. Planning Commission
approval is also required for the Variance for site coverage exceeding 16,500 square feet and
the request for a Grading Exception to exceed 1,000 cubic yards of grading.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Design Review, Variance, and
Grading Exception applications with the required findings and conditions by adopting the
attached Resolution. Staff is recommending a permanent condition of approval requiring
the property owner to record a deed restriction for the second dwelling unit so that it may
only be rented to below market households.
Page 3 of 12
56
Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: HR (Hillside Residential)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RHC (Hillside Conservation)
MEASURE G: Not Applicable
PARCEL SIZE: Net: 5.66 acres/246,550 square feet
SLOPE: 23.9 percent
GRADING REQUIRED: 1,175 cubic yards of cut and 27 cubic yards of fill (total of 1,202
cubic yards) for construction of the house, driveway and garage. This calculation does
not include 2,244 cubic yards of cut for the basement areas.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposal is Categorically Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction
or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA).
This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family
residences.
MATERIALS AND COLORS: The exterior finish materials would include a dark tan integral
color hard trowel stucco exterior with a smooth finish and a natural stone veneer. Old world
rustic appearance will be enhanced by the use of reclaimed terra cotta roof tiles and
reclaimed bricks. Second story balconies will feature wrought iron railings. Details of the
materials are included the below table. A colors and materials board is available on file with
the Community Development Department and will be present at the site visit and public
hearing.
Detail Colors and Materials Mfg. &
Specification #
Windows
Aluminum Clad Wood Windows
Powder Coated Finish / Eagle Color ‘Olive’
#108
‘Eagle’ Axiom
Casement Windows
Front Door Custom Wood - ‘Fir’ Dark Stain Custom Design
Garage
Door Custom Wood – ‘Fir’ Dark Stain Custom Design
Building
Ext.
Smooth Troweled Limestone Plaster - #1813
tan
Stone Veneer – Cream/Tan
‘Chatuea Cool Stone’/
‘Natural Stone
Veneer’ - Sydney
Overgrout
Roof Reclaimed Terra Cotta Tiles
Tan Color
‘Reclaimed’
2 Piece Clay Tiles
Page 4 of 12
57
Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina
PROJECT DATA:
HR Zoning
Net Site Area: 5.66 acres
Existing/Proposed Allowable
Site Coverage to Be Removed
16,500 SF
(15,000 + 10% increase
for inclusion of a deed
restricted secondary
dwelling unit)
Buildings (recently demolished): 2,287 SF
Porches: 59 SF
Hardscape/Walkways
Driveway/Turnaround:
Total Existing Site Coverage
Proposed Site Coverage
Buildings:
Pool:
Porches:
Hardscape/Walkways:
Driveway/Turnaround (Pervious Paving)
Total Proposed Site Coverage
508 SF
14,730 SF
17,584 SF (7.1%)
6,535 SF
997 SF
1,626 SF
5,012 SF
13,098 SF
26,619 SF (10.8%)
8,173 SF
(7,430 + 10% increase for
inclusion of a deed
restricted secondary
dwelling unit)
Floor Area
Residence:
Garage:
Guest House:
Total Proposed Floor Area
7,179 SF
247 SF
735 SF
8,161 SF
Grading
Landscape
Driveway
Garage
Total Grading
Cut
668CY
507 CY
0 CY
1,175 CY
Fill
0 CY
27 CY
422 CY
27 CY
Total
668 CY
534 CY
422 CY
1,202 CY
1,000 Cubic Yards
(Grading Exception
Requested)
Height (Main Residence)
Lowest Elevation Point:
Highest Elevation Point:
Average Elevation Point:
Proposed Topmost Point:
724.33 FT
741.00 FT
732.67 FT
758.46 (25.67 FT)
Maximum Height
= 758.67 (26 Feet)
Setbacks
Front:
Rear:
Left Side:
Right Side:
382’-4”
61’-4”
189’-2”
97’-0”
30’-0”
60’-0”
20’-0”
20’-0”
Page 5 of 12
58
Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina
PROJECT DISCUSSION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Background
The project was initially reviewed by the Planning Commission (Commission) during a
December 7, 2010 Study Session. The Commission expressed general consensus that the
architectural design of the proposed residence could be supported and findings could be
made to approve the grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards. At the conclusion of the
meeting the Commission did not achieve general consensus on the variance request to
exceed the maximum allowable site coverage as it did with the architectural design and
grading aspects of the project. A summary of the project related comments discussed by the
Commission were as follows:
• A portion of the driveway area should be included as lot coverage;
• The use of impervious pavers should be maximized;
• Cisterns for onsite water collection should be considered;
• Off site water runoff should be minimized;
• Walkway should be minimized to reduce lot coverage;
• The footprint of the house could be shortened in length and the floor area reduced;
• Green construction methods and materials should be maximized;
• The applicant should consider a follow up Study Session.
The Planning Commission reviewed the project a second time during a January 12, 2011
Study Session. In an attempt to address Commission concerns the applicant presented
modifications to the design of the project based on comments received at the December 7,
2010 Study Session. The following project modifications reduced the total proposed lot
coverage from 29,389 square feet to 26,618 square feet resulting in a coverage reduction of
1.13%.
• The turnaround was narrowed in width;
• Guest parking was reduced from three spaces to two;
• Hardscape was removed and landscaping pockets added to both the front and rear
patio’s;
• Walkways removed from the northeastern corner of building footprint;
• Space provided in basement for two 1,100 gallon water storage tanks.
The applicant also described how the proposed driveway and all parking areas would be
constructed of paving stones, explained the permeable qualities of this particular type of
paving system, and indicated how these paving stones could reduce water runoff from the
site.
