HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-09-2011 Planning Commission PacketTable of Contents
Agenda 3
October 12, 2011
Draft Minutes 5
APPLICATION PDR10-0018 / Public Right-of-Way on Saratoga-
Los Gatos, North of Farwell Avenue (Right-of-Way) Cal-Trans /
NSA Wireless
Staff Report 7
Att. 1 - Resolution 13
Att. 2 - Photo Simulations 19
Att. 3 - Coverage Map 21
Att. 4 - Noise Assessment 23
Att. 5 - Color and Material Board 32
Att. 6 - Alternate Location Map 33
Att. 7 - Updated Arborist Report 34
Att. 8 - Radio Frequency Analysis 41
Att. 9 - Neighbor Notifications 47
Att. 10 - Public Hearing Notice, Affadavit, and Labels 50
Att. 11 - Neighbor Letters and E-mails 53
APPLICATION FER11-0002 (397-20-004)Oberthier, 14651
Farwell Avenue
staff report 65
resolution 70
HPC memo 75
HPC decision letter 77
Notice 78
Noticing Addresses 79
Neighbor Review Forms 81
APPLICATION PDR11-0023 / 20381 Williams Avenue, Tang
Staff Report 88
Attachment 1 - Resolution 95
Attachment 2 - Project Description 104
Attachment 3 - GreenPoints Checklist 107
Attachment 4 - Neighbor Nortification Forms 118
Attachment 5 - City Arborist Report 133
Attachment 6 - Public Hearing Notice 143
APPLICATION PDR11-0017 (397-11-049) Hansen & Martinez,
19391 Valle Vista Drive
staff report 147
resolution 152
arborist report 161
geotechnical clearance 172
fire review 173
green points checklist 175
1
neighbor notification forms 184
notice 189
noticing addresses 190
APPLICATION PDR11-0020 (397-09-010) DiNapoli & Kohlsatt,
19120 Monte Vista Drive
Staff Report - 19120 Monte Vista Dr 192
Att. 1 - Resolution - 19120 Monte Vista Dr.199
Att. 2 - HPC Approval Letter 209
Att. 3 - Arborist Report 210
Att. 4 - Neighbor Notification Forms 221
Att. 5 - Public Notice, Labels and Affadavit 228
Att. 6 - Build-it-Green 232
Att. 7 - Photo and Color Board 239
APPLICATION FER11-0003 (503-13-117) Potts, 20040
Mendelsohn Lane
Staff Report - 20040 Mendelsohn 240
Att. 1 - Resolution - 20040 Mendelsohn 245
Att. 2 - Color Board 251
Att. 3 - Neighbor Notifications 252
Att. 4 - Public Notice, Labels & Affadavit 253
2
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
DATE: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 - 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROLL CALL
Commissioners – Chair Douglas Robertson, Vice-Chair Tina K. Walia, Mary-Lynne Bernald, Pragati Grover, Joyce
Hlava, David Reis and Yan Zhao
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 12, 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 November 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 PDR10-0018 / Public Right-of-Way on Saratoga-Los Gatos, North of Farwell
Avenue (Right-of-Way) Cal-Trans / NSA Wireless - The applicant is requesting Design Review approval
for the installation of three wireless telecommunication antennas and the construction of an equipment
shelter to be placed on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, north of Farwell Avenue. The proposed three antennas
would attached to two eight foot crossbars and be placed approximately 30 feet above natural grade on the
existing 43 foot wooden utility pole. The proposed equipment structure would be approximately 207 sq.
ft. in size and used to screen the mechanical equipment. The equipment structure would be constructed of
pressure treated pine wood and galvanized steel fence posts and painted forest green. The walls of the
structure would be six feet tall with one additional foot of decorative lattice. The structure would be
surrounded with 22 toyon shrubs to establish consistency with the neighboring vegetation. The proposed
location is within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (Michael Fossati)
2. APPLICATION FER11-0002 (397-20-004)Oberthier, 14651 Farwell Avenue - The applicant requests
approval for a fence exception. The project is a six foot tall wrought-iron fence with seven foot tall brick
3
columns and 10 foot tall entrance gate with eleven foot six inch tall columns. The fence, gate, and columns
would be located outside the line of sight visibility triangle along Farwell Avenue and Wild Oak Way. The
lot is 34,226 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. (Cynthia McCormick, AICP)
3. APPLICATION PDR11-0023 / 20381 Williams Avenue, Tang - Design Review for a new 26 foot tall,
2,880 square feet, two story single-family home on a 7,687 square foot lot (Christopher Riordan, AICP)
4. APPLICATION PDR11-0017 (397-11-049) Hansen & Martinez, 19391 Valle Vista Drive - The
applicant requests design review approval for a new one-story home with attached garage, detached cabana,
carport, and pool house. The total floor area proposed is 6,019 square feet. The total lot coverage proposed
is 15,199 square feet. The maximum height proposed is 23 feet and nine inches. The lot is 44,095 square
feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. The applicant has requested to remove three protected trees as part of
the project. (Cynthia McCormick, AICP)
5. APPLICATION PDR11-0020 (397-09-010) DiNapoli & Kohlsatt, 19120 Monte Vista Drive - The
applicant requests Design Review approval for a remodel and addition of approximately 2,706 sq. ft. to an
existing 4,056 sq. ft. two-story, single family residence located at 19120 Monte Vista Drive. The addition
includes a new family room, kitchen, conservatory, master suite and detached garage. The existing garage
would be remodeled into new floor area. Three protected trees (one London plane and two persimmon) are
in conflict with the design and meet the requirements for removal per the City Arborist. The height of the
existing residence will not increase over the 26 foot height limit. Design Review approval is required
pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060. The site is approximately 2.33 acres and is
located within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (Michael Fossati)
6. APPLICATION FER11-0003 (503-13-117) Potts, 20040 Mendelsohn Lane - The applicant requests a
fence exception to replace the existing wood fence within the front and exterior side setback with a new ten
foot tall cedar fence. The fence would be constructed of eight foot tall cedar boards and two foot tall cedar
pickets. The new fence would be approximately 320 feet long and would border the property along
portions of the northern (adjacent to Mendelsohn Lane), eastern (adjacent to Piedmont Road), and southern
(adjacent to a neighboring driveway) property lines. The portion of new fencing along the southern
property line would step down in height to approximately eight feet of fencing with cedar pickets on top.
Along with the new fence, the applicant is replacing the existing accessory wood columns and gate with
new natural stone columns and a cedar wood gate. The columns and gate would be constructed near the
southeastern property line, near the adjacent neighboring driveway. Section 15-29.090 of the City Code
allows property owners to apply for fence exceptions. The subject property is located in the R-1-20,000
zoning district and is approximately one acre is size (Michael Fossati)
DIRECTORS ITEM
COMMISSION ITEMS
COMMUNICATIONS
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
- Wednesday, December 14, 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 November 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
4
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
DATE: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 - 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROLL CALL
Commissioners – Chair Douglas Robertson, Vice-Chair Tina K. Walia, Mary-Lynne Bernald, Pragati Grover and Yan
Zhao
ABSENT
Commissioners Hlava and Reis
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 28, 2011 (Approved, 4:0:1(Robertson –
abstained))
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 October 6, 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 PDR10-0018 (Right-of-Way) Verizon Wireless c/o NSA Wireless, Highway 9, North
of Farwell Avenue. - The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the installation of three
wireless telecommunication antennas and the construction of an equipment shelter to be placed on
Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, north of Farwell Avenue. The proposed three antennas would be attached to two
eight foot crossbars and be placed approximately 30 feet above natural grade on the existing 44 foot
wooden utility pole. The proposed equipment structure would be seven feet tall and approximately 240 sq.
ft. in size and used to screen the mechanical equipment. The equipment structure would be constructed of
pressure treated pine wood, decorative lattice, galvanized steel fence posts and painted forest green. The
structure would be surrounded with 22 “toyon shrubs” to establish visual consistency with the neighboring
vegetation. The proposed location is within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. The applicant requested to
5
continue this item to the November 9, 2011 meeting. (Michael Fossati, Planner) (Approved to continue,
5:0)
DIRECTORS ITEM
COMMISSION ITEMS
COMMUNICATIONS
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING – ADJOURNED 7:15 PM
- Wednesday, November 9, 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 October 6,
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
Meeting Date: November 9, 2011
Application Type / No: Design Review / PDR10-0018
Location: Highway 9, North of Farwell
Owner / Applicant: CalTrans / NSA Wireless (Verizon)
Staff Planner: Michael Fossati
APN: Right-of-Way
Department Head: James Lindsay
Highway 9 North of Farwell
7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY
Application filed: 10/06/10
Application complete: 08/26/11
Notice published: 08/30/11
Mailing completed: 08/29/11
Posting completed: 09/08/11
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the installation of three wireless
telecommunication antennas and the construction of an equipment shelter to be placed on Saratoga-Los
Gatos Road, north of Farwell Avenue. The proposed three antennas would be attached to two eight foot
crossbars and be placed approximately 30 feet above natural grade on the existing 44 foot wooden utility
pole. The proposed equipment shelter would be seven feet tall and approximately 209 sq. ft. in size and
used to screen the mechanical equipment. The equipment structure would be constructed of pressure
treated pine wood, decorative lattice, galvanized steel fence posts and painted forest green. The
structure would be surrounded with 22 Toyon shrubs to establish visual consistency with the
neighboring vegetation. The proposed location is within the R-1-40,000 zoning district.
PERMANENT CONDITIONS
No permanent conditions of approval are required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Design Review application by adopting the attached Resolution.
8
PROJECT DATA
ZONING: R-1-40,000
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very Low Density Residential: RVLD
MEASURE G: Not applicable.
PARCEL SIZE: Not applicable
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: <3%
GRADING REQUIRED: None
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed project, which includes installation and replacement 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 of
limited small new facilities; installation of small, new equipment and facilities in small structures.
PROJECT DISCUSSION
Site Characteristics and Background – September 24th 2011 Meeting
The applicant had requested Design Review Approval to install three new panel antennas along
Highway 9, northwest of Farwell Avenue. The antennas would have been connected to two 8’ cross
arms. Those cross arms would be connected to an existing Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) utility pole.
The antennas and cross arms would be installed approximately 30 feet above grade. The height of the
existing pole would remain at approximately 44 feet.
The applicant also requested to construct a 26’ x 14’ (approximately 372 sq. ft.) unenclosed wooden
equipment shelter to house ten equipment cabinets (ranging in heights from two and a half to seven feet
tall), used to support the proposed antennas. The equipment enclosure would have been constructed of
treated pine wood pickets and galvanized steel posts. The pickets and posts would be six feet tall and
topped with one foot of decorative lattice. The posts, pickets, and lattice would be painted forest green.
The location of the proposed equipment structure would have been approximately 22 feet northeast of an
asphalt trail and 16 ½ feet southwest of the neighboring property line. A proposed landscape buffer of
approximately 22 Toyon shrubs would have been planted between the shelter and the asphalt trail.
Existing mature vegetation (which includes eight protected trees) would have provided landscape
buffering between the shelter and adjacent properties.
During the September 24th public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended the applicant
resubmit a structure more suitable for the scenic highway. The Planning Commission requested that the
applicant submit a plan that would remove (to the extent feasible) the equipment shelter from the view
of the public right-of-way. The meeting was continued to October 9th and continued again to November
9th due to the late submission of materials for Staff review.
Resubmittal Application
The applicant has submitted an alternative to the previously submitted application. The request to install
three new panel antennas onto the utility pole has remained unchanged. The only change is in the
construction and placement of the unenclosed equipment shelter. The revision is discussed below.
9
The applicant has proposed an 11’ x 19’ shelter (approximately 207 sq. ft. in size, 165 sq. ft. smaller
than the original proposal) that would be placed approximately 24 feet northeast of an asphalt walkway
trail, 30 feet west of the utility pole, and approximately nine feet southwest of the neighboring property
line. The shelter would be constructed of wooden pickets, posts and lattice, all painted forest green,
with the exception of the northeast facing wall. The wall would be constructed out of concrete masonry
to further assist in buffering any potential noise impacts to adjacent neighbors. A proposed “man gate”
would face southwest.
Unlike the previous submittal, the proposed shelter would have the narrowest portion facing Highway 9.
By changing the configuration of the proposed shelter, Staff believes that a larger portion of the
structure can be hidden within the existing vegetation without significantly impacting the protected trees
in the area. The proposed location would meet PG&E’s requirement of maintaining 30 feet between an
accessory structure and a utility pole. The city arborist is in favor of this proposed location as it is
placed outside of the canopy edge of Tree #75 (an Incense Cedar).
