Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-23-2011 Planning Commission PacketTable of Contents Agenda 3 March 9, 2011 Draft Minutes 5 APPLICATIONS PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002 (503-69-026) Sloan/Chilcoat 21955 Via Regina Staff Report 7 Attachment #1: Resolution 19 Attachment #2: Design Review and Grading Findings 36 Attachment #3: Green Point Checklist 43 Attachment #4: Water Storage Tank Information 48 Attachment #5: Permeable Paver Information 49 Attachment #6: Arborist Reports 59 Attachment #7: Neighbor Notification Forms 72 Attachment #8: Public Hearing Notice 79 Attachment #9: Site Photos 82 Attachment #10: Permeable Interlocking Pavement Fact Sheet 87 Attachment #11: Comparison of the Existing and Proposed Driveway Surfaces 91 Attachment #12: Technical Specification - Driveway Water Retention System 92 APPLICATION PDR11-0006; T-Mobile/Sutro Consulting; Intersection of Beaumont Avenue and Thelma Avenue(Right-of- way) Staff Report - Intersection of Beaumont Ave. and Thelma Ave.94 Att. 1 - Resolution of Approval 99 Att. 2 - Photo Simulations - Exhibit "B"105 Att. 3 - Public Hearing Notice, Affadavit and Mailing Labels 109 Att. 4 - E-mail from concerned citizen 113 Att. 5 - Coverage Map - 13504 Beaumont 114 Att. 6 - RF Analysis 117 Att. 7 - PC Memo - Request for Continuance 122 APPLICATION ASP10-0005 (386-30-039) Saratoga Star Aquatics / Timespace Development, 12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Staff Report 123 Attachment #1: Resolution 129 Attachment #2: Letter from property owner at 12258 Kirkdale Avenue 135 Attachment #3: Neighbor Notification Templates 138 Attachment #4: Public Hearing Notice 145 APPLICATION PDR10-0015 (510-02-011) Spaulding & Jayam, 15395 Pepper Lane 1 Staff Report 152 Attachment #1: Resolution 158 Attachment #2: Applicant's Description Letter 170 Attachment #3: GreenPoint Rated Checklist 172 Attachment #4: Neighbor Notification Forms 183 Attachment #5: Arborist Report 187 Attachment #6: Public Notice 195 APPLICATIONS PDR10-0017 / CUP10-0010 / ANX 09-0002 / ZOA 10-0005 / GPA 11-0002; 22480 - 22490 Mt. Eden Rd ( 503 -80-003 & 503-80-004); South Thunder (WT Brooks) Staff Report 199 Attachment 1 209 Attachment 2 215 Attachment 3 223 Attachment 4 234 Attachment 5 239 Attachment 6 241 Attachment 7 251 Attachment 8 254 Attachment 9 261 Attachment 10 272 Attachment 11 288 2 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, March 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 March 9, 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 March 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. APPLICATIONS PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002 (503-69-026) Sloan/Chilcoat 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, AICP, Senior Planner) 2. APPLICATION PDR11-0006; T-Mobile/Sutro Consulting; Intersection of Beaumont Avenue and Thelma Avenue(Right-of-way) - 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 would increase the height of the pole to 53 feet. Three panel antennas (3.5 feet tall) would be attached to the antenna support and enclosed in a cylinder structure known as a Radome. Associated antenna equipment would be attached to the lower portion of the utility pole. All proposed antennas, cabinets and miscellaneous equipment would 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 proposed project requires Planning 3 Commission approval per City Code Section 15-12.020 (i). The property is located in the R1-12,500 zoning district. (Michael Fossati) 3. APPLICATION ASP10-0005 (386-30-039) Saratoga Star Aquatics / Timespace Development, 12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - The applicant requests Planning Commission approval to install two illuminated wall signs for an existing building located at 12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. One sign, located on the building façade facing Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, will be made of internally illuminated pin- mounted channel letters and will spell the words “Saratoga Star Aquatics”. The other sign would be located on the rear façade facing the parking lot and will feature a four square foot circle with the swim center logo. This sign will be mounted on the wall above the entrance door and will be illuminated by a low wattage spotlights. Per Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC) Section 15-30.060 (a), illuminated signs require Planning Commission approval. The site is located in the Commercial-Visitor (CV) Zone District. (Christopher Riordan, AICP) 4. APPLICATION PDR10-0015 (510-02-011) Spaulding & Jayam, 15395 Pepper Lane - The applicant is requesting approval of a Design Review application to construct a 4,474 square foot, approximately 24 foot tall, one-story single-family home with a basement. The existing house on the lot will be removed. The site is located in the R-1-40,000 zone district. (Christopher Riordan, AICP) 5. APPLICATIONS PDR10-0017 / CUP10-0010 / ANX 09-0002 / ZOA 10-0005 / GPA 11-0002; 22480 - 22490 Mt. Eden Rd ( 503-80-003 & 503-80-004); South Thunder (WT Brooks) - Integrated annexation package which consists of seven actions: 1) Final Annexation Approval (including Preannexation Agreement); 2) Parcel Merger; 3) Williamson Act Contract; 4) Agricultural Preserve-Open Space Overlay Zoning Amendment; 5) General Plan Amendment; 6) Conditional Use Permit and Variation from Standards; and 7) Design Review. (Cynthia McCormick, Assistant Planner, AICP) DIRECTORS ITEM - Service Acknowledgement for Outgoing Commissioner COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, April 13, 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 March 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 4 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES 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 and Yan Zhao ABSENT Commissioner Tina K. Walia PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 23, 2011 (Approved, 6:0) 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) (Continued to the March 23, 2011 meeting, 6:0) 5 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 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) (Continued to a date uncertain, 6:0) 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) (Continued to the April 27, 2011, 6:0) 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) (Approved, 6:0) 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) (Continued to the March 23, 2011 meeting, 6:0) DIRECTORS ITEM COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING – ADJOURNED 11:00 PM - Wednesday, March 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 March 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 6 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, AICP, Senior Planner Meeting Date: March 23, 2011 APN: 503-69-026 Department Head: Christopher Riordan, AICP 21955 Via Regina 7 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 stores 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. 8 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 9 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 10 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 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 11 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. The Planning Commission reviewed the project at their March 9, 2011. The Commission continued the public hearing to March 23, 2011 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. Page 6 of 12 12 Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina 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. 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. Page 7 of 12 13 Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina 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 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. Page 8 of 12 14 Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina • Providing access by a common driveway. • Having a common architectural appearance as the main residence. 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 would be constructed of a driveway water retention system. This system would be composed of permeable interlocking concrete pavers, a drainage rock underlayment, and french drains, that would collect and detain water runoff from the driveway and parking hardscape areas for surface release on to the site. The City Code does not differentiate between a driveway water retention system 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 proposed driveway water retention system is 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 (submitted by applicant). 8. Public hearing notice and copy of mailing labels for project notification. 9. Site Photos (submitted by applicant). 10. Permeable Interlocking Pavement Fact Sheet (submitted by applicant). 11. Comparison of the existing driveway with the proposed Driveway Water Retention System (prepared by applicant). 12. Technical Discussion -Driveway Water Retention System (prepared by applicant). 13. Reduced Plans (Exhibit A). 18 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 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 Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall 19 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 23, 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 properties and is not in the view shed 2 Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina 20 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 height. The proposal is compatible with 3 Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina 21 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 would be minimized by the use of a proposed driveway water retention system composed of permeable interlocking concrete pavers, a drainage rock underlayment, and french drains, that would collect and detain water runoff from the driveway and parking hardscape areas for surface release on to the site. 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. (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 having an existing very long access driveway which is being reconstructed in place and that the existing long driveway goes to an existing building site which is being reused. 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 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 4 Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina 22 allowable impervious site coverage would normally be 15,000 square feet. However, for this project, the allowable impervious site coverage is 16.500 square feet because the project application includes a second dwelling unit deed restricted to rental only 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. Any Resolution of Approval for this application will include a PERMANENT CONDITION OF APPROVAL requiring that there be a second dwelling unit constructed and limited to rental only to a below market rate household, thereby enabling the maximum site coverage to be increased to 16,500 square feet. The project proposes to replace the existing paved 14,730 square foot driveway with a 12,448 square foot driveway water retention system composed of permeable interlocking concrete pavers, a drainage rock underlayment, and french drains, that would collect and detain water runoff from the driveway and parking hardscape areas for surface release on to the site. The replacement driveway would be located 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 driveway water retention system is considered to be an “impervious surface,” the project would include 26,618 square feet (10.8%) of new impervious site coverage which is approximately 10,118 square feet above the 16,500 square feet of impervious site coverage allowed as described in the preceding paragraph. Hence, the applicant seeks a variance from the type of system (including surfaces) which would qualify as impervious based on installing a highly permeable driveway water retention system which would minimize runoff resulting from development of the parcel. Evidence of the high permeability of the proposed driveway water retention system and the degree to which it would minimize runoff from the development of the parcel is as follows: Based on information from the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute (ICPI), when compared to native soils, driveway water retention systems, such as the one proposed, have superior infiltration rates when compared to other natural materials. The ICPI consists of interlocking paver manufacturers, design professionals, paver installation contractors and suppliers of products and services related to the industry. Technical research and case studies from the ICPI have shown that these systems can achieve infiltration rates of 500 inches per hour. Using the Unified Soil Classification System this rate is 10,000 times greater than sandy soil and 100,000 times greater than clay soil. The permeability of driveway water retention systems can degrade over time and can be restored to near initial surface infiltration rates with regular maintenance. 5 Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina 23 However, considering that some degradation of impermeability over time is inevitable, after testing a variety of driveway water retention systems a conservative design rate of three inches/hour, according to the ICPI, can be used as the basis for the design surface infiltration rate over a 20 year period. A 2003 study of surface infiltration by North Carolina State University of a parking lot, as well as several other permeable interlocking concrete pavement sites, reported a surface infiltration rate of 1000 in./hour (25 m/hr) using the ASTM D5093 - Test Method for Field Measurement of Infiltration Rate Using Double-Ring Infiltrometer. Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) credits can be obtained with the installation of a driveway water retention system. The two primary categories where credits can be achieved are Sustainable Sites and Materials & Resources. Some of the benefits of a driveway water retention system include reducing the storm-water runoff, increasing storm water retention, meeting NPDES requirements, capturing and filtering a variety of pollutants, and reduction of heat-island effects. Strict enforcement of the specified regulation defining “impervious surface” would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in same zoning district. That is because if the driveway water retention system is considered to be an “impervious surface,” the 12,448 square foot driveway would count as 75 percent of the maximum site coverage and there would not be enough remaining allowable site coverage (4,052 square feet) to construct a project similar to the projects constructed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in same zoning district. 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. Without this Variance, development of the site would be inconsistent with the City’s Hillside Specific Plan. That is because if a shorter driveway were to be installed so as to result in more of the impervious surface allotment to be available for construction of the single-family dwelling and other structural improvements, those structures would have to be constructed on steeper, unstable slopes with a greater chance of erosion and/or after maximized grading. This would be inconsistent with the following Hillside Specific Plan Policies Ecology Policy #1 – Minimize earthmoving and grading, avoiding steep terrain except where necessary for roadways. Ecology Policy #2 – Design structures to fit terrain. Geology and Soils Policy #5 – In locating building sites, preference shall be given to areas classified in the City's geologic maps as Sbr, Sls, Sun and Sex. Sites on 6 Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina 24 potentially moving slopes (Pmw, Ps, Pd) and moving slopes (Ms) shall not be approved unless geologic and soil engineering analysis provided by the applicant demonstrates long-term stability to the satisfaction of the City. The City's descriptions of the soil classifications, filed in Appendix A to this Chapter, are incorporated herein by reference and constitute a part of this Chapter. Geological reports provide by the applicant 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. It is more consistent with the intent of the applicable land use regulations and Hillside Specific Plan policies to allow the applicant to utilize the already graded and existing long driveway to provide access to the already graded and existing buildable area of the lot (where the former single family dwelling was originally built and has since been demolished). The applicant’s proposed project includes (and the Variance will include a condition of approval requiring) a special driveway water retention system which would minimize runoff resulting from development of the parcel. 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 driveway water retention system is 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 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 proposed 8,160 square foot single-family home, with a 2,042 square foot basement, would include 26,619 square feet of site coverage or 10.8 percent of the lot. Recently approved projects include the adjacent 2.6 acre lot at 22000 Via Regina. Constructed on this site is a 7,608 square foot two story home, including a 2,921 square foot basement, with 15,970 square feet of site coverage or 14.2 percent. An approved but not yet constructed project on a 3.5 acre site at 21995 7 Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina 25 Via Regina includes a 7,975 square foot home, including a 5,288 square foot basement, with 14,855 square feet of site coverage or 9.7 percent. The subject parcel is 5.66 acres in size 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. Due to the shape and topography of the lots, the homes at 22000 and 21955 Via Regina, mentioned in the preceding paragraph, did not include the installation of long driveways as part of those projects. 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. 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 8 Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina 26 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 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. 9 Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina 27 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. 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 10 Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina 28 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 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 11 Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina 29 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. 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. 12 Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina 30 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. 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 13 Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina 31 “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 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 14 Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina 32 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 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 15 Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina 33 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 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. 16 Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina 34 17 Application No. PDR10-0008, VAR10-0001, and GRE10-0002/ 21955 Via Regina 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 23rd 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. __________________________________ ____________________________ Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 Stormwater Benefi ts •Reduces pollutants from rainwater runoff •Complements buildings and visually unifi es streetscape, many colors available • LEED® points eligible for Sustainable Sites, Water Effi ciency, Materials & Resources and/or Innovative Design; Earns Green Globe points •Meets U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stormwater performance criteria as a structural best management practice (BMP) while providing parking, road and pedestrian surfaces •Helps meet local, state and provincial stormwater drainage design criteria and provides compliance with the U.S. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations •Reduces runoff from common rainstorms by as much as 100%; eliminates surface puddles and local fl ooding •Promotes street tree survival •Snow melts faster on permeable pavement and drains, reducing ice hazards •Snow plow with typical snow removal equipment; reduce winter ice hazards, de-icing salt use and snow removal costs. •50 year life-cycle for surface •Compatible with underground stormwater storage systems, many slower-draining clay soils and cold climates • Governments may offer tax incentives, utility fee reductions, expedited permitting or a demonstration project to encourage use. Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavement (PICP) Municipal Officials Fact Sheet APPLICATION OPPORTUNITIES •Public Projects: Offi ce plazas, parks, sidewalk replacement, street tree planting areas, park- ing lots and outdoor seating areas •Private Projects: Parking lots, parks, drive- ways, parking bays on roadways, subdivision roads and sidewalks •Public-Private Partnerships &Redevelop- ment Sites:Parking areas, plazas and public spaces and sidewalks Parking at this recreation site on South Whidbey Island, WA eliminates runoff during most rainstorms. Stormwater Management Reduces Urban Heat Island Environmentally Sustainable Community Development Tool Permeable interlocking concrete pavement (PICP) with base and subbase for infi ltration and storage PICP’s can eliminate street storm drains and sewer pipes as in this redevelopment project in Seattle,WA. 3 1/8 in. (80 mm) thick pavers with permeable joints Open-graded bedding course Open-graded base course (OGB) Open-graded subbase on non-compacted soil subgrade PICP supports sustainable development and livable green communities 87 LID Integrated with PICP Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavement: A Low Impact Development Tool PICP Supports LID Principles 1. Conserve vital ecological and natural resources: trees, streams, wetlands and drainage courses 2. Minimize hydrologic impacts by reducing imperviousness, conserving natural drainage courses, reducing clearing, grading and pipes 3. Maintain pre-development time of concentration for runoff by routing fl ows to maintain travel times and discharge control 4. Provide runoff storage and infi ltration uniformly throughout the landscape with small, on-site decentralized infi ltration, detention and retention practices such as permeable pavement, bioretention, rain gardens, open swales and roof gardens 5. Educate the public and property owners on runoff and pollution prevention measures and benefi ts PICP Meets LID Goals •Conserves on-site space: roads, parking, stormwater infi ltration and retention all combined into the same space creating more green space or building opportunities •Preserves wooded areas that would otherwise be cleared for stormwater detention or retention ponds •Increases site infi ltration that helps maintain pre-development runoff volumes, peak fl ows and time of concentration •Promotes tree survival and growth •Contributes to urban heat island reduction through evaporation and refl ective, light colored pavers •Highly visible, cost-effective exemplary demonstration of a cornerstone LID technique for public and private development PICP as part of an LID approach to streetscape development Municipal civic goals may be met using PICP as part of an integrated approach to development and redevelopment. 2 88 Construction and Project Examples Prepared subgrade for 20,000 sf (2000 m²) Portland, OR street retrofi t with PICP Aggregate base is spread and compacted; pavers are delivered ready to install. After placement of bedding course, joints and/or openings are fi lled with small aggregate and the pavers are compacted. Joints may be fi lled mechanically as shown. Base construction uses locally available materials. Chicago Green Alley Program before and after PICP installation Green Alleys are being implemented to manage stormwater, reduce combined sewer overfl ows, reduce urban heat in urban areas, and conserve energy. Photos: Courtesy of the City of Chicago Typical PICP cross section Portland, OR street project with PICP parking lanes 3 Mechanical installation speeds construction. 89 Ferguson, B. K. Porous Pavements. Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press, 2005. Smith, David R. Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavements: Selection • Design • Construction • Maintenance, Washington,DC:ICPI 3rd ed., 2006. www.icpi.org. For more information pertaining to permeable interlocking concrete pavement, please visit the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute (icpi.org) or the Low Impact Development Center (lowimpactdevelopment.org). Other Fact Sheets available for Developers, Design Professionals and Schools/ Universities 561 Brant Street P.O. Box 85040 Burlington, Ontario, Canada L7R 4K2 Copyright © 2008 Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer: The content of this brochure is intended for use only as a guideline. It is not intended for use or reliance upon as an industry standard, certifi cation or specifi cation. ICPI & LIDC make no promises, representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the content of this brochure. Professional assistance should be sought with respect to the design, specifi cations and construction of each permeable interlocking concrete pavement project. References Water Quality Improvement •80% or greater TSS removal •Preserve and increase drinking and recreational water supplies; preserve aquatic and wildlife habitats. •Gain recognition for innovative design through sustainable BMPs Peak Flow Reduction •Promotes stream and lake health with decreased erosion •Reduces water pollution by reducing combined sewer overfl ow frequency •Reduces the need for continuous expansion of drainage infrastructure Additional Benefi ts •Cooler than conventional pavements •ADA compliant •May be used on sloped site with proper design •Simplifi ed surface and subsurface repairs by reinstating the same paving units; no unsightly patches or weakened pavement from utility cuts •Can be used for traffi c calming Volume Reduction •PICP signifi cantly reduces runoff from most storms. •Runoff volume reductions relieve fl ooding in storm sewers operating at capacity and relieve sewage treatment plants receiving combined storm and sanitary waste fl ows. •Reduced runoff can reduce sewer overfl ows and stream bank erosion. Performance FAQs Can PICP be used on clay soils? Yes. Even in clay soils, PICP reduces runoff and helps to capture “fi rst fl ush” runoff and reduce pollution. Can PICP be used to replace every kind of pavement? PICP is best suited for use in areas of low speed traffi c such as parking lots, residential streets, driveways, patios, plazas, sidewalks and parking lanes on busier travelways. Nevertheless, PICP has been suc- cessfully used even under heavy commercial loads. Will PICP enhance property values? The data from installed PICP projects indicates that PICP meets multiple criteria for project success including enhancing property values. Is Maintaining PICP diffi cult? No. PICP can be main- tained through street sweeping and vacuuming based on periodic inspection. 4 13291 Park Center Road Suite 270 Herndon, VA 20171 Tel: 703-657-6900 Fax:703-657-6901 Email: icpi@icpi.org Web: www.icpi.org90 Driveway Construction at 21955 Via Regina BEFORE AFTER DECOMPOSED ASPHALT DRIVEWAY WATER RETENTION SYSTEM POOR DRAINAGE – INCREASED STORM-WATER CAUSES DEGRADATION OF ASPHALT. EROSION OF HILLSIDE DUE TO POOR DRAINAGE DESIGN DAMAGE TO ROOT SYSTEM OF EXISTING OAK TREES DUE TO EROSION POLLUTANTS FROM ASPHALT IN RUNOFF TOWARD NEIGHBOR’S SITE TRAFFIC WEIGHT NOT SUFFICIENT FOR SUPPORTING LARGE VEHICLES. INCREASED ON-SITE STORM WATER RETENTION AND MANAGEMENT REDUCED VELOCITY OF STORM- WATER RUNOFF DOWN DRIVEWAY REDUCED AMOUNT OF STORM- WATER RUNOFF CONTAMANENTS / HEAVY METALS CONTAINED IN DRIVEWAY MATERIALS OVERFLOW OF STORMWATER DIVERTED TO OPEN BIO-SWALES AND DETENTION AREAS ON SITE 91 Technical Discussion - Driveway Water Retention System 21955 Via Regina Soils Compared to native soils, driveway water retention systems (DWRS), such as the one proposed, have vastly superior water infiltration rates. Technical, Educational Research, and Case Studies have routinely shown that DWRS can achieve infiltration rates of 500 inches per hour. Using the Unified Soil Classification System this rate is 10,000 times greater than sandy soil and 100,000 times greater than clay soil. 1 Design It is generously documented that DWRS will reduce storm water runoff by as much as100%. 