Existing Site Characteristics
The project site is an approximately 5.66 acre (net) parcel with an average slope of 24%.
Single family homes are located on all adjacent parcels. Mature Oak and Walnut trees
are located in both the northwest and southeast portions of the site.
A one-story 2,287 square feet one story single-family home was recently removed from
the site. A relatively level building pad remains at the center of the site. An existing
asphalt driveway located adjacent to the sites eastern property line provides access to the
building site. The driveway is approximately 860 feet long and covers 14,730 square feet
Page 6 of 12
59
Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina
of the property. This driveway is bordered by existing Oak and Pine trees. Site slopes
increase to the northwest of the building pad and decreases to the west, south, and
southeast.
Before the removal of the single-family home the site had approximately 17,584 square feet
of site coverage which included the buildings, porches, walkways, and driveway. The
project would include removal of all impervious coverage. Current regulations would allow
approximately 16,500 square feet of impervious surface.
Proposed Project and Architectural Style
The project would have an “Old World European” design and would consist of a new
7,179 square feet approximately 26 feet tall two story single-family dwelling with a 2,042
square foot basement not included in the gross floor area. Other proposed buildings
would include a 736 square foot deed restricted guest house and a 247 square foot garage
(559 square feet of the garage is classified as basement and not considered floor area).
The total proposed floor area would be approximately 8,161 square feet. The maximum
allowable floor area is 8,173 square feet.
The project architect has described the proposed architectural style of the home as “Old
World European”. This type of architecture evolved in Europe over hundreds of years. The
hillsides of Europe are rocky and feature a varied topography that encouraged the use of
more natural materials such as stone and tile. Buildings were designed with low pitches and
large overhangs to adapt to the rugged, hot conditions. Brick and timber were used for
structural and aesthetic purposes. Plaster or stucco walls allowed for the creative use of
color pigments that reflected the clay soil conditions.
Landscape plays an important role in “Old World European” architecture as most country
buildings were working farms. The trees allowed for cool shade and provided opportunities
for outdoor living in courtyards and under large patio porch areas that featured walls of
doors and windows that facilitated cross ventilation. The use of deep earthly colors like
terracotta, olive green, and deep shades of orange, yellow, and browns captured the warm
country living feel. This architectural theme is further enhanced with natural textures like
stone, tile, aged wood, exposed wood beams, wrought iron, welded ornamental steel in
black and copper, and some grapes and olives.
The proposed buildings (the main house and the secondary dwelling unit) would have many
of architectural details as mentioned above. Building materials will include a dark tan
integral color hard trowel stucco exterior with a smooth finish and a natural stone veneer.
Old world rustic appearance will be enhanced by the use of reclaimed terra cotta roof tiles
and reclaimed bricks. Second story balconies will feature wrought iron railings. New
landscaping would include 24” box olive trees. Formal landscaping would be kept to a
minimum. A proposed vineyard would be planted on both the northern and southern slopes.
Fireplaces
Saratoga City Code Section 15-48.030 establishes a limit of one wood burning fireplace
per structure. The main residence has three fireplaces. One (1) wood burning fireplace
Page 7 of 12
60
Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina
would be located in the Great Room on the main level. Gas burning fireplaces would be
located in the library and in the exterior loggia at the rear of the residence.
The living room of the secondary dwelling unit would have a gas burning fireplace.
Secondary Dwelling Unit
The proposed project would include a detached Secondary Dwelling Unit. The secondary
dwelling unit would be 14’-7” tall with a floor area of 735 square feet. It would be
constructed near the entrance of the site and to the left of the driveway. Saratoga City Code
Section 15-56.030(d) allows a one-time ten percent increase in site coverage and allowable
floor area if an applicant agrees to a deed restriction that would restrict the rental of a second
unit to below market rate (BMR) households. A condition has been added to the project
requiring this deed restriction be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. The
provision of the BMR second unit would allow the applicant to construct an additional 743
square feet of floor area on the site above the maximum allowable floor area of 7,430 square
feet for an allowable floor area of 8,173 square feet. In addition, the 15,000 square foot
maximum site coverage can also be increased by ten percent for total allowed site coverage
of 16,500 square feet.
The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) publishes an
annual list of income limits for Santa Clara County households that would qualify as lower
(80%), very-low (50%), or extremely-low (30%) income households that would be eligible
to rent a BMR housing unit. All percentages are based on the 2010 Santa Clara County
median income level of $103,500. As an example, a couple with a combined yearly income
of $82,800 (80% of the median) would be eligible to rent the proposed secondary dwelling
unit.
Saratoga City Code Section 15-56.030 contains Development Standards applicable to
Second Dwelling Units. The 735 square foot Second Dwelling Unit would be deed
restricted thereby requiring that it be rented to Below Market Rate households. The Unit
complies with the Development Standards by:
• Exceeding the minimum lot size required for a Secondary Dwelling unit in the HR
zone district per City Code Section 15-13.060(e).
• Being larger than the minimum size of 400 square feet, not exceeding the maximum
size of 1,200 square feet, and not exceeding two bedrooms.
• Providing one off street parking space located within the three-car garage.
The parking requirements for a secondary dwelling unit are a minimum of one off-street
parking space within a garage. The garage requirement may be waived if the second
dwelling unit is deed restricted but a parking space still must be provided. There would
be an unenclosed parking space located to the right of secondary dwelling unit.
Nonetheless, the project will include a three-car garage thus meeting the covered
parking requirements for both the main and the secondary dwelling unit.
• Providing access by a common driveway.
• Having a common architectural appearance as the main residence.