Proposed Landscaping
As previously discussed, the previous project included the planting of approximately 22 Toyon shrubs
around the proposed equipment enclosure. A landscape maintenance agreement of one year and three
months was also previously proposed.
The applicant has not proposed any specific changes (in regards to the plantings) to the landscape plan.
If the proposed landscape plan is not sufficient, they have agreed to a condition to provide the City with
a more detailed landscape plan that encourages plantings and shrubs consistent with the existing
landscaping along Horseshoe Court. Furthermore, Verizon agrees to work with the residents along
Horseshoe Drive on a set percentage of additional plantings and shrubs to be installed at an agreed upon
location along Highway 9 (between Horseshoe Drive and Farwell).
Furthermore, the applicant has proposed to provide the City with a landscape maintenance agreement
and annual progress report on the condition of the landscaping for the first five years of growth. At year
five, the applicant proposes to provide the City with a five year post installation analysis on the
condition of the installed landscaping and recommendations for any further course of action. In order to
provide assurance of the proposed condition, the applicant will file a bond with the City insuring that the
landscaping is properly maintained and until all recommendations for growth have been achieved.
Noise-Generating Devices
The previous project included a potential noise source emanating from two Mod Cell 4.0 outdoor
cabinets. The applicant submitted an environmental noise assessment (Attachment 4) to verify the
proposed noise generating by the Mod Cell cabinets would be approximately 68 dBA at a five foot
distance. The sound level of 68 dBA would be equivalent to a commercial area or normal speech at a
three foot distance. Per the report, average noise levels typically range from 59 to 66 dBA during the
day and 44 to 61 dBA during the evening. Staff believed the proposed project would not significantly
increase the noise level of the district due to low noise creation, existing buffer of dense vegetation
currently between the proposed project and residential properties located to the north. Furthermore, the
cabinets would be surrounded with a proposed unenclosed accessory structure and additional
landscaping, which could potentially further dampen the intermittent noise.
Staff believes the resubmittal would not significantly increase the noise level in the district. The
proposed project has proposed one Mod Cell 4.0 outdoor cabinet, unlike the previous application which
10
proposed two. The applicant has also proposed a concrete masonry wall to assist in buffering any noise
emanating from the equipment. The applicant has not submitted a revised noise assessment, but Staff
assumes that the removal of one cabinet and construction of a proposed sound wall would decrease the
noise from the proposed structure.
Proposed Exterior Materials and Colors
The previously proposed antennas and associated equipment located on the utility tower would be gray
in color. As previously mentioned, the proposed unenclosed equipment shelter would be painted forest
green to match the existing rural scenery (Attachment 5).
The new proposed antennas and associated equipment located on the utility tower would now be painted
brown in order to match the existing utility pole. The equipment shelter would remain the same color.
FCC Requirements
Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has
exclusive jurisdiction over RF emissions from personal wireless antenna facilities. Pursuant to its
authority under Federal law, the FCC has established rules to regulate the safety of emissions from these
facilities. Any interference to the established rules regulating safety of emissions would be against
Federal law and in violation of AT&T’s FCC License. A condition has been added to the attached
resolution that the applicant must meet all requirements established by the FCC. The applicant has
provided a Radio Frequency (RF) Analysis (Attachment 8) which concludes that the proposed
telecommunications facility would comply with the FCC’s current prevailing standard.
Alternative Sites
Verizon Wireless has multiple sites in Saratoga and has determined that the area north of Farwell
Avenue on Highway 9 is an optimal site to install the proposed antennas due to its location and existing
infrastructure. Three alternate sites were considered during the initial feasibility stage (Attachment 6).
Candidate “A” was rejected because it would require a new monopole to meet the coverage objective
instead of using existing infrastructure. Candidate “B” was rejected because the existing utility pole
could not handle additional antennas. Candidate “C” was rejected because it was located to close to an
already existing Verizon Wireless facility and does not fulfill the coverage objective sought out for the
coverage objective.
Members of the community submitted an alternative location at the corner of Three Oaks Way and
Highway 9 (Attachment 11). Staff had sent the alternative location request to the applicant and has not
received any comment on the alternative location to date.
Per the Coverage Map, there appears to be a significant reduction of data and network services along
residential properties near Highway 9. The proposed placement of the antennas would substantially
increase data and network speed for commuters and customers who reside in those properties discussed
above.
Correspondence and Neighbor Review
Staff has received e-mails and letters from seven residents in the community opposing the proposed
project. Their e-mails and letters have been included as Attachment 11. Their concerns vary from
visual impacts, safety impacts, and noise and privacy impacts on the existing scenic highway. The
applicant has proposed the following in order to mitigate the residents’ concerns.
• Visual Impacts – The applicant has proposed to reduce the size of the shelter from 372 sq. ft. to
11
207 sq. ft. The applicant has also proposed to place the structure within the existing vegetation
while maintaining sufficient clearance from the existing established trees currently onsite. The
applicant has further submitted a proposed agreement with the City to work on a more detailed
landscape plan, utilizing Toyon shrubs as well as existing shrubs planted along Horseshoe Court
and Highway 9. Verizon would include an additional set percentage of plantings at an
acceptable location along Horseshoe Drive and Farwell. The maintenance agreement would
provide the City with an annual progress report on the condition of the landscaping for the first
five years of growth. At year five, Verizon would agree to provide the City with a five year post
installation analysis on the condition of the installed landscaping and recommendations for any
further course of action. Lastly, a bond insuring that the landscaping is properly maintained will
be held on file with the City until all recommendations for growth have been achieved.
• Safety Impacts – Residents have commented that citizens utilize the existing asphalt path daily.
By allowing the proposed use, this may disrupt the use of the path. The applicant has proposed
to construct the shelter and install the antennas as efficiently and safely as possible. This
includes appropriate construction protective measures such as marking off the construction site,
completing construction during daylight, and wearing proper protective equipment. The
proposed shelter will be approximately 25 to 30 feet away from the path, which should be
sufficient space to allow citizens and residents to use the path, even during construction period.
• Noise & Privacy Impacts – The applicant has proposed an unmanned site. With the exception of
the construction of the shelter and installation of the antennas, there should be limited site visits
of construction staff to maintain the site. The applicant has also proposed less equipment (per
the previous submittal) and a cement masonry wall to further reduce the noise impacts of the
equipment shelter.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the submitted application of the proposed wireless
facility (Application PDR10-0018) by adopting the attached Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution of Approval – PDR10-0018
2. Photo simulations, Exhibit “B”
3. Coverage Map – Highway 9 North of Farwell
4. Noise Assessment – Highway 9 North of Farwell
5. Color and Material Board – Highway 9 North of Farwell
6. Alternate Location Map – Highway 9 North of Farwell
7. Updated Arborist Report – Highway 9 North of Farwell
8. Radio Frequency Analysis – Highway 9 North of Farwell
9. Neighbor Notifications
10. Public Hearing Notice, Affidavit and Mailing Label
11. Neighbor Letters and E-mail
12. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A"
12
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 11-020 FOR APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW
Application # PDR 10-0018
Verizon Wireless (NSA Wireless) / Highway 9 North of Farwell Ave.
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, and a planting plan denominated Exhibit “C” date stamped November 2, 2011
incorporated by this reference. The proposed project is the installation of three new antennas and
accessory equipment to an existing wooden utility pole. The project also includes the construction
of an approximately 207 square foot unenclosed accessory structure that would be used to house the
accessory equipment. Lastly, the project includes the planting of toyon and native shrubs that will
fully screen the proposed shelter, to the extent feasible. 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 surrounding area.
III. Planning Commission Review
On November 9, 2011, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the Project
at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence
and argument. The Planning Commission considered the Project, the staff report on the Project,
CEQA documentation, correspondence, 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.
13
2
Application No. PDR 10-0018; Right-of-Way, Highway 9 North of Farwell Ave.
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 antennas and accessory cabling will
bepainted a similar color to the existing equipment already located on the pole. The proposed
unenclosed accessory structure will be surrounded by drought tolerant shrubs and painted forest
green in order to integrate with the surrounding foliage. 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 proposes one weather and corrosion resistant sign in order to comply
with General Order 95 of the State of California which establishes the rules of overhead electric
line construction. A compatible theme will be met in that the associated equipment will be the
same color as the existing equipment on 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. The
project landscaping will be clustered to appear natural. Existing redwoods, oaks, and cedar trees
are located around the pole. Those trees will be undisturbed and protected by appropriate
means, as required by the City Arborist. The antennas will be placed approximately 30 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 proposes walls constructed of pressure treated pine wood slats,
galvanized steel fence posts, and decorative lattice. The colors of the slats, posts, and lattice will
be forest green, in order to match the existing mature vegetation in the rear of the proposed
structure and the proposed toyon shrubs which will be planted on the sides. The colors are
would be earthtone 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
14
3
Application No. PDR 10-0018; Right-of-Way, Highway 9 North of Farwell Ave.
color similar to match the existing equipment already on 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 the antenna installation
and unenclosed accessory structure would be compatible with existing utility poles and
residential fences in the nearby area. The proposed antennas would be attached to a utility pole
which is very similar in height to existing utility poles in the area. The unenclosed accessory
structure is similar to structures that house electrical equipment within CalTrans right of way.
The applicant has proposed a structure that not only meets the requirements of Verizon
Wireless, but will support the rural character of the City in its design and character. 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 10-0018 (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.
15
4
Application No. PDR 10-0018; Right-of-Way, Highway 9 North of Farwell Ave.
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
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”, & Planting Plan denominated Exhibit “C” date
stamped November 2nd 2011, 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 panel antennas
and accessory equipment, the antennas and equipment shall be painted a color similar to the
existing utility pole and subject to approval of the Community Development Director.
16
5
Application No. PDR 10-0018; Right-of-Way, Highway 9 North of Farwell Ave.
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.
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.
17. Landscaping Maintenance Agreement. The Owner / Applicant shall provide a Landscape
Maintenance Agreement prior to obtaining a building permit that will provide the City with an
annual progress report on the condition of the landscaping for the first five years of growth. At
year five, Verizon will agree to provide the City with a five year post installation analysis on the
condition of the installed landscaping and recommendations for any further course of action.
18. Required Landscaping. The Owner / Applicant shall be required to plant and maintain any
and all proposed shrubs, or appropriate landscaping, as discussed at the November 9th, 2011
Planning Commission Meeting, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or
his designee for up to five years after the project has received a building final.
17
6
Application No. PDR 10-0018; Right-of-Way, Highway 9 North of Farwell Ave.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 9th day of November
2011 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Douglas R. Robertson
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
___________________________________
James Lindsay
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
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
ABCAlternativeSiteLocationMap–ProposedAlternative Site Location Map –Highway 9 North of Farwell Ave.Proposed Location33
October 5, 2011
NSA Wireless, Inc.
2000 Crow Canyon Place, Ste. 400
San Ramon, CA 94583
Office: 925-244-1890
Fax: 925-355-0672
RE: ADDENDUM to April 8, 2011 Tree Survey
Proposed Wireless Site ‘South Saratoga #193182’ North of Farwell Av., Saratoga, CA.
I am retained by NSA Wireless for Verizon to review the alternate location of equipment adjacent to
the Cal Trans Right of Way line pursuant to the City of Saratoga Design Review meeting. It is my
understanding that the City desires to reduce visibility of the equipment pad by moving it within the
canopy of trees.
I have reviewed the revised plans 1-17 of 20 by CES. Sheet 5 and 6 of 20, the Site Plan shows the
proposed 10’ x 18’ equipment pad adjacent to trees #75 and #76. Sheet 13.1 of 20 provides
section drawing showing the sub base below grade estimated to be approximately 10-inches below
grade.
Tree #75, a 36-inch diameter Incense Cedar is the primary subject tree affected by the proposed
equipment pad. This mature Cedar tree is in good condition but has a low tolerance for root zone
disturbance. Introducing the proposed equipment pad within the natural canopy will require
excavations into the native grade resulting in critical root loss and subsequent tree decline.
Additionally, the canopy extends with close branch distribution symmetrically to the ground.
Accommodating the equipment will require branch removal roughly 8 to 10 feet above grade
resulting in disfiguration of the natural form.