2. Each driveway water retention system (DWRS), such as the one proposed by the applicant, is unique to its particular environment and therefore requires a unique / individual test to determine its particular infiltration rate. It is also well documented that the permeability of any DWRS varies due to several factors that include the individual design of the concrete pavers and the joints between each of the concrete pavers, in-fill material between the concrete pavers, type and depth of drain rock beneath the concrete pavers, sub drain design (if any), incline (if any), slope, native soil. Although poor maintenance will reduce the infiltration rates of a DWRS, research has shown that near initial surface infiltration rates can be restored through cleaning and/or replacement of the initial 3/4 to 1 in. (20 to 25 mm) depth of small stones in the openings of PICPs. For highly clogged pavement openings, the stones can be removed with vacuuming and replaced with clean material. However, after testing a variety of DWRS a conservative design rate of 3 in/hr. can be used as the basis for the design surface infiltration rate over a 20 year span. 1 A 2003 study of surface infiltration by North Carolina State University of a parking lot, as well as several other permeable interlocking concrete pavement sites, reported a surface infiltration rate of 1000 in./hour (25 m/hr) using the ASTM D5093 - Test Method for Field Measurement of Infiltration Rate Using Double-Ring Infiltrometer. LEED Credit A DWRS is the cornerstone for achieving a variety of LEED credits. The two primary categories where credits can be achieved are Sustainable Sites and Materials & Resources. Some of the benefits of a DWRS include reducing the storm-water runoff, increasing storm water retention, meeting NPDES requirements, captures a variety of 92 pollutants, reduction of heat-island effects just to name a few. A summery of the LEED Points available is summarized in the attached document entitled Eligible LEED Credits. 1) Page 11, PICP Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavement Design Manual, Third Edition, 2006 By David Smith, The technical Director of the ICPI 2) PICP – Municipal Officials Fact Sheet 93 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: March 23, 2011 Application Type / No: Design Review / PDR11-0006 Location: Right-of-Way – Intersection of Beaumont Ave. & Thelma Ave. Owner / Applicant: PG&E / Sutro Consulting (T-Mobile) Staff Planner: Michael Fossati Department Head: Chris Riordan, AICP Intersection of Beaumont Ave. and Thelma Ave. 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 02/14/11 Application complete: 02/15/11 Notice published: 02/23/11 Mailing completed: 02/17/11 Posting completed: 03/03/11 1st Meeting completed: 03/09/11 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 would increase the height of the pole to 53 feet. Three panel antennas (3.5 feet tall) would be attached to the antenna support and enclosed in a cylinder structure known as a Radome. Associated antenna equipment would be attached to the lower portion of the utility pole. All proposed antennas, cabinets and miscellaneous equipment would 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. PERMANENT CONDITIONS No permanent conditions of approval are required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application by adopting the attached Resolution. 95 PROJECT DATA ZONING: R1-12,500. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M-12.5 (Medium Density Residential). MEASURE G: Not applicable. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed project, which includes installation of new cellular equipment, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to new construction and installation of small, new equipment and facilities in small structures. PROJECT DISCUSSION Site Characteristics and Background The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the addition of a wireless telecommunication antenna on an existing wood utility pole. The utility pole is located on a portion of the right-of-way, near the intersection of Beaumont Avenue and Thelma Avenue. The pole is surrounded by residential properties in all directions. The existing poles primary function is to carry electric and communication lines for public utility systems (i.e. Pacific Gas and Electric). The proposal includes the attachment of a 12 foot pole extension to the 39 foot tall utility pole. Three cellular antennas would be attached to the pole extension and enclosed in a cylinder structure (Radome). The radome would be approximately 5.5 feet tall. The diameter of the radome is approximately 1.75 feet. Three equipment cabinets and one electric meter would be attached to the lower half of the pole. All proposed antennas, cabinets and miscellaneous equipment would be painted to match the existing pole. The cabinets and equipment would face away from Beaumont Avenue. (Attachment 2). The facility is considered a “micro site” because the antennas and associated equipment are smaller in size than a standard wireless facility. A wireless coverage map demonstrating the existing and proposed coverage has been included in this staff report (Attachment 3). Noise-Generating Devices Due to the limited size, all miscellaneous equipment can be housed within cabinets that are directly attached to the utility pole. This housing would significantly reduce noise impacts associated with the miscellaneous equipment. As conditioned, the antenna facility must comply with City Code regarding noise. Alternative Sites A larger facility was to be built at St. Andrews School, but has yet to be completed due to concerns between the applicant and the property owner. T-mobile has determined that the proposed alternative site on Beaumont Avenue would assist in providing a portion of cellular coverage that the St. Andrew’s School site would have provided. 96 Protected Tree Impacts The existing utility pole is approximately 10 feet away from the canopy of an existing tree (liquid amber). The size of the liquid amber would classify the tree as protected per City Code. Protected trees within three feet of a proposed construction project typically require review from an Arborist. Due to the significant spacing between the proposed antenna and existing tree and the limited construction, it has been determined that the proposed project would not affect any protected trees. Correspondence and Neighbor Review The public hearing notice was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property (Attachment 3). Furthermore, the applicant sent out letters directly to property owners nearby the proposed site. A member of the public spoke at the March 9, 2011 public hearing and asked why the cellular antenna must be installed in a residential area when a commercial corridor is nearby. Another community member sent an e-mail in opposition to the proposed project (Attachment 4) as well as the proposed project at the Corporation Yard site. That e-mail was sent directly to the applicant and forwarded to Staff via the applicant. Per the Coverage Map (Attachment 5), there appears to be a reduction of cellular service for properties located northwest of Saratoga Avenue and east of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The proposed placement of the antenna would substantially increase the service in those areas, as compared to another location along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The applicant informed Staff that they would contact the resident which submitted the e-mail and provide feedback at the March 23 public hearing. FCC Requirements Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has exclusive jurisdiction over RF emissions from personal wireless antenna facilities. Any concerns regarding health or safety aspects of the wireless sites are not within the purview of the Planning Commission. Pursuant to its authority under federal law, the FCC has established rules to regulate the safety of emissions from these facilities. The applicant has provided a Radio Frequency (RF) Analysis (Attachment 5) which concludes that the proposed telecommunications facility would comply with the FCC’s current prevailing standard. Due to the applicants mounting locations, the antennas would not be accessible to the general public and in compliance with FCC public exposure guidelines. A condition has been added to the attached resolution that the applicant must meet all requirements established by the FCC. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposed wireless facility (Application PDR11-0006) by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Photo simulations, Exhibit “B” 3. Public Hearing Notice, Affidavit and Mailing Label 4. E-mail from concerned citizen 5. Coverage Map 6. Radio Frequency Analysis 7. PC Memorandum – Requesting continuance to a date certain (March 23, 2011) 8. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A" 97 98 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 10-005 FOR APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW Application # PDR 11-0006 T-Mobile (Sutro Consulting) / Right-of-way in front of 13504 Beaumont Avenue 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 a photo simulation denominated Exhibit “B” date stamped February 10, 2011 and February 17, 2011, incorporated by this reference. The proposed project is the installation a twelve foot extension, three new antennas, a randome, and accessory equipment to an existing wooden utility pole. The overall number of antennas for T- mobile / Sutro Consulting would be three antennas enclosed in the randome, near the top of the pole. The length of the randome is approximately 5 ½ feet tall. The foregoing use will be described as the “Project” in this Resolution. II. Design Review Requirement City Code Section 15-12.020 (i) and 15-46.020(a) (7) requires Design Review Approval for any new antenna facility operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone and wireless communication. This Design Review Approval requirement implements the Saratoga General Plan, including but not limited to: Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surrounding. III. Planning Commission Review On March 9, 2011 and March 23, 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, presentation 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 15301), “Existing Facilities”. This exemption allows for minor modifications involving negligible expansion of use and no exception to that exemption applies. 99 2 Application No. PDR 11-0006; 13504 Beaumont Avenue V. Design Review Findings The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Section 15- 46.040 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: (a) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such features include height, elevations, roofs, material, color, and appurtenances. The proposed structure will be harmonious in appearance and design. The proposed antennas will be installed on an existing wooden utility pole. The proposed antennas and accessory cabling will be constructed of the same material and painted a color to match the existing antennas and monopole structure. The proposed height of the pole and extension is similar to the existing redwood and crape myrtle trees that surround the antennas. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (b) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the sign shall have a common or compatible design theme and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance. This project does not propose signage. A compatible theme will be met in that the associated equipment will be the same color of the existing wooden pole. The finding can be made in the affirmative. (c) Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems to the maximum extent feasible; and, to the maximum extent feasible, it shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. This project does not propose landscaping. Existing redwood and crape myrtle trees are located near the pole to mitigate the look of the pole. The antennas will be placed approximately 50 feet in the air and placed in a manner to blend in with the existing utility pole. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be nonreflective. This project does not propose a wall or roofing materials. The colors of the materials of the associated equipment will match the existing pole, as conditioned. The colors are would be earthtone (to match the wooden pole) and non-reflective. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. This project does not propose a roof or roof structure. All associated equipment will be placed on the existing pole and be painted in a color similar to the pole. This finding is non-applicable to the proposed project. (f) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk, and design with other structures in the immediate area. This project meets this finding in that addition and antenna installation would create a structure that is similar in height and color or existing trees in the 100 3 Application No. PDR 11-0006; 13504 Beaumont Avenue nearby area. The utility pole used to support the extension and proposed antennas are surrounded by residential properties and connected to additional utility poles ranging in approximately the same height and size. This finding can be made in the affirmative. VI. Project Approval After careful consideration of the application, site plan, architectural drawings, and other materials and exhibits and evidence submitted to the City in connection with this matter, Application No. PDR 11-0006 (Planning Commission Design Review) for a wireless facility is approved subject to the conditions set forth below. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. GENERAL 1. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Design Review and may, at any time, modify, delete, or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. 2. Conditions may be modified only by the Planning Commission unless modification is expressly otherwise allowed by the city code including but not limited to section 16-05.035, as applicable. 3. The Community Development Director shall mail to the Owner/Applicant a notice in writing, on or after the time this Resolution of 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). 4. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution and the Design Review will expire unless extended in accordance with the City Code. 5. The facility shall at all times operate in compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdictional authority over the facility pertaining to, but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety, and water quality issues. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other governmental entities having jurisdiction. 6. Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading, or building permit to implement this Design Review approval the Applicant shall obtain a “Zoning Clearance” from the Community Development Director by submitting final plans for the requested permit to the Community 101 4 Application No. PDR 11-0006; 13504 Beaumont Avenue Development Department for review to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this Resolution. 7. 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 8. Compliance with Plans. The facility shall be operated, located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans denominated Exhibit "A" and Photo Simulations denominated Exhibit “B”, date stamped February, incorporated by this reference. 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 the requisite prior City approval. 9. Harmonizing with Existing Structures. Prior to the installation of the proposed randome, panel antennas and accessory equipment, the randome and equipment shall be painted a color similar to the existing utility pole and subject to approval of the Community Development Director. 10. Safety Fencing During Construction. During all phases of construction, the Applicant shall install and maintain temporary safety fencing to restrict or prevent public access to active on-site construction activities, materials, or chemicals. 11. Decommission. If the subject site is decommissioned in the future, all cellular antennas and related equipment shall be removed within 30 days of cessation of operation. 102 5 Application No. PDR 11-0006; 13504 Beaumont Avenue 12. Governmental entities. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. 13. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Verification. The owner and/or Applicant for this Project shall contact the FCC and verify whether there are any required permits from said Commission. If required by the FCC, prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for any proposed equipment installations (or if none, prior to commencement of the approved use), the Owner and/or Applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department documentation from the FCC showing proof of compliance of the proposed use and/or development with the FCC's requirements. 14. Fire Agency Conditions. The Owner / Applicant shall comply with all Fire Agency Conditions. 15. Building Department. The Owner / Applicant shall comply with all building standards including any improvements necessary to comply with the building code. 16. Emergency Access. The owner / applicant shall provide a 24-hour phone number to which interference problems may be reported, and will resolve all interference complaints within 24 hours from the time the interference was reported. 103 6 Application No. PDR 11-0006; 13504 Beaumont Avenue PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 23th 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 104 105 106 107 108 CITY OF SARATOGA Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga’s Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 9th day of March 2011, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION/ADDRESS: PDR11-0006 / Intersection of Beaumont Ave. & Thelma Ave. APPLICANT/OWNER: Sutro Consulting in c/o T-Mobile APN: Right-of-Way 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. 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 R1-10,000 zoning district. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission’s information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Tuesday, March 1st 2011. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor’s office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of-date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Michael Fossati Assistant Planner (408) 868-1212 109 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, Abby Ayende, being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 16th day of February, 2011, that I deposited 83 notices in the United States Post Office, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property described as: Address: 13504 Beaumont Avenue APN: 393-35-027 that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. Abby Ayende 110 Parcel Number Owner Name Owner Address Owner City, State Zip 39327042 SHROYER GARY AND JULIE 19981 LANARK LN SARATOGA, CA 95070 39327043 ROSENFIELD STEVEN 19980 BONNIE RIDGE WY SARATOGA, CA 95070 39327044 YU JEFFREY C AND CHI S 19966 BONNIE RIDGE WY SARATOGA, CA 95070 39329007 TANAKA BERT H AND TOMOKO I 20025 SCOTLAND DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39329008 FOX ROBERT W AND RUTH L TRUSTE 19971 BONNIE RIDGE WY SARATOGA, CA 95070 39329009 GOULD I NORMAN AND MAY M TRUST 19987 BONNIE RIDGE WY SARATOGA, CA 95070 39329010 YELINEK LINDA L TRUSTEE 19995 BONNIE RIDGE WY SARATOGA, CA 95070 39329011 ZHANG YU AND LOU XI-HUA 20025 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39329012 PALANIAPPAN MURUGAN AND KAMALA 20045 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39329013 TSAI HUAN CHIH AND LAI PI-HSIA 13468 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 39329014 TAVARES ROBERT E AND APRIL M P O BOX 2541 SARATOGA, CA 95070 39329015 CARROLL CAROLEE AND STANLEY E 13410 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 39329016 PAUL DAVID J AND RACHEL M 13392 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 39331007 SHIUAN YI-FANG M AND SHING-YU 20132 EDINBURGH DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39331008 TUNG KEE L AND CAROL H 20112 EDINBURGH DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39331009 WU PAUL YING-FUNG AND JESSICA 20090 EDINBURGH DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39331010 CASAREZ RONALD J 20070 EDINBURGH DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39331011 SAMUELS ROBERT STEVEN AND SHAR 13391 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 39331012 LAM EVERETT Y AND QUAN JOANNE 13409 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 39331013 CHAN YUM TOM AND HELEN YUK C T 13439 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 39331014 HUANG JERRY P AND TIEN MIN-CHI 20101 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39331015 CHU WEN-CHENG AND HARRIET K TR 20115 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39331016 HO WALFORD W AND MAYNIE M TRUS 20133 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39331017 MORAN BRENDAN P AND MATILDA B 20153 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39334001 WANG ROGER CHIH-CHUNG AND FONG 20095 THELMA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 39334002 MASON MARILYN A TRUSTEE & ET A 20115 THELMA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 39334003 ARIA PERCY R AND NINA P 20133 THELMA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 39334004 LAM NIM-CHO AND HOI-KUEN CHAN 20151 THELMA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 39334005 HURTAK JAMES J AND DESIREE E T 20169 THELMA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 39334018 TANNER EVELYN F 13494 ALDER CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 39334019 EL-DIWANY MONIR H AND SEHAM F 13480 ALDER CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 39334022 ARJAVALINGAM GNANALINGAM AND V 20172 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39334023 VAZHAEPARAMBIL JIJEN J AND JIJ 13459 BRIAR CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 39334024 CHAKRABORTY 13477 BRIAR CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 39334025 SAMPLE MALCOLM E AND BETTE M T 13495 BRIAR CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 39334026 MORGAN-WITTS PAUL C AND DAVINA 13494 BRIAR CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 39334027 COUTANT CARY A AND DEBORAH S 13478 BRIAR CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 39334028 LAMPRECHT CHARLOTTE AND WITKOW 13458 BRIAR CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 39334029 KARP STANLEY L JR AND LUCY 20136 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39334030 FISHER DAVID B AND DIANE B 20114 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39334031 CLYDE ROBIN J ET AL 20094 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39334032 PATRICK DAVID AND ALICE 13479 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 39334033 JENG TERRY AND SHENG-JUI TRUST 13495 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 39335009 KIRWAN LAROUE T TRUSTEE 19961 BRAEMAR DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39335010 KANG SUK DOO AND JAYNE D 19975 BRAEMAR DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39335011 GLASAUER BERNARD H AND JEONG T 19991 BRAEMAR DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39335012 CHIEN CHIAHON AND LINGCHU LI T 20005 BRAEMAR DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39335013 CURCELLI FELICE AND JILL 20021 BRAEMAR DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39335014 JEN JANET AND LIN JOHN TRUSTEE 13515 HOWEN DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39335015 IRVIN ADELHEID E TRUSTEE 990 BENITO CT PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950 39335016 DING TIMOTHY T AND PENG JENNIF 13545 HOWEN DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39335017 FARACO W G JR AND MARY L 13561 HOWEN DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39335018 LUNG JOSEPH CHUNG YAN AND FONG 13575 HOWEN DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39335019 STRANSKY JACK D AND ANNETTE C 13591 HOWEN DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39335022 DEURELL M M TRUSTEE 13590 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 39335023 ROBERTS MARY H TRUSTEE 4738 ANNADEL HEIGHTS RD SANTA ROSA, CA 95405 39335024 KEARNS CAMILLE D AND PATRICK J 13550 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 39335025 LASSER ZITA C AND DAVID W P O BOX 1816 POULSBO, WA 98370 39335026 STAFF HAROLD B AND CAROLYN H T 13530 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 39335027 MUSSER JOHNNY C AND ROSE M TRU 13504 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 39335028 BRYER RICHARD H AND JUDITH S T 20066 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39335029 GLADNEY HENRY M AND HELGA TRUS 20044 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39335030 HUANG CHING AND HAUNG SHIUCHIN 20028 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39335030 HUANG CHING AND HAUNG SHIUCHIN 20028 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39335031 NEFF AUDUBON H AND MARILYNN L 19998 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39335032 BADGETT MELVIN E AND NANCY P 19980 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39335033 BREWER DOROTHY M TRUSTEE 1009 BLOSSOM RIVER WY APT 237 SAN JOSE, CA 95123 39338006 MILLER GEORGE H AND JOYCE L 13590 HOWEN DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39338007 S DILIP AND VENKATESHAN SANDHY 13574 HOWEN DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39338008 SHASBY BRENDA M AND PATRICK J 13560 HOWEN DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 111 39338009 SUN CHENG KO J AND TSENG JIING 20010 BRAEMAR DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39338010 STEPHAN DOROTHY M TRUSTEE 19994 BRAEMAR DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39338011 SHIH YOW T AND HONG Y 19980 BRAEMAR DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 39338012 POLLOCK MICHAEL D AND FELICIA 13561 OLD TREE WY SARATOGA, CA 95070 39338013 BURGER BERT AND VIVIAN D TRUST 13575 OLD TREE WY SARATOGA, CA 95070 39339018 NG ROSE AND LIANG YITMIN 20170 THELMA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 39339019 KOSIREDDY SREENIVASA R AND SUN 13555 SARATOGA VISTA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 39339025 ABERLE JOHN W TRUSTEE 13590 SARATOGA VISTA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 39339026 PRABHAKAR RAVINDRA AND SEEMA 20130 THELMA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 39339027 YAO CHUNG TING AND LO SHAU-PIN 20112 THELMA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 39339028 ROLLIN ROBERT E AND JERI 13551 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 39339029 KOU SHO AND YANG LI 13571 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 39339030 BARRETT GORDEN E AND LINDA D 13591 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 112 Cynthia and Michael:    Just got this today and will try to contact the individual today.    Regards,    Mohammed Hill    ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: anonymous@formmail.com [mailto:anonymous@formmail.com]   Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 12:40 PM  To: Hill, Mohammed  Subject: Saratoga Share Your Thoughts Form    Below is the result of your feedback form.  It was submitted by   () on Wednesday, March 16, 2011 at 14:39:57  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    Name: Robert    Address: 20221 Thelma Ave    City: Saratoga    State: ca    Zip: 95070    E‐mail: boots05@gmail.com    Phone: 4088611088    Comments: Please do NOT put cell towers near my house (Bearmont Ave in Saratoga)  or my daughters' schools (Redwood Middle School).  ALL of our neighbers and  school parents HATE this idea.  Please do NOT risk losing all your businesses  around this neighborhood.      sincerely,  concerned dad.    Submit: Submit    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐       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`NN% L<NN% *<NN% PDI%HP6G'8;)6%D01)?)77M% $9*NN% L<NN% *<NN% &=I%H&)17+8'?%=+22>80;'30+8M% *9VLN% L<NN% *<NN% =)??>?'1% ^aN% $<VN% N<L^% ICT%HIE);0'?0Y)6%C+@0?)%T'60+M% ^LL% $<^L% N<La% aNN%C#Y% aNN% $<-L% N<"a% b2+73%1)7310;30G)%,1)R>)8;A%1'8()c% -N]-NN% *<NN% N<$N% &+F)1%?08)%,1)R>)8;0)7%H`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                                                                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adio Frequency Protection Guide FCC Guidelines Figure 1 Frequency (MHz) 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.1 1 10 100 103 104 105 Occupational Exposure Public Exposure PCS CellFM PowerDensity(mW/cm2)The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, “Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (“NCRP”). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent standard, developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and approved as American National Standard ANSI/IEEE C95.1-2006, “Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz,” includes similar limits. These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive: Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (f is frequency of emission in MHz) Applicable Range (MHz) Electric Field Strength (V/m) Magnetic Field Strength (A/m) Equivalent Far-Field Power Density (mW/cm2) 0.3 – 1.34 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100 1.34 – 3.0 614 823.8/ f 1.63 2.19/ f 100 180/ f2 3.0 – 30 1842/ f 823.8/ f 4.89/ f 2.19/ f 900/ f2 180/ f2 30 – 300 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2 300 – 1,500 3.54 f 1.59 f f /106 f /238 f/300 f/1500 1,500 – 100,000 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0 Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections. 120 RFR.CALC ™ Calculation Methodology Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines Methodology Figure 2 The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC (see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits. Near Field. Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip (omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications base stations, as well as dish (aperture) antennas, typically used for microwave links. The antenna patterns are not fully formed in the near field at these antennas, and the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives suitable formulas for calculating power density within such zones. For a panel or whip antenna, power density S = 180 !!BW "0.1 "Pnet #"D 2 "h , in mW /cm 2, and for an aperture antenna, maximum power density Smax = 0.1 ! 