Page 8 of 12
61
Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina
Variance
The net site area of the lot is 246,550 square feet or 5.66 acres. In the Hillside Residential
Zoning District the maximum allowable site coverage is 25 percent or 15,000 square feet,
whichever is less. 25% of the net site area is 61,637 square feet so for this particular lot
the maximum allowable impervious site coverage is 15,000 square feet.
The project would include a secondary dwelling unit. City Code Section 15-56.030(d)
allows for a ten percent increase (1,500 square feet) in site coverage because the
applicant has agreed to a deed restriction which would limit the rental of the unit to below
market rate households. Because of this agreement the maximum site coverage is
increased to 16,500 square feet.
The project site has 17,584 square feet (7.1%) of existing impervious site coverage which
the applicant is proposing to completely remove. The new project would include 26,618
square feet (10.8%) of new impervious site coverage which is more than 10,118 square
feet above the 16,500 square feet as mentioned above.
The 12,448 square feet sloped and level driveway area will be constructed of permeable
pavers. These pavers are designed to decrease the amount of surface runoff. Based on
product specifications submitted by the applicant, permeable pavers are generally
installed in a manner that will handle a one-hour storm and the rate which water will flow
through the pavers depends on the specific materials used to fill the voids and the slope of
the pavement.
The City Code does not differentiate between permeable pavers and non-permeable solid
surfaces in the determination of impervious surface limitations. City Code Section 15-
06.370 states all constructed surfaces that disrupt the natural aesthetic of the landscape as
an impervious surface. This includes gravel, bricks with sand, or gravel.
The applicant believes that a long driveway is required to provide access to the buildable
area of the lot. Within the Hillside Residential Zone District long driveways are often
required to gain access to the area of a site most suitable for development. The applicant
asserts that a Variance is required because if the permeable pavers are considered to be an
“impervious surface,” the 12,448 square foot driveway would count as 75% of the
maximum site coverage and there would only be 4,052 square feet of remaining
allowable site coverage to construct the proposed project structural improvements. The
subject 5.66 acre parcel is the largest lot on Via Regina. The majority of homes on Via
Regina are less than two acres in size and do not require a long driveway to access the
building site so therefore the driveway has a reduced impact on lot coverage for these
smaller sites.
The applicant has applied for a Variance to exceed the maximum amount of site
coverage. To recommend approval of a Variance the Planning Commission must make
the findings set forth in City Code Section 15-70.060 and included in Attachment #1.
Page 9 of 12
62
Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina
Geotechnical Clearance
Acre Soil Engineering prepared a Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed project, dated
June 4, 2010. On October 21, 2010, the project received geotechnical clearance to proceed
with special conditions from Cotton Shires and Associates (the City’s Geotechnical
Consultant) and the Public Works Department.
Grading over one thousand cubic yards
City Code section 15-13.050 limits the combined cut and fill of any grading for a project in
the Hillside Residential (HR) zone district to one thousand (1,000) cubic yards, including
any excavation for a swimming pool, unless a larger quantity is approved by the Planning
Commission. The project includes a request for a grading exception for a combined cut and
fill of 1,202 cubic yards (1,175 cut and 27 fill). The 2,244 cubic yards of cut for the
basement areas are not included in the grading quantity per City Code. Soil removed from
the basement will be exported off-site.
City Code section 15-13.050 limits the combined cut and fill of any grading for a project in
the HR zone district to one thousand (1,000) cubic yards, including any excavation for a
swimming pool, unless a larger quantity is approved by the Planning Commission.
The project would be constructed on the most level portion of the site and 668 cubic yards
of cut would be required to contour the building pad. The fire department requires a
relatively level turnaround area for their vehicles so that a fire truck and turn around and exit
the site in a forward direction thereby requiring driveway grading of 507 cubic yards of cut
and 27 cubic yards of fill.
The grading would improve the buildings integration into the natural topography of the site
and potentially negative offsite views of the project would be reduced as viewed from Via
Regina and adjacent sites.
The project would be allowed to exceed a grading quantity in excess of 1,000 cubic yards
allowed under City Code Section 15-13.050(f) upon making the following findings:
(1) The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the
property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site; and
(2) The natural land forms and vegetation are being preserved and protected; and
(3) The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction
with the natural terrain; and
(4) The increased grading is necessary to integrate an architectural design into the
natural topography; and
(5) The increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as
viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views.
(6) No building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the
main residential structure.
Staff has concluded that all of the above findings can be made and recommends approval
of the Grading Exception proposed, even though it exceeds 1,000 cubic yards.
Page 10 of 12
63
Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina
Trees
The City Arborist inventoried 25 trees protected by City ordinance with a potential of
being impacted by construction. None of these trees are proposed for removal. A
$365,590 security deposit would be required for protection of these trees. The project
would remove seven fruit trees not protected by city ordinance. The project has Arborist
Clearance to proceed.
Energy Efficiency
The applicant submitted a GreenPoint Rated Checklist (Attachment #3). Article 16-47
(Green Building Regulations) Section 16.47.040 of the City Code requires all new
residential projects to meet the minimum GreenPoint Rated requirements of 50 points.
The “green features” proposed for the project would earn a score of 195 points and would
exceed the minimum in each category to be considered GreenPoint Rated. Some of the
proposed green features would include:
• Maximizing the use (25 percent) of fly ash in the concrete. Fly ash is a fine, glass-
like powder recovered from gases created by coal-fired electric power generation.
U.S. power plants produce millions of tons of fly ash annually, which is usually
dumped in landfills. Fly ash is an inexpensive replacement for portland cement used
in concrete and actually improves its strength;
• Recycled-content steel studs for 90% of interior wall framing;
• The installation of zoned, hydronic radiant heating. Hydronic radiant floor systems
pump heated water from a boiler through tubing laid in a pattern underneath the floor.