At canopy edges to the south east are a highly competitive stand of understory native oaks ranging
in size from 1 to 8-inches in diameter. Within this highly competitive stand is tree #76, a 30-inch
diameter Deodar Cedar in Fair to Good condition. Removal of these competitive understory trees
will reduce competition within the mature tree grove and improve growing conditions for the
adjacent subject trees, especially tree 76.
In order to satisfy reduced visibility requirements and maintain long term tree health, I
recommend placing the equipment pad at canopy edges at the Cal Trans Right of Way line to
the south east of tree #75. (See Photo location on page 3 and Tree Survey Site Plan on page
4).
Any placement of equipment within the canopy of tree #75 will likely accomplish the task to reduce
equipment visibility at the expense of the tree designated to do so. This area provides a natural
location to follow canopy contours and also provides the desired reduced visibility.
Page 1 of 4
Consulting & Technical Services Since 1980
1200 MT. DIABLO BLVD., SUITE 204, WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 PHONE (925) 934.3575
34
ADDENDUM--NSA/Verizon--#193182’ Farwell Av.
Saratoga, CA.
10/6/2011
For any mandated construction inside the canopy of tree #75, consider alternate sub base
foundations to include pier and beam or post tension slab to reduce sub base requirements and
subsequent root loss.
Pursuant to City of Saratoga Municipal Code Ordinance 15-50 Chapters 14-16 Tree Regulations,
any and all construction approved activities within protected tree canopies (5-ft. outside the natural
tree canopy) shall adhere to the Tree Protection Plan provided in the April 8, 2011 Tree Survey
document.
Timothy C. Ghirardelli
WC ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST WE 0704A
Page 2 of 4
Consulting & Technical Services Since 1980
1200 MT. DIABLO BLVD., SUITE 204, WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 PHONE (925) 934.3575
35
ADDENDUM--NSA/Verizon--#193182’ Farwell Av.
Saratoga, CA.
10/6/2011
Photo Review of Equipment Location
Page 3 of 4
Consulting & Technical Services Since 1980
1200 MT. DIABLO BLVD., SUITE 204, WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 PHONE (925) 934.3575
Locate
Equipment
Pad Here
36
ADDENDUM--NSA/Verizon--#193182’ Farwell Av.
Saratoga, CA.
10/6/2011
Tree Survey
Site Plan
Page 4 of 4
Consulting & Technical Services Since 1980
1200 MT. DIABLO BLVD., SUITE 204, WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 PHONE (925) 934.3575
Locate
Equipment
Pad Here
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
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 14th day of September 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: PDR10-0018 / Saratoga-Los Gatos Road – North of Farewell
APPLICANT/OWNER: NSA wireless in c/o Verizon Wireless
APN: Right-of-Way
DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the installation of
three wireless telecommunication antennas and the construction of an equipment shelter to be
placed on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, north of Farwell Avenue. The proposed three antennas
would attached to two eight foot crossbars and be placed approximately 30 feet above natural
grade on the existing 43 foot wooden utility pole. The proposed equipment structure would be
seven feet tall and approximately 240 sq. ft. in size and used to screen the mechanical equipment.
The equipment structure would be constructed of pressure treated pine wood, decorative lattice
and galvanized steel fence posts and painted forest green. The structure would be surrounded
with 22 toyon shrubs to establish consistency with the neighboring vegetation. The proposed
location is within the R-1-40,000 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, September 6th 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
Planner
(408) 868-1212
50
9/6/2011 City of Saratoga Page -1 of 1 Radius Notification Parcel Report For the Period 9/6/2011 thru 9/6/2011Parcel Number Parcel Address Owner Name Owner Address Owner City, State Zip39718003 14900 FARWELL AV YEH CHIA L AND WANG HUEY L 14900 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 9507039718004 14866 FARWELL AV RODRIGUEZ LUPE AND BARBARA S T P.O. BOX 3563 SARATOGA, CA 9507039718005 14860 FARWELL AV RUDDELL KENNETH H AND ROSA M 20390 THELMA AV SARATOGA, CA 9507039718048 14920 FARWELL AV BRAMLETT MARLO J AND DEBORAH C 14920 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 9507039720008 14835 FARWELL AV BRADY ELIZABETH R TRUSTEE & ET 14835 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 9507039720009 14855 FARWELL AV BOURQUE MARGOT 14855 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 9507039720010 14911 FARWELL AV GLADWELL MALCOLM R AND PATRICI 14911 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 9507039720011 14702 HORSESHOE DR KIRTLEY STEPHEN W AND MARY P 14702 HORSESHOE DR SARATOGA, CA 9507039720012 20000 BELLA VISTA OLSON JON A AND ANNETTE L TRUS 20000 BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507039720013 20040 BELLA VISTA NG JONATHAN T AND SIULEE SHIRL 20040 BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507039720014 20018 BELLA VISTA LEE LUNG-CHIU AND JA-YING L 20018 BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507039720026 20061 BELLA VISTA ORMSETH THOMAS C AND KATHLEEN 20061 BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507039720027 14628 HORSESHOE DR PITMAN DAVID P AND DONNA C TRU 14628 HORSESHOE DR SARATOGA, CA 9507039720057 19915 BELLA VISTA SUSMAN BARBARA B TRUSTEE 3674 W PACIFIC COAST HY VENTURA, CA 9300139720058 20022 BELLA VISTA HUBER ROBERT M SR AND DONNA D 20022 BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507039720059 19990 BELLA VISTA MERHIGE MERWYN W TRUSTEE 19990 BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507039720064 19980 BELLA VISTA SHAPIRO PAUL J AND ELIZABETH S 19980 BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507039720065 19950 BELLA VISTA TUNG CHANG-YUNG AND GRACE C 19950 BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507039720066 BELLA VISTA KATICICH MATT P AND BARBARA J 9974 E FAIRCHILD RD STOCKTON, CA 9521539720074 20017 BELLA VISTA SARATOGA SWIMMING CLUB P O BOX 133 SARATOGA, CA 9507139720075 20015 BELLA VISTA MABANTA WILFRED 20015 BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507039720078 BELLA VISTA KRAFT JOHN K AND SUSAN 20021 BELLA VISTA AV SARATOGA, CA 9507039720079 14582 HORSESHOE DR CLARK WILLIAM G AND ELIZABETH 14582 HORSESHOE DR SARATOGA, CA 9507039720090 19908 BELLA VISTA HOMAYOUN TALIEH 19908 BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507039720091 20021 BELLA VISTA KRAFT JOHN K AND SUSAN 20021 BELLA VISTA AV SARATOGA, CA 9507039720096 14781 FARWELL AV DENNERLINE DOUG A 14781 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 9507039720099 20011 BELLA VISTA CHU TRICIA Y ET AL 20011 BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507039720100 19931 BELLA VISTA THURNHER OSKAR R AND BARBARA J 19931 BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507051720040 20127 MENDELSOHN LN MARTIN KIP J 20127 MENDELSOHN LN SARATOGA, CA 9507051721004 20045 MENDELSOHN LN CHENG DAVID CHENG-YI AND JUNE 18601 EUCALYPTUS DR LOS GATOS, CA 9503051721007 20017 MENDELSOHN LN THERMOND JEFFREY L AND CATHERI 20017 MENDELSOHN LN SARATOGA, CA 9507051721008 19911 MENDELSOHN LN DEL CARLO ARNOLD S AND JOYCE M 19911 MENDELSOHN LN SARATOGA, CA 9507051721009 19935 MENDELSOHN LN PIVK LEOPOLD JR 19935 MENDELSOHN LN SARATOGA, CA 9507051721017 20107 MENDELSOHN LN MURPHY MATT AND LORA 20107 MENDELSON AVENUE SARATOGA, CA 9507051721018 20190 RANCHO BELLA VISTA LERONE THOMAS A AND CHRISTINE 20190 RANCHO BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507051721019 20170 RANCHO BELLA VISTA LIN ERIC C AND YEH FU F 20170 RANCHO BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507051721020 20150 RANCHO BELLA VISTA SILVERGLIDE HARRY R AND EDYTHE PO BOX 764 CAPTIVA, FL 3392451721021 20140 RANCHO BELLA VISTA ADAMSON G DAVID AND ROSEMARY C 20140 RANCHO BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507051721023 20121 RANCHO BELLA VISTA HUANG 20121 RANCHO BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507051721024 20131 RANCHO BELLA VISTA SMALL KIMBALL W AND MARTHA L 20131 RANCHO BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507051721025 20141 RANCHO BELLA VISTA KLAYKO MICHAEL A AND PATRICIA 20141 RANCHO BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507051721026 20151 RANCHO BELLA VISTA MIRANDA DANIEL AND EVA R TRUST 20151 RANCHO BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507051721027 20161 RANCHO BELLA VISTA LEWIS RONALD D AND MICHELE F 20161 RANCHO BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507051721028 20171 RANCHO BELLE VISTA MO BAOCI 15159 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA, CA 9507051721029 20181 RANCHO BELLA VISTA ONCINA FRANK J AND MARILYN M T 20181 RANCHO BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507051721030 20191 RANCHO BELLA VISTA JALALIAN HASSAN AND TAFRASHI S 20191 RANCHO BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507046 Affected Parcels51
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES
I, Michael Fossati , 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 Community
Development Director on the 31st day of August , 2011, that I
deposited 46 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 250 feet of the
property described as:
Address: Highway 9, North of Farwell
APN: Right-of-Way
that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the
addresses shown above.
______________________________
Michael Fossati
City of Saratoga
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. : FER 11-0002
Location / APN: 14651 Farwell Avenue / 397-20-004
Type of Application: Fence Exception
Owner: Jerry and Judy Oberthier
Staff Planner: Cynthia McCormick, AICP
Date: November 9, 2011
Department Head: James Lindsay
14651 FARWELL AVE
65
STAFF ANALYSIS
PROJECT HISTORY:
Application Filed: 05/16/11
Application Complete: 08/18/11
Notice Published: 08/30/11
Mailing Completed: 08/29/11
Posting Completed: 09/08/11
Public Hearing (continued) 09/14/11
HPC Meeting: 10/11/11
ZONING: R-1-40,000
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Very Low Density (RVLD)
PARCEL SIZE: 34,226 square feet
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The project is 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 and location of a new small structure such as a fence.
PERMANENT CONDITION OF APPROVAL
The resolution includes a permanent condition requiring the owner to retain the existing gate and
columns, as determined by the Planning Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the project exempt from CEQA and
approve the application for a Fence Exception with required findings and conditions by adopting
the attached Resolution.
Alternatively, the Planning Commission could approve the project, allowing the owner to replace
the existing gate.
FENCE DATA:
66
Application No. FER 11-0002 / 14651 Farwell Avenue
Proposal Code Requirements
Front setback:
6’ tall wood fence
6’ tall wrought-iron fence
7’ tall columns
20’ from pavement:
9’ foot - 11.5 inch gate (proposed)
10’ 4” iron/ wood gate (existing)
11’ 6 “ tall columns (existing)
Elsewhere:
6’ tall wood fence
Front setback:
3’ tall fence
5’ tall columns
20’ from pavement:
5’tall wrought iron entrance gate
5’tall pilasters attached to a wrought iron entrance gate
Elsewhere:
6’ tall solid fence with 2’ of lattice
8’ tall open fence (e.g., wrought iron)
8’ tall pilasters
PROJECT DISCUSSION:
The applicant is requesting an exception to the City’s regulations regarding fences. The Planning
Commission may grant a fence exception when findings are made pursuant to City Code Section
15-29.090. The project is discussed below. The findings are detailed in the attached Resolution.
Site Description
The property is located at the corner of Farwell Avenue and Wild Oak Way. The site is 34,226
square feet in size and is located in the R1-40,000 zoning district. The property is smaller than other
lots in the area and has an irregular shape, creating an unusual front setback. A portion of the front
property line is in the street while the other portion is nine and one-half feet from the street. Thus,
the front setback is 30 feet from the edge of pavement in one area and 39.5 feet from the edge of
pavement in the other area.
The subject property was purchased by the Oberthiers in 1972. The property borders the Rancho
Bella Vista property to the west, but is not presently a part of that property. The Historic Resource
Inventory Report for Rancho Bella Vista includes a hand-written note indicating that part of the
original land owned by the Farwells was sold off prior to the passing of Frank Farwell in the early
1900s. Since then, the Rancho Bella Vista property has been owned by Mr. and Mrs. Charles D.
Blaney, cousins of the Farwells, and then Edith Kirkwood, sister to Mrs. Blaney, and then Robert
Kirkwood, son to Mrs. Kirkwood.