16 ! " ! Pnet # ! h 2 , in mW /cm 2, where !BW = half-power beamwidth of the antenna, in degrees, and Pnet = net power input to the antenna, in watts, D= distance from antenna, in meters, h = aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and "= aperture efficiency (unitless, typically 0.5-0.8). The factor of 0.1 in the numerators converts to the desired units of power density. Far Field. OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source: power density S = 2.56 !1.64 !100 !RFF 2 !ERP 4 !"!D2 , in mW /cm 2, where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RFF = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and D = distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters. The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to obtain more accurate projections. 121 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 122 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: ASP10-0005 – 12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Type of Application: PC Sign Review for Two New Internally Illuminated Identification Signs Applicant/Owner: Saratoga Star Aquatics / Timespace Development, LLC Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan, AICP Date: March 23, 2011 APN: 386-30-039 Department Head: Christopher Riordan, AICP 12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 123 Executive Summary Project History Application filed: 11/15/2010 Application complete: 03/17/2011 Notice published: 03/09/2011 Mailing completed: 02/28/2011 Posting completed: 03/17/2011 Project Description The applicant requests Planning Commission approval for the installation of two internally illuminated identification signs on the exterior of an existing building. One sign would be mounted below the eve on the front of the building and the other would be mounted on the wall above the door on the rear elevation. The sign on the front would be constructed of internally illuminated reverse channel letters and would spell the words “Saratoga Star Aquatics.” These letters would be mounted to an aluminum panel that would be hung below the eve of the building near the front door. The sign on the rear of the building would be mounted on the wall above the rear entrance door. The rear entrance door is the primary entrance to access the swimming pool. This sign would be circular in shape and would only consist of the logo for Saratoga Star Aquatics. This sign would be externally illuminated by spotlights that would be mounted to the overhang that projects over the door. Illuminated signs require Planning Commission approval per Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC) Section 15-30.060(a). The property is approximately 45,000 sq. ft. and the zoning is Commercial- Visitor (CV). Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve this sign permit application with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. 124 STAFF ANALYSIS Zoning: C-V, Commercial - Visitor General Plan Designation: Commercial Retail (CR) Measure G: Not applicable Parcel Size: 44,866 sq. ft. Project Data: Proposal Code Requirements Type of Signs: Identification Signs Allowed per Code Area of Signs for the Site: 20.9 sq. ft (front sign) 4.0 sq. ft. (rear sign) Total Area – 24.9 sq. ft. Not to exceed 25 sq. ft. Size of Lettering: 10” Tall Reverse Channel Letters No greater than 18” in size in any dimension Sign Illumination: Front Sign – 147 total watts Rear Sign – 140 total watts No sign to exceed 200 watts Environmental Determination: The proposed project consisting of permitting minor alterations of existing public or private structures is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Article 19, Section 15311, “State CEQA Guidelines”, Class 11. This exemption allows for the construction and placement of minor structures appurtenant to existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities, including, but not limited to on-premise signage. Project Discussion: The project would include the installation of two new illuminated identification signs. The City Code defines identification signs as “a sign, the sole purpose of which is to identify the site or the building, use or persons occupying the site on which the sign is located.” City Code Section 15-30.100(2) allows one-fourth square foot of sign area for each foot of street frontage. The lot has 100 feet of frontage along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road which would allow 25’ of total sign area for the site. The total proposed square footage of the two signs is 24.88 square feet. Each of these two signs is discussed in the following paragraphs. Sign on the front elevation The proposed sign for the front elevation would be installed below the eve and to the right side of the entrance door. The sign would consist of 10” tall internally illuminated reverse 125 channel letters that would spell the words “Saratoga Star Aquatics.” A reverse channel letter has a face and sides but no back, which is held off a background surface by pins. When the internal light source is illuminated, LED’s in this case, it produces a halo effect around the letter. No light will project from the front of the letters. The letters would be constructed of aluminum and covered with a white colored acrylic. The channel letters would be mounted to a blue colored surface made of Dibond which is a composite material comprised of two pre-painted sheets of .012" aluminum with a solid polyethylene core. The dimensions of the sign would 14” tall and 216” long for a total sign size of 3,024 inches (20.9 sq. ft.). The sign would be attached below the eve with square metal tubing that would be painted to match the color of the building. Sign on the rear elevation The building contains two enclosed swimming pools for the use of club members. The primary public entrance to access the swimming pool area is from a glass door on the rear elevation. The proposed sign for the rear elevation would be a circular logo that would be four feet in area, flush mounted to the wall of the building, and located approximately ten feet from the ground. The depth of the sign is 5.5 inches. The illustration used for the sign is the logo for the Saratoga Swim Center. The letters would be constructed of aluminum and covered with a white and blue colored acrylic with a red accent color. Located above the door is an existing awning made of metal and glass. Mounted on the interior of the awning would be four 35 watt spotlights that would project light onto the sign. Located behind the swim center site are single-family homes. The applicant had originally proposed an internally illuminated sign however staff had expressed concerns about potential glare effects on the adjacent homes. The applicant redesigned the sign with external illumination of 140 total watts to reduce possible glare effects. Neighbor Notification: All property owners within 500 feet were notified and the notice of the hearing was published in the Saratoga Daily News. On March 14, 2011, staff received a letter from a resident (Resident) residing at 12258 Kirkdale Avenue which is included as Attachment #2. Kirkdale Avenue is located behind the project site. The letter from the Resident states that, 1) the sign on the rear of the building is acceptable but that it could be lower on the wall and that the lights should be turned off at 9:00 P.M. and 2) that the design of the front sign appears to be out of character with the Gateway Design Guidelines (Guidelines). The letter also lists eight other approved signs on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road that the Resident asserts are out of character with the Guidelines. In addition, the Resident summarized the Guidelines and included this with the letter. As of the completion of this staff report, staff has received no other written comments on the proposed project. Prior to receiving the letter Staff also did receive a phone call from the Resident who stated that the colors of the proposed sign were not in keeping with the Gateway Design Guidelines. Staff did return the phone call and discussed the proposed colors. The Gateway Design Guidelines do not expressly limit sign colors but do state that the colors of the signs should be consistent with a buildings architectural material. The applicant did send Neighbor Notification Forms to all adjacent neighbors by certified mail. Three forms were returned to the applicant. One neighbor stated that the sign proposed for the front elevation was unattractive. Originally proposed for the front elevation was a roof mounted sign. Based on comments from staff the applicant redesigned the sign. The neighbor’s comments are based 126 on that original sign design that was not supported by staff. Staff has contacted the neighbor and discussed the design changes. Sign Permit Criteria: The proposed project is consistent with the following criteria for sign permits, per the City Code: • The sign complies with the regulations of Article 15-30 and the regulations of the district in which it will be located. The proposed identification signs meet all required sign regulation in that the total proposed sign area is 24.9 square feet. City code allows identification signs that are a total of 25 square feet in total area. • The size, shape, color, illumination, placement and material of the sign are compatible with the building it identifies and the visual characteristics of the neighborhood and other lawful signs in the area. The proposed signage would be compatible with the building in that the colors used for the signs would be consistent with the blue color of the entrance canopy and the color of the buildings architectural accents. The blue color also is being proposed to identify the primary use of the building as a swim center and to give the impression of water. The proposed placement of the signs would be compatible in the method of installation as other signs in the area • The location and design of the sign does not obscure from view or unduly detract from existing adjacent signs. The proposed signage scale, height, and design will not obscure views or unduly detract from current business signage from properties nearby. The proposed signs are attached to the building so the design and placement of the signs would not detract from existing adjacent signs. The new design is proportionate to the existing business community. • The location and design of a sign in close proximity to any residential district will not adversely affect the quality or character of such residential area. The existing business is within the Commercial-Visitor (CV) zoning district. The proposed location is surrounded by commercial businesses with residential uses to the rear. Residential districts would not be adversely affected by the proposed signage because the indirect illumination method would not cause glare on adjacent homes. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway Design Guidelines: The proposed project is consistent with all of the following Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway Design Guidelines, adopted by Saratoga City Council on November 19, 2003: • Signage should be visible but fit appropriately with building architecture. The proposed identification sign, especially the sign on the front elevation, faces the street and would be visible from passing vehicles and pedestrians to provide the applicant with ample visibility while remaining appropriate in scale with the existing building architecture. 127 • Sign materials should be complimentary and consistent with architectural materials. The proposed signage would be compatible with the building in that the colors used for the signs, especially the blue color, would be consistent with the blue color of the entrance canopy and the color of the buildings architectural accents. The blue color also is being proposed to identify the primary use of the building as a swim center and to give the impression of water. • Storefront/Shop Signage Prefer indirect illumination – the sign on the front elevation features reverse channel letters with “halo” illumination and the sign on the rear elevation is indirectly illuminated by low wattage spot lights. Sign Area and Intensity as per Municipal Code – the sign area is less than the 25 foot maximum sign area allowed for the site and the illumination would be less than the maximum of 200 watts. Individual storefront/shop signage at entries should be encouraged at a pedestrian scale, such as hanging signs under eaves, awning signs, and building mounted signs – The sign on the front elevation would be located near the front entrance and would be installed to hang under the existing eave. The sign on the rear elevation would be mounted flush with the exterior of the building. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution for Approval 2. Letter from neighbor at 12258 Kirkdale Avenue. 3. Neighbor Notification templates. 4. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 5. Proposed plans (Exhibit “A”). 128 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO: FOR APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW Application Numbers: ASP10-0005 Saratoga Star Aquatics - 12230 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road The City of Saratoga Planning Commission finds and determines as follows with respect to the above-described application: I. Project Summary The project would include the installation of two new illuminated identification signs. The City Code defines identification signs as “a sign, the sole purpose of which is to identify the site or the building, use or persons occupying the site on which the sign is located.” City Code Section 15-30.100(2) allows one-fourth square foot of sign area for each foot of street frontage. The lot has 100 feet of frontage along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road which would allow 25’ of total sign area for the site. The total proposed square footage of the two signs is 24.88 square feet. The proposed sign for the front elevation would be installed below the eve and to the right side of the entrance door. The sign would consist of 10” tall internally illuminated reverse channel letters that would spell the words “Saratoga Star Aquatics.” A reverse channel letter has a face and sides but no back, which is held off a background surface by pins. When the internal light source is illuminated, LED’s in this case, it produces a halo effect around the letter. No light will project from the front of the letters. The letters would be constructed of aluminum and covered with a white colored acrylic. The channel letters would be mounted to a blue colored surface made of Dibond which is a composite material comprised of two pre-painted sheets of .012" aluminum with a solid polyethylene core. The dimensions of the sign would 14” tall and 216” long for a total sign size of 3,024 inches (20.9 sq. ft.). The sign would be attached below the eve with square metal tubing that would be painted to match the color of the building. The building contains two enclosed swimming pools for the use of club members. The primary public entrance to access the swimming pool area is from a glass door on the rear elevation. The proposed sign for the rear elevation would be a circular logo that would be four feet in area, flush mounted to the wall of the building, and located approximately ten feet from the ground. The depth of the sign is 5.5 inches. The illustration used for the sign is the logo for the Saratoga Swim Center. The letters would be constructed of aluminum and covered with a white and blue colored acrylic with a red accent color. Located above the door is an existing awning made of metal and glass. Mounted on the interior of the awning would be four 35 watt spotlights that would project light onto the sign. Located behind the swim center site are single-family homes. The applicant had originally proposed an internally illuminated sign however staff had expressed concerns about potential glare effects on the adjacent homes. The applicant redesigned the sign with external illumination of 140 total watts to reduce possible glare effects. The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in this Resolution. II. Design Review Requirement Illuminated signs require Planning Commission Design Review approval per Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC) Section 15-30.060(a). This Design Review Approval requirement implements the Saratoga General Plan, including, but not limited to: (1) Land Use Goal 13 129 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) Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. III. Planning Commission Review On March 23, 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 proposed project consisting of permitting minor alterations of existing public or private structures is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Article 19, Section 15311, “State CEQA Guidelines”, Class 11. This exemption allows for the construction and placement of minor structures appurtenant to existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities, including, but not limited to on-premise signage. V. Findings for Sign Permit The findings required for issuance of a Sign Permit Approval pursuant to City Code Section Article 15-30.070 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: a. The sign complies with the regulations of Article 15-30 and the regulations of the district in which it will be located in that the proposed identification signs meet all required sign regulation in that the total proposed sign area is 24.9 square feet. City code allows identification signs that are a total of 25 square feet in total area. b. The size, shape, color, illumination, placement and material of the sign are compatible with the building it identifies and the visual characteristics of the neighborhood and other lawful signs in the area in that the proposed signage would be compatible with the building in that the colors used for the signs, especially the blue color, would be consistent with the blue color of the entrance canopy and the color of the buildings architectural accents. The blue color also is being proposed to identify the primary use of the building as a swim center and to give the impression of water. The proposed placement of the signs would be compatible in the method of installation as other signs in the area c. The location and design of the sign does not obscure from view or unduly detract from existing adjacent signs in that the proposed signage scale, height, and design will not obscure views or unduly detract from current business signage from properties nearby. The proposed signs are attached to the building so the design and 2 ASP10-0005/12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 130 placement of the signs would not detract from existing adjacent signs. The new design is proportionate to the existing business community. d. The location and design of a sign in close proximity to any residential district will not adversely affect the quality or character of such residential area. The existing business is within the Commercial-Visitor (CV) zoning district. The proposed location is surrounded by commercial businesses with residential uses to the rear. Residential districts would not be adversely affected by the proposed signage because the indirect illumination method would not cause glare on adjacent homes. VI. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway Design Guidelines: The proposed project is consistent with all of the following Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway Design Guidelines, adopted by Saratoga City Council on November 19, 2003: • Signage should be visible but fit appropriately with building architecture. The proposed identification sign, especially the sign on the front elevation, faces the street and would be visible from passing vehicles and pedestrians to provide the applicant with ample visibility while remaining appropriate in scale with the existing building architecture. • Sign materials should be complimentary and consistent with architectural materials. The proposed signage would be compatible with the building in that the colors used for the signs, especially the blue color, would be consistent with the blue color of the entrance canopy and the color of the buildings architectural accents. The blue color also is being proposed to identify the primary use of the building as a swim center and to give the impression of water. • Storefront/Shop Signage Prefer indirect illumination – the sign on the front elevation features reverse channel letters with “halo” illumination and the sign on the rear elevation is indirectly illuminated by low wattage spot lights. Sign Area and Intensity as per Municipal Code – the sign area is less than the 25 foot maximum sign area allowed for the site and the illumination would be less than the maximum of 200 watts. Individual storefront/shop signage at entries should be encouraged at a pedestrian scale, such as hanging signs under eaves, awning signs, and building mounted signs – The sign on the front elevation would be located near the front entrance and would be installed to hang under the existing eave. The sign on the rear elevation would be mounted flush with the exterior of the building. 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 3 ASP10-0005/12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 131 are made, and Application No. ASP10-0005 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 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. 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. 4 ASP10-0005/12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 132 7. 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 8. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans date December stamped February 16, 2011, denominated Exhibit "A" and the Color Board date stamped February 16, 2011 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. 9. Building Division Submittal. Two (2) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. 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. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages; c. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building Division. 11. Staff shall not approve downgrading to the exterior appearance of the approved project. 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. 5 ASP10-0005/12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 133 6 ASP10-0005/12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 12. The total sign area shall not exceed 25 square feet. 13. The Owner and Lessee of the property, as signatories to the permit, shall ensure that the sign is maintained in good condition. 14. The City reserves continuing jurisdiction over this sign permit and may revoke the permit upon any failure by the permittee to comply with any condition set forth in this Resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 23nd 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. __________________________________ ____________________________ Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: PDR10-0015 Type of Application: Design Review for a 23’-6” One Story Single-Family Residence with Basement Applicant/Owner: Chris Spaulding/Ram & Mayura Jayam Staff Planner: Chris Riordan Meeting Date: March 23, 2011 APN: 510-02-011 Department Head: Chris Riordan 15395 PEPPER LANE 152 Application No. PDR10-0015 – 15395 Pepper Lane EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT HISTORY: Application filed: …………………………………… 07/14/10 Application complete: ………………………………. 10/28/11 Notice published: …………………………………… 03/09/11 Mailing completed: …………………………………. 02/28/11 Posting completed: ………………………………….. 03/17/11 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a new 23’-6” tall, one story, single-family residence on an approximately 20,954 square feet (gross) lot located at 15395 Pepper Lane. The project site is located within the R-1-40,000 zone district. The existing ranch style one-story home would be removed. The proposed replacement structure would include a 4,474 square foot one story home with an attached two-car garage. The architect has described the proposed design as “Mediterranean.” The project is proposing to remove three trees that are protected by City Code. These include an 11.2” American Sweetgum in good condition, a 35” multi-trunk Avocado in fair condition, and a 16.7” Almond in fair condition. The three trees are within the proposed building footprint and their proposed removal has been approved by the City Arborist. The project includes a condition of approval that requires the applicant to plant new trees to equal or exceed the $9,680 appraised value of the trees to be removed. Zoning 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 23’-6” tall single-family home; therefore, Planning Commission review is required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposed Design Review application with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. Page 2 of 6 153 Application No. PDR10-0015 – 15395 Pepper Lane STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLVD (Very Low Density Residential) MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: Gross: 20,954 square feet. SLOPE: Approximately 5.4 % average site slope. GRADING REQUIRED: A total of 667 cubic yards of combined cut and fill. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. MATERIALS AND COLORS: The exterior finish of the proposed residence would feature beige colored stucco with dark beige colored trim. The vinyl clad wood windows would be dark beige to match the trim. The double sash, rectangle shaped, wood front entrance door would have clear class and decorative wrought iron details between the panes of glass. The “carriage style” garage doors would be made of wood and stained brown to match the door on the residence. The tower element and the base would be covered with a stone veneer. The roof would be covered slate with a blend of brown and gray tiles. Details of the materials are included in the below table. A colors and materials board is available on file with the Community Development Department and will be present at both the site visit and public hearing. Detail Colors and Materials Mfg. & Specification # Windows Vinyl Clad Wood Windows/Powder Coated Finish - dark beige color. Kolbe & Kolbe Front Door Double Sash Wood Door with glass and wrought iron - dark stain Cantera Doors “Valencia” Garage Door Wood Carriage Door with a Dark Brown Color Carriage House Door Company Building Ext. Stucco Generic Exterior Cement Plaster Roof State Roofing with brown and gray tiles Genuine Slate Page 3 of 6 154 Application No. PDR10-0015 – 15395 Pepper Lane PROJECT DATA: R-1-40,000 Zoning Net Site Area: 20,954 sq. ft. Existing/Proposed Allowable/Required Proposed Site Coverage Building Driveway: Walkways/Patio: Lightwells Total Proposed Site Coverage 4,679 SF 1,344 SF 626 SF 162 SF 6,811 SF (32.5 %) 7,334 SF Floor Area Residence Attached Garage: Enclosed Porch Total Proposed Floor Area 3,804 SF 540 SF 130 SF 4,474 SF 4,518 SF Basement 1,548 SF Not included in total floor area Code Section 15-06.090 Grading Site: Building: Totals: Cut 12 CY 594 CY 606 CY Fill 37 CY 24 CY 61CY Total 49 CY 618 CY 667 CY Grading Limits Not Applicable to R-1-40,000 Zone District Height (Main Residence) Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: 641.2 FT 645.8 FT 643.5 FT 667.1 FT (23’-6”) Maximum Height = 669.5 (26 Feet) Setbacks Front: Rear: Left Side: Right Side: First Floor 51’- 1” 50’- 0” 12’- 6” 13’- 3” Second Floor NA NA NA NA First Floor 30 FT 50 FT 12-7” FT 12-7” FT Second Floor NA NA NA NA PROJECT DISCUSSION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS Existing Site Characteristics The 20,954 (gross) square foot project site is located at 15395 Pepper Lane. The average slope of the lot is 5.4%. The existing one-story ranch style single-family home would be removed. Page 4 of 6 155 Application No. PDR10-0015 – 15395 Pepper Lane Proposed Project and Architectural Style The proposed project would consist of a new 4,474 square feet 23’-6” tall one story single- family dwelling. No accessory buildings are proposed. The maximum allowable floor area is 4,518 square feet. The applicant has identified the architectural style of the proposed residence as “Mediterranean”. Proposed architectural details include a stucco exterior finish, arched fixed windows and rectangular shaped operable wood windows, and an ornate double-sash entrance door opening into an interior entrance hall. Other features include decorative iron railings around the light wells and a dark beige colored stone veneer used for the tower element and base of the building. The roof would be composed of slate with a blend of brown and grey tiles. The circular front driveway would be made of grass underlain with “Grasspave” which are honeycombed shaped reinforcements installed below the level of the grass thereby creating a surface capable of supporting the weight of motor vehicles. This driveway surface would look like a normal lawn and would not be considered an impervious surface. Fireplaces Saratoga City Code Section 15-48.030 establishes a limit of one wood burning fireplace per structure. The project would have one gas burning fire places located in the family room. Air Conditioning / HVAC City Code requires air conditioning condensers to be located outside required setbacks. The plans indicate the presence of an air conditioner within the rear setback. The applicant is aware of this and will be relocating the air conditioner condenser out of a setback area. The project would include a standard condition of approval which states that air conditioning condensers cannot be located within setback areas. No generators are being proposed. Geotechnical Clearance JF Consulting, Inc. prepared a Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed project, dated May 17, 2010. On August 3, 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. Trees The project is proposing to remove three trees that are protected by City Code. These include an 11.2” American Sweetgum in good condition, a 35” multi-trunk Avocado in fair condition, and a 16.7” Almond in fair condition. The three trees are within the proposed building footprint. Their proposed removal has been approved by the City Arborist. The project includes a condition of approval that requires the applicant to plant new trees to equal or exceed the $9,680 appraised value of the trees to be removed. Nine additional trees could potentially be impacted by construction. These include two American sweet gums, one Colorado blue spruce, one California pepper, one southern Page 5 of 6 156 Application No. PDR10-0015 – 15395 Pepper Lane Page 6 of 6 magnolia, one coast live oak, one English walnut, one saucer magnolia, and one English holly. These trees would be protected by tree fencing during the construction of the project. The applicant would be required to submit a $38,310 security deposit (100% of their appraised value) for the protection of these trees prior to issuance of a building permit. 