In the proposed system, the temperature in each room is controlled by regulating the
flow of hot water through each tubing loop;
• The use of whole house fans;
• The installation of photovoltaic (PV) panels to provide a minimum of 60% of the
electric needs;
• Drought tolerant landscaping and drip irrigation to reduce water use.
Other “green features” include installation of efficient ductwork and appliances to
minimize energy waste, exceeding Title 24 energy requirements by 37%, the use of low
VOC (volatile organic compound) adhesives and paint, and energy star appliances.
Neighbor Correspondence
The applicant has shown the proposed plans to neighbors as indicated in the attached
neighbor notification forms (Attachment #5). Staff also sent a “Notice of Public Hearing” to
all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. The public hearing notice and
description of the project was published in the Saratoga News. No public comments, either
positive or negative, have been received at the time of the writing of this Staff Report.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Design Review, Variance, and
Grading Exception applications with the required findings and conditions by adopting the
attached Resolution. Staff is recommending a permanent condition of approval requiring
Page 11 of 12
64
Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina
Page 12 of 12
the property owner to record a deed restriction for the second dwelling unit so that it may
only be rented to below market households.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Design Review and Grading Findings (submitted by applicant)
3. GreenPoint Rated Checklist (prepared by applicant)
4. Water Storage Tank Information (submitted by applicant)
5. Permeable Paver Information (submitted by applicant)
6. Arborist Reports, dated June 23 and July 16, 2010.
7. Neighbor Notification Forms.
8. Public hearing notice and copy of mailing labels for project notification.
9. Site Photos (submitted by applicant)
10. Reduced Plans (Exhibit A)
65
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO: 09-026 FOR APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW
Application Numbers: PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, GRE10-0002
Tom Sloan (Applicant) Michael Chilcoat (Owner): 21955 Via Regina
The City of Saratoga Planning Commission finds and determines as follows with respect to
the above-described application:
I. Project Summary
The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review
Approval for the Project shown in Exhibit "A" including the Color Board denominated
Exhibit “B” dated May 27, 2010, each incorporated by this reference. The proposed project
would include the construction of a 7,426 square foot “Old World European” designed
two story single-family home with basement and a 736 square foot secondary dwelling
unit. The secondary dwelling unit would include a deed restriction limiting its rental use
to below market rate households. This restriction would provide the project a 10%
increase in allowable floor area and impervious site coverage. Including the 10% bonus
for the secondary dwelling unit the maximum allowable impervious site coverage in the
HR zone district is 16,500 square feet. 26,619 square feet of impervious coverage is
proposed. Approval of the requested Variance would allow the project to exceed the
maximum allowable impervious site coverage by 10,119 square feet. The project would
include 1,148 cubic yards of grading. The project includes an application for a Grading
Exception to exceed 1,000 cubic yards of grading in the HR zoning district. The project
would not remove any protected trees. The net lot size is 246,549 square-feet (5.66 acres)
and the site is zoned Hillside Residential. The foregoing work is described as the “Project”
in this Resolution.
II. Design Review Requirement
City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(2) requires Design Review Approval for a single-family
main structure project by the Planning Commission for any new single-story structure over
eighteen feet in height or whenever, as a result of proposed construction, reconstruction or
expansion, the gross floor area of all structures on a site will exceed 6,000 square-feet. This
Design Review Approval requirement implements the Saratoga General Plan, including, but
not limited to: (1) 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; (2) Open Space Element Policy 11.a
which provides that the City shall ensure that projects are designed in a manner that
minimizes disruption to important wildlife, riparian and plant habitats; (3) 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; (4) 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 (5) Conservation Element
66
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.
III. Hillside Specific Plan
The project would be in substantial conformance with the following Hillside Specific Plan
policies: (1) Site Grading Policy which requires site grading to be contoured wherever
possible even though this practice can increase grading quantities; (2) Site Grading Policy
which prohibits homes from being built by creating a flat building pad; (3) Energy policies
to promote both passive and solar energy systems and to promote energy conservation
through building design; and (4) Aesthetic/Scenic Qualities by requiring all structures to be
approved by Design Review prior to issuance of building permits.
IV. Planning Commission Review
On March 9, 2011 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the
Project at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to
present evidence and argument. The Planning Commission considered the Project, the Staff
Report on the Project, CEQA documentation, correspondence, presentations from the
Applicant and the public, and all testimony and other evidence presented at the Public
Hearing.
V. Environmental Review
The Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines - 14 C.C.R. Section 15303- “New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures. This exemption allows for the construction and location of
limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures and no exception to that exemption
applies.
VI. 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 and/or accessory 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. The maximum height of the proposed two-story dwelling is approximately
26 feet. The location of the residence would exceed all minimum building setbacks.
The proposed house will be located on an existing level building pad in the center of
the site and approximately in the same location as the existing home to be
demolished. The views from the home do not look out directly over any adjacent
homes as they are primarily oriented toward the south overlooking Via Regina.
Since the project is located at a higher elevation than Via Regina and surrounding
2
Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina
67
properties and is not in the view shed of adjacent homes, the project will not
interfere with existing view sheds or interfere with privacy of abutting properties.
(b) The project preserves the natural landscape. The natural landscape will be
preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural
contours of the site and by orientating structures to follow the form of the existing
level building pad. Landscape elements have been located in areas that have been
previously disturbed and tree removals have been minimized; grade changes will be
minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring
developed areas and undeveloped areas. No ordinance sized trees are proposed for
removal. The project will include 1,202 cubic yards of grading for both the
architecture and landscaping of which 44 percent of it will be done to provide a level
area for a fire truck around.