HPC Review
3
67
Application No. FER 11-0002 / 14651 Farwell Avenue
On September 13th, during the project site visit, the applicant indicated that the existing columns
may have been part of the original Kirkwood estate. Based on this information, the Planning
Commission continued the September 14th 2011 public hearing to allow an opportunity for the
Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) to review the project (attachment 2).
On October 11th 2011 the HPC determined (5 ayes, 1 no) that the columns and gate qualify for
inclusion in the Heritage Resource Inventory. The HPC also determined (6 ayes, 0 noes) that the
fence will not have a significant impact on the existing columns and gate, given that the columns and
gate will remain (attachment 3).
Project Description
The applicant is proposing a new fence and gate. The existing fence on the property is dilapidated.
Thus, the proposed fence could be considered an improvement to the existing fence. The wrought-
iron fence would be compatible with fencing on nearby properties and would provide a more open
feeling than surrounding solid fences or hedges of a similar height (attachment 6).
The new fence would be a six foot (6’) tall bronze-brown colored wrought-iron fence with seven
foot (7’) tall brick columns along the front of the property. The brick columns would match the color
of the existing red bricks on the house.
The owner will retain the existing eleven foot six inch (11’ 6”) tall plaster columns but would prefer
to replace the existing 10’ 4” iron and wood clad entrance gate. The Heritage Preservation
Commission has recommended that the owner retain the gate. Thus, staff has added a permanent
condition of approval to this effect.
The applicant would like to replace the existing gate with a smaller 9’- 11.5” tall wrought iron gate.
The applicant’s reasons for wanting to replace the gate are to match the proposed bronze-brown
colored fence which does not have spikes at the top. Furthermore, the new gate would be lower in
height than the existing gate and be more in line with the proposed fence which would be six feet
tall. While removing the wood from the gate would help reduce some of the appearance of bulk, it is
not known what the condition of the gate is underneath the wood or what the condition of the gate
would be after removal of the wood.
The gate and columns would be at least 25 feet from the edge of pavement and the entire fence
structure would be located outside the required triangle(s) of visibility. The proposed fence would
enclose a portion of the front property that is not currently enclosed by a fence and would replace an
existing fence between the existing gate and the house. The applicant is also proposing a six foot (6’)
tall wood fence that would replace an existing wood fence of the same height and location. The
wood fence would be located along the southwestern side of the property including a portion of the
front setback. The City Arborist has approved the removal of a pine tree in the front of the property
that is in decline and in conflict with the project.
Neighbor Correspondence
4
68
Application No. FER 11-0002 / 14651 Farwell Avenue
5
The applicant has shown plans for the fence to the adjacent neighbors. Seven of the neighbors signed
notification forms (Attachment 3). One neighbor was concerned with sight distance at the corner of
Farwell Avenue and Wild Oak Way. The City’s traffic consultant reviewed the project and
recommending trimming the hedge at the street intersection. The resolution includes a condition of
approval requiring the owner to keep the hedges trimmed to a maximum height of three feet (3’)
within the 50 foot visibility triangle at the street intersection. No other comments have been received
as of the writing of this staff report.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval
2. HPC Memo
3. HPC Decision Letter
4. Notice and Mailing Address List
5. Neighbor Review Notifications
6. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A”
69
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 11-026 FOR APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW
Application No. FER 11-0002
Oberthier; 14651 Farwell 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 a Fence Exception for
the Project shown in Exhibit "A" date stamped November 2, 2011, incorporated by this reference.
The project is a six foot tall wood fence and a six foot tall wrought-iron fence with seven foot tall
brick columns. The owner will retain the existing columns and gate. The fence, gate, and columns
would be located outside the line of sight visibility triangle. The lot is 34,226 square feet and the site
is zoned R-1-40,000.
II. Fence Exception Requirement
City Code Section 15-29.090 allows an exception to the fence regulations with approval by the
Planning Commission.
III. Heritage Preservation Commission Review
On October 11, 2011 the Heritage Preservation Commission held a properly posted meeting on the
Project at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present
evidence and argument. The Heritage Preservation Commission considered the Project, the staff
memorandum on the Project, correspondence from the Applicant and the public, and all testimony
and evidence presented at the meeting.
IV. Planning Commission Review
On November 9, 2011 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the Project
at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence
and argument and the Planning Commission considered the Project, the staff report on the Project,
correspondence from the Applicant and the public, and all testimony and evidence presented at the
Public Hearing.
V. Environmental Review
The project is 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 and location of a new small
structure such as a fence. No exception to this exemption applies.
70
2
Application No. FER 11-0002; 14651 Farwell Avenue
VI. Fence Exception Findings
The Applicant has met the burden of proof to support the Findings required for approval of a Fence
Exception under City Code Section 15-29.090, as set forth below:
Finding #1: The subject fence will be compatible with other similar structures in the
neighborhood. The fence would be similar in location and height to existing fencing in the
immediate neighborhood. The six foot tall wood fence would replace an existing wood fence and
would be similar to nearby wood fences. The wrought-iron fence and gate are compatible with
other wrought-iron fences in the neighborhood.
Finding #2: The entirety of the subject fence will be constructed of materials that are of high
quality, exhibit superior craftsmanship, and that are durable. The wrought-iron fence would be
made of high quality materials and constructed with three-inch steel tubes, set twelve inches into
the ground. The columns that support the fence would be constructed of brick to match the
house. The fence along the side of the property would be constructed with natural wood and
stained with a wood grain finish.
Finding #3: The modification will not impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood
in which the fence is located. The proposed fencing would be complimentary to other existing
fencing in the neighborhood and the wrought-iron fence would provide a more open feeling than
the existing wood fence.
Finding #4: The granting of the exception will not be detrimental or injurious to the property,
adjacent neighbors, or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property
is located. The fence would replace an existing fence that is dilapidated and falling down. All
materials used would be high quality and the fence would be landscaped on both sides. The
fence, columns, and gate will comply with building and fire code regulations.
Finding #5: The granting of the exception will not create a safety hazard for vehicular,
pedestrian or bicycle traffic and does not obstruct the safe access to and from adjacent
properties. The majority of the fence is wrought-iron, allowing visibility on to and out from the
site. The fence would be located outside of the right-of-way and no less than nine feet from the
edge of pavement. The fence and all supporting structures would be outside of the 50 foot
visibility triangle at the street intersection and outside the 12 foot visibility triangle at the
driveway.
71
3
Application No. FER 11-0002; 14651 Farwell Avenue
VII. Project Approval
After careful consideration of the application, site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other
materials and exhibits submitted to the City in connection with this matter, Application No. FER11-
0002 for a fence exception is approved subject to the conditions set forth below.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. GENERAL
1. Conditions may be modified only by the Planning Commission unless modification is expressly
otherwise allowed by the City Code including but not limited to Section 16-05-035, as
applicable.
2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date
of adoption of this Resolution or the Fence Exception will expire unless extended in accordance
with the City Code.
3. Prior to issuance of any demolition, use, grading, or building permit to implement this 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.
4. 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 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.
72
4
Application No. FER 11-0002; 14651 Farwell Avenue
B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
5. Compliance with Plans. The fence shall be located and constructed to include those features,
and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans denominated Exhibit "A" dated
November 2, 2011 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.
Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community
Development Director and may require review by the Planning Commission. No downgrading
of materials will be approved by staff.
6. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted
to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the
Community Development Department Director or designee prior to issuance of Zoning
Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following:
a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A”
on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. B.1
above.
b. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation
inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written
certification that all building setbacks comply with the Approved Plans,” which note shall
represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance with this Design
Review Approval; and
c. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages.
7. Landscape Maintenance. Landscaped areas (e.g., hedges) within any triangle of visibility on
site shall be trimmed and otherwise maintained by the Owner so that they do not exceed three
feet in height.
8. THIS CONDITION IS PERMANENT: Columns and Gate. The applicant shall retain the
existing columns and gate, as determined by the Heritage Preservation Committee. The gate and
columns shall be preserved in their present condition, with the exception of routine
maintenance. Any significant work would require review by the Heritage Preservation
Committee.
73
5
Application No. FER 11-0002; 14651 Farwell Avenue
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 9th day of November
2011 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Douglas R. Robertson
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
___________________________________
James Lindsay
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
74
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: October 11, 2011
TO: Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC)
FROM: Cynthia McCormick, AICP
SUBJECT: Determination of whether the existing columns and/or gate have historic
significance.
Property Location: 14651 Farwell Avenue
Property APN: 397-20-004
Property Owners: Jerry and Judy Oberthier
Project Summary
Property Description and History of Adjacent Property: The subject property was purchased
by the Oberthiers in 1972. The property is located on Farwell Avenue and borders the Rancho
Bella Vista property to the west, but is not presently a part of that property (attachment 1). The
Historic Resource Inventory Report for Rancho Bella Vista includes a hand-written note
indicating that part of the original land owned by the Farwells was sold off prior to the passing of
Frank Farwell in the early 1900s (attachment 2). Since then, the Rancho Bella Vista property has
been owned by Mr. and Mrs. Charles D. Blaney, cousins of the Farwells, and then Edith
Kirkwood, sister to Mrs. Blaney, and then Robert Kirkwood, son to Mrs. Kirkwood.
Project Description: The owner has applied for design review approval from the Planning
Commission to add a fence to the front of the property. The fence would be attached to two
existing eleven foot six inch (11’ 6”) tall plaster columns at the front of the property. There is no
mention of the columns in the historic resource inventory for Rancho Bella Vista; however, the
owner believes that the existing columns may have been part of the original Kirkwood estate.
The owner will retain the existing columns but would prefer to replace the existing 10’ 4”
wrought-iron and wood entrance gate. The existing gate would be replaced with a 9’- 11.5” tall
wrought iron gate. The wood on the existing gate has been painted and does not appear to be
original. The new fence would be a six foot (6’) tall bronze-brown colored wrought-iron fence
with seven foot (7’) tall brick columns along the front of the property. The brick columns would
match the color of the existing red bricks on the house. The applicant is also proposing a six foot
(6’) tall wood that would replace an existing wood fence of the same height and location.
The HPC should determine whether the existing columns and/or gate have historic
significance.
75
Project Address: 14651 Farwell Avenue
Project Owner: Jerry and Judy Oberthier
Memorandum to the Saratoga Historic Preservation Commission Page 2
If the existing columns and/or gate are determined NOT to be historic, then the applicant
may apply for required permits including design review for a new fence and replacement of
the gate.
If the existing columns and/or gate are determined to be historic, then the following options
are available in reviewing this proposal:
1. Determine that the proposed project will not have an impact on the historic character
of the columns and/or gate: If the HPC determines that the new fence and gate will not
have an impact on the historic character of the columns and/or gate, the applicant may and
apply for required permits including design review and replacement of the gate.
2. Request changes to proposed project: Require the applicant to revise the plans and ask the
applicant to return to the Heritage Preservation Commission for additional review.
Attachments
(1) Parcel Map
(2) Historic Resource Inventory Report for Ranch Bella Vista property to the west
(3) Heritage Resource Determination Application
(4) Plans for the proposed fence and gate
76
77
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, September 14th 2011 at 7:00 p.m.
The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. A
site visit will also be held by the Planning Commission at the subject property. Please contact the
Planning Department for the date and time of the site visit. The public hearing agenda item is
stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development
Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at
www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures.
APPLICATION #: FER 11-0002
APPLICANT/OWNER: Jerry and Judy Oberthier
APN/ ADDRESS: 397-20-004; 14651 Farwell Avenue
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests approval for a fence exception. The project
is a six foot tall wrought-iron fence with seven foot tall brick columns and 10 foot tall entrance
gate with eleven foot six inch tall columns. The fence, gate, and columns would be located
outside the line of sight visibility triangle along Farwell Avenue and Wild Oak Way. The lot is
34,226 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000.
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a
decision of the Planning Commission, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the Public Hearing.
This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject
of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor’s office annually, in
preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of-date information or difficulties with the U.S.
Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a
project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this
notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone
in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project.