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 65 points. Some of the proposed green features would include: • Drought tolerant landscaping, minimum use of turf, and drip irrigation to reduce water use; • Using permeable pavers for at least 25 percent of the projects hardscape; • The use of “engineered lumber” for beams, header, floor joists and Oriented Strand Board (OSB) for Subfloors; • The use of a gas fireplace in lieu of wood burning; and • The use of Energy Star rated appliances. Other “green features” include installation of efficient ductwork and appliances to minimize energy waste, exceeding Title 24 energy requirements by 15%, the use of low VOC (volatile organic compound) adhesives and paint, and low flow plumbing fixtures. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has shown the proposed plans to neighbors as indicated in the attached neighbor notification forms (Attachment #4). 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 Staffs recommends 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 for Design Review. 2. Project Description Letter (prepared by Applicant) 3. GreenPoint Rated Checklist for Single-family Homes (prepared by Applicant) 4. Neighbor Notification Forms. 5. Arborist Report. 6. Public hearing notice and and copy of mailing labels for project notification. 7. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Location/APN: 22480 - 22490 Mt. Eden Rd / 503-80-003 & 503-80-004 Application #: PDR10-0017 / CUP10-0010 / ANX 09-0002 / ZOA 10- 0005 / GPA 11-0002 Type of Application and Annexation; Parcel Merger; Williamson Act Contract; Actions for Review/ Agricultural Preserve/Open Space Overlay Zoning Recommendation Amendment; General Plan Amendment from OS-H to HRC; Conditional Use Permit and Variation from Standards; and Design Review Owner/Applicant: South Thunder / WT Brooks Staff Planner: Cynthia McCormick, Assistant Planner, AICP Meeting Date: March 23, 2011 Department Head: Chris Riordan, AICP 22490 Mt. Eden Road 199 Page 2 of 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 09/22/10 Application complete: 02/25/11 First Notice published: 12/07/10 First Mailing completed: 12/02/10 Public Hearing (continued): 12/22/10 Study Session: 02/22/11 Second Notice published: 03/18/11 Second Mailing completed: 03/03/11 Posting completed: 03/17/11 PROJECT OVERVIEW: “South Thunder LLC” is the owner of two adjoining parcels. The “Principal Property” is a 35.13 acre parcel located at 22490 Mt. Eden Road. This parcel was annexed to the City in 2006 and has a General Plan designation of Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC) and a zoning designation of Hillside Residential (HR). The “Annexation Property” is a 2.68 acre parcel (22480 Mt. Eden Road), adjacent to the Principal Property, in Santa Clara County and within the City’s Sphere of Influence and Urban Service Area. This parcel has a Pre-General Plan designation of Hillside Open Space (OS-H) and a Pre-zoning designation of Hillside Residential (HR). The Principal Property is currently improved with a two-story single-family residence, basement, garage, gym, pool house, and pool. The existing Community Stable facilities are located almost entirely on this parcel and include a stable, two (2) barns, apartment above the utility barn, loafing sheds, and a covered arena with viewing pavilion. There is also a sand riding arena on the Annexation Property. The applicant proposes to remodel the existing 5,330 square foot home by adding 2,308 square feet of floor area to the first-story, reducing the second-story by 125 square feet, reducing the four car garage by 118 square feet, and adding 644 square feet to the existing basement (not counted as floor area). Offsets: The net increase in floor area (less than 3,000 square feet) is easily offset by the elimination of a minimum of 6,560 square feet of otherwise allowable floor area which would be developable on the currently existing Annexation Property. The offsetting elimination of 6,560 square feet of floor area potential will be the result of the City requiring the Annexation Property to be merged with the Principal Property as part of the integrated annexation package. The total resulting floor area for the principal use (single-family residence and structures accessory to it) on the Merged Property would be 10,926 SF, including the main residence (8,237 SF), garage (1,003 SF), pool house and gym (1,686 SF). There would be no change to the 22,018 square feet of existing Community Stable facilities. 200 Application No. PDR10-0017 & CUP10-0010; 22490 Mt. Eden Road Page 3 of 10 There is currently already 103,332 square feet of site coverage on what will become the Merged Property. The applicant would remove and replace the patios, decks, fountain, and walkways; remodel the existing pool; and remove a pavilion attached to the front of the home. The existing site coverage would be reduced by 2,656 square feet. This will offset the 2,308 square feet of site coverage resulting from the addition to the single family residence. With the net decrease in site coverage of 2,656 square feet, the total resulting site coverage of the Merged Property would still be 100,676 SF, approximately 6% of the entire site. The applicant would also remove five (5) non-native protected trees, as approved by the City Arborist. The City Council has referred for recommendation by the Planning Commission consideration of the Council’s Resolution for Initiation of Annexation (as to the Annexation Property). Such annexation and the accompanying actions included in the integrated annexation package described below are part of an integrated application proposal submitted to the City by SOUTH THUNDER, LLC. Concurrent with annexation, the 2.68 acre Annexation Property is proposed to be merged with the adjoining approximately 35.13-acre property. The merger constitutes a material basis of the support for approval of the offsets as to floor area and site coverage described above and the required findings for the Variation from Standards. The Merged Property shall not be subsequently subdivided so long as any portion of the resulting Merged Property is subject to a Williamson Act Contract, or so long as the City’s AP-OS overlay zoning district (being added pursuant to this integrated annexation package) has not been removed by the City. The entire Merged Property is proposed to become restricted by a Land Conservation (Williamson Act) Contract. The integrated annexation package (the Project) as to which the City Council has requested Planning Commission recommendations consists of seven actions subject to review by the Planning Commission: 1) Final Annexation Approval (including Preannexation Agreement); 2) Parcel Merger; 3) Williamson Act Contract; 4) Agricultural Preserve-Open Space Overlay Zoning Amendment; 5) General Plan Amendment; 6) Conditional Use Permit and Variation from Standards; and 7) Design Review. These actions require review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and final review and approval by the City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the application for Design Review and Conditional Use Permit with Variation from standards and find the application exempt from CEQA by adopting the attached Resolution. Recommend approval of integrated annexation package which consists of seven actions: 1) Final Annexation Approval (including Preannexation Agreement); 2) Parcel Merger; 3) Williamson Act Contract; 4) Agricultural Preserve-Open Space Overlay Zoning Amendment; 5) General Plan Amendment; 6) Conditional Use Permit and Variation from Standards; and 7) Design Review. 201 Application No. PDR10-0017 & CUP10-0010; 22490 Mt. Eden Road Page 4 of 10 PROJECT DATA: PROPOSED ZONING OF MERGED LOT: Hillside Residential (HR) and Agricultural Preserve/Open Space (AP-OS) overlay PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF MERGED LOT: Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC) MEASURE G: Not applicable. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The net addition of less than 3,000 square feet to the existing 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. The Principal Property was annexed to the City in 2006 under an exemption from CEQA. The annexation of the Annexation Property qualifies for an exemption from CEQA under CEQA Guideline 15319 which exempts annexations to a city of areas containing existing private structures developed to the density allowed by the current zoning or pre-zoning of either the gaining or losing governmental agency whichever is more restrictive, provided, however, that the extension of utility services to the existing facilities would have a capacity to serve only the existing facilities. CEQA exempts the Preannexation Agreement, Parcel Merger, Land Conservation (Williamson Act) Contract agreement, General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Amendment because they will all impose greater land use restrictions on the Merged Property than currently exist, will involve no physical change to the environment, assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment, and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment (see CEQA Guidelines Sections 15308 and 15061(b)(3)). The Use Permit is likewise exempt because it imposes parameters and use permit conditions on the Merged Property for the first time. HR Zoning Gross Site Area (Merged Property): 37.8 acres Proposed Code Standard Floor Area Existing First Floor 2,945 SF Continued next page Proposed First Floor 2,308 SF Total First Floor 5,253 SF Existing Second Floor 2,385 SF Proposed Second Floor -125 SF Total Second Floor 2,260 SF Existing Garage 1,121 SF Proposed Garage -118 SF Total Garage 1,003 SF 15 foot height Area 724 SF Existing Pool House and Gym 1,686 SF 202 Application No. PDR10-0017 & CUP10-0010; 22490 Mt. Eden Road Page 5 of 10 Total Floor Area (Dwelling and Accessory Structures) 10,926 SF Maximum Allowable = 8,000 SF Existing Basement (not counted) 284 SF Proposed Basement (not counted) 644 SF Total Basement (not counted) 928 SF Non-Accessory Structures Existing Stable, Barns, and Apartment (including double counted ceiling height) 22,018 SF Site Coverage Existing Residence: 2,945 SF Maximum Allowable = whichever is less of 15,000 SF or 25% (382,566 SF) Proposed Residence: 2,308 SF Total Residence: 5,253 SF Existing Garage: 1,121 SF Proposed Garage: -118 SF Total Garage: 1,003 SF Pool House and Gym: 1,686 SF Driveways and Residence Parking: 36,398 SF Pool. Spa, Porch, Backyard Deck: 1,789 SF Stable, Barns, and Loafing Sheds: 14,620 SF Barn Parking, Rubber Pavers, Patios, and Paths: 16,341 SF Arena Roof Overhang: 23,586 SF Sand Riding Arena (not counted in total below) 14,800 SF TOTAL Site Coverage (on both parcels ~37.8 gross acres) 100,676 SF (~6%) Proposed Code Standard Setbacks First Floor Second Floor First Floor Second Floor Front: 500’+ 500’+ 30’ 30’ Rear: 420’+ 420’+ 50’ 60’ Left Side: 600’+ 600’+ 20’ 20’ Right Side: 240’+ 240’+ 20’ 20’ Dwelling Height Height Maximum = 26 Feet Lowest Elevation Point: 723.5 Highest Elevation Point: 726.5 Average Elevation Point: 725.0 Topmost Point of roof: (26 Feet) 751.0 203 Application No. PDR10-0017 & CUP10-0010; 22490 Mt. Eden Road Page 6 of 10 DISCUSSION: Annexation: An initiation of annexation was approved by the City Council on June 2, 2010. The 2.68 acre Annexation Property is currently developed with a driveway and sand equestrian riding arena which is surrounded by an approximately five foot (5’) tall open wood fence. The Annexation Property has public water (San Jose Water) and sanitary sewer service (Cupertino Sanitary District). The Annexation Property does not front Mt. Eden Road and is accessed via a private road that is connected to Mt. Eden Road. The private road is shared among five (5) parcels including the Annexation Property and the Principal Property. No structures are proposed for the Annexation Property and the applicant would extinguish the development potential of the parcel for a separate single family dwelling by merging the Annexation Property and the Principal Property as described below. If the parcel is not annexed, Santa Clara County development standards would apply; the applicable County RHS zoning district allows a maximum height of 35-feet and 3-stories, with setbacks of 30 feet in the front, 25 feet in the back, and 20 feet on the sides. The size of a single family dwelling in the County is limited by establishment of a building envelope (if any), rather than a floor area ratio. Parcel Merger: The applicant proposes to merge the Annexation Property with the Principal Property (“Merged Property”). The parcel merger will extinguish the development potential of a separate single family dwelling on the Annexation Property. A condition of approval for the Use Permit and Variations from Standards precludes subsequent subdivision so long as any portion of the resulting Merged Property is subject to a Williamson Act Contract, or so long as the City’s AP- OS overlay zoning district has not been removed by the City. This condition is included in the Pre- Annexation Agreement (Attachment 6), the Use Permit and other documents in the integrated annexation package. Under City of Saratoga standards the development potential of the Annexation Property if not merged is approximately 6,560 square feet of floor area (based on a 24% average slope which reduces the net lot size to 1.55 acres). A Notice and Deed of Merger is included as Attachment 8. Williamson Act Contract for the Merged Property: The applicant would also include the entire Merged Property under a Williamson Act Contract (Attachment 9). This would require rescinding the existing Williamson Act Contract with the City on the Principal Property and simultaneously re- entering a Williamson Act Contract for the entire Merged Property. The Williamson Act Contract would include the stables and all other existing uses as compatible uses. Agricultural Preserve/Open Space Overlay for the Merged Property: The entire Merged Property would be made subject to the Agricultural Preserve/Open Space Overlay zoning. The AP-OS overlay promotes agricultural uses and such zoning amendment is required for land on which Williamson Act contracts are executed and renewed. The overlay zone thereby encourages and preserves such contracts in accordance with the policies set forth in the General Plan. 204 Application No. PDR10-0017 & CUP10-0010; 22490 Mt. Eden Road Page 7 of 10 General Plan Amendment: The Principal Property currently has a General Plan designation of Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC). The Annexation Property currently has a Pre-General Plan designation of Hillside Open Space (OS-H). The OS-H designation allows low intensity residential development and covers all areas within Saratoga’s Sphere of Influence that are not designated as parks. The entire Merged Property should have a post-annexation General Plan designation of Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC) because the Principal Property and the Annexation property would be merged into a single parcel. Conditional Use Permit and Variation from Standards for the Merged Property: City Code Section 15-13.040 allows community stables and associated accessory structures in the Hillside Residential zoning district with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Section 15-55.030 allows a variation from site area and/or site coverage standards for conditional uses. The CUP will enable the City to establish parameters and conditions of approval for the Community Stables use and require an amendment of it if the Property Owner desires to intensify the use in the future. The variation from standards provides additional support for the offsets being applied to the floor area and site coverage aspects of the proposal. While the existing site coverage was already developed in the County to a level well above the allowable site coverage in the City, the applicant will reduce the amount of site coverage on the site as well as eliminate the potential 15,000 square feet of site coverage that would be allowed on the Annexation Property. This, again, is by virtue of the condition of approval for the Use Permit and Variations from Standards which precludes subsequent subdivision so long as any portion of the resulting Merged Property is subject to a Williamson Act Contract, or so long as the City’s AP-OS overlay zoning district has not been removed by the City. The required Findings to support a Variation from Standards are the same as those for a Use Permit and are included in the Resolution of Approval. The Principal Property has an average site slope of 31.5%. The 35.13 acre site is currently improved with a 5,330 square foot two-story single-family residence, 1,121 square foot detached four-car garage, 895 square foot detached pool house, and 791 square foot workshop/gym. The total existing floor area including all living spaces and accessory structures is 8,137 square feet. This total does not include those areas double counted due to ceiling height, as discussed below. The existing community stable facilities (located almost exclusively on the Principal Property) include a 23,586 square foot covered riding arena with viewing pavilion, 13,068 square foot stable, 4,150 square foot hay barn, 3,308 square foot utility barn, a 1,492 square foot apartment above the utility barn, and loafing sheds. There is also a 14,800 square foot sand riding arena on the Annexation Property. The non-accessory Community Stable facilities (enclosed by three or more walls and a roof) are comprised of a total of 22,018 square feet. All square footage calculations reflect the City Code requirement that any space with an interior ceiling height of fifteen feet or greater is double counted 1 . A portion of the single-family residence as well as the stable, hay barn, and utility barn all have ceiling heights over 15 feet. 1 City Code Section 15-45.030 205 Application No. PDR10-0017 & CUP10-0010; 22490 Mt. Eden Road Page 8 of 10 The total existing impervious area (as defined by the City Zoning Ordinance) of both the 35.13 acre parcel and the adjacent 2.68 acre parcel is 103,332 square feet. The majority of the site coverage is attributed to the Community Stable facilities and the driveway leading around the Community Stables. The Community Stables Facility currently consists of the following: 20-30 horses at any one time (including 15 horses owned by applicant); 40 stalls; 7 paddocks: 4 employees; and 5 boarders. Riding lessons and clinics are provided only to persons boarding on site or by invitation. Design Review of an addition to an existing home on the Principal Property: City Code Section 15- 13.150 provides that the construction or expansion of any main or accessory structure in the HR district shall comply with the applicable design review regulations set forth in Article 15-45 of this Chapter. In addition, City Code Section 15-45.060(a) requires design review approval by the Planning Commission for any project Whenever, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the construction, reconstruction or significant expansion of a main or accessory structure ….may result in excessive intensification of the use or development of the site. While no significant environmental effects will result from the project, the existing and proposed improvements exceed the City’s maximum floor area and site coverage allowances, requiring a variation from standards. Hence, a Design Review Approval is required for this application. Design Review Overview: The applicant proposes to remodel the existing 5,330 square foot home by adding 2,308 square feet of floor area to the first-story, reducing the second-story by 125 square feet, and reducing the four car garage by 118 square feet. Structures that count towards the maximum floor area consist of the main residence (8,237 SF), garage (1,003 SF), and pool house and gym (1,686 SF). The total floor area would be 10.926, including the area double counted due to ceiling height. The applicant would also add 644 square feet to the 284 square foot existing basement for a total of 928 square feet (basements are excluded from the floor area calculation). The applicant proposes to remove and replace the patios, decks, fountain, and walkways and remove 250 square feet of screened pavilion at the front of the home. The applicant would also remodel the existing pool as shown on the landscape plan. The existing site coverage would be reduced by 2,656 square feet. The total resulting site coverage would be 100,676 SF or approximately 6% of the entire site. The proposed landscape includes native and Mediterranean plant groupings such as California Wild Lilac, California Coral Bells, Wild Iris, Woodwardia, and Nine Bark. The landscaping will include drip irrigation and weather adapting irrigation control systems. The applicant would also remove five (5) non-native protected trees as discussed below. Trees: The plans were reviewed by the City Arborist. Twenty one (21) trees protected by City ordinance and potentially impacted by construction were inventoried. The City Arborist has approved removal of five trees which include a 28.5” American elm, a 15.7” Camphor, a 16.8” Siberian elm, a 17” American elm, and a 25.8” deodar cedar tree. The two American elm trees are in fair health; however both trees have poor structure resulting from past pruning and both trees are infested with elm leaf beetles which have a negative impact on their health. The Siberian elm 206 Application No. PDR10-0017 & CUP10-0010; 22490 Mt. Eden Road Page 9 of 10 is in fair health but has a pronounced lean and should be removed before it fails. The camphor tree is in good health but is in conflict with a nearby retaining wall and the proposed addition and could cause significant damage over time. The deodar cedar tree is in good health but is nearby native trees (redwoods and oak) that will become increasingly crowded as they mature. This tree has also been found to be more of a fire hazard than other species around the house. Moreover, there are many trees around the house that will be preserved and new trees will be planted to replace the ones removed. Findings that permit the removal of these five trees are included in the Arborist Report (Attachment 3). Architectural Style: The home is designed in the Craftsman style with a mix of hipped and gabled roofs. The front porch is supported by square columns and the dormer over the front porch has triangular braced supports. The façade is clad with wood shingles, while board and batton siding provide contrast below the gabled roof and dormers. Other architectural features include two cupola and weathervanes, four carriage style garage doors, a slate roof, and brick and stone veneer chimney and wainscoting. Materials and Colors: The wood siding would consist of earthtone green colors while the roof would be a blend of grey slate tiles. The entry door and carriage garage doors would have a wood stain grade. The exterior wainscoting and chimneys would be made of stone veneer and brick. A colors and materials board will be presented at the study session (exhibit B). Green Strategies: The project includes low VOC paint and construction materials and energy efficient appliances. As proposed, the project would receive 75 Build-it-Green (BIG) points, including 8 points in community, 21 points in energy, 13 points in IAQ/health, 20 points in resources, and 13 points in the water category. The proposed green features and their corresponding point values are included in Attachment 2. The BIG Checklist shall be certified by a BIG certified rater prior to zoning clearance. Neighborhood Review: The applicant distributed notification forms to eight adjacent neighbors. Two of the neighbors wrote in support of the project. Six of the forms were not returned and no negative comments have been received as of the writing of this memorandum. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the application for Design Review and Conditional Use Permit with Variation from standards by adopting the attached Resolution. Recommend approval of integrated annexation package which consists of seven actions: 1) Final Annexation Approval (including Preannexation Agreement); 2) Parcel Merger; 3) Williamson Act Contract; 4) Agricultural Preserve-Open Space Overlay Zoning Amendment; 5) General Plan Amendment; 6) Conditional Use Permit and Variation from Standards; and 7) Design Review. ATTACHMENTS: 1) City Council Staff Report, dated June 2, 2010 2) Build-it-Green Checklist 3) Arborist Report, dated February 24, 2011 207 Application No. PDR10-0017 & CUP10-0010; 22490 Mt. Eden Road Page 10 of 10 4) Geotechnical Clearance, dated November 22, 2010 5) Fire Department Comments, dated October 6, 2010 6) Pre-Annexation Agreement 7) Annexation Resolution 8) Notice and Deed of Merger 9) Williamson Act Contract 10) Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Resolution 11) Zoning and General Plan Amendment Resolution 12) Site Plans (Exhibit A) 13) Colors and Materials Board (Exhibit B) 208 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 2, 2010 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Cynthia McCormick, AICP DIRECTOR: John Livingstone, AICP SUBJECT: Initiation of Annexation of an approximately 2.68 (gross) square foot parcel (APN 503-80-004) located at 22480 Mount Eden Road. Subsequent annexation proceedings will consider a pre-annexation agreement, lot merger, Williamson Act agreement, zoning amendment (AP-OS overlay), and a use permit with variation from standards for the owner’s adjacent 35 acre parcel. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the City Council approve the attached Resolution thereby initiating annexation proceedings for 22480 Mount Eden Road. REPORT SUMMARY: The applicant, GP Farms (c/o Jack Bauer, property manager) has filed an application with the City of Saratoga for annexation approval. The parcel is located in Santa Clara County and is approximately 2.68 (gross) acres. The property (hereinafter referred to as ‘the annexation parcel’) is contiguous with the western limits of the City of Saratoga and is within the City’s Sphere of Influence and Urban Service Boundary. The applicant owns an adjacent parcel of land approximately 35 acres in size that is within the City of Saratoga. (See attachment 3.) The annexation is being proposed to facilitate comprehensive planning for the two parcels together. Prior to the City’s final action on the annexation the applicant has proposed that the City consider a series of proposed actions related to the two parcels. These actions would include a preannexation agreement, a merger of the two parcels, adoption of an Agricultural Preserve/Open Space Zoning Overlay, and approval of a Williamson Act contract for agricultural land preservation, a conditional use permit and variation from standards for the merged parcels, and design review for a remodel of the existing home on the 35 acre parcel. These applications would be considered by the Planning Commission prior to the City Council’s final consideration of the annexation proposal. The remainder of this report provides background information on the annexation parcel and the parcel already within City limits and then describes the various actions that would be considered during the annexation review process. DISCUSSION: 209 Annexation Parcel The 2.68 acre annexation parcel is currently developed with a driveway and a sand equestrian arena which is surrounded by an approximately five foot (5’) high open wood fence. The parcel has public water (San Jose Water) and sanitary sewer service (Cupertino Sanitary District). The annexation parcel is not directly adjacent to Mt. Eden Road but is accessed via a private road that is connected to Mt. Eden Road. The private road is shared among five (5) parcels including the annexation parcel. No structures are proposed for the 2.68 acre parcel and the applicant would reduce the development potential of the lot by merging the lot with the adjacent parcel as described below. Under City of Saratoga standards the development potential of the annexation parcel if not merged is approximately 6,560 square feet of floor area (based on size of 1.55 acre net with 24% average slope). If the parcel is not annexed, Santa Clara County development standards would apply; the applicable County RHS zoning district allows a maximum height of 35-feet and 3-stories, with setbacks of 30 feet in the front, 25 feet in the back, and 20 feet on the sides. Adjacent Parcel The applicant owns a parcel adjacent to the annexation parcel known as “Lindy Farms.” The adjacent parcel is 35.13 acres and was annexed to the City in 2006. Access to this parcel is from an easement across the 2.68 annexation parcel and three other County parcels. The parcel contains a residence, accessory structures, and community stable facilities that existed at the time it was annexed to the City. The main structures include the 5,330 square foot two-story single- family residence with basement, 1,121 square foot detached four-car garage, and 895 square foot detached pool house. The community stable structures include a 13,068 square foot Stable, 791 square foot Workshop, 4,150 square foot Hay Barn, 3,308 square foot Utility Barn, and a 1,492 square foot apartment above the utility barn. The total existing floor area including all living spaces, accessory structures, and community facility structures (enclosed by three or more walls and a roof) is 30,155 square feet. (The foregoing square footage calculations reflect the City Code requirement that any space with an interior height of fifteen feet or greater is double counted 1 . The stable, hay barn, and utility barn all have ceiling heights over 15 feet. The calculations are summarized in the attached table (attachment 5).) The total existing impervious area is 103,450 square feet. The applicant has provided County permits for the existing stable, accessory structures, and apartment. The applicant has indicated that the existing house was built prior to the need for County permits. While the existing structures appear to have been built legally in the County (either with permits or prior to the need for permits), the total floor area and site coverage exceeds the maximum allowed for new development in the City of Saratoga. Trail Easement A dedicated trail easement through both the annexation parcel and the adjacent 35.13 acre parcel was recorded in the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office on July 16, 2007 (Attachment 4). Pre-Annexation Agreement 1 City Code Section 15-45.030 210 Because of the various actions contemplated in connection with the annexation, staff and the applicant believe that pre-annexation agreement will be valuable to facilitate rational comprehensive planning and foster predictability, certainty, economy and efficiency in future land use planning. The pre-annexation agreement will include requirements for the proposed annexation, lot merger, overlay zoning, Williamson Act contract, conditional use permit and variation from standards, and design review/building permit. Parcel Merger The applicant proposes to merge the annexation parcel with the Lindy Farms parcel. The merger will make the two lots into a single lot. This will extinguish the development potential of the annexation parcel for a separate single family home. The merger would take effect upon completion of the annexation. Williamson Act Contract The applicant would also include the entire merged property under a Williamson Act contract. This would require rescinding the existing Williamson Act city contract on the 35.13 acre parcel and simultaneously re-entering a Williamson Act contract for the entire merged property. The Williamson Act contract would include the stables and all other existing uses. The Williamson Act contract would be considered by the Council as part of the final annexation. Agricultural Preserve/Open Space Overlay (AP-OS) The entire merged property would be made subject to the Agricultural Preserve/Open Space Overlay zoning. The AP-OS overlay promotes agricultural uses and is necessary to satisfy legal requirements for land on which Williamson Act contracts are executed and renewed. The overlay zone thereby encourages and preserves such contracts in accordance with the policies set forth in the General Plan. Accordingly, staff will process a Zoning Map amendment application to be made by the applicant for Planning Commission and Council consideration with the annexation approval. Conditional Uses and Variation from Standards City Code Section 15-13.040 allows community stables and associated accessory structures in the Hillside Residential zoning district with a Conditional Use Permit. City Code Section 15- 55.030 allows a variation from site area standards for conditional uses. Under this provision, policy has been to include floor area in the site area variation. As part of the annexation process the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit and variation from standards in order to bring the uses on the site into conformity with City requirements. This will be considered by the Planning Commission as part of its review of the annexation and any Planning Commission action will be contingent on the City Council’s final approval of the annexation. The applicant intends to remodel the existing 5,330 square foot home as shown on the attached plans (Attachment 6). The applicant would add 3,236 square feet of floor area to the first story (including those areas that are double counted due to ceiling height) and reduce the second story by 379 square feet. The new home would be 7,207 square feet with a new 1,682 square foot 211 basement that is excluded from the floor area maximum allowance (which is 8,000 square feet in the HR zoning district). No changes are proposed for the garage or any of the other structures on the property. The remodel would require design review approval by the Planning Commission. Annexation Procedures The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (the Act) provides that cities in Santa Clara County may proceed independently of LAFCO in processing annexation applications within the City’s Urban Service Area (Government Code Section 56757). Where, as here, an annexation applies only to land owned by the person requesting annexation, the City is allowed to initiate annexation proceedings without a formal public hearing. The Act requires that cities follow the procedures used by LAFCO to the extent practicable. The Act establishes a three-part process for annexations: (1) Initiation of Annexation; (2) Protest Proceedings which may be waived by the City Council; and (3) Approval of Annexation. Furthermore, the City Council is required to make findings pursuant to Government Code Section 56757 prior to adopting the resolution approving the annexation. After the resolution is adopted, a certified copy of the resolution and paperwork is submitted to LAFCO. The Act and other state laws require the preparation of a number of documents as part of the annexation process. These documents fall into three categories: a service plan, LAFCO materials, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) materials. These are described below: Service Plan All annexations are to begin with a proposed service plan for the area to be annexed. This plan includes a description of the parcel to be annexed; the reasons for the proposal; and a listing and description including the level, range, any change to, and financing of services to be provided to the annexed parcel (see attachment 2). The service plan should also include an indication of any improvement or upgrading of structures, roads, sewer or water facilities, or other conditions that the City would impose or require on the annexed lands. No inhabited territory will be annexed as part of this proposal and all services will be consistent with the current conditions. LAFCO Materials – Cities in Santa Clara County proceeding independently of LAFCO are required to make the findings listed below before approving an annexation. The formal findings need not be made until the end of the process. Each finding is followed by a brief description of Staff’s review. • That the unincorporated territory is within the urban service area of the city as adopted by Commission. Staff had confirmed that the property to be annexed is within the City’s Urban Service Area. • That the County Surveyor has determined the boundaries of the proposal to be definite and certain, and in compliance with LAFCO’s road annexation policies. The City will be providing a map prepared by the applicant to the County Surveyor once initiation of annexation has been approved by the City Council. 212 • That the proposal does not split lines of assessment or ownership. Staff has determined that the property to be annexed does not split lines of assessment or ownership. • That the proposal does not create islands or areas in which it would be difficult to provide municipal services. Staff has reviewed the geography of the proposed annexation and concluded that it would not create an island or present difficulties in providing municipal services since the majority of the services will remain unchanged. • That the proposal is consistent with the adopted General Plan of the City. The land use designation for the annexation parcel is RHC (Residential Hillside Conservation). The land has been pre-zoned HR (Hillside Residential) which is consistent with the General Plan Designation and the surrounding zoning. The General Plan provides that lands in the hillsides should be considered for annexation if they meet the following Policy: Policy LU 14 – Land shall not be annexed to Saratoga unless it is contiguous to the existing city limits, within the Sphere of Influence, and it is determined by the city that public services can be provided without unreasonable cost to the City and dilution of services to existing residents. As discussed throughout this document, the annexation parcel is contiguous to the existing city limits, is within the Sphere of Influence, and has existing public services that would not unreasonably change the cost to the City or dilute services to existing residents. California Environmental Quality Act Annexations such as this one are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (14 Cal Code §15319). The Category 19 Exemption includes annexations of individual small parcels of the minimum size for facilities exempted by Section 15303 which exempts up to three single-family residences. CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. This annexation would not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment because the area contains existing public utilities. FISCAL IMPACTS: No impact. The applicant is responsible for all City review fees and LAFCO processing fees. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: Future development of the annexation parcel would be subject to requirements of Santa Clara County in lieu of City of Saratoga development standards. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Deny the proposed resolution initiating annexation and provide Staff with direction. FOLLOW UP ACTION: 213 At the direction of Council, Staff will proceed with the annexation approval procedure. The proposal for the addition, conditional use permit, and variation from standards will require Planning Commission review and approval. The zoning amendment, Williamson Act, Pre- Annexation Agreement, and final annexation approval will require final approval by the City Council at a future meeting. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: This item was posted as a City Council agenda item and was included in the packet made available on the City’s web site in advance of the meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is also made available at the Saratoga Branch Library each Monday in advance of the Council meeting and residents may subscribe to the agenda on-line by opting in at www.saratoga.ca.us. Noticing is not required. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution approving Initiation of the Annexation 2. List of Services Report 3. Proposed Lot Merger and Annexation Map 4. Trail Easement Map 5. Floor Area and Lot Coverage Table 6. Proposed Plans for addition to existing home (separate attachment) 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 Page 1 of 8 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ARBORIST REPORT Application #:ARB10-0028 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist 22490 Mt. Eden Road Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: South Thunder LLC Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN 503-09-003 Report History: #1 Date: July 26, 2010 #2 November 10, 2010 #3 December 2, 2010 #4 Final December 15, 2010 #5 Revises and replaces December 15 report February 24, 2011 This report replaces and revises the report dated December 15, 2010, and reconsiders the removal of deodar cedar #2. This report in its entirety should be included in the plans for the project. Previous reports do not need to be included in the final set of plans. INTRODUCTION The applicant plans to add on to the existing house to the front and to the rear, and to connect the garage to the main house. They also plan to remove significant portions of the landscape around the house and to reconfigure, remove and replace the driveway. Revised plans were submitted to the City for review on November 22, 2010. Five trees (#1, 2, 3, 4 and 8) are requested for removal to construct the project. They meet the criteria for removal (see Findings below) and may be removed and replaced as part of this project. This project has clearance from the arborist to proceed, with the conditions noted below. SITE VISIT, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION Plans submitted to the City for this project include architectural plans prepared by Michael Vierhus and dated July 26, 2010, and landscape plans prepared by Zeterre and dated September 15, 2010. Plan sheets reviewed for this report included Sheet L1.0, Site Plan; Sheet L2.0, Demolition Plan; Sheet L3.0, Full Parcel Site Plan; Sheet A-2, First Floor Plan; Sheet A-3, Basement and Second Floor Plan; Sheet A-4, Elevations; and Sheet A-5, Sections. Revised plans were submitted to the City for review on November 22, 2010. Revised plans include Sheet L4.0, Grading, which was not included in the first submittal. The Site Plan, Sheet L1.0 and Demolition Plan, Sheet L2.0, were revised to include all trees and additional information requested in the November 10, 2010 arborist report. Twenty one trees protected by City ordinance and potentially impacted by construction were inventoried for this report. Data for each tree is included in a Tree Inventory Table at the end of this 223 22490 Mt. Eden Road Page 2 of 8 report. Locations of trees are marked on the attached site map. Inventoried trees include seven American elms (#1, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 17), one deodar cedar (#2), one camphor tree (#3), one Siberian elm (#4), three coast live oaks (#5, 21 and 22), two coast redwoods (#6 and 7), two Monterey pines (#9 and 19), one swamp gum eucalyptus (#10), two valley oaks (#13 and 14), and one carob (#18). Appraisal values of trees were calculated using the Trunk Formula Method and according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000, in conjunction with the Species Classification and Group Assignment published by the Western Chapter of the ISA, 2004. Trees #1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 are requested for removal to construct the project. Findings that permit the removal of trees #1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 are listed below. It will be acceptable to remove these five trees, and replace them with new trees equal to their total appraised value of $35,640, as part of the project. Planning and Building permits must be obtained prior to removal of these trees. Tree #5 is a coast live oak in good condition. It is shown to be removed on the demo plan, but is also shown on the landscape plan, as though it is to be preserved. The applicant has clarified that tree #5 will be retained and preserved during construction. Pine tree #9 may be impacted by the proposed changes in the driveway location and materials as well as the retaining wall next to it. The proposed design shows the driveway wrapping around this pine at a distance of about 8 feet from the tree’s trunk. Excavation to install the driveway and retaining wall will likely have a significant impact on the tree and could cause a decline in its health. Therefore, excavation will not be permitted under the canopy of this tree to construct the new driveway. In order to adequately protect tree #9, the new driveway must be installed entirely on top of grade, and the new driveway materials must be considered pervious, such as pavers on sand or grass-crete. It is acceptable to contain pavers with a concrete curb on top of grade. A retaining wall next to the driveway under the canopy of this pine is not permitted as part of this project, unless it is at least 15 feet from the tree trunk or is entirely on top of grade. Removal of the asphalt driveway near tree #10 will improve the environment around it giving it more room for the root system. The proposed equestrian pathway on either side of the tree does not show the materials it will be made of and they should be called out on the plans. Decomposed granite or other pervious materials are acceptable. It is not clear if there will be a curb all the way around the tree or if there is some other landscape element that defines the planting space for this tree. No excavation will be permitted under this tree and concrete should not be installed under its canopy. Tree #13 is a valley oak in good condition which is still shown on the south side of the gym instead of the east side and should be surveyed and shown in its actual location. Trees #13 and 14 are valley oaks, and tree #15 is an American elm. These three trees grow right next to the gym. Any work that is done to the exterior of the gym, such as stucco, replacing windows, or painting, has the potential to impact trees #13, 14 and 15. To adequately protect these trees, the trunks should be wrapped with straw waddle (usually used for erosion control) to a height of 8 feet and a layer of wood chips six inches deep should be placed under their canopies to prevent compaction of the soil under them before the start of construction. Tree contractors are often able to provide wood chips at no charge to the recipient. No chemicals or rinse water from paint or stucco 224 22490 Mt. Eden Road Page 3 of 8 may be dumped here – instead a designated rinsing spot should be created away from any trees. The only equipment allowed in this area will be wheel barrows, ladders and other hand held equipment. Demolition of the asphalt walkway should be done by hand where it is under the canopy of tree #13. No excavation will be permitted for the new stone patio under tree #13. Instead, it should be installed entirely on top of grade, and the stones should be set in sand rather than concrete. It is acceptable to contain this patio with a concrete curb on top of grade. Materials for this patio must also allow water to percolate into the ground. Tree #17, also an American elm, grows right next to the deck that will be demolished. In order to adequately protect this tree, care will be needed during demolition to avoid damaging and breaking limbs on the tree. Equipment should remain on the asphalt pathway during the demolition of the deck. Any portions of the deck that cannot be reached from this location should be demolished by hand. A layer of wood chips should be placed under this tree in the same manner as for trees #13 – 15. The dog kennel has been relocated away from tree #19, a Monterey pine in fair condition. This tree can now be adequately protected during construction. The new location for the kennel is adjacent to the gym, which is acceptable. Per City Ordinance 15-50.080, a Tree Protection security deposit in the amount of $113,720, which is equal to 100% of the appraised value of trees #5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, is required. This amount is revised from the previous report, to include additional trees impacted by demolition and new landscape construction. Owner shall obtain, and file with the Community Development Director, the required security deposit prior to the receipt of building permits. The security deposit may be in the form of a savings account, a certificate of deposit account or a bond. The security deposit will be held by the City until construction has been completed, a final inspection with the City Arborist occurs, and all trees potentially impacted by the work have been determined to be in a condition similar to the original condition prior to start of construction. If any tree is found to have been impacted during construction by the work, impacts shall be corrected according to instructions provided by the City Arborist during the final inspection of the project. FINDINGS Per Article 15-50.080, the project was reviewed with respect to the removal of trees #1, 2, 3, 4 and 8. Trees #1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 meet the criteria listed below, overall, for removal. They may be removed and replaced as part of the project following receipt of Planning and Building permits. 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; 225 22490 Mt. Eden Road Page 4 of 8 (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. Trees #1 and 8 are American elms in fair health. They meet criteria #1, 2 and #8 in that tree #1 has a history of dropping limbs over the walkway from the driveway to the front door, and both trees have poor structure resulting from past pruning. In addition, both are infested with elm leaf beetles which feed on the leaves, causing a negative impact on their health. Tree #1 is very close to the proposed addition at the front of the house and will be significantly impacted by the work. Criterion #3 does not pertain to this situation as this is a flat part of the property. They meet criterion #4 in that both trees #1 and 8 are surrounded by other trees of a variety of species that are in good health. Their removal will not significantly impact shade, privacy, scenic beauty or property values for the owner or the neighbors. They meet criterion #5 in that so many trees are planted in this area, that they are too crowded for good forestry practices. Normally it would be preferable to remove smaller trees, but in this case, the smaller trees are preferred species, in better health, and easier to transplant out of the project area than these two trees. Removal of trees #1 and 8 is consistent with the general purpose of Article 15-50.080 which is to balance the rights of the property owner with the intent to maintain the semi-rural nature of the city. There are many trees on the property, the location is up in the hills, and the applicant is preserving as much of the existing house as possible, rather than removing it completely and starting over (criterion #7). Lastly, removal of these trees meets criterion #9, in that it is necessary to remove them in order for the applicant to remodel the house. It is therefore acceptable to remove these trees to construct the project. Tree #2 is a deodar cedar in good health with a canopy spread of approximately 40 feet. The tree does meet criterion #1, in that the proximity of the tree to the proposed addition will place the tree right outside the doors of the house after construction. Limbs can be pruned back to the trunk of the tree to clear the addition as well as the gym, but the trunk of the tree will remain right outside the doors. The tree is not causing or threatening damage to the proposed or existing house, so does not meet criterion #2. Replacement of the tree and surrounding walkway with a fire pit and patio could potentially affect erosion in the area, but it is not clear that it will make a significant impact one way or the other, so it appears that this criterion is not significant (criterion #3). The tree meets criterion #4 in that its removal does not affect the shade, scenic beauty of the property, or privacy impact of the neighbors due to its location, and there are many trees in the area around the house. In addition, a requirement of the project will be to plant new trees to replace this tree as part of the project. Removal of tree #2 does meet criterion #5 in that the nearby redwoods and oak will become increasingly crowded as they mature, and removal of this tree will provide significantly more room for the other three trees, which are native to this area. Removal of this tree does not meet criterion #6 in that there are alternatives to expanding the great room out towards this trees. Removal of this tree is consistent with the intent and general purpose of this Article (criterion #7) in that there are many trees around the house that will be preserved, new trees will be planted to replace the ones removed, and the project proposes to preserve the existing house rather than remove it and construct a new house, which would have an impact on more trees. Removal of this tree does meet criterion #8, in that the house is in a very high fire hazard area and this tree is considered more of a fire hazard than other species around the house. This tree does meet criterion #9 in that it is necessary to remove the tree for economic enjoyment of the property by the owner. 226 22490 Mt. Eden Road Page 5 of 8 Tree #3 is a camphor tree in good health. It meets criteria #1 in that it is very close to a retaining wall with a built-in seat on one side, and in conflict with the proposed addition on the other side. Camphor trees become quite large and have a massive and pronounced root system that becomes raised over time and can cause significant damage. This tree meets criterion #2 in that, if it were left in place (even without the proposed addition) this tree would cause significant damage in the near term. It meets criterion #4 in that removal of the tree would not significantly affect shade, privacy, property values or scenic beauty of the property. It meets criteria #6 in that there are no alternatives to removing the tree; even though the house could be left unchanged, it threatens damage to the existing retaining wall and seat wall. This tree meets criterion #7 in that removal of this tree is not in conflict with the general purpose of this article and it will be replaced with new trees as part of the project. The tree meets criterion #9 in that retention of the tree would prevent remodeling the house. It is acceptable to remove this tree to construct the project. Tree #4 is a Siberian elm in fair health with a pronounced lean. This tree meets criterion #1, in that it is in danger of falling. It should be removed before it fails. It grows very close to a coast live oak and two redwoods, which are in good health and can be retained and preserved during the project. New trees equal to the total appraised value of trees #1, 2, 3, 4 and 8, which is $35,640, will be required to replace trees approved for removal to construct the project. The plans should indicate the locations, numbers and sizes of new trees for the project. Replacement values assigned to new trees can be found at the bottom of the Tree Inventory Table. Per Section 15-50.120, this project meets the requirements for the setback of new construction from protected trees if constructed with the conditions noted below under the Requirements section. REQUIREMENTS 1. This entire report, including the Tree Inventory Table and map showing locations of trees and protective fencing, shall be incorporated into the final set of plans and titled “Tree Preservation”. No other reports are required in the final set of plans. 2. Trees shall be numbered on the plans for ease of reference. 3. Tree #13 should be shown in its location on the east side of the gym. 4. 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. 5. Applicant is responsible for protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction work. Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities under this Code. 6. 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. Call City Arborist, 227 22490 Mt. Eden Road Page 6 of 8 Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection after the fence has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division permits. 7. Signs shall be posted on tree protection fencing. Signs shall say “PROTECTED TREES – DO NOT REMOVE WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST”. This information shall also be translated into Spanish and posted on the fences. 8. 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.Straw waddle (usually used for erosion control) shall be wound around the trunks of trees #13, 14 and 15, from the ground to a height of 8 feet up the trunk. This shall be done prior to installing tree protection fencing. 9. A layer of wood chips six inches deep shall be spread under the canopies of trees #13, 14, 15 and 17 prior to installing tree protection fences. This depth of wood chips shall be maintained throughout the project. 10. Once established, the tree protection fencing, wood chips under trees, and straw waddle must be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. Fencing may not be moved or taken down during construction. If a part of the work appears to need to occur inside a fenced area, contact the City Arborist, Kate Bear to discuss. Do not proceed without prior approval from the City. 11. Owner shall obtain, and file with the Community Development Director, a Tree Protection security deposit in the amount of $113,720 (for trees #5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19), prior to obtaining building division permits. The security deposit shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project to ensure the protection of the trees. Once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City Arborist, the bond will be released. 