(c) The project preserves native and heritage trees. No heritage trees exist on site. All
native trees designated for protection pursuant to Section 15-50.050 will be
preserved. The City Arborist inventoried 25 trees protected by City ordinance with a
potential of being impacted by construction. None of these trees are proposed for
removal. The project would remove seven trees not protected by city ordinance and
that were not inventoried as part of this project. Additionally, the project is required
to install and maintain tree protection measures, to comply with the applicable
report(s) of the City Arborist and to bond for assurance thereof.
(d) The project minimizes the perception of excessive bulk. The design of the main
and/or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the
surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be
integrated into the natural environment in that the building has been designed to
conform to the natural contours of the site. The perception of excessive bulk is
minimized by the use of varying architectural forms, both one and two story
structural elements, varying exterior materials and textures, and varying rooflines
that break up the massing and reduce the perception of height and mass. The
applicant’s choice of a neutral color palette for the exterior of the building will help
to integrate the project with the natural environment of the site and its surroundings.
The projects physical distance from the nearest property will help minimize the
appearance of mass when compared with structures on adjacent lots.
(e) The project is of compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory
structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (1) existing residential
structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within
the same zoning district; and (2) the natural environment; and shall not (1)
unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor (2) unreasonably
impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. The nearest most
adjacent properties are both one and two story structures. The residences on
adjacent lots are all on sites in excess of one acre and are similar in terms of bulk and
3
Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina
68
height. The proposal is compatible with the natural environment as to bulk and
height and does not unreasonably impair access to light and air or the solar potential
of adjacent properties.
(f) The project uses current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed
grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the
City. Both the locations of the buildings and the pool have been selected to follow
the topography and existing contours of the site. Drainage from parking and
driveway hardscape areas will be minimized by the use of permeable pavers. In
addition, the Project is conditioned to conform to the City’s current grading and
erosion control standards and comply with applicable NPDES Standards. The
Project is also conditioned to require detention of stormwater on site where feasible.
If not all stormwater is to be retained on site, the grading plan is required to provide
an explanation of the reason and how the stormwater which will flow offsite will be
in compliance with City and NPDES Standards. The offsite stormwater flow shown
on the grading plan shall be subject to prior review and approval by the Community
Development Director to assure compliance.
(g) The project follows appropriate design policies and techniques. The proposed main
and accessory structure will conform to each of the applicable design policies and
techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook as required by Section 15-
45.055. The proposed Project has been reviewed by staff and determined to
conform to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential
Design Handbook, which includes minimizing the perception of bulk, integrating the
residential buildings with the environment, and designing for energy efficiency.
VII. Variance Findings
City Code Section 15-70.020(a) gives the Planning Commission authority to “grant
variances from the regulations prescribed in this Chapter with respect to site area, site
frontage, width and depth, and coverage.” Thus, the Planning Commission may grant a
variance from the type of surface which qualifies as impervious. The findings required for
issuance of a Variance Approval pursuant to City Code Section Article 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 same zoning
district. The project as proposed does meet this finding in that there are special
circumstances applicable to the property to support the Variance. The need for the
Variance is based on the unusual topography requiring a very long access
driveway. In the Hillside Residential Zoning District the maximum allowable site
coverage is 25 percent or 15,000 square feet, whichever is less. The net site area
4
Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina
69
of the lot is 246,434 square feet (5.66 acres); hence 25 percent of the net site area
is 61,637 square feet. As a result, for this particular lot the maximum allowable
impervious site coverage is 15,000 square feet. For this project, the allowable
impervious site coverage is entitled to a ten percent increase to 16.500 square feet
because the project would include a secondary dwelling unit deed restricted to
rental to below market rate households. City Code Section 15-56.030(d) allows
for a ten percent increase (1,500 square feet) in site coverage where an applicant
has agreed to a deed restriction which would limit the rental of the unit to below
market rate households.
The project proposes to replace the existing paved 14,730 square foot driveway
with a 12,448 square foot driveway made of permeable pavers in the same
location (but with reduced width). The City Zoning Regulations (but not the City
General Plan) defines “impervious surface” to expressly include “paved
driveways” and has been interpreted to include permeable pavers (City Code §15-
06.370). If the permeable pavers are considered to be an “impervious surface,”
the project would include 26,618 square feet (10.8%) of new impervious site
coverage which is more than 10,118 square feet above the 16,500 square feet
impervious coverage limitation as mentioned above. Hence, the applicant seeks a
variance from the type of surface which qualifies as impervious surface.
The site has an average slope of 24 percent and would require a long driveway to
provide access to the buildable area of the lot (where the former single family
dwelling previously existed and has since been demolished). The use of the
existing building site for the project would support the policies of the City’s
Hillside Specific Plan. These policies include avoiding steep terrain to minimize
grading, designing structures to fit the terrain, avoiding or reducing affects on
scenic resources, and locating structures on geologically stable areas. The
applicant recently demolished the single-family home located on the site. That
home was constructed on the level portion of the lot which was accessed by a
14,730 square foot driveway. It is the intent of the applicant to locate a new
single-family home on the site in approximately the same location as the previous
home.