Cynthia McCormick
Assistant Planner
(408) 868-1230
78
10/26/2011 Page 1 of 2City of Saratoga
Radius Notification Parcel Report
Parcel Number Parcel Address Owner Name Owner Address Owner City, State Zip
39717032 19779 VERSAILLES WY LIN TZU-MU AND CATHERINE 19779 VERSAILLES WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
39717033 19805 VERSAILLES WY JALAN RAJKUMAR AND POONAM 19805 VERSAILLES WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
39717034 19752 VERSAILLES WY CHEN LEE TRUSTEE 19752 VERSAILLES WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
39717035 19680 VERSAILLES WY FOX MARVIN B AND JOAN L TRUSTE 19680 VERSAILLES WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
39717039 19691 FARWELL AV SAMSON WILFRED J AND MARIANNA 19691 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39717040 19753 FARWELL AV 849 COLLEGE AVE INC 19753 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39717041 19795 FARWELL AV CHANG ELLIS AND CAROLINE 19795 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39717042 14600 WILD OAK WY MILLER DONALD B TRUSTEE & ET A 14600 WILD OAK WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
39717043 19800 VERSAILLES WY PILLAI HARI TRUSTEE & ET AL 19800 VERSAILLES WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718008 14760 FARWELL AV GIALLO 14760 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718011 19700 FARWELL AV MEDHEKAR AJIT K AND DESAI GEET 19700 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718013 14721 LIVE OAK LN MIRANDA JOSE A TRUSTEE 14721 LIVE OAK LN SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718045 14700 FARWELL AV GONZALES ERIC D AND MELINDA TR 14700 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718046 19740 FARWELL AV ROSSEN RONALD M AND LINDA S TR 19740 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718050 14740 FARWELL AV ARIKO BARRY M AND LESLIE J 14740 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718051 14720 FARWELL AV MOUNT DANIEL S AND BARBARA S 14720 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718073 19670 FARWELL AV WATSON GEORGE W AND GLORIA C T 19670 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718074 14691 LIVE OAK LN LEE MING-LUNG AND YI-LAN KU TR 14691 LIVE OAK LN SARATOGA, CA 95070
39720001 ,
39720002 ,
39720003 ,
39720004 ,
39720005 ,
39720006 ,
39720031 ,
39720057 ,
39720082 ,
39720083 14521 WILD OAK WY RIPARBELLI DAVID J AND MARISA 14521 WILD OAK WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
39720090 19908 BELLA VISTA HOMAYOUN TALIEH 19908 BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 95070
39720091 ,
39720093 ,
39720094 ,
GEO10 79
Parcel Number Parcel Address Owner Name Owner Address Owner City, State Zip
39720095 14568 HORSESHOE CT BRAHAM 14568 HORSESHOE CT SARATOGA, CA 95070
39720096 ,
Affected Parcels 34
GEO10 80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
REPORT TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
Application No./Location: PDR11-0023 / 20381 Williams Avenue
Type of Application: Design Review for a new 26 foot tall, 2,880 square feet,
two story single-family home on a 7,687 square foot lot
Applicant/Owner: Nina Tang
Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan, AICP
Meeting Date: November 9, 2011
APN: 398-28-074
Department Head: James Lindsay
20381 WILLIAMS AVENUE
88
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROJECT HISTORY:
Application filed: …………………………………… 08/23/11
Application complete: ………………………………. 10/17/11
Notice published: …………………………………… 10/26/11
Mailing completed: …………………………………. 10/19/11
Posting completed: ………………………………….. 11/03/11
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting Planning Commission Design Review approval to construct a
proposed two story, 2,880 square foot, 26’ tall single-family home on an approximately
7,687 square foot lot. The project would be located at 20381 Williams Avenue within
the R-1-10,000 zoning district.
The site is vacant with the exception of an existing 304 square foot garage building that
would be removed.
The project is proposing to remove three trees. These include a 17” Date Palm, a 16”
Black Locust, and a 9” Coast Live Oak.
Zoning Code Section 15-45.060 states that for any conversion of a single-story structure to a
multi-story structure or any addition to a single story structure over 18 feet tall 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 two story house in excess of 18 feet.
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 7
89
Application No. PDR11-0023 / 20381 Williams Avenue
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R-1-10,000
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLVD (Very Low Density Residential)
MEASURE G: Not Applicable
PARCEL SIZE: Gross/Net: 7,687 square feet / .176 acre.
SLOPE: Approximately 3.00 % average site slope / 3.00 % slope at building site
GRADING REQUIRED: A total of 87cubic 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 new residence would
feature horizontal wood siding painted with a “light yellow” color. A “cultured stone”
veneer would be used as an exterior accent on the front entrance. The wood front
entrance door would have a natural wood finish. The vinyl clad wood windows would be
white in color. The “carriage style” steel garage door would be painted to match the color
of the wood siding. The roof would be covered with brown colored concrete 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 –White in Color Milgard
Front Door Wood Entrance Door – Natural Finish TBD
Garage Door Steel Carriage Door – Light Yellow Carriage House Door
Company
Building Ext. Horizontal Lap Wood Siding – Light Yellow TBD
Stone Veneer Cultured Stone Veneer – Natural Stone Cultured Stone
Roof Concrete Tiles – Brown in Color Eagle – Sunrise Blend
Page 3 of 7
90
Application No. PDR11-0023 / 20381 Williams Avenue
PROJECT DATA:
R-1-10,000 Zoning
Net Site Area: 7,687 sq. ft.
Existing/Proposed Allowable/Required
Proposed Site Coverage
Building
Front Porch:
Back Patio:
Walkways and Landing
Driveway
Total Proposed Site Coverage
1,986 SF
247 SF
1,268 SF
196 SF
601 SF
4,298 (55.91 %)
4,614 SF
(60.00 %)
Floor Area
First Floor (including garage)
Second Floor
Total Proposed Floor Area
1,986 SF
894 SF
2,880 SF
2,880 SF
Basement None Proposed N/A
Grading (in cubic yards)
Site:
Cut
102
Fill
15
Total
117
Bal.
87
Grading Limits Not
Applicable to R-1-10,000
Zoning District
Height (Main Residence)
Lowest Elevation Point:
Highest Elevation Point:
Average Elevation Point:
Proposed Topmost Point:
465.05 FT
467.98 FT
467.52 FT
493.52 FT (26’-0”)
Maximum Height
= 493.52 (26 Feet)
Setbacks
Front:
Rear:
Left Side:
Right Side:
First
Floor
29’-0”
58’- 0”
6’- 0”
6’- 0”
Second
Floor
39’-0”
64’-0”
11’-0”
11’-0”
First
Floor
25 FT
25 FT
6 FT*
6 FT*
Second
Floor
25 FT
35 FT
11 FT*
11 FT*
* The minimum site width in the R-1-10,000 zoning district is 85 feet. The subject lot is approximately 50
feet wide. SMC Code Section 15.65.040(b)(1) [Structures on Nonconforming Sites] states that if a lot
has a nonconforming width than the interior side setback shall be 10 percent of the lot width or six feet,
whichever is greater. The second story setback is to be increased an additional five feet.
PROJECT DISCUSSION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Proposed Project and Architectural Style
The existing site is vacant with the exception of a 304 square foot garage that is proposed for
removal. Until recently, both the lot to right at 20471 Williams Avenue and the subject site
were owned by the same individual and treated as one lot. The existing garage on lot 20381
Williams Avenue was used by the former owner. When the two lots were sold to separate
owners, the property owner at 20471 Williams Avenue lost the use of the garage.
Page 4 of 7
91
Application No. PDR11-0023 / 20381 Williams Avenue
The project designer has identified the architectural design of the project as “colonial
revival”. The exterior finish of the proposed new residence would feature horizontal
wood siding painted with a “light yellow” color. A “cultured stone” veneer would be
used as an exterior accent on the front entrance. The wood front entrance door would
have a natural wood finish. The vinyl clad wood windows would be white in color. The
“carriage style” steel garage door would be painted to match the color of the wood siding.
The roof would be covered with brown colored concrete tiles.
Fireplaces
Saratoga City Code Section 15-48.030 establishes a limit of one wood burning fireplace per
structure. The project is not proposing any wood burning fireplaces. One “gas burning”
fireplace would be 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 a generator near the left rear corner of the building that
would not be located in a required setback. No generators are being proposed.
Geotechnical Clearance
The project does not include a basement and is not being constructed in a geologic hazard
zone. Geotechnical clearance from the Public Works Department was not required.
Trees
The project is proposing to remove three trees to construct the project as discussed in the
following paragraphs.
One 17-inch Date Palm in poor condition that is located near the center of the proposed
building footprint.
One 16-inch Black Locust tree, in fair condition, that is in conflict with the location of the
proposed house.
One 9-inch Coast Live Oak tree is located near the left property line. This tree is located
very close to another Oak tree. Removal of this particular tree will provide an increased
growing area for the adjacent tree thereby improving its health and physical structure.
Eleven additional protected trees could potentially be impacted by construction of the
project. These include a Deodar cedar, one Cherry, and nine Coast Live Oaks. These
trees will be protected during construction by chain link fencing that is installed around
the trees per the recommendations of the City Arborist. The applicant would be required
to submit a $39,850 security deposit (100% of their appraised value) for the protection of
these trees prior to issuance of a building permit. This fencing must be installed and
inspected and the tree protection deposit provided to the City prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
Page 5 of 7
92
Application No. PDR11-0023 / 20381 Williams Avenue
A full discussion of the trees to removed, the trees to be preserved, and the required tree
protection fencing is included in the City Arborist report that is included as Attachment 5.
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 159 points. Some of
the proposed green features would include:
• All windows and glass doors will be double pane & Low-E. Low-emittance (low-
E) coatings are microscopically thin, virtually invisible, metal or metallic oxide
layers deposited on a window primarily to reduce the U-factor by suppressing
radiative heat flow. The principal mechanism of heat transfer in multilayer
glazing is thermal radiation from a warm pane of glass to a cooler pane. Low-E
coatings are transparent to visible light.
• Radiant barrier roof sheathing. This sheathing is placed on the interior side of the
roof and helps block radiant heat from entering the attic thereby reducing cooling
costs.
• Energy Star water heaters and appliances. Devices carrying the Energy Star logo,
such as computer products and peripherals, kitchen appliances, buildings and
other products, generally use 20%–30% less energy than required by federal
standards.
• The use of “sun tunnels” to illuminate the interior of the building and reduce the
need for electric lighting
• Photosensitive and LED (Light-emitting Diode) lighting
• Low flush toilets (1.6 gallons or less per flush)
• Low flow shower heads (2.5 gallons per minute)
• Water efficient drip irrigation system
• Drought tolerant landscaping
Other “green features” include installation of efficient ductwork, exceeding Title 24 energy
requirements by 15%, and the use of low VOC (volatile organic compound) adhesives and
paint.
Neighbor Correspondence
The applicant has shown the proposed plans to 14 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 (Attachment #6). The public
hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga News. Thirteen
neighbors either had no comments or were supportive of the project. The adjacent neighbor
at 20471 Williams Avenue did have some project related concerns as discussed below:
The neighbor at 20471 Williams Avenue (to the right of the project) is concerned that the
proposed project would have an impact on existing privacy. This neighbor is primarily
concerned about views from the first and second story windows of the proposed residence as
well as loss of privacy during project construction. This neighbor also requested that the
Page 6 of 7
93
Application No. PDR11-0023 / 20381 Williams Avenue
Page 7 of 7
applicant construct a storm drain on their property to accommodate the neighbors’ site
drainage.
The applicant accommodated some of the neighbors’ requests in the project design. The
proposed house will only have one window on the second story facing the neighbors’
property. This window will be inoperable and will include translucent glass. The window
in the stairwell, located between the first and second story, would also be inoperable and
will include translucent glass. The seven foot tall wooden fence to be constructed between
the two properties will reduce the views from the first story windows. The Project Designer
has indicated the height of the proposed fence on the right elevation (see sheet #2 of the
development plans).
The neighbor is also concerned about security and privacy during construction of the project
since no fence currently divides the two properties. It is the intent of the project applicant to
install a fence between the two properties prior to commencing project construction. Staff
has added a condition of approval that would require the completion of the fence prior to
issuance of a building permit.
Furthermore, the neighbor requested that the applicant construct a drainage system on their
lot that would accommodate the neighbors’ site drainage. The applicants’ civil engineer
advised against allowing the neighbors’ site drainage to flow across the property line so the
applicant has not agreed to this request.
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."
94
Attachment 1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO: 11-027 FOR APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW
Application Numbers: PDR11-0023
Nina Tang (Applicant/Owner): 20381 Williams Avenue
The City of Saratoga Planning Commission finds and determines as follows with respect to the above-
described application:
I. Project Summary
The applicant is requesting Planning Commission Design Review approval to construct a proposed two
story, 2,880 square foot, 26’ tall single-family home on an approximately 7,687 square foot lot. The
project would be located at 20381 Williams Avenue within the R-1-10,000 zoning district.