12. Trees #1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 are approved for removal and replacement as part of this project. They shall not be removed until all planning and building permits have been obtained. 13. New trees equal to $35,640 shall be planted following construction to replace trees #1, 2, 3, 4 and 8. Replacement values of trees can be found at the bottom of the Tree Inventory Table that is attached to the end of this report. Replacement trees may be of any species, and planted anywhere on the property. If there is insufficient room on the property to plant the required number of new trees, some or all of the appraised value of the tree may be paid into the City’s Tree Fund. 14. The new driveway shall be constructed entirely on top of grade where it is located under the canopy of tree #9. Driveway materials shall be considered pervious, such as pavers on sand or grass-crete. It is acceptable to contain the new driveway with a concrete curb on top of grade. 15. No excavation or addition of fill soil is permitted: 228 22490 Mt. Eden Road Page 7 of 8 a. Under the canopies of trees 5, 6 and 7 b. Within 15 feet of tree #9 for the driveway or retaining wall c. Under the canopy of tree #10 for the equestrian path d. Under the canopy of trees #13 for the patio 16. Materials for the equestrian pathway under tree #10 and the stone yoga patio under tree #13 shall be pervious, such as pavers on sand, decomposed granite or other materials approved by the City. 17. Trees shall be watered as necessary to ensure good health through the warm dry months during construction. 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 6 inches. Intervals of watering should be at least monthly and as often as weekly, as determined by the species and maturity of tree. 18. Trenching and cutting of roots for new utilities, if they are intended as part of the project, is not permitted under tree canopies. If a utility connection or piping for a utility is required under a tree canopy, excavation shall be by hand, with an air spade, or using another method approved by the City Arborist prior to performing work. All roots measuring 2 inches or greater shall be retained intact and preserved unless approved for cutting by the City Arborist. Roots measuring less than 2 inches may be cut using a sharp pruning tool. Utilities include, but are not limited to, electrical, drainage, water, sewer, gas and irrigation for landscaping. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. Locate irrigation heads so they do not spray the trunk of any tree. e. Irrigation lines 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. 23. Select plants with similar water requirements to the trees under which they will be placed. 229 22490 Mt. Eden Road Page 8 of 8 24. 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. 25. Landscaping under oak trees: a. Only mulch is permitted under the inner half of the canopy. b. Only drought tolerant plants that are compatible with oaks are permitted under the outer half of the canopy. c. Water loving plants are not permitted under oaks. d. Lawns are not permitted under the canopies of oaks. 26. 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. 27. Removal of the topsoil under tree canopies is not permitted. 28. Following completion of construction and prior to removing tree protection fencing, contact City Arborist Kate Bear at 408 868-1276, for a final inspection. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Map showing tree locations and tree protective fencing 230 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO. TREE NAME Trunk Diameter (in,) - per Guide for Plant AppraisalEstimated Canopy Spread (ft.)Health Condition (100% = best, 0% = worst)Structural Integrity (100% = best, 0% = worst)Overall ConditionSuitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Intensity of Impacts (1 = Highest, 5 = Lowest)In Conflict with Proposed DesignNot Shown on PlansOn Adjacent ProprtyAppraised ValueAmerican elm 1 Ulmus americana 28.5 40 50 50 Fair Low 2 $6,600 Deodar cedar 2 Cedrus deodara 25.8 40 70 50 Good Moderate 2 $17,100 Camphor 3 Cinnamomum camphora 15.7 30 70 70 Good Moderate 2 X $9,300 Siberian elm 4 Ulmus pumila 16.8 25 50 0 Poor Remove 4 $0 Coast live oak 5 Quercus agrifolia 22.8 40 80 80 Good High 3 $18,700 Coast redwood 6 Sequoia sempervirens 28.4 25 70 70 Good High 3 $13,200 Coast redwood 7 Sequoia sempervirens 20.4 25 70 70 Good High 3 $11,000 American elm 8 Umus americana 17 30 70 50 Good Low 2 $2,640 Monterey pineMonterey pine 9 Pinus radiata 21.8 40 70 60 Fair High 3 $5,900 Swamp gum 10 Eucalyptus rudis 26 35 70 60 Fair High 2 $4,510 American elm 11 Ulmus americana 12 30 50 70 Fair Moderate 3 $1,480 American elm 12 Ulmus americana 22.9 40 50 50 Fair Moderate 2 $2,990 Valley oak 13 Quercus lobata 18.2 45 70 70 Good High 1 X $14,000 Valley oak 14 Quercus lobata 23.7 45 80 80 Good High 1 X X $24,500 American elm 15 Ulmus americana 14.5 30 70 60 Fair Moderate 2 X $1,560 22490 Mt. Eden Road November 10, 2010 231 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO. TREE NAME Trunk Diameter (in,) - per Guide for Plant AppraisalEstimated Canopy Spread (ft.)Health Condition (100% = best, 0% = worst)Structural Integrity (100% = best, 0% = worst)Overall ConditionSuitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Intensity of Impacts (1 = Highest, 5 = Lowest)In Conflict with Proposed DesignNot Shown on PlansOn Adjacent ProprtyAppraised ValueAmerican elm 16 Ulmus americana 14 30 70 60 Fair Moderate 3 X $2,060 American elm 17 Ulmus americana 19 30 60 60 Fair Moderate 2 X $2,680 Carob 14, 8.8, 18 Ceratonia siliqua 15.1 35 70 40 Fair Moderate 2 X $7,300 Monterey pine 19 Pinus radiata 20.5 25 70 50 Fair Moderate 1 X $3,840 Coast live oak 20 Quercus agrifolia 23.6 50 80 50 Good High 2 $17,000 Coast live oak 11.8, 21 Quercus agrifolia 17.5 35 70 40 Fair High 2 $11,600 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 ,, , 22490 Mt. Eden Road November 10, 2010 232 22490 Mt. Eden Road Legend Tree Protective Fencing Tree Canopy 1 4 3 2 7 6 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 20 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 SOUTH THUNDER, LLC PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT Page 1 of 10 SOUTH THUNDER, LLC PREANNEXATION AGREEMENT THIS PREANNEXATION AGREEMENT (Agreement) is made and entered into this ___ day of _______, 2011, by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA (City), a municipal corporation of the State of California, and the SOUTH THUNDER LLC (Owner). The Owner and the City are collectively referred to herein as the Parties. R E C I T A L S A. WHEREAS, Owner is the owner of a certain undeveloped parcel of real property (approximately 2.68 acres) located in the County of Santa Clara within the City Sphere of Influence and Urban Service Area and more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (“Annexation Property”); B. WHEREAS, Owner is also the owner of a certain parcel of real property (approximately 35.13 acres in size) adjoining the Annexation Property and located entirely within the City of Saratoga and more particularly described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (“Principal Property”), which said Principal Property is subject to a Williamson Act contract with the County of Santa Clara, which is attached hereto as Exhibit D and hereby incorporated by reference. Pursuant to Government Code Section 51243, when the Principal Property was annexed to the City of Saratoga in 2006, on and after the effective date of the annexation by the City of any land under Williamson Act Contract with the County, the City succeeded to all rights, duties, and powers of the County under the contract. The Principal Property is currently developed with a single family dwelling, garage, hay barn, utility barn (with an upstairs apartment), stables, a horse riding arena, pool house, and workshop; C. WHEREAS, Owner has submitted a Development Proposal seeking to obtain a Conditional Use Permit with a Variation from Standards for its existing stables, and approval to remodel and increase the square footage of the single family dwelling located on the Principal Property by 2907 net square feet; D. WHEREAS, any approval of the Development Proposal will be partially in consideration of the fact that, and based on a requirement that, the Development Proposal includes merger of Principal Property and Annexation Property into a single legal parcel for planning and land use purposes (such that the development potential for a single family dwelling on the Annexation Property will be extinguished); E. WHEREAS, Owner currently has no future plans for use or development of the Principal Property and/or the Annexation Property other than the proposed Use Permit for existing stables and expansion of the existing single family dwelling contained in the Development Proposal; F WHEREAS, annexation of the Annexation Property to the City in accordance with the terms of this Agreement will result in rational comprehensive planning and foster predictability, certainty, economy and efficiency in future land use planning; 241 SOUTH THUNDER, LLC PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT Page 2 of 10 G. WHEREAS, concurrent with annexation of the Annexation Property to the City, Owner shall merge the Principal Property with the Annexation Property into a single legal parcel (the “Merged Property”) for planning and land use purposes, and shall rescind the Williamson Act contract for the Principal Property and simultaneously re-enter a Williamson Act contract covering the entire Merged Property, and shall apply for a Conditional Use Permit and Variation from Standards for the benefit of the entire Development Proposal located on the Principal Property; and H. WHEREAS, the purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the City's and Owner’s respective responsibilities and understandings in pursuing and achieving annexation of the Annexation Property and approval of the Development Proposal; hence, the Parties intend and agree that the Annexation Property be annexed to the City subject to the following specified agreements and conditions. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Annexation . A Resolution Initiating Annexation having been approved by the City Council, Owner and City agree that for the purposes and goals and subject to the agreements and conditions set forth in the Recitals above, and in order to provide for rational long-term land use planning, the Annexation Property may be processed for final annexation into the City. City agrees to take the steps necessary to achieve annexation of the Annexation Property at the soonest reasonable opportunity, including referral of the matters in paragraph 2 below to staff and the Planning Commission. Owner hereby consents to annexation of the Annexation Property and agrees to support said annexation. 2. Application and Approval for Use Permit for Stables and Expansion of Single Family Dwelling . The Owner agrees to formally submit a development proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit C (Development Proposal), to the City which includes the following essential elements: a. Conditional Use Permit and Variation from Standards. The Owner shall submit a complete Application and obtain City approval for a Conditional Use Permit for the stables and a Variation of Standards as to site area, site coverage and/or floor area for the entire Development Proposal to be located on the Merged Property; b. Parcel Merger. The Owner shall submit to the City a complete, executed and recordation ready and acceptable Notice and Deed of Voluntary Merger for parcel merger and otherwise take all necessary steps to merge the Annexation Property with the Principal Property into a single legal parcel (the “Merged Property”) for planning and land use purposes (such that the development potential for a single family dwelling on the Annexation Property will be extinguished). The merger shall constitute a material basis of the support for the required findings for the Variation from Standards and the Merged Property shall not be subsequently subdivided so long as any portion of the resulting 242 SOUTH THUNDER, LLC PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT Page 3 of 10 Merged Property is subject to a Williamson Act contract, or the City’s AP-OS overlay zoning district has not been removed by the City; c. Williamson Act Contract. The Owner shall submit a complete application and obtain City approval to rescind the Williamson Act contract on the Principal Property and simultaneously re-enter a Williamson Act contract covering the entire Merged Property, which Williamson Act contract shall include the stables and all other existing uses as compatible uses; d. Agricultural Preserve/Open Space Overlay. Owner shall submit a complete application and obtain City approval to add AP-OS overlay zoning to the entire Merged Property; and e. General Plan Amendment for Annexation Property. Owner shall submit a complete application and obtain City approval to amend the current Hillside Open Space (HOS) Pre-General Plan designation on the Annexation Property to a post-annexation General Plan designation of Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC); and f. Design Review/Building Permit: Owner shall be required to obtain a Design Review Approval for the expansion of the single family dwelling and a Building Permit(s) as required by the City Code for implementation of the Development Proposal once approved. Owner shall have the option of submitting applications for Design Review and Building Permit as part of the Development Proposal, or may alternatively submit those applications subsequent, and subject, to approval of the Annexation. 3. Final Annexation Process . The City staff and Planning Commission, shall review the Development Proposal submitted under Paragraph 2 above and make recommendations to the City Council which shall take such action thereon, and such action as to final annexation, as it deems to be in the best interests of the City. 4. Survival of Rights and Obligations . The rights and obligations of the Parties as set forth in this Agreement shall survive annexation of the Annexation Property to the City. 5. Termination of Agreement . This Agreement shall have no further force and effect and each Party shall be released from the obligations set forth herein in the event that annexation of the Annexation Property to the City has not become final (including an executed LAFCO Certificate of Completion) within twelve (12) months after the effective date of this Agreement. 6. Legal Action. Any party may, in addition to any other rights or remedies herein provided, institute legal action to cure, correct, or remedy any default, enforce any covenant or agreement herein, enjoin any threatened or attempted violation hereof, enforce by specific performance the obligations and rights of the Parties hereto or obtain any other remedy consistent with this Agreement. In no event shall any party be entitled hereunder to monetary damages for any action or inaction of another party hereunder, including breach of contract. Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to limit any party’s rights under the Tort Claims Act or the City’s right 243 SOUTH THUNDER, LLC PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT Page 4 of 10 to collect fees allowable and otherwise due and payable or to impose penalties for violations of City Ordinances. 7. Attorneys Fees and Costs . If legal action by any party is brought because of a breach of this Agreement, or to enforce a provision of this Agreement, each party shall bear their own attorneys fees and costs. 8. Controlling Law . This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accord with the laws of the State of California. 9. No Joint Venture or Partnership . The Parties hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between any or all of the Parties and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making any or all of the Parties joint venturers or partners. Further, the Owner is not an agent of the City. 10. Agreement By Owner To Indemnify, Hold Harmless And Defend City As To Action(s) Challenging Approval Of Annexation, This Preannexation Agreement And All City Actions Processed Prior To Or Concurrently With The Annexation And As To Damage From Performance Of Work Authorized By Any Of Such Actions . Owner (or Owner’s successor(s) performing work described in Subsection b. below) hereby agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers (collectively “City”) harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action by City on the subject Annexation, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to or concurrently with said Annexation; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of the construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner, or by Owner’s successor(s), or by any person acting on their behalf, authorized by any City action described in subparagraph 10.a. above. Owner’s obligations under subparagraph 10 above shall prevail over any other provision in this Preannexation Agreement . 11. Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge . In the event of any administrative, legal or equitable action or other proceeding instituted by a third party, governmental agency or official challenging the validity of any provision of this Agreement or the annexation proceedings described herein, the Parties shall cooperate in defending the action or proceeding. 12. Notices . 244 SOUTH THUNDER, LLC PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT Page 5 of 10 All notices or communications required hereunder between the Parties shall be in writing and may be given either personally, by overnight carrier, or by first class mail, addressed to the party intended to be notified. The notice shall be deemed to have been given and received on the date delivered in person, or the date of delivery receipt from the overnight carrier, or five days after deposit with the United States Post Office. Any Party hereto, by giving ten (10) days written notice to the other, may designate any other address as substitution of the address to which the notice or communication shall be given. Notices or communications shall be given to the Parties at the addresses set forth below until duly changed as set forth above. City of Saratoga South Thunder LLC/Owner City Clerk Brooks & Hess City of Saratoga William Brooks 13777 Fruitvale Avenue 577 Salmar Avenue, Second Floor Saratoga, CA 95070 Campbell San Jose, CA 95008 Office: (408) 866-5800 Copy to: Richard S. Taylor City Attorney City of Saratoga Shute Mihaly & Weinberger LLP 396 Hayes Street San Francisco, CA 94102 13. Miscellaneous . a. Successor and Assigns. The covenants, terms, conditions and restrictions of this Agreement shall apply to, bind and inure to the benefit of successors in interest of the Parties hereto, including heirs, assigns, representatives, executors, administrators and all other parties, whether they succeed by operation of law or voluntary acts of the City or Owner. All such heirs, representatives, successors, executors, or assigns shall be bound to every provision in this Agreement, whether or not this Agreement is referred to in the instrument by which such heirs, representatives, successors, executors, or assigns acquire an interest in Owner’s Properties or any thereof b. Parties in Interest. This Agreement is entered only for the benefit of the Parties executing this Agreement and not for the benefit of any other individual, entity or person. c. Amendment of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended in writing by mutual agreement of the original Parties or their successors in interest. d. Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the 245 SOUTH THUNDER, LLC PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT Page 6 of 10 remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect, unless the provision held invalid forms a material consideration of this Agreement. e. Change in Law. If a subsequent change occurs in federal or state laws or the regulations of a federal or state agency which prevents or precludes compliance with a provision of this Agreement, that provision shall be modified or suspended only to the extent necessary to comply with the federal or state law or regulation. f. Enforceability. Unless this Agreement is amended or terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be enforceable by any party hereto notwithstanding any change hereinafter enacted or adopted in any applicable General Plan or Specific Plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance or any other land use or building ordinance. g. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, and the conditions referred to herein, and the exhibits attached hereto, constitute the entire understanding and agreement of the parties and supersede all negotiations or previous agreement of the parties with respect to all or party of the subject matter hereof. No alteration or variation of this instrument shall be valid or binding unless contained in an amendment to this Agreement. h. Captions. The captions in this Agreement have been inserted solely for convenience or reference and are not a part of this instrument and shall have no effect upon construction or interpretation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective representatives as follows: CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA a Municipal Corporation Approved as to Form: ___________________________ By: ________________________ Richard Taylor, City Attorney Dave Anderson, City Manager ATTEST: ___________________________ Ann Sullivan, City Clerk South Thunder LLC, Owner By: _____________________ [Authorized Signatory] 246 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Annexation Property 247 EXHIBIT B Legal Description of Principal Property 248 EXHIBIT C Development Proposal 249 EXHIBIT D Williamson Act Contract (Principal Property) 250 Resolution Recommending Approval of Annexation of APN 503-09-004 (22480 Mount Eden Road) Page 1 RESOLUTION NO __________ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA OF A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22480 MOUNT EDEN ROAD AND ITS CONCURRENT MERGER WITH ADJOINING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22490 MOUNT EDEN ROAD AND ITS CONCURRENT LAND CONSERVATION (WILLIAMSON ACT) CONTRACT FOR THE ENTIRE MERGED PROPERTY South Thunder LLC - APN 503-09-004 WHEREAS, the City Council has referred consideration of its initiation of annexation proceedings for an approximately 2.68-acre property, hereinafter referred to as 'the territory', APN 503-09-004, contiguous to the City of Saratoga and described in Exhibits "A" (legal description) and "B" (plat map) hereto in order to provide for use of City services and to apply the terms of the City General Plan and City Code to development proposals initiated after completion of the annexation; and WHEREAS, concurrent with annexation, the territory is proposed to be merged with the adjoining approximately 35.13-acre property and the entire Merged Property is proposed to become restricted by a Land Conservation (Williamson Act) Contract; and WHEREAS, the merger described in the preceding paragraph shall constitute a material basis of the support for the required findings for the Variation from Standards granted by the City on _________ __, 2011 and the Merged Property shall not be subsequently subdivided so long as any portion of the resulting Merged Property is subject to a Williamson Act contract, or the City’s AP-OS overlay zoning district has not been removed by the City; and WHEREAS, these annexation proceedings may be found to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guideline 15319 which exempts annexations to a city of areas containing existing private structures developed to the density allowed by the current zoning or pre-zoning of either the gaining or losing governmental agency whichever is more restrictive, provided, however, that the extension of utility services to the existing facilities would have a capacity to serve only the existing facilities; and WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 56757, the City Council of the City of Saratoga is the conducting authority for the annexation; and WHEREAS, the territory to be annexed at 22480 Mount Eden Road is in the City of Saratoga’s Urban Service Area and Sphere of Influence, has a Pre-General Plan designation of H-OS (Hillside-Open Space) which is proposed to be amended to RHC (Residential Hillside Conservation) concurrent with this annexation, and is pre-zoned as HR (Hillside Residential) and proposed to have AP-OS (Agricultural Preserve-Open Space) Overlay Zoning added concurrent with the proposed annexation; and WHEREAS, upon approval of initiation of annexation on June 2, 2010, this annexation was referred to the Planning Commission for recommendations to the City Council regarding 251 Resolution Recommending Approval of Annexation of APN 503-09-004 (22480 Mount Eden Road) Page 2 final action on the actual Annexation Approval, a Preannexation Agreement, Parcel Merger, Land Conservation (Williamson Act) Contract agreement, General Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment, Use Permit, Variation from Standards, Design Review Approval and CEQA exemption. WHEREAS, the proposed annexation is consistent with the West Valley Hillsides Preservation Strategies, Strategy #2, Action 1 and 2; and WHEREAS, because there is one hundred percent (100%) owner consent for the annexation proceedings, no notice, public hearing or election will be required for annexation approval by the City; and WHEREAS, the City has consulted with the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters and has determined that said territory is considered uninhabited for the purposes of annexation proceedings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby makes the following findings and recommendations: A. That the annexation is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA pursuant to section 15319 of the CEQA Guidelines. B. That the unincorporated territory to be annexed is within the urban service area of the City as adopted by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission. C. That the Santa Clara County Surveyor has made a preliminary determination that the boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed are definite and certain, and in compliance with LAFCO's road annexation policies and that this resolution shall become effective only upon receipt by the City Clerk of the City of Saratoga of a final determination by the County Surveyor that the boundaries of the proposal are definite and certain and in compliance with LAFCO's road annexation policies. D. That the proposal does not split lines of assessment or ownership and that this fact has been confirmed by the Santa Clara County Assessor's Office. E. That the proposal does not create islands or areas in which it would be difficult to provide municipal services. F. That the proposal will consistent with the General Plan and Zoning of the City in that the property proposed for annexation has a Pre-General Plan designation of H-OS (Hillside-Open Space) which is being amended to RHC (Residential Hillside Conservation) concurrent with this annexation, and is pre-zoned as HR (Hillside Residential) to which AP-OS (Agricultural Preserve-Open Space) Overlay Zoning is being added concurrent with this annexation. G. That the territory is contiguous to the existing City limits. 252 Resolution Recommending Approval of Annexation of APN 503-09-004 (22480 Mount Eden Road) Page 3 H. That the City has complied with all conditions imposed by LAFCO for inclusion of the territory in the urban service area of the City. I. That all property owners within the annexation area have been informed of these proceedings and no opposition has been received. J. That concurrent with annexation, the territory will be merged with the adjoining approximately 35.13 acre property and the entire Merged Property will become restricted by a Land Conservation (Williamson Act) Contract. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby recommends, concurrent with the annexation approved below, the voluntary merger of territory consisting of an approximately 2.68-acre property, APN 503-09-004, with APN 503-09-003 (in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C and the Land Conservation (Williamson Act) Contract (in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby recommends that the City Council amend the City boundary to include a territory consisting of an approximately 2.68-acre property, hereinafter referred to as 'the territory', APN 503-09-004, into the City of Saratoga effective upon LAFCO issuance of a Certificate of Completion for these proceedings, and effective upon concurrent recordation the Notice and Deed of Voluntary Merger of APN 503-09-004 with APN 503-09-003 (in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C and the Land Conservation (Williamson Act) Contract (in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D). PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, the 23rd day of March, 2011 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: ATTEST: ______________________ _____________________________ _________________, Chris Riordan, Acting Community Development Director CHAIR Secretary to the Planning Commission Saratoga, California Saratoga, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ Richard Taylor, CITY ATTORNEY Saratoga, California 253 SOUTH THUNDER, LLC NOTICE AND DEED OF MERGER Page 1 of 7 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: CITY OF SARATOGA AFTER RECORDATION RETURN TO: CITY OF SARATOGA Attn: City Clerk 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 THIS SPACE FOR RECORDER'S USE Notice and Deed of Voluntary Merger FOR RECORDATION OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA WITH THE RECORDER’S OFFICE 254 SOUTH THUNDER, LLC NOTICE AND DEED OF MERGER Page 2 of 7 Notice and Deed of Voluntary Merger This is a Notice and Deed of Voluntary Merger (the “Merger”) by SOUTH THUNDER, LLC (the “Owner”) in favor of the CITY OF SARATOGA (the “CITY”). RECITALS A. WHEREAS, Owner is the owner of a certain undeveloped parcel of real property (approximately 2.68 acres) located in the County of Santa Clara within the City Sphere of Influence and Urban Service Area and more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (“Annexation Property”); B. WHEREAS, Owner is also the owner of a certain parcel of real property (approximately 35.13 acres in size) adjoining the Annexation Property and located entirely within the City of Saratoga and more particularly described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (“Principal Property”); C. WHEREAS, Owner has submitted a Development Proposal to the City seeking to obtain a Conditional Use Permit with a Variation from Standards for its existing stables, and approval to remodel and increase the square footage of the single family dwelling located on the Principal Property by 2907 net square feet; D. WHEREAS, any approval of the Development Proposal will be partially in consideration of the fact that the Development Proposal includes merger of Principal Property and Annexation Property into a single legal parcel (the “Merged Property”) for planning and land use purposes (such that the development potential for a single family dwelling on the Annexation Property will be extinguished); and E. WHEREAS, concurrent with annexation of the Annexation Property to the City, Owner shall merge the Principal Property with the Annexation Property into a single legal parcel (the “Merged Property”) for planning and land use purposes, which Merged Property is more particularly described in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. NOW THEREFORE, Owner agrees, gives notice and deeds the Annexation Parcel and the Principal Parcel to itself as one Merged Parcel as follows: NOTICE AND DEED OF MERGER Notice is hereby given that the separate parcels of real property described on Exhibit A and Exhibit B attached hereto and made part hereof are hereby deeded to become one Merged Parcel as described on Exhibit C pursuant to Section 1093 of the Civil Code and Grantor’s express 255 SOUTH THUNDER, LLC NOTICE AND DEED OF MERGER Page 3 of 7 written statement that such deed shall merge and consolidate the two separate parcels into one single parcel. Grantor SOUTH THUNDER, LLC hereby grants the separate parcels described in Exhibit A and Exhibit B respectively to Grantee SOUTH THUNDER, LLC to become one Merged Parcel as described on Exhibit C pursuant to Section 1093 of the Civil Code and Grantor’s express written statement that such deed shall merge and consolidate the two separate parcels into one single parcel. The two existing separate parcels are also identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number: APN 503-09- 004 (Exhibit A parcel) and Assessor’s Parcel Number: APN-503-09-003 (Exhibit B parcel). The above-described Merged Property now constitutes one (1) parcel as described in Exhibit C and is now identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number: ___-___-__ (Exhibit C parcel). This merger shall constitute a material basis of the support for the required findings for the Variation from Standards granted by City on ______ __, 2011and the Merged Property shall not be subsequently subdivided so long as any portion of the resulting Merged Property is subject to a Williamson Act contract, or the City’s Agricultural Preserve- Open Space (AP-OS) overlay zoning district has not been removed by the City. Signed by Grantor Date:___________________ SOUTH THUNDER, LLC By__________________________________ __________________________ (print name) __________________________ (print title) NOTE: All signatures of both owners and holders of security interests must be property notarized. 256 SOUTH THUNDER, LLC NOTICE AND DEED OF MERGER Page 4 of 7 INSTRUCTIONS This NOTICE AND DEED OF MERGER shall be recorded with the County of Santa Clara Recorder. Owner(s) signature(s) must each be acknowledged by a notary. Inform the notary that the acknowledgement is for an instrument to be recorded (California Civil Code §1169, et seq.) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA _____________________________) COUNTY OF _______________________________________) On ___________, 2___, before me, _____________________________________, personally appeared ______________________________________, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her authorized capacity as Owner, and that by his/her signature on the instrument, the person, or the entity on behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Signature ___________________________________ [Seal] 257 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Annexation Property Santa Clara County APN-503-09-004 258 SOUTH THUNDER, LLC NOTICE AND DEED OF MERGER Page 6 of 7 EXHIBIT B Legal Description of Principal Property Santa Clara County APN-503-09-003 259 SOUTH THUNDER, LLC NOTICE AND DEED OF MERGER Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT C Legal Description of Merged Property Santa Clara County APN-503-09-___ 260 SOUTH THUNDER, LLC LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT FOR MERGED PROPERTY Page 1 of 11 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: CITY OF SARATOGA AFTER RECORDATION RETURN TO: CITY OF SARATOGA Attn: City Clerk 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 THIS SPACE FOR RECORDER'S USE LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT (California Land Conservation Act of 1965 – Williamson Act) FOR RECORDATION OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA WITH THE RECORDER’S OFFICE 261 SOUTH THUNDER, LLC LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT FOR MERGED PROPERTY Page 2 of 11 LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT This is a Land Conservation Contract (the “Contract”) between the CITY OF SARATOGA (the “CITY”), and SOUTH THUNDER, LLC and/or any successors thereof (the “Owner”). A. WHEREAS, Owner is the owner of a certain undeveloped parcel of real property (approximately 2.68 acres) located in the County of Santa Clara within the City Sphere of Influence and Urban Service Area and more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (“Annexation Property”); B. WHEREAS, Owner is also the owner of a certain parcel of real property (approximately 35.13 acres in size) adjoining the Annexation Property and located entirely within the City of Saratoga and more particularly described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (“Principal Property”), which said Principal Property is subject to a Williamson Act contract with the County of Santa Clara, and pursuant to Government Code Section 51243, when the Principal Property was annexed to the City of Saratoga in 2006, on and after the effective date of the annexation by the City of any land under Williamson Act Contract with the County, the City succeeded to all rights, duties, and powers of the County under the contract. The Principal Property is currently developed with a single family dwelling, garage, hay barn, utility barn (with an upstairs apartment), stables, a horse riding arena, pool house, and workshop; C. WHEREAS, Owner has submitted a Development Proposal to the City seeking to obtain a Conditional Use Permit with a Variation from Standards for its existing stables, and approval to remodel and increase the square footage of the single family dwelling located on the Principal Property by 2907 net square feet; D. WHEREAS, any approval of the Development Proposal will be partially in consideration of the fact that, and based on a requirement that, the Development Proposal includes merger of Principal Property and Annexation Property into a single legal parcel (the “Merged Property”) for planning and land use purposes (such that the development potential for a single family dwelling on the Annexation Property will be extinguished); E. WHEREAS, concurrent with annexation of the Annexation Property to the City, Owner shall merge the Principal Property with the Annexation Property into a single legal parcel (the “Merged Property”) for planning and land use purposes, and shall rescind the Williamson Act contract for the Principal Property and simultaneously re-enter a Williamson Act contract covering the entire Merged Property, and shall apply for a Conditional Use Permit and Variation from Standards for the benefit of the entire Development Proposal located on the Principal Property; 262 SOUTH THUNDER, LLC LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT FOR MERGED PROPERTY Page 3 of 11 F. WHEREAS, the resulting Merged Property is presently devoted to agricultural or open space and uses and uses compatible thereto and the merger shall constitute a material basis of the support for the required findings for the Variation from Standards granted by the City on _________ __, 2011 and the Merged Property shall not be subsequently subdivided so long as any portion of the resulting Merged Property is subject to a Williamson Act contract, or the City’s AP-OS overlay zoning district has not been removed by the City; WHEREAS, both Owner and CITY desire to restrict the use of the resulting Merged Property to agricultural, open space and uses compatible thereto; and WHEREAS, the parties have determined that the highest and best use for the resulting Merged Property during the term of this Land Conservation Contract, or any renewal thereof, shall be for agriculture, open space and uses compatible thereto. AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, CITY and Owner agree as follows: 1. CONTRACT SUBJECT TO LAND CONSERVATION ACT OF 1965 This Contract is entered into pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 51200) of Part 1, Division 1, Title 5 of the Government Code, which is known as the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 or the Williamson Act, hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” This Contract is subject to all of the Provisions of this Act including any amendments thereto which may hereafter be enacted. 2. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF PROPERTY During the term of this Contract, and any and all renewals thereof, the Property shall not be used for any purpose other than the agricultural, open space and recreational uses and uses compatible thereto. A list of all such compatible uses is set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. CITY may from time to time during the term of this Contract and all renewals thereof, add to the list of compatible uses additional uses which shall apply uniformly to all property located in the agricultural preserve in which the Property is located; provided, however, CITY may not during the term of this Contract or any renewal thereof, without the prior written consent of Owner, remove any of the compatible uses for the subject Property which are set forth in Exhibit A. The provisions of this Contract and any supplementary list of compatible uses are not intended to limit or supersede the planning and zoning powers of County. 3. RESTRICTIONS ON SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY In order to be subdivided, the Property must satisfy certain additional requirements of California law (including but not limited to any limitations imposed by the Williamson Act or 263 SOUTH THUNDER, LLC LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT FOR MERGED PROPERTY Page 4 of 11 the Subdivision Map Act) for division of land, or lot line adjustment of land, which is subject to a contract under the Act. 4. TERM OF CONTRACT This Contract shall become effective on the date of execution by the CITY and shall remain in full force and effect for an initial term of ten years, which term shall commence on one of the dates specified below in this paragraph. If the date of execution of this Contract is between March 2 and December 31, the initial term of ten years shall commence as of the first day of January next succeeding the date of execution. If the date of execution of this Contract is between January 1 and March 1, the initial term of ten years shall commence as of the first day of January of the year of execution. Each succeeding first day of January shall be deemed to be the annual renewal date of this contract. This Contract shall be renewed automatically on each succeeding January 1 and one additional year shall be added automatically to the initial term unless notice of nonrenewal is given as provided in Paragraph 5. 5. NOTICE OF NONRENEWAL (a) If either party desires in any year not to renew this contract, that party shall serve written notice of nonrenewal upon the other party in advance of the annual renewal date of this Contract. Unless such written notice of nonrenewal is served by Owner at least 90 days prior to the renewal date, or by CITY at least 60 days prior to the renewal date, this Contract automatically shall be renewed for an additional year as provided in Paragraph 4 above. (b) In the event that CITY serves written notice of nonrenewal of this Contract, the Owner, within ten (10) days after receipt of such notice by Owner, may submit to CITY a written protest of nonrenewal. The notice shall be deemed to have been received on the date delivered in person, or the date of delivery receipt from the overnight carrier, or five days after deposit with the United States Post Office. CITY may at any time prior to the next following renewal date thereafter, withdraw such notice of nonrenewal and, in such event, this Contract shall continue as if no such notice of nonrenewal had been served. (c) If either party serves written notice of nonrenewal in any year within the time limits of (a) above, this Contract shall remain in effect for the balance of the term remaining on the Contract as of the last automatic annual renewal. If the initial term of the Contract was ten (10) years, the remaining term after notice of nonrenewal is nine (9) years. 6. NO COMPENSATION Owner shall not receive any payment from CITY in consideration of the obligation imposed under this Contract, it being recognized an agreed that the consideration for the execution of this Contract is the substantial benefit to be derived therefrom, and the advantage 264 SOUTH THUNDER, LLC LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT FOR MERGED PROPERTY Page 5 of 11 that may accrue to owner as a result of the effect upon the assessed value of the Property on account of the restrictions on the use of the Property contained herein. 7. SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST This Contract and the restrictions imposed hereunder shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, all successors in interest of the Owner. 8. CANCELLATION This Contract may not be cancelled except pursuant to the provisions of the Act. 9. NOTICES All notices required or permitted by this Contract, including notice of a change of address, shall be in writing and given by personal delivery, by overnight carrier, or by first class mail, addressed to the party intended to be notified. The notice shall be deemed to have been given and received on the date delivered in person, or the date of delivery receipt from the overnight carrier, or five days after deposit with the United States Post Office. Notice shall be deemed given as of the date of delivery in person or as of the date when deposited in any post office or any post office box regularly maintained by the United State Government. Notice to the CITY shall be addressed: CITY OF SARATOGA, attn. CITY CLERK City Hall 13777Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Notice to Owner shall be addressed: SOUTH THUNDER, LLC c/o Brooks & Hess Attn. William T. Brooks, Esq. 577 Salmar Avenue, Second Floor Campbell, CA 95113 Office: (408) 866-5800 10. INVALIDITY CITY may declare this Contract terminated if it (or another substantially similar Contract) is declared invalid or ineffective in any court adjudication accepted by CITY as final, but no cancellation fee or other penalties shall be assessed against Owner based upon such termination. 265 SOUTH THUNDER, LLC LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT FOR MERGED PROPERTY Page 6 of 11 11. HOLDERS OF RECORD Owner represents and warrants that the persons signing below are the only persons with legal and security interests in the Property and agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless (collectively “indemnify”) the CITY from any and all claims, suits or losses caused by a breach of this representation or warranty. This representation, warranty, and agreement to indemnify, are binding upon the Owner (including Owner’s successors in interest). Signatures of holders of security interests shall only be evidence of notice of the Contract and acceptance by the holders of security interests of the binding restrictions herein. IN WITNESS WHERE, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed by Owner on ________________ and by CITY on ____________________. CITY OF SARATOGA __________________________________ Dave Anderson, City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk ____________________________________ Ann Sullivan SOUTH THUNDER, LLC By__________________________________ __________________________ (print name) __________________________ (print title) NOTE: All signatures of both owners and holders of security interests must be property notarized . APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Richard Taylor, City Attorney __________________________ William T. Brooks, Attorney for SOUTH THUNDER, LLC 266 SOUTH THUNDER, LLC LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT FOR MERGED PROPERTY Page 7 of 11 EXHIBIT A LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT (WILLIAMSON ACT) COMPATIBLE USE LIST The following is a list of land uses determined to be compatible with the agricultural use and open space use of the land subject to this Contract: 1. Facilities for, and the drying, packing or other processing of, an agricultural commodity usually performed on the premises where it is produced but not including slaughter houses, fertilizer yards, bone yards or plants for the reduction of animal or vegetable matter. 2. Structures necessary and incidental to the agricultural use of the land (including but not limited to, dwellings for persons employed in the agricultural use of the land). 3. The holding of nonproducing land for future agricultural use. 4. The maintenance of land in its natural state for the purpose of preserving open space for recreation or plant or animal preserves. 5. Single family dwellings incidental to the agricultural use of the land for the residence of the owner, and the family of the owner, the lessee of the land and the family of the lessee, so long as otherwise in compliance with the CITY’s land use regulations (including density regulations). Owner or lessee shall be construed to include: (a) stockholders in family corporations; (b) beneficiaries of family trusts and estates; (c) owners of undivided partial interests in the fee for the sale of agricultural commodities produced on the land; (d) members in family LLCs; and (e) partners in family limited partnerships. 6. The erection, construction, alteration or maintenance of gas, electric, water or communication utility facilities, in compliance with the CITY’s underground utility ordinance No. NS-3.20. 267 SOUTH THUNDER, LLC LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT FOR MERGED PROPERTY Page 8 of 11 7. Public or private fishing. 8. Public or private riding or hiking trails. 9. Stables and the boarding of horses or other livestock, a horse riding arena, but not including an animal hospital or kennel. 10. A garage, hay barn, utility barn (with an upstairs apartment), pool house, and workshop. 268 SOUTH THUNDER, LLC LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT FOR MERGED PROPERTY Page 9 of 11 INSTRUCTIONS This LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT shall be recorded with the County of Santa Clara Recorder. Owner(s) signature(s) must each be acknowledged by a notary. Inform the notary that the acknowledgement is for an instrument to be recorded (California Civil Code §1169, et seq.) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA _____________________________) COUNTY OF _______________________________________) On ___________, 2___, before me, _____________________________________, personally appeared ______________________________________, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her authorized capacity as Owner, and that by his/her signature on the instrument, the person, or the entity on behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Signature ___________________________________ [Seal] 269 -Page 10 of 11- EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Annexation Property 270 -Page 11 of 11- EXHIBIT B Legal Description of Principal Property 271 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. FOR APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW Application # PDR10-0017 & CUP10-0010 Thunder Ranch; 22490 Mt. Eden Road The City of Saratoga Planning Commission finds and determines as follows with respect to the above-described application: I. Project Summary The Saratoga City Council has referred for recommendation by the Planning Commission consideration of the Council’s initiation of annexation proceedings for an approximately 2.68-acre property, hereinafter referred to as the “Annexation Property” or 'the territory', APN 503-09-004, contiguous to the City of Saratoga and described in the Legal Description and Plat Map hereto in order to provide for use of City services and to apply the terms of the City General Plan and City Code to development proposals initiated after completion of the annexation. Such annexation and the accompanying actions included in the integrated annexation package described below are part of an integrated application proposal submitted to the City by SOUTH THUNDER, LLC. Concurrent with annexation, the territory is proposed to be merged with the adjoining approximately 35.13-acre property also owned by SOUTH THUNDER, LLC. The merger constitutes a material basis of the support for the offsets from floor area and site coverage described below and for the required findings Variation from Standards, all as requested to be approved pursuant to the Preannexation Agreement and under Conditional Use Permit Application #CUP10-0010. The Merged Property shall not be subsequently subdivided so long as any portion of the resulting Merged Property is subject to a Williamson Act contract, or the City’s AP-OS overlay zoning district being added by pursuant to this integrated annexation package has not been removed by the City. The entire Merged Property is proposed to become restricted by a Land Conservation (Williamson Act) Contract. The integrated annexation package as to which the City Council has requested Planning Commission recommendations consists of: actual Annexation Approval, a Preannexation Agreement, Parcel Merger, Land Conservation (Williamson Act) Contract agreement, General Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment, Use Permit, Variation from Standards, Design Review Approval and CEQA exemption. This Resolution addresses the portion of the integrated annexation package as to which the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a Use Permit and Design Review Approval for the Project, shown in Exhibit "A" and the Color Board shown in Exhibit "A", date stamped March 17, 2011 incorporated by this reference. The “Principal Property” is a 35.13 acre parcel currently inside the City boundaries and located at 22490 Mt. Eden Road and indentified as APN 503-80-003. The applicant is requesting Design Review Approval of a proposed net addition of less than 3,000 square feet of floor area (with 724 SF double-counted due to being greater than 15 feet in height) to an existing single-family residence and its accessory structures, together with the removal of five non-native protected trees on the Principal Property. That net addition in floor area is easily offset by the elimination of a minimum of 6,560 square feet of otherwise allowable floor area which would be developable on the currently existing Annexation Property. The offsetting elimination of 6,560 square feet of floor area potential will be the result of the City requiring the Annexation Property to be merged with the Principal Property as part of the integrated annexation package. The 272 Application No. PDR10-0017 & CUP10-0010; 22490 Mt. Eden Road total resulting floor area for the principal use (single-family residence and structures accessory to it) on the Merged Property would be 10,926 SF, including the main residence (8,237 SF), garage (1,003 SF), pool house and gym (1,686 SF). As to site coverage, there is currently already 103,332 square feet of site coverage on what will become the Merged Property. The applicant would remove and replace the patios, decks, fountain, and walkways; remodel the existing pool; and remove a pavilion attached to the front of the home. The existing site coverage would be reduced by 2,656 square feet. This will offset the 2,308 square feet of site coverage resulting from the addition to the single family residence. With the net decrease in site coverage of 2,656 square feet, the total resulting site coverage of the Merged Property would still be 100,676 SF, approximately 6% of the entire site. The applicant is also applying for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and associated Variation from Standards in support of the offsets to floor area and site coverage described above. The Annexation Property at 22480 Mount Eden Road is in the City of Saratoga’s Urban Service Area and Sphere of Influence, has a Pre-General Plan designation of H-OS (Hillside-Open Space) which is proposed to be amended to RHC (Residential Hillside Conservation) concurrent with this annexation, and is pre-zoned as HR (Hillside Residential) and proposed to have AP-OS (Agricultural Preserve-Open Space) Overlay Zoning added concurrent with the proposed annexation. The Principal Property was annexed to the City in 2006 and has a General Plan designation of Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC) and is zoned Hillside Residential (HR). A condition of approval is included in the Resolution that the Use Permit and Design Review Approval is subject to final annexation of the Annexation Parcel and implementation of the corresponding Parcel Merger, Agricultural Preserve/Open Space Overlay Rezoning, General Plan Amendment, and Williamson Act contract. The foregoing use (in the context of the proposed integrated annexation package) will be described as the “Project” in this Resolution. II. Use Permit Requirement City Code Sections 15-55.030 require a Conditional Use Permit and Variation from Standards for conditional uses and structures that have a different site area, density, structure height, or site coverage, than established for the applicable zoning district. III. Design Review Requirement City Code Section 15-45.060 requires Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission for any project that may result in excessive intensification of the use or development of the site. 