(b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity
and classified in the same zoning district. The project does meet this finding in
that the site is relatively steep (24% average slope) and would require a long
driveway to provide access to the buildable area of the lot. Within the Hillside
Residential Zone District long driveways are often required to gain access to the
buildable areas of certain lots. The applicant asserts that a Variance is required
because if the permeable pavers are considered to be an “impervious surface,” the
12,448 square foot driveway would count as 75% of the maximum site coverage
and there would not be enough remaining allowable site coverage to construct a
5
Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina
70
residence comparable to existing nearby properties. The applicant has shown that
the Variance is needed because the amount of site coverage allotted to the
driveway would only allow 4,052 square feet of remaining site coverage to
construct the project structural improvements. Thus the Variance would actually
enable the applicant to construct structural improvements similar in size to that
allowed for other properties in the Hillside Zoning District. The subject parcel
5.66 acres and is the largest lot on Via Regina. The majority of homes on Via
Regina are less than two acres in size and do not require a long driveway to access
the building site. Their driveways have a reduced impact on lot coverage for their
smaller sites. Hence, the granting of the variance as to the type of surface
considered impervious would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning
district.
(c) That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity. The project does meet this finding. The proposed building site is the
portion of the site that is the most geologically stable. Geological reports indicate
that the sloped areas of the site are potentially unstable due to the location of
dormant landslides. These areas are susceptible to erosion and slope failure which
can be exacerbated by existing drainage patterns. The project would modify the
drainage patterns on the site and will channel the runoff away from the slopes
thereby reducing the potential for slope failure and erosion. The project has received
Geotechnical Clearance from the Public Works Department. The project as
currently designed will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; it
will enhance it as compared to the previously existing improvements. Nor will the
project be materially injurious to properties or improvement in the vicinity; instead it
will reduce the potential for adverse impacts.
VIII. 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. The
project includes an application for a Grading Exception for a combined cut and fill of 1,202
cubic yards (1,175 cut and 27 fill).
1. The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of
the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site.
The project meets this finding in that approximately 44 percent of the grading
quantity (507 cubic yards) would be used to construct the driveway and level fire
department turnaround area at the top of the driveway. 56% of the grading quantity
(668 cubic yards) would be used to contour the site and increase the projects
integration with the existing terrain. The site has an average slope of 24 percent.
6
Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina
71
The project would be constructed on the most level portion of the site. The fire
department requires a relatively level turnaround area for their vehicles so that a fire
truck can turn around an exit the site in a forward direction thereby requiring
driveway grading to create a level area.
The grading would improve the buildings integration into the natural topography of
the site and potentially negative offsite views of the project would be reduced as
viewed from Via Regina and adjacent sites.
2. The natural land forms and vegetation are being preserved and protected.
The project meets this finding in that the natural vegetation on the site consists of
both native and non native trees and none of these trees are being removed. The
site has been previously graded and the proposed project will predominantly limit
construction to these areas. The City Arborist inventoried 25 trees protected by
City ordinance with a potential of being impacted by construction. None of these
trees are proposed for removal. Formal landscaping on the site will be minimized
and clustered to a relatively small area on the south side of the residence. The
slopes both above and below the residence will be planted with vines.
3. The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the
construction with the natural terrain.
The project meets this finding in that the increased grading quantity would assist in
the integration of the structure into the existing natural terrain and to reduce the
perception of the structures bulk; and the majority of the grading would be used for
landscaped areas to minimize the perception of excessive bulk as viewed from off
site.
4. The increased grading is necessary to integrate an architectural design into the
natural topography.
The project meets this finding in that the increased grading would integrate the
proposed architectural design into the natural topography; integration of the
architectural design with the natural surroundings would be increased by project
landscaping that includes both native and non-native trees, bushes, and
groundcovers. The site has an existing relatively level building pad at the top most
portion of the site. The new building would predominantly be located on the
existing level building pad thereby decreasing the need for additional grading and
modification to the natural topography.
5. The increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction
as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the grading of the site will reduce
the prominence of the construction as viewed from off site or from distinct
community views by integrating the graded contours of the project site with the
7
Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina
72
natural contours near the edges and the building will be constructed to follow the
contours of the site.
6. No building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the
main residential structure.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the building site is graded to
provide a reasonable amount of level areas for outside recreational activities; the site
is not excessively graded thereby resulting in a flat visible building pad other than
that which was previously existing; landscaping and natural open space will cover
approximately 89% of the site thereby decreasing the appearance of a graded
site.
IX. Project Approval
After careful consideration of the application, site plan, architectural drawings, plans, CEQA
documentation, and other materials, exhibits and evidence submitted to the City in
connection with this matter, the exemption from CEQA is approved, the required findings
are made, and Application No. PDR10-0008 for Design Review, VAR10-0001 for Variance
Approval, and GRE10-0002 for a Grading Exception are approved subject to the conditions
set forth below.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. GENERAL
1. ALL CONDITIONS BELOW WHICH ARE IDENTIFIED AS PERMANENT OR
FOR WHICH AN ALTERNATIVE PERIOD OF TIME FOR APPLICABILITY IS
SPECIFIED SHALL RUN WITH THE LAND AND APPLY TO THE
LANDOWNER’S SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST FOR SUCH TIME PERIOD. NO
ZONING CLEARANCE, OR DEMOLITION, GRADING, OR BUILDING PERMIT
FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BE ISSUED UNTIL PROOF IS FILED WITH THE
CITY THAT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL DOCUMENTING ALL
APPLICABLE PERMANENT OR OTHER TERM-SPECIFIED CONDITIONS HAS
BEEN RECORDED BY THE APPLICANT WITH THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY
RECORDER’S OFFICE IN FORM AND CONTENT ACCEPTABLE 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 IT’S
EQUIVALENT.
3. CONDITIONS MAY BE MODIFIED ONLY BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
UNLESS MODIFICATION IS EXPRESSLY OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY THE
CITY CODE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SECTIONS 15-80.120 AND/OR
16-05.035, AS APPLICABLE.