The site is vacant with the exception of an existing 304 square foot garage building that would be
removed.
The project is proposing to remove three trees. These include a 17” Date Palm, a 16” Black Locust, and a
9” Coast Live Oak.
II. Design Review Requirement
City Code Section 15-45.060 states that for any conversion of a single-story structure to a multi-story
structure or any addition to a single story structure over 18 feet tall 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 two story house in excess of 18 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; and (4) 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. GENERAL PLAN FINDINGS
The applicants have met the burden of proof required to support approval of application Number PDR11-
0023 for Design Review approval. The approval of the proposed project would be consistent with the
following General Plan Goals and Policies as discussed below:
• Conservation Element Policy 6.0 – Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully
considering the visual impact of new development. The proposed two story single-family home will be in
keeping with the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga in that; the project will have a Colonial Revival
architectural style which is a traditional residential style that would complement the older homes, some of
which are historic, that are located in this area of Saratoga. The height of the proposed two-story home
95
2
Application No. PDR11-0023 / 20381 Williams Avenue
would be 26 feet in height and would be compatible with respect to height and bulk as adjacent two-story
homes in the vicinity and surrounding neighborhood. The exterior finish of the proposed new residence
would feature horizontal wood siding painted with a “light yellow” color. A “cultured stone” veneer
would be used as an exterior accent on the front entrance. The wood front entrance door would have a
natural wood finish. The vinyl clad wood windows would be white in color. The “carriage style” steel
garage door would be painted to match the color of the wood siding. The roof would be covered with
brown colored concrete tiles.
• Land Use Element Policy 5.0 – 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. The project will be compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings in that all of the
following Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative.
IV. Planning Commission Review
On November 9, 2011 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the Project at which
time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and argument.
The Planning Commission considered the Project, the Staff Report on the Project, CEQA documentation,
correspondence, presentations from the Applicant and the public, and all testimony and other evidence
presented at the Public Hearing.
V. Design Review Findings
The applicants have met the burden of proof required to support approval of application Number PDR11-
0023 for Design Review approval. The approval of the proposed project would be consistent with Saratoga
Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of
those required findings:
1. Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the
site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and
location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community
view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. This finding may be made in
the affirmative in that the site placement of adjacent residences and the existing privacy afforded by their
respective windows and outdoor living spaces is not unreasonably affected or reduced by the location of the
proposed two story single-family home. The proposed new home will have minimal glazing on the second
story. To address the privacy concerns of the neighbor at 20471 Williams Avenue the second story window
will feature translucent glass. No second story balconies are proposed. An existing wood fence along the
western property line reduces privacy impacts from side facing windows toward 20401 Williams Avenue. A
proposed seven foot tall wood fence along the eastern property line will reduce the privacy impacts for the
property at 20471 Williams Avenue.
2. Preserve Natural Landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by
designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil
removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of
neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. This finding may be made in the affirmative in
that the site is void of natural landscaping with the exception of 14 trees that are impacted by the
development. Three trees are proposed for removal, of which one is a native tree, which is growing to
96
3
Application No. PDR11-0023 / 20381 Williams Avenue
close in proximity to an adjacent tree so it is to be removed. The project is proposing to remove three
trees to construct the project as discussed in the following paragraphs. The site is relatively level so
minimal grading is proposed to impact the natural contours and grade of the site. Eleven trees
potentially impacted by the project will be protected during construction.
3. Preserve native and heritage trees. All heritage trees will be preserved. All native trees designated for
protection pursuant to Section 15-50.050 will be preserved, or, given the constraints of the property,
the number approved for removal will be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller
oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist will be minimized using the criteria set
forth in Section 15-50.080. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that there are no heritage trees on
the site and there are several native Coast live oaks located on the property of which one will be removed.
One 9-inch Coast Live Oak tree is located near the west property line. This tree is located very close to
another Oak tree. Removal of this particular tree will provide an increased growing area for the adjacent
tree thereby improving its health and physical structure. No other native trees are proposed for removal.
4. Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main 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 environment. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the
overall design, height, materials, and location of building features will minimize the perception of excessive
bulk and the Colonial Revival architectural theme of the home and the use of architecturally true elements
helps unify the façade. The overall appearance of the facades is consistent with the use of elements such as
horizontal wood siding to increase horizontal proportions and to reduce vertical massing. The front façade is
well articulated with jogs in the building lines with varying height of roof elements and rooflines. The
elevations are softened by the use of varying materials to include the wood siding, cultured stone for the front
entrance and along the buildings base. The front porch is integral to the design of the front façade and is
proportional to the design of the structure.
5. Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of
bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate
neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (iii)
unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. This finding may
be made in the affirmative in that the design of the home is compatible in bulk and height as neighboring
homes within the immediate environment and the R-1-10,000 zoning district. The home is setback
approximately 33 feet from the street thereby helping to minimize the visual mass as viewed from the street.
The receding roofline redistributes volume away from street thereby reducing visual mass. The Colonial
Revival themed design is a compatible architectural style to existing homes on Williams Avenue and the
surrounding neighborhood.
6. Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan
incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. This finding may be made
in the affirmative in that the proposal will conform to the City’s current grading and erosion control methods.
7. Design policies and techniques. The proposed main or accessory structure will conform to each of the
applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required
by Section 15-45-055. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project conforms to
97
4
Application No. PDR11-0023 / 20381 Williams Avenue
the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible
bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above.
VI. 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.
VII. 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 Design Review Application #PDR11-0003 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).
98
5
Application No. PDR11-0023 / 20381 Williams Avenue
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 July 2011 denominated Exhibit "A" and the
Color Board received 8/23/2011 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.
10. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted per habitable structure (e.g., main house or guest
house). All other fireplaces shall be gas burning.
99
6
Application No. PDR11-0023 / 20381 Williams Avenue
11. A six foot tall wooden fence with one foot of lattice for a total height of seven feet shall be constructed
along the property line separating 20381 and 20471 Williams Avenue prior to building permit issuance.
The design of the fence shall be consistent with the existing fence located along the rear property line of
20471 Williams Avenue.
12. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment shall comply with City Code Section 15-80.030(l).
Air conditioning condensers shall not be installed within any required setbacks.
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 and providing erosion control on all cut and fill graded areas, whichever is
appropriate. Plant materials shall be replaced as needed to screen or ornament the site. Landscaping
shall be installed to provide erosion control on all graded areas. All landscaping shall be installed 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.
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
100
7
Application No. PDR11-0023 / 20381 Williams Avenue
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. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
h. to minimize erosion during construction all slopes within 20 feet of the building pad shall be planted
with natural vegetation. This landscaping shall be planted prior to issuance of a building permit and
shall remain in place for a minimum of one year after building permit final.
101
8
Application No. PDR11-0023 / 20381 Williams Avenue
24. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the
Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development
Department Director or designee prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a
minimum include the following:
a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file
with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. B.1 above;
b. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles
shall be parked or stored within the root zone (five feet beyond the dripline (the area under the
canopy) or a greater distance as determined by the City Arborist) of any Ordinance-protected tree on
the site;
c. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation inspection by the
City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building
setbacks comply with the Approved Plans,” which note shall represent a condition which must be
satisfied to remain in compliance with this Design Review Approval;
d. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages;
e. A boundary survey, wet-stamped and wet-signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer
authorized to practice land surveying. The stamp shall reflect a current license for the land
surveyor/engineer, the document shall be labeled “Boundary Survey,” and the document shall not
contain any disclaimers;
f. City Arborist Reports shall be printed onto separate construction plan pages;
g. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building Division.
27. Staff shall not approve downgrading to the exterior appearance of the approved residence. Downgrades
may include, but are not limited to, garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters,
driveway materials, or similar items. Any exterior changes to approved plans resulting in a downgrade
shall require filing an additional application and fees for review by the Planning Commission as a
modification to approved plans. Any other exterior changes to the approved plans, which are not deemed
a downgrade by staff, shall require approval in compliance with condition A.3 above.
28. Project shall comply with the State of California “Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance” pursuant to
State Law AB 1881.
C. CITY ARBORIST
29. All recommendations contained in the Final City Arborist Report dated October 19, 2011 (Attachment
B), shall be followed.
30. Tree protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist, shall be installed and inspected by Staff prior
to issuance of City Permits.
31. Prior to issuance of City Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the
Community Development Director, security equivalent to $39,850 to guarantee the maintenance and
preservation of trees.
102
9
Application No. PDR11-0023 / 20381 Williams Avenue
32. The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall
be released after the planting of required replacement trees, a favorable site inspection by the City
Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees.
D. FIRE SAFETY OR FIRE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS
33. Fire Agency Conditions. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Agency conditions as specified in Exhibit
“C” attached.
34. Fire Hydrants and Water for Fire Flow. Installation of fire hydrants and/or improvements to water
delivery systems to ensure adequate fire flow shall be provided as required by the Fire Agency,
whether on-site or off-site.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 9th day of November 2011 by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Douglas R. Robertson
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
___________________________________
James Lindsay
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
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
REPORT TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No.: PDR11-0017
Type of Application: Design Review
Location /APN: 19391 Valle Vista Drive / 397-11-049
Owner: Bob Hansen & Kathy Martinez
Staff Planner: Cynthia McCormick, AICP
Public Hearing Date: November 9, 2011
Department Head: James Lindsay
19391 Valle Vista Drive
147
Application No. PDR11-0017; 19391 Valle Vista Drive / 397-11-049
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed: 06/21/11
Application complete: 10/17/11
Notice published: 10/25/11
Mailing completed: 10/20/11
Posting completed: 11/03/11
ZONING: R-1-40,000
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very Low Density Residential (RVLD)
MEASURE G: Not Applicable
PARCEL SIZE: Gross/Net: 44,095 square feet
SLOPE: Approximately 9.7 % average site slope and 5.3 % at building site
GRADING REQUIRED: 403 cubic yards of cut and fill
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The proposed new single-family residence is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, “New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 of Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (“CEQA
Guidelines”). This exemption allows for the construction and location of a new residence
and no exception to that exemption applies.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review application
with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution.
PERMANENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Staff is not recommending any permanent conditions of approval.
Page 2 of 5
148
Application No. PDR11-0017; 19391 Valle Vista Drive / 397-11-049
PROJECT DATA:
R-1-40,000 Zoning
Net Site Area: 44,095 SF
Existing Proposed Code
Site Coverage
Maximum Allowable
= 15,433 SF (35%)
Residence and Garage:
Cabana and Carport:
2,241 SF
603 SF
5,340SF
1,244 SF
Pool House, Pool & Spa:
Patios/Porches:
1,203 SF
349 SF
952 SF
1,682 SF
Circulation: 6,246 SF 5,981 SF
TOTAL Site Coverage 10,642 SF (34.47%) 15,199 SF
Floor Area
Maximum Allowable
= 6,082 SF SF
Residence: 2,241 SF 4,705 SF
Garage: 603 SF 635 SF
Cabana 0 596 SF
Pool House: 543 83 SF
TOTAL Floor Area 3,387 SF 6,019 SF
Setbacks 1st Floor 2nd Floor 1st Floor 2nd Floor 1st Floor 2nd Floor
Front: 60’ 3”n/a 35’ 2”n/a 30’ n/a
Rear: 124’ 0”52’ 7”20’
Left Side: 33’ 10”25’ 1”25’
Right Side: 28’ 0”20’ 4”20’
Height
Maximum Height =
26 Feet (560.0’)
Lowest Elevation Point: 533.0’
Highest Elevation Point: 535.0’
Average Elevation: 534.0’
Topmost Point: 558.1’ (24.1’)
MATERIALS AND COLORS: A colors and materials board is on file with the Community
Development Department and will be presented at the site visits and public hearing.
Detail Colors and Material Additional Information
Exterior Natural Brown Color is integrated into stucco
Windows Bronze Clad w/ Cast Stone Sill
Front Door Stained Wood & Glass Decorative iron over glass
Garage Door Stained Wood Carriage Style
Roof Natural Brown Blend Cand Pan Clay Tiles
Trim Dark Stain Wood
Gutters Copper
Page 3 of 5
149
Application No. PDR11-0017; 19391 Valle Vista Drive / 397-11-049
PROJECT DISCUSSION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The property is located on Valle Vista Drive in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. The net lot
size is 44,095 SF and the property is surrounded by similarly sized residential properties.