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 273 Application No. PDR10-0017 & CUP10-0010; 22490 Mt. Eden Road landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits. IV. Planning Commission Review On March 23, 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, presentation from the Applicant and the public, and all testimony and other evidence presented at the Public Hearing. V. Environmental Review The net addition of less than 3,000 square feet to the existing 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. The Principal Property was annexed to the City in 2006 under an exemption from CEQA. The annexation of the Annexation Property qualifies for an exemption from CEQA under CEQA Guideline 15319 which exempts annexations to a city of areas containing existing private structures developed to the density allowed by the current zoning or pre-zoning of either the gaining or losing governmental agency whichever is more restrictive, provided, however, that the extension of utility services to the existing facilities would have a capacity to serve only the existing facilities. CEQA exempts the Preannexation Agreement, Parcel Merger, Land Conservation (Williamson Act) Contract agreement, General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Amendment because they will all impose greater land use restrictions on the Merged Property than currently exist, will involve no physical change to the environment, assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment, and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment (see CEQA Guidelines Sections 15308 and 15061(b)(3)). The Use Permit is likewise exempt because it imposes parameters and use permit conditions on the Merged Property for the first time. VI. Use Permit Findings The Applicant’s Project has met the burden of proof to support the Findings required for approval of a Use Permit for the uses existing on the Merged Property and the Variation from Standards under Article 15-55 of the City Code, as set forth below: (a) The proposed conditional use will [not] adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, or will [not] adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. The Project meets this finding. The uses on the Merged Property (Residential with Accessory Structures and Community Stable) already exist and were built legally in the County either with permits or prior to the need for permits. City Code allows continuation of nonconforming structures on a property after it is annexed to the City, if the structure lawfully existed on the effective date of the annexation. The Community Stable has been in operation for nearly 20 years and the City has received no complaints and there is no evidence that it has adversely affected existing or anticipated uses in the immediate 274 Application No. PDR10-0017 & CUP10-0010; 22490 Mt. Eden Road neighborhood or surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. Hence this Finding can be made as to the Use Permit establishing the parameters and conditions of approval for the Community Stable as currently operated. This Finding can also be made for the Variation from Standards to support the offsets for floor area and site coverage described above in that: (1) the net increase in floor area of less than 3,000 square feet of floor area will not have any of the adverse affects addressed by this Finding in light of the offset resulting from the required merger of the Annexation Property eliminating a minimum of 6,560 square feet of otherwise allowable floor area to be developed on the currently existing Annexation Property; and (2) the increase of 2,308 square feet in site coverage resulting from the addition to the single-family residence will likewise not have any of the adverse affects addressed by this Finding in light of the offset resulting from the net removal of 2.656 square feet of existing site coverage. (As additional support for this finding, there is also the offset resulting from the required merger of the Annexation Property eliminating approximately 15,000 square feet of otherwise allowable site coverage to be developed on the currently existing Annexation Property). (b) The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The Project meets this finding. Single-family dwellings are a permitted use in the HR zoning district. Community Stables are permitted in the HR zoning district upon the granting of a conditional use permit (CUP). The applicant has applied for and met the findings for a CUP. Pursuant to City Code Section 15-13.010, “[in] addition to the objectives set forth in Section 15- 05.020, the hillside residential district is included in the Zoning Ordinance to achieve the following purposes:” “(e) To implement the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan as adopted by the City on June 2, 1981, for the area included within the Specific Plan boundaries.” The Northwest Hillside Specific Plan provides that the “rural character of the area shall be protected through substantially lower density and a compatible relationship between development and the land” [emphasis added, Goal #9, page 1]. The integrated annexation package approved under the terms of the Preannexation Agreement (including the merger, prohibition of subsequent subdivision absent City removal of the AP-OS overlay zoning and Owner’s nonrenewal or cancellation of the Williamson Act contract, CUP and Variation from Standards) implement the quoted provision and would support Finding (b) quoted above. Other Zoning Ordinance objectives listed in Section 15-13.010 (and by reference in 15-05.020) include the following additional purposes which serve by the integrated annexation package as proposed: “[t]o maintain to the maximum degree feasible, the natural environment and existing rural character of the area to which the district is applied; [t]o implement the open space element of the General Plan by ensuring maximum preservation of open space…; [t]o control the 275 Application No. PDR10-0017 & CUP10-0010; 22490 Mt. Eden Road physical development of the City in such a manner as to preserve it as essentially a residential community with a rural atmosphere; [t]o achieve the arrangement of land uses depicted in the General Plan; [t]o promote the stability of existing land uses which conform with the General Plan, and to protect them from inharmonious influences and harmful intrusions; [t]o ensure that public and private lands ultimately are used for the purposes, which are most appropriate and most beneficial from the standpoint of the City as a whole; [t]o prevent population densities in excess of those prescribed in the General Plan, and to maintain a suitable balance between structures and open spaces on each site; [t]o preserve natural beauty of the City; [and] [t]o ensure that uses and structures enhance their sites and harmonize with improvements in the surrounding area.” In light of the foregoing and the fact that the required merger will eliminate much if not all of the otherwise allowable development on the Annexation Property as described in Finding (a) above, Finding (b) can be made as to the Conditional Use Permit establishing the parameters and conditions of approval for the Community Stable Use for that existing use as currently operated and as to the Variation from Standards to support the offsets to floor area and site coverage described above. (c) The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Project meets the required findings for Use Permit establishing the parameters and conditions of approval for the Community Stable Use as currently operated and as to the Variation from Standards to support the offsets to floor area and site coverage described above. In addition, the Project has been reviewed by the City Geotechnical Consultant and received geotechnical clearance with conditions. The project has also been conditioned to comply with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction. The Community Stable has been in operation for nearly 20 years and the City has received no complaints and there is no evidence of detriment to public health, safety or welfare from it or material injury to properties or improvements in its vicinity. The approval of a use permit and variation from standards will establish parameters for the use of the Merged Property and extinguish the development potential of the Annexation Parcel for a separate single family dwelling while allowing a relatively minor addition to the existing single family dwelling on the Principal Property. (d) The proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. The Project meets this finding. The Use Permit establishing the parameters and conditions of approval for the Community Stable Use as currently operated has been conditioned to comply with all applicable City regulations including, but not limited to the requirements of the Saratoga Building and Zoning Regulations. City Code allows for a Variation from Standards as set forth in the other Findings and a Variation from Standards is expressly allowed under Chapter 15. 276 Application No. PDR10-0017 & CUP10-0010; 22490 Mt. Eden Road VII. 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 property is over 35 acres in size and surrounded by mature landscaping. The residence is setback at least two hundred feet from any property line. Therefore, the project does not unreasonably impact views and privacy. Finding #2: The project preserves the natural landscape. The project meets this finding. The plans were reviewed by the City Arborist. Twenty one (21) trees protected by City ordinance and potentially impacted by construction were inventoried. The City Arborist has approved removal of five trees which have met the findings for removal as described in the Arborist Report, dated February 24, 2011. The resolution includes condition of approval requiring the applicant to comply with all City Arborist recommendations including, but not limited to, posting a tree protection security deposit in the amount of $113,720 and planting new trees equivalent in value to removed trees. Finding #3: The project preserves native and heritage trees. The project meets this finding. The proposed project does not include removal of any native and/or heritage trees. Twenty-one (21) protected trees could potentially be affected by the project; however, as conditioned, the applicant will be required to provide tree protective fencing and a $113,720 tree protection bond. Finding #4: The project minimizes the perception of excessive bulk. The project meets this finding. To break up massing, the project uses wood shingles and Board and Baton siding in a blend of earthtone green colors on the façade while using neutral blended grey slate tiles on the roof. The perception of bulk is further minimized by exceeding the required setbacks for the residence and community stable facilities. Finding #5: The project is of compatible bulk and height. The project meets this finding. The residence and community stables are compatible with similar uses on neighboring properties. The proposed architecture includes materials and colors to reduce bulk. The location of the residence and community stables further minimize the perception of bulk and height. Finding #6: The project uses current grading and erosion control methods. The project meets this finding in that it is conditioned to meet required grading and erosion control standards. Finding #7: The project follows appropriate design policies and techniques. The project meets this finding by m inimizing the perception of bulk, integrating the residence and community stable facilities with the environment, avoiding interference with privacy, preserving views and access to views, and designing for energy efficiency. 277 Application No. PDR10-0017 & CUP10-0010; 22490 Mt. Eden Road 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 Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use Permit (and the associated Variation from Standards) and may, at any time, modify, delete, or impose, any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. 5. Any intensification of this uses approved under this Use Permit and Variation from Standards shall require an amended Conditional Use Permit. Examples of intensification of use include, but are not limited to, physical changes to the site or structure of the use to accommodate more horses, employees or customers, and changes in operations or equipment that result in ongoing increases in traffic, noise, or other physical effects. 6. 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). 7. The uses/structures/project shall maintain compliance with all applicable requirements of the City, including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference. The uses/structures/project shall at all times operate in compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdictional authority over the use pertaining to, but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety, and water quality issues. 278 Application No. PDR10-0017 & CUP10-0010; 22490 Mt. Eden Road 8. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or the Use Permit and Design Review Approval will expire unless extended in accordance with the City Code. 9. Prior to issuance of any demolition, use, grading, or building permit to implement this Design Review and Use Permit approval the 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. 10. 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 11. Compliance with Plans. The uses and development shall be operated, located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans and denominated Exhibit "A" and the Color Board denominated Exhibit “B” date stamped March 17, 2011, and the description of use as described in Condition #B12 below, each incorporated by this reference. All proposed changes to the Approved Plans and Description of Use 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 the requisite prior City approval and in accordance with Condition A.3, above. 12. Description of Use: Applicant plans to operate a Community Sable in compliance with City Code Section 15-13.040(d) which requires that a Community Stable in the HR zoning district obtain and maintain a Use Permit and be subject to the regulations prescribed in Section 7- 20.220 of this Code. The Community Stable will comply with City Code Section 7-20.220 as currently in effect, and as hereafter amended. It shall be operated as a private stable or corral designed, owned and used solely by residents and guests of a particular area, for the keeping or 279 Application No. PDR10-0017 & CUP10-0010; 22490 Mt. Eden Road use of horses in private ownership, for homeowners, private clubs, or riding schools, where riding lessons are not open to the public and no horses are offered to the public for remuneration, hire or sale. The Community Stable may have up to 40 horses and six employees. (Note – Applicant has reserved final numbers until Planning Commission meeting given the short amount of time that has been devoted to considering such parameters.) 13. Non-conforming structures. All structures which do not already have required County or City permits shall be required to obtain such permits from the City as a condition of approval of any annexation, use permit or design review approval. If the structure was constructed at a time when no permit was required by the agency then having jurisdiction, it is exempt from this requirement. 14. Annexation/Parcel Merger/Williamson Act Contract/Agricultural Preserve/Open Space Overlay/General Plan Amendment. In order to provide for rational long-term land use planning, the use permit and design review approval is recommended by the Planning Commission subject to final approval by the City Council concurrent with final annexation of the 2.68 acre parcel, identified as APN 503-80-004 and located at 22480 Mt. Eden Road (Annexation Property), and the following related entitlements or actions: a. Parcel Merger. The Owner shall submit to the City a complete, executed and recordation ready and acceptable Notice and Deed of Voluntary Merger for parcel merger and otherwise take all necessary steps to merge the Annexation Property with the Principal Property into a single legal parcel (the “Merged Property”) for planning and land use purposes (such that the development potential for a single family dwelling on the Annexation Property will be extinguished and the Merged Property shall not be subsequently subdivided so long as any portion of the resulting Merged Property is subject to a Williamson Act contract, or the City’s AP-OS overlay zoning district has not been removed by the City). The foregoing merger provisions shall constitute a material basis of the support for the required findings for the Variation from Standards; b. Williamson Act Contract. The Owner shall submit a complete application and obtain City approval to rescind the Williamson Act Contract on the Principal Property and simultaneously re-enter a Williamson Act Contract covering the entire Merged Property, which Williamson Act Contract shall include the stables and all other existing uses as compatible uses; c. Agricultural Preserve/Open Space Overlay. Owner shall submit a complete application and obtain City approval to add AP-OS overlay zoning to the entire Merged Property; and d. General Plan Amendment for Annexation Property. Owner shall submit a complete application and obtain City approval to amend the current Hillside Open Space (HOS) Pre- General Plan designation on the Annexation Property to a post-annexation General Plan designation of Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC); and 280 Application No. PDR10-0017 & CUP10-0010; 22490 Mt. Eden Road 15. Business License. Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for any proposed tenant improvements (or if none, prior to commencement of the approved use), the Owner and/or Applicant shall apply for and obtain approval from the Community Development Department for a business license. 16. 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 fifty points under the GreenPoint rating system. 17. 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. 18. 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. 281 Application No. PDR10-0017 & CUP10-0010; 22490 Mt. Eden Road 19. 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. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages; and c. Fire Department comments dated October 6, 2010, printed collectively onto separate construction plan pages; and d. Geotechnical conditions, dated November 22, 2010, printed collectively onto separate construction plan pages; and e. City Arborist Report dated February 24, 2011, printed collectively onto separate construction plan pages; and f. 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; and g. 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; and h. 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. i. A final utility plan that shows location of HVAC mechanical equipment outside of required setback areas; and j. A final Drainage and Grading plan(s) stamped by a registered Civil Engineer combined with the above-required Stormwater requirements; k. A final Landscape and Irrigation Plan with the requirements above; and l. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building Division. C. CITY ARBORIST 20. Compliance with Tree Regulations and City Arborist Reports. The applicant shall comply with all City Arborist requirements. All requirements in the City Arborist Reports dated February 24, 2011 are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. This includes, but is not limited to the following: 282 Application No. PDR10-0017 & CUP10-0010; 22490 Mt. Eden Road a. New trees equal to $35,640 shall be planted following construction to replace removed trees, or as per the City Arborist. b. Owner shall obtain, and file with the Community Development Director, a Tree Protection security deposit in the amount of $113,720, or as per the City Arborist. D. PUBLIC WORKS 21. Public Works Requirements. The applicant shall comply with all Public Works requirements. 22. Geotechnical Clearance. The applicant shall comply with all Geotechnical requirements. All conditions specified in the Geotechnical Review dated November 22, 2010 are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. E. FIRE SAFETY OR FIRE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS 23. Fire Agency Conditions. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Agency requirements. All conditions specified in the Fire Department comments dated October 6, 2010 are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. F. CONDITIONS RELATED TO HORSES AND OPERATION OF COMMUNITY STABLE 24. Applicant shall comply with City Code Section 15-13.040(d) which requires that a Community Stable in the HR zoning district obtain and maintain a Use Permit and be subject to the regulations prescribed in Section 7-20.220 of this Code.. 25. Applicant shall comply with City Code Section 7-20.220 as currently in effect and set forth below, and as hereafter amended. 7-20.220 - Horses. (a) Purpose. This Section is adopted to establish licensing requirements for the keeping of horses, and to regulate the keeping and maintenance thereof, in order to protect and promote the public health, safety, welfare, comfort and convenience, while permitting residents to keep horses under appropriate conditions, and further to establish conditions and requirements for the operation of commercial and community stables. This Section is also intended to provide a basis for correction of existing unsafe and unhealthful conditions. (b) Definitions. For the purposes of this Section and other provisions of this City Code, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this subsection, unless the context or the provision clearly requires otherwise: Community stable means a private stable or corral designed, owned and used solely by residents and guests of a particular area, for the keeping or use of horses in private 283 Application No. PDR10-0017 & CUP10-0010; 22490 Mt. Eden Road ownership, for homeowners, private clubs, or riding schools, where riding lessons are not open to the public and no horses are offered to the public for remuneration, hire or sale. Corral means an area enclosed by fencing for the keeping of horses or other livestock. Horse includes any member of the horse family (equidae) including, but not limited to, ponies, donkeys and mules. Horse stable means any building or structure or portion thereof designed or used for the housing or feeding of a horse or horses or other livestock. Keeping or maintenance , in relation to a horse or horses, means the harboring or maintaining possession of any horse on a site together with the maintenance of such animal by the feeding or otherwise supplying of necessities of life to the same. Any horse physically present on a site for a continuous period in excess of seventy-two hours is being kept, within the meaning of this definition, by the owner or other occupancy of the site. Keeping or maintenance for private use , in relation to a horse or horses, means the keeping of horses owned by the owner of the site where such horses are kept, for the private use by such owner and his guests as a use accessory to a residence on the same site, and not for remuneration, hire or sale. Pasture means a plot of ground other than a corral with grass or other plant life available for grazing horses. Riding school means any establishment providing or offering for remuneration, equestrian instruction through private lesson, organized class, or group instructional activities, or any establishment where horses are maintained or facilities provided primarily for the purpose of providing equestrian instruction for remuneration. (c) Interpretation of provisions. The provisions of this Section shall be held to be minimum requirements except where it is expressly stated that maximum requirements shall prevail. The provisions are not intended to impair or interfere with any private restrictions placed upon property by covenant or deed or otherwise; provided, however, that where this Section imposes greater restrictions upon such property, the provisions of this Section shall control. (d) Compliance with regulations; invalidity of horse license issued in violation thereof. (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to keep or maintain any horse, or cause any horse to be kept or maintained in the City except in conformity with the provisions of this Section and the applicable zoning regulations of the City as set forth in Chapter 15 of this Code. 284 Application No. PDR10-0017 & CUP10-0010; 22490 Mt. Eden Road (2) Horses may be maintained for private use and community stables may be maintained only in such zoning districts and only with such minimum site areas and minimum distances of stables and corrals from property lines and other structures as permitted under the applicable zoning regulations set forth in Chapter 15 of this Code. (3) No horse license shall be issued pursuant to this Section in violation of any provisions contained herein or in violation of any other provision of this Code, and any license as may be issued which is in violation of any of said provisions shall be void and of no force or effect. (e) General regulations. All horses in the City shall be kept and maintained in compliance with the following regulations: (1) Enclosures and control. All horses shall at all times be kept in a corral or enclosed stable meeting the requirements of this Section other than when being ridden or exercised under the direct control of some responsible person, except that the Planning Director shall have the power, but not the obligation, to permit the keeping of permitted horses in a pasture under reasonable conditions as imposed in the license. (2) Construction of corrals and stables. All corrals shall be enclosed by a substantial fence, and corrals for the enclosure of stallions shall conform to all State laws governing safety fencing, and all stables and corrals shall be erected and constructed in conformity with the Building Code of the City. Where existing buildings and structures constructed in compliance with regulations in force at the time of construction do not comply with current regulations, and constitute a threat to health, safety or the general welfare, specific corrections may be required by the City Manager as a condition of issuance of a license. (3) Fire protection. Buildings and structures for the keeping of horses shall conform to the fire protection standards of the fire district in which the site is located. (4) Maintenance; sanitary conditions. All stables and corrals shall at all times be kept adequately clean of manure, and the City Manager shall have power to require fly trapping or fly killing substances and devices as a condition of any license, as recommended by the County Health Department. All horses and premises on which horses are kept shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. (f) Community stables. Each community stable shall conform with the following provisions, whether or not such provisions are specifically set forth in a use permit granted for such stable under Chapter 15 of this Code: (1) The premises shall be under the full-time supervision of a competent attendant on duty on the premises. 285 Application No. PDR10-0017 & CUP10-0010; 22490 Mt. Eden Road (2) Any commercial or community stable providing equestrian instruction shall give such instruction only on the premises, unless special permission to do otherwise has been granted in the use permit. (3) No lighting other than needed for safe passing around buildings shall be permitted unless specifically approved under the terms of this Use Permit. (g) Inspections. The City Manager and the County Health Officer shall have authority to enter upon and inspect any premises where any horse is kept or maintained for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Section. VIII. Project Approval Recommendation After careful consideration of the application, site plan, architectural drawings, Arborist Report, and other materials and exhibits and evidence submitted to the City in connection with this matter, Application No. PDR10-0017 & CUP10-0010 is recommended for approval by the City Council concurrently with its Final Approval of Annexation. APPROVED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 23rd day of March 2011 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ___________________________________ Mary-Lynn 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 286 Application No. PDR10-0017 & CUP10-0010; 22490 Mt. Eden Road 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 287 RESOLUTION NO: 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE/OPEN SPACE OVERLAY ZONING AMENDMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22480-22490 MT. EDEN RD. 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 received an application for Agricultural Preserve/Open Space Overlay (AP/OS) zoning amendment and General Plan amendment for two adjoining parcels located at 22480 and 22490 Mt. Eden Road. The 35.13 acre parcel has a General Plan designation of Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC) and a zoning designation of Hillside Residential (HR). The 2.68 acre parcel has a Pre-General Plan designation of Hillside Open Space (OS- H) and a Pre-zoning designation of Hillside Residential (HR). The application is part of an integrated annexation package that consists of five additional recommendations to the City Council that are being considered under separate Resolutions. These actions include Final Annexation Approval; Preannexation Agreement, parcel merger; Williamson Act Contract; Conditional Use Permit and Variation from Standards; and Design Review. Because the two parcels would be merged into a single parcel, the entire 37.81 acre property should have a post-annexation General Plan designation of Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC). The AP-OS overlay is required for land on which Williamson Act contracts are executed and renewed. The existing underlying zoning of Hillside Residential (HR) is also being confirmed as applicable to the entire Merged Property. II. Planning Commission Review State law requires a recommendation from the Planning Commission on General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments. On March 23rd, 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. III. Environmental Review The proposed amendments are Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 15061(b)(3). CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this circumstance, the amendments would allow more comprehensive planning and would have minimal impact on the environment. CEQA Guideline 15308 provides a further exemption for the proposed amendments because 288 2 South Thunder LLC / 22480 - 22490 Mt. Eden Road - (APN 503-09-003 and 503-09-004) they will assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment. IV. Recommendation of Approval After careful consideration of the application, CEQA documentation, and other materials, exhibits and evidence submitted to the City in connection with this matter, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby recommend to the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance and map and General Plan and map of the City of Saratoga as follows: The entire 37.81 acre Merged Property shall have a post-annexation General Plan designation of Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC) and an AP-OS overlay zoning, and the existing underlying zoning of Hillside Residential (HR) is also confirmed as applicable to the entire Merged Property. The City Council of the City of Saratoga is the conducting authority for the General Plan and Zoning amendments. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 23rd 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 289