8
Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina
73
4. The Community Development Director shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice
in writing, on or after the time the Resolution granting this Approval is duly executed by
the City, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this
application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). THIS
APPROVAL OR PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE SIXTY (60) DAYS AFTER THE
DATE SAID NOTICE IS MAILED IF ALL PROCESSING FEES CONTAINED
IN THE NOTICE HAVE NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL. No Zoning Clearance or
Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the Community
Development Director certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for
deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained).
5. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from
the date of adoption of this Resolution or the Design Review Approval will expire
unless extended in accordance with the City Code.
6. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State,
County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without
limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by
this reference.
7. Prior to issuance of any Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit to implement this
Design Review Approval the Owner or Applicant shall obtain a “Zoning Clearance”
from the Community Development Director by submitting final plans for the requested
permit to the Community Development Department for review to ascertain compliance
with the requirements of this Resolution.
8. Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend City as to Action Challenging
Approval of Application and as to Damage from Performance of Work Authorized by
Design Review Approval. 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
9
Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina
74
required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject
to prior approval as to form and content by the Community Development Director.
B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
9. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include
those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans dated
December 17, 2010 denominated Exhibit "A" and the Color Board dated May 27, 2010
denominated Exhibit “B. All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be
submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans
highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with
Condition A.3, above.
10. THIS CONDITION IS PERMANENT. Deed Restriction: Secondary Dwelling Unit.
Because the Project includes a secondary dwelling unit, the property Owner shall record
a deed restriction satisfactory to the Community Development Director limiting rental of
the secondary dwelling unit to below market rate households prior to issuance of Zoning
Clearance for a Building Permit.
11. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted per habitable structure (e.g.,
main house or guest house). All other fireplaces shall be gas burning.
12. Fences. Fences and walls shall comply with City Code Chapter 15-29.
13. All building exterior lighting shall be on a timer or motion detector to ensure that the
lights do not remain on during the evening when the building is not in use. Prior to
building permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit a final exterior lighting plan that
complies with Section 15-35.040(i) of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the plan shall
indicate that no exterior lighting fixtures shall allow direct light rays to leave the project
site, or allow direct light sources (incandescent, fluorescent, or other forms of electric
illumination) to be directly visible from off-site locations. The plan shall also show that
light levels will not exceed 100 foot lamberts anywhere on the property. The plan shall
be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division of the Community
Development Department prior to building permit issuance
14. Front yard landscaping. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final
inspection or a bond satisfactory to the Community Development Director for 150% of
the estimated cost of the installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City.
15. Landscape installation and replacement for screening or ornamentation. A landscaped
area required as a condition of any Design Review Approval shall be planted with
materials suitable for screening or ornamenting the site, whichever is appropriate, and
plant materials shall be replaced as needed to screen or ornament the site, all to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
10
Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina
75
16. Landscape maintenance. Landscaped areas shall be watered, weeded, pruned, fertilized,
sprayed or otherwise maintained by the Owner as may be prescribed by the Community
Development Director;
17. Plumbing. All plumbing fixtures or irrigation systems shall be water conserving and
otherwise comply with City Code Section 16-75.030.
18. Construction truck routes. Construction trucks shall only use designated truck routes.
19 Noise limitations during construction. The noise level at any point twenty-five feet
from the source of noise shall not exceed 83 dBA during residential construction, and
residential construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid
City permit, or do not require the issuance of a City permit, may be conducted only
between the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and between the
hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Saturday. Residential construction shall be
prohibited on Sunday and weekday holidays, with the exception of that construction,
alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid City permit and which do
not exceed fifty percent of the existing main or accessory structure may be conducted
between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Sunday and weekday holidays. A
notice of applicable construction hour restrictions shall be posted conspicuously on site
at all times for all exterior residential construction activity requiring a City permit.
20. Tree Preservation Plan. The Owner and Applicant shall sign and date the arborist report,
include it in the final plan set (signifying that that they are submitting it as their Tree
Preservation Plan for the project), and comply with all requirements of the Tree
Preservation Plan in accordance with City Code § 15-50.140.
21. Protection of trees from grading and trenching. Grading and trenching (including for
undergrounding electrical lines) shall be shown on the plans submitted to the Building
Division and demonstrate adequate protection of trees to the satisfaction of the City
Arborist, or, in the alternative, the City Arborist shall be present and have authority
during the grading and trenching to require hand digging for any tree roots judged at the
discretion of the City Arborist to need additional protection.
22. Protection of trees from harmful chemicals. Harmful chemicals shall not be disposed of
near trees.
23. Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Plan. Because this Design Review
Approval authorizes a construction, remodeling, or demolition project affecting more
than two thousand five hundred square feet of floor space the Applicant is required to
provide to the Building Official a construction and demolition debris recycling plan
prior to the issuance of any Demolition, Grading or Building Permit.
11
Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina
76
24. 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.
25. Stormwater. Disposition and treatment of stormwater shall comply with the applicable
requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES")
Permit issued to the City of Saratoga and the implementation standards established by
the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (collectively the
“NPDES Permit Standards”). Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Demolition,
Grading or Building Permit for this Project, a Stormwater Detention Plan shall be
submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval
demonstrating how all storm water will be detained on-site and in compliance with the
NPDES Permit Standards. If not all stormwater can be detained on-site due to
topographic, soils or other constraints, and if complete detention is not otherwise
required by the NPDES Permit Standards, the Project shall be designed to detain on-site
the maximum reasonably feasible amount of stormwater and to direct all excess
stormwater away from adjoining property and toward stormwater drains, drainageways,
streets or road right-of- ways and otherwise comply with the NPDES Permit Standards
and applicable City Codes.