Architectural Design
The project consists of a new 5,340 square foot single family home with attached garage,
596 square foot cabana, and 83 square foot pool house. The detached carport and cabana
would be similar in style to the main dwelling. The single story home would be a
maximum 23 feet, 9 inches in height with interior ceilings accented by decorative wood
trusses and beams. Additional structures on the site include a swimming pool, trellises,
and BBQ area.
The architectural style consists of Spanish eclectic features including arched windows
and doors, stucco exterior, and clay barrel tiles over a combination of hipped and gabled
roofs with varying heights. Other features include aluminum clad wood framed windows
with cast stone sills, cast stone columns, wood doors and trim throughout, and copper
gutters and downspouts.
Arborist Review
The project has received clearance from the City Arborist, following review of 32 trees
protected by City Code (Attachment 2). Four protected trees are requested for removal to
construct the project. They meet the criteria for removal, and may be removed and
replaced once Building Division permits have been issued for the project. The required
security deposit for this project is $58,140 which is the total appraised value of 11
protected trees. New trees equal to $8,640 in replacement value are to be planted as part
of the project.
Geotechnical Clearance
The project has received geotechnical clearance (attachment 3).
Green Points
The Greenpoints checklist shows a total value of 140 points. Green features include high
efficiency fixtures, high efficiency heating and cooling systems, renewable energy
system, low VOC finishes, environmentally preferable material finishes, low VOC
flooring, energy star appliances, and permeable pavers.
Neighbor Correspondence
The applicant distributed notification letters to each of the adjacent neighbors. Five (5)
forms were returned and no concerns from neighbors have been presented to staff as of
the writing of this staff report.
Page 4 of 5
150
Application No. PDR11-0017; 19391 Valle Vista Drive / 397-11-049
Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval
2. Arborist Report, dated October 19, 2011
3. Geotechnical Clearance, dated September 22, 2011
4. Fire Department Review Comments, dated August 12, 2011
5. Green Points Checklist (140 points)
6. Neighbor Notification forms
7. Public Hearing Notice and mailing addresses.
8. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A".
151
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 11-025 FOR APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW
Application No. PDR11-0017
Bob Hansen & Kathy Martinez; 19391 Valle Vista Drive
The City of Saratoga Planning Commission finds and determines as follows with respect to the
above-described application:
I. Project Summary
The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review
Approval for the Project shown in Exhibit "A" including the Color Board denominated Exhibit “B”
date stamped November 2, 2011, each incorporated by this reference. This Project is to construct a
new 5,340 square foot single family home with attached garage, detached 596 square foot
cabana, and detached 83 square foot pool house. The maximum height of the proposed single-
family dwelling will not exceed 23 feet, 9 inches. The net lot size is 44,095 square-feet and the site
is zoned R1-40,000. The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in this Resolution.
II. Design Review Requirement
City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(2) requires Design Review Approval for a single-family main
structure project by the Planning Commission for a single-family home over 18 feet in height. 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; and (3) Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that
the City shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during
Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits.
III. Planning Commission Review
On November 9, 2011 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the Project
at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence
and argument. The Planning Commission considered the Project, the Staff Report on the Project,
CEQA documentation, correspondence, presentations from the Applicant and the public, and all
testimony and other evidence presented at the Public Hearing.
IV. Environmental Review
The Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (Section 15303), “New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures”. This exemption allows for the construction and location of a new single family
residence and accessory structures and no exception to that exemption applies.
152
2
Application No. PDR11-0017; 19391 Valle Vista Drive; Bob Hansen & Kathy Martinez
V. Design Review Findings
The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Section
Article 15-45.080 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support
making all of those required findings:
(a) The project avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations
and placement on the site of the proposed home and accessory structures will avoid
unreasonable interference with views and privacy, when considered with reference to: (1) the
nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and
(2) community view sheds. The maximum height of the proposed single-story dwelling is 23-
feet 9-inches. The structure will be approximately 35-feet from Valle Vista Drive, 52 feet from
the rear property line, and ranging from 20 to 25 feet from the side-yard property lines. The
project will not unreasonably interfere with community view sheds and the property is
surrounded by mature landscaping providing screening for privacy of abutting neighbors.
(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 minimizing tree
and soil removal. Grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general
appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. The property is surrounded
by mature landscaping and trees. Of the 32 trees required to be inventoried by the City Arborist,
only four are requested for removal. These four trees will be replaced with new trees equivalent
in value.
(c) The project preserves native and heritage trees. All heritage trees (as defined in Section 15-
50.020(l)) will be preserved. All native trees designated for protection pursuant to Section 15-
50.050 will be preserved, or, have received clearance from the City Arborist to be removed. The
Arborist has required tree protective fencing and other protective measures to protect all trees
potentially impacted by the project.
(d) The project minimizes the perception of excessive bulk. The proposed home and accessory
structures will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in that the applicant is proposing a
neutral color pallet for the home and accessory structures, exterior trim and finishes, and roofing
materials. The design includes varying rooflines to help minimize the perception of bulk.
Furthermore, mature trees and landscaping on the property screen the home from the street.
(e) The project is of compatible bulk and height. The proposed home and accessory structures 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. The project 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 height of the proposed home and accessory structures is compatible with adjacent
residences which are predominately one-story. Furthermore, the project meets all required
setbacks for the neighborhood and zoning district.
153
3
Application No. PDR11-0017; 19391 Valle Vista Drive; Bob Hansen & Kathy Martinez
(f) The project uses current grading and erosion control methods. The home will be situated in
the general area of the existing residence, which is the flattest area of the lot, requiring less
grading. 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, to the maximum extent reasonably feasible.
(g) The project follows appropriate design policies and techniques. The proposed home and
accessory structures 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 will conform to all of the applicable design policies and techniques, including for
example: using materials and colors to reduce bulk, designing architectural features to break up
massing, and incorporating energy saving devices into the design.
VII. 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, Application No. PDR 11-0017 for Design Review Approval is approved subject to the
conditions set forth below.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. GENERAL
1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of
time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s
successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading, or
building permit for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate
of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been
recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office in form and content
acceptable to the community development director.
2. If a condition is not “permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until
the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a certificate of occupancy or its equivalent.
3. Conditions may be modified only by the planning commission unless modification is expressly
otherwise allowed by the city code including but not limited to sections 15-80.120 and/or 16-
05.035, as applicable.
154
4
Application No. PDR11-0017; 19391 Valle Vista Drive; Bob Hansen & Kathy Martinez
4. The Community Development Director shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice in
writing, on or after the time the Resolution granting this Approval is duly executed by the City,
containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application,
including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall
expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the
notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building
Permit may be issued until the Community Development Director certifies that all processing
fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained).
5. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date
of adoption of this Resolution or the Design Review Approval will expire unless extended in
accordance with the City Code.
6. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City
and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the
requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference.
7. Prior to issuance of any Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit to implement this Design
Review Approval the Owner or Applicant shall obtain a “Zoning Clearance” from the
Community Development Director by submitting final plans for the requested permit to the
Community Development Department for review to ascertain compliance with the requirements
of this Resolution.
8. Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend City as to Action Challenging Approval of
Application and as to Damage from Performance of Work Authorized by Design Review
Approval. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend,
indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees,
agents and volunteers harmless from and against:
a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any
action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations
taken, done or made prior to said action; and
b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any
manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or
grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person
acting on their behalf.
In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner
and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this 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.
155
5
Application No. PDR11-0017; 19391 Valle Vista Drive; Bob Hansen & Kathy Martinez
B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
9. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those
features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans denominated Exhibit "A" and
the Color Board denominated Exhibit “B, both dated November 2, 2011. 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. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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;
156
6
Application No. PDR11-0017; 19391 Valle Vista Drive; Bob Hansen & Kathy Martinez
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.
13. 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 will be parked or stored within the root zone of any Ordinance-protected tree on
the site, as determined by the City Arborist.
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 October 19, 2011, printed collectively onto separate
construction plan pages;
g. A final utility plan that shows location of HVAC mechanical equipment outside of required
setback areas;
h. A final Drainage and Grading Plan stamped by a registered Civil Engineer combined with
the above-required Stormwater Detention Plan;
i. A final Landscape and Irrigation Plan; and
j. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building
Division.
14. Wood-burning fireplace limitation. 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.
15. Fences. Fences and walls shall comply with City Code Chapter 15-29.
16. Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine on adjacent properties.
17. 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.
157
7
Application No. PDR11-0017; 19391 Valle Vista Drive; Bob Hansen & Kathy Martinez
18. 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.
19. Plumbing. All plumbing fixtures or irrigation systems shall be water conserving and otherwise
comply with City Code Section 16-75.030.
20. Construction truck routes. Construction trucks shall only use designated truck routes.
21. Noise limitations during construction. The noise level at any point twenty-five feet from the
source of noise shall not exceed 83 dBA during residential construction, and residential
construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid City permit, or do not
require the issuance of a City permit, may be conducted only between the hours of 7:30 A.M.
and 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on
Saturday. Residential construction shall be prohibited on Sunday and weekday holidays, with
the exception of that construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid
City permit and which do not exceed fifty percent of the existing main or accessory structure
may be conducted between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Sunday and weekday
holidays. A notice of applicable construction hour restrictions shall be posted conspicuously on
site at all times for all exterior residential construction activity requiring a City permit.
22. 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.
23. Maintenance of Construction Project Sites. Because this Design Review Approval
authorizes a project which requires a Building Permit, compliance with City Code Section 16-
75.050 governing maintenance of construction project sites is required.
C. CITY ARBORIST.
24. Compliance with Tree Regulations and City Arborist Reports. All requirements in the City
Arborist Report dated October 19, 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 conditions of approval:
a. Four trees (#20, 29, 36 and 45) protected by City Code are requested for removal to
construct the project. They meet the criteria for removal, and may be removed and
replaced once Building Division permits have been issued for the project.
b. Tree Protection fencing and other measures shall be adhered to as described in the
Arborist Reports dated October 19, 2011.
c. New trees equal to $8,640 shall be planted as part of the project.
158
8
Application No. PDR11-0017; 19391 Valle Vista Drive; Bob Hansen & Kathy Martinez
d. Owner shall obtain, and file with the Community Development Director, the required
security deposit prior to the receipt of building permits. The required security deposit for
this project is $58,140 and is the total appraised value of trees #25, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37,
48, 49, 50 and 51. This deposit will be held until completion of the project and
acceptance by the City.
D. PUBLIC WORKS
25. Encroachment Permit. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all
improvements in any City right-of-way prior to commencement of the work to implement this
Design Review Approval.
26. Other Improvements. Applicant shall make other improvements reasonably related to the
impacts of the Project as requested by the City Public Works Department.
27. Geotechnical Clearance. All requirements in the Geotechnical Clearance dated September 22,
2011 are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the
Approved Plans.
E. FIRE SAFETY OR FIRE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS
28. Fire Agency Conditions. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Agency requirements including
comments in the Fire Department Review, dated August 12, 2011.
159
9
Application No. PDR11-0017; 19391 Valle Vista Drive; Bob Hansen & Kathy Martinez
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 9th day of November
2011 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Doug R. Robertson
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
___________________________________
James Lindsay
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
160
Page 1 of 8
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
ARBORIST REPORT
It is the responsibility of the owner, architect and contractor to be familiar with the
information in this report and implement the required conditions.
Application #: ARB11-0033
Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 19391 Valle Vista Ln
Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Bob & Kathy Hansen
Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 397-11-049
Email: bob.c.hansen@gmail.com
Report History: #1 Date: August 23, 2011
Addendum September 6, 2011
#2 – This report revises and replaces
report #1 and addendum October 19, 2011
PROJECT SCOPE
The applicant has submitted plans to the City to demolish the existing house and build a new house
with attached garage and a cabana and carport.
Four trees (#20, 29, 36 and 45) protected by City Code are requested for removal to construct the
project. They meet the criteria for removal, and may be removed and replaced once Building
Division permits have been issued for the project. See the Findings section below for details.
Tree #48 is shown to be removed on the plans, but can be retained and preserved without changing
the design of the project. The applicant has indicated that they do not wish to remove this tree if it is
not necessary.
One additional tree which is not protected by City Code is also shown to be removed on the plans. It
may be removed at any time without a permit.
CLEARANCE – with conditions
This project has clearance from the arborist to proceed, with the conditions noted below in the
Requirements section.
PLAN REVIEW
Plans Reviewed:
Architectural plans were prepared by Kohlsaat and Associates, dated June 20, 2011 and revised on
September 26, 2011. Plan sheets reviewed for this report include Sheet A-1, Cover Sheet; Sheet A-2,
Site Plan; Sheet A-3, Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan; Sheet A-4, Landscaping Plan; Sheet
A-5; Floor Plan; Sheets A-6 and A-7, Elevations; Sheet A-9, Sections; Sheet A-10, Cabana and
Carport; and Sheet A-11, Elevations and As-Built Drawings of Cabana and Carport.
161
19391 Valle Vista Lane
Page 2 of 8
TREE INFORMATION
Tree Inventory:
Thirty two trees protected by City Code were inventoried for this report. Each tree was tagged with a
round aluminum tag containing a number from 20 – 51. Inventoried trees include one glossy privet
(#20), twenty nine coast live oaks (#28 – 35, 37, 39 – 51), one American elm (#36), and one
Monterey pine (#36). Data for each tree is included in the Tree Inventory Table at the end of this
report. Their locations are shown on the attached site map.
Tree Removals:
Four trees are requested for removal to construct the project. They include a glossy privet (#20), an
American elm (#36) and two coast live oaks (#29, and 45). Whenever a tree is requested for removal
to construct a project, certain findings must be met. A list of criteria permitting the removal of trees
is attached to the end of this report. See the Findings section below for a detailed discussion of trees
#20, 29, 36 and 45.
One tree not protected by City Code is shown to be removed on the plans. It is an elm tree growing
near to the proposed new driveway and carport. This tree may be removed at any time without a
permit.
Tree Protection:
Many of the oaks on site are in fair condition. Oak trees do better if a layer of leaf litter several
inches deep is left underneath the canopy to decompose and provide nutrients. In addition, this layer
helps to maintain moisture in the soil during the warm dry months of the year. The oaks on site
would benefit from the installation of a layer of wood chip mulch several inches deep and some
summer irrigation until they can establish their own layer of leaves. They should be watered using a
soaker hose and provided approximately 10 gallons of water per inch of trunk diameter. This should
be delivered once or twice per month in a manner that allows penetration into the ground rather than
runoff. The oaks should not be fertilized at this time, as fertilizing trees that are already stressed
causes them to put out more leaves when they may need to spend the effort on the root system.
Addition of wood chip mulch and watering can be done right away, before permits for the project are
received.
A low retaining wall will be replaced as part of the project. It is fairly close to trees #25 and 33.
These trees can be adequately protected as long as the wall is removed carefully so that roots are not
ripped in the process. Any forms for the new wall should be placed next to the soil cut without
cutting any closer to the trees.
The new design for the front entrance walkways better protects oak tree #28 in that it is located
farther from the tree. Chain link fencing around the tree will be sufficient to protect this oak. This
new design does require the removal of tree #29, but its removal will provide more space for tree
#28, which is an improvement for this tree and can allow it to develop into a focal point in front of
the house.
Oak tree #34 is impacted by excavation for the drain line to the energy dissipater. The dissipater pit
has been relocated farther from the tree which is an improvement and provides better protection for
it. The trench to the dissipater must be dug by hand or using an air spade (an air spade is a
pneumatic device that sprays compressed air and water to blow soil away from roots) for the first
162
19391 Valle Vista Lane
Page 3 of 8
two feet in depth. No roots measuring two inches or greater may be cut, and pipes should be placed
under any roots that are uncovered.
The design has been modified so that the energy dissipater by oak tree #37 is far enough from the
tree that it will not have a significant impact on the tree.
The new design provides much better protection for oak tree #43. The driveway to the carport is far
enough from the tree that it will be adequately protected.
Tree #48 is an oak tree in good condition that is relatively young and grows only a few feet from the
proposed driveway. It can be protected during construction if the driveway is constructed on top of
grade next to this tree. Although it is indicated on the plans to be removed, it does not require
removal with the current design. The applicant had agreed to retain and preserve this tree.
The driveway has been redesigned so that it curves around oak tree #50. The proposed driveway is
far enough from the tree that it will not significantly impact its health. The tree is in fair condition
currently, and would benefit from monthly summer watering and a layer of wood chip mulch under
its canopy until it can be restored to good health.
Tree #51 is an oak growing next to the pool bathroom. No work is proposed on the sides of the
building closest to this tree, and it can be adequately protected using fencing or straw wattle wrapped
around its trunk and a layer of wood chips under the canopy.
Security Deposit for the Projection of Trees:
Per City Ordinance 15-50.080, a Tree Protection security deposit equal to 100% of the appraised
value of trees impacted by the project is required. Owner shall obtain, and file with the Community
Development Director, the required security deposit prior to the receipt of building permits. The
security deposit may be in the form of a savings account, a certificate of deposit account or a bond.
The required security deposit for this project is $58,140 and is the total appraised value of trees #25,
28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 48, 49, 50 and 51. This deposit will be held until completion of the project and
acceptance by the City.
Appraisals:
Appraised values were calculated using the Trunk Formula Method and according to the Guide for
Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000.
This was used in conjunction with the Species Classification and Group Assignment, published by
the Western Chapter of the ISA, 2004.
FINDINGS
Tree Removal
The project was reviewed for the removal of trees #20, 29, 36 and 45, four trees protected by City
Code. Tree #20 is a glossy privet, tree #36 is an American elm, and trees #29 and #45 are coast live
oaks. Tree removal criteria must be met to allow the removal of a tree and the table below
summarizes which of the criteria are met for each tree, allowing its removal to construct the project.
The tree removal criteria used to determine whether or not a tree may be removed are attached to the
end of this report for reference.
163
19391 Valle Vista Lane
Page 4 of 8
Summary of tree removal criteria met for each tree, allowing its removal for the project.
Tree # Criteria met Criteria not met Criteria not pertinent
20 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 1, 2, 6 8
29 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 6 8
36 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 5 3
45 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 8
Tree #20 – glossy privet: Removal of tree #20 does not meet criterion #1, or 2 in that it is not in
conflict with elements of the project or structures (criterion #1) and it is not threatening damage to
the property (criterion #2). Criteria #3 is met in that there are other trees can slow runoff and
increase absorption of rainwater in this area of the property. Tree #20 meets criterion #4 in that its
removal will not significantly affect shade, scenic beauty, or privacy for the property because it is
surrounded by oaks. It meets criterion #5 in that it grows very close to several oak trees and crowds
them; it is too close for good forestry practices. If it is removed, there will be more room for the
oaks, which have a greater value for the property than the privet does. There is an alternative to its
removal, which is to keep the tree, so it does not meet criterion #6. It meets criterion #7 in that
removal of this tree and planting new trees equal to its appraised value on another part of the
property would serve the site better and be consistent with the Tree Regulations. Criterion #8 is not
pertinent to this situation in that this tree does not affect public safety or health. Removal of this tree
will provide economic and other enjoyment to the owners and therefore it meets criterion #9.
Tree #29 – coast live oak: Tree #29 is a young coast live oak in fair condition that is in conflict with
the proposed walkway to the front door. It meets criterion #1 and 2, in that it is in conflict with the
new walkway and if left in place it would threaten damage to the new retaining wall. Criteria #3 is
met, in that there are other trees in the same area that can slow down and prevent runoff of rainwater.
Removal of this tree will have an insignificant impact on screening, aesthetic beauty and privacy of
the property, so it meets criterion #4. This oak grows in a small group of oaks, and although they are
not crowded yet, they will soon become crowded, so removal of this tree meets criterion #5. There is
an alternative to the removal of this tree which is to retain and preserve it and use the previous
design for the front entrance, so it does not meet criterion #6. Removal of this tree and planting new
trees to replace it is consistent with the intent of the Tree Regulations. Most of the trees on the
property are coast live oaks in fair condition, and replacement of a couple of the smaller ones with
new trees, whether oaks or another species, will improve the health and diversity of the trees on site
overall, so removal and replacement of this tree meets criterion #7. Criterion #8 is not pertinent to
this situation in that there are no safety issues with respect to this oak. Removal of this tree will
provide the owner with economic and other enjoyment of the property, so it meets criterion #9.
Tree #36 – American elm: Tree #36 is an American elm in fair condition. It grows in the center of
the back yard and has about 15% dieback of limbs in the lower portion of the canopy. This species is
susceptible to many insect and disease problems, including Dutch elm disease and boring beetles,
and requires a moderate amount of water to perform well. It has moderately weak branch strength
and the potential for damage from its roots is high. It is not recommended for planting in this
environment, because of its irrigation needs and susceptibility to Dutch elm disease.
Tree #36 is in decline, and exhibits branch dieback from pest and disease problems. If the tree were
in good health it would be appropriate to move the improvements away from it, but it is in decline so
it meets criterion #1. If not removed, its roots would threaten damage to the new coping around the
pool, and limb failures would have a target of pool users, so it meets criterion #2. Criterion #3 is not
164
19391 Valle Vista Lane
Page 5 of 8
a consideration in this situation, in that the lot has a gentle slope, but erosion and drainage are not
issues. Removal of this tree would improve the aesthetic appearance of the yard, and would have a
minor impact on the shade and privacy of the property given that there are many other trees on site,
including two very large coast live oaks growing nearby (criterion #4). Criterion #5 is not met in that
this elm tree is not crowded by any other trees in the yard. The alternative to removing this tree is to
prune out the dead sections of the canopy, take on a treatment program that would include spraying
the tree for insects and diseases, and increase the water to it, and relocate the pool improvements
away from the tree. This would not ensure improved health for the tree so there are no real feasible
alternatives available (criterion #6). Removal and replacement of tree #36 is consistent with the
intent of this article, which is to replace trees if it is not feasible to retain and preserve them
(criterion #7). If the elm tree were retained, it would increase the risk for pool users (criterion #8).
Removal of this tree provides economic enjoyment to the property owners (criterion #9).
Tree #45 – coast live oak: Tree #45 is a young coast live oak in good condition that grows in a
grove of oaks located next to the proposed cabana. This oak is very close to the proposed new
building and will likely not survive construction of the cabana, so it should be considered to be in
conflict with the project and meets criterion #1. If left in place and it survived construction, it would
threaten damage to the new building so it meets criterion #2. Removal of the tree does meet criterion
#3 in that the capacity of the site’s trees to minimize erosion does not depend on this particular tree.
It is growing in a group of oaks that can absorb rainwater and prevent runoff even if this tree is
removed. Removal of this tree will have an insignificant impact on screening, aesthetic beauty and
privacy of the property, so it meets criterion #4. This oak grows in a small group of oaks, and
although they are not yet crowded because they are still relative small, it is close to other larger trees,
and will soon be too close for good forestry practices, so it meets criterion #5. There is no preferable
alternative to the removal of this tree (criterion #6), in that the current design minimizes grading and
retains a tree that was previously required for removal. Removal of this tree and planting new trees is
consistent with the intent of the Tree Regulations (criterion #7) in that most of the trees on the
property are coast live oaks in fair condition, and replacement of a couple of the smaller ones with
new trees, whether oaks or another species, will improve the health, structure and diversity of the
trees on site overall. Criterion #8 is not pertinent to this situation in that there are no public health or
safety issues with respect to this tree. Removal of this tree provides the owner with economic and
other enjoyment of the property, so it meets criterion #9.
Replacement Trees:
Trees #20, 29, 36 and 45 have a total appraised value of $8,640. It is acceptable to remove these
trees and plant new trees equal to their appraised value as part of the project. No trees may be
removed until all applicable permits have been obtained. Replacement values for new trees can be
found at the bottom of the Tree Inventory Table. Replacement trees may be planted anywhere on the
property. At least three replacement trees shall reach a height at maturity of 35 feet.
The plans indicate that 20 new trees will be planted on the property. The total replacement value of
the new trees is sufficient to replace the trees approved for removal to construct the project.
New Construction
Based on a review of information provided, and as conditioned, the project complies with the
requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15-50.120 of the
City Code.
165
19391 Valle Vista Lane
Page 6 of 8
REQUIREMENTS
1. This entire report, including the Tree Inventory Table and map showing locations of trees
and protective fencing, shall be incorporated into the final set of plans and titled “Tree
Preservation”. The previous report and addendum do not need to be in the plans.
2. Tree Protection Security Deposit - $58,140
a. Owner shall obtain, and file with the Community Development Director, a Tree
Protection security deposit for trees #25, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 48, 49, 50 and 51,
prior to obtaining Building Division permits.