26. Landscape and Irrigation Plan. The Landscape and Irrigation Plan required by City
Code Section 15-45.070(a)(9) shall be designed to the maximum extent reasonably
feasible to:
a. utilize efficient irrigation (where irrigation is necessary), to eliminate or reduce
runoff, to promote surface infiltration, and to minimize use of fertilizers and
pesticides that have the potential to contribute to water pollution;
b. treat stormwater and irrigation runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain
and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant
of saturated soil conditions and prolonged exposure to water shall be specified in the
Plan, installed and maintained;
c. be comprised of pest resistant landscaping plants throughout the landscaped area,
especially along any hardscape area;
d. be comprised of plant materials selected to be appropriate to site specific
characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight,
prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency
and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment;
e. protect the roots of Ordinance-protected trees from any proposed or required
undergrounding of utilities;
f. retain and incorporate existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover into the Plan;
and
g. comply with Section 16-75.030 of the City Code to the extent applicable.
27. 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
12
Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina
77
by the Community Development Department Director or designee prior to issuance of
Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following:
a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as
Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department and referenced
in Condition No. B.1 above;
b. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or
private vehicles shall be parked or stored within the root zone (five feet beyond the
dripline (the area under the canopy) or a greater distance as determined by the City
Arborist) of any Ordinance-protected tree on the site;
c. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation
inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written
certification that all building setbacks comply with the Approved Plans,” which
note shall represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance
with this Design Review Approval;
d. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages;
e. A boundary survey, wet-stamped and wet-signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or
Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying. The stamp shall reflect a
current license for the land surveyor/engineer, the document shall be labeled
“Boundary Survey,” and the document shall not contain any disclaimers;
f. City Arborist Reports dated June 23, 2010 and July 16, 2010 printed collectively
onto separate construction plan pages;
g. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the
Building Division.
29. Staff shall not approve downgrading to the exterior appearance of the approved
residence. Downgrades may include, but are not limited to, garage doors, architectural
detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, or similar items. Any
exterior changes to approved plans resulting in a downgrade shall require filing an
additional application and fees for review by the Planning Commission as a
modification to approved plans. Any other exterior changes to the approved plans,
which are not deemed a downgrade by staff, shall require approval in compliance with
condition A.3 above.
C. CITY ARBORIST.
30. Compliance with Tree Regulations and City Arborist Reports. All requirements in the
City Arborist Reports dated June 23, 2010 and July 16, 2010 are hereby adopted as
conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. This
includes, but is not limited to, all tree related conditions set forth above and the
following standard conditions of approval:
a. Tree Bond. Prior to issuance of any Building Permit or Grading Permit, the Project
Applicant or Owner shall obtain and submit to the Community Development
Department a Tree Bond, or similar funding mechanism satisfactory to the
Community Development Director, in favor of the City, in the amount of $365,590
to guarantee: (1) the maintenance and preservation of all existing trees except any
13
Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina
78
approved for removal under this Design Review Approval; and (2) the replacement
of any removed trees or rehabilitation of any damaged trees in a manner satisfactory
to the City Arborist.
b. Release of Tree Bond. Prior to the City’s inspection for final approval of the
completed Project, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with
all conditions of approval related to trees. The Tree Bond required above shall be
released after the planting of required replacement trees, a site inspection by the City
Arborist finding compliance with all tree-related conditions contained in this
Resolution, and payment of any outstanding City Arborist fees.
D. PUBLIC WORKS
31. Geotechnical Clearance.
a. Geologic and Geotechnical Plan Review - The Project Engineering Geologist and
Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geologic and
geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and
grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations) to
ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants’
recommendations. The Project Engineering Geologist shall address whether the
drainage and grading plan depicts drainage discharge locations that are acceptable
from an engineering geologic perspective (with respect to potential erosion and
slope instability).
The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical
Consultant and Engineering Geologist in letters and submitted to the City
Engineer for review prior to issuance of permits for project construction.
b. The Project Geotechnical Consultant has noted that the swimming pool will be
located on artificial fill near the top edge of a slope. The consultant shall clarify
whether a pier-supported foundation is recommended for this structure.
c. Civil Grading Sheets - Final plans for grading and drainage measures shall be
approved and stamped by a licensed civil engineer. All areas to receive cuts and
fills shall be clearly depicted.
d. Geotechnical Construction Inspection - The Project 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,
retaining wall excavation, and foundation construction, prior to placement of fill,
steel and concrete. In addition, the Project Engineering Geologist shall
periodically inspect grading along the driveway (especially northeaster portion)
and at the secondary dwelling and pool excavation to verify that anticipated
geologic and earth material conditions are encountered.
The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be
described by the Project Geotechnical Consultant and Project Engineering
14
Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina
79
15
Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina
Geologist in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to
Final (as-built) Project Approval.
E. FIRE SAFETY OR FIRE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS
32. Fire Agency Conditions. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Agency conditions as
specified in Exhibit “C” attached.
33. Fire Hydrants and Water for Fire Flow. Installation of fire hydrants and/or
improvements to water delivery systems to ensure adequate fire flow shall be
provided as required by the Fire Agency, whether on-site or off-site.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 9th day of
March 2011 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Christopher A. Riordan, AICP
Secretary to the Planning Commission
ACCEPTANCE BY APPLICANT AND OWNER
This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have
no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant and Property
Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms
and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions
within the time required in this Resolution by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission.
__________________________________ ____________________________
Applicant Date
__________________________________ ____________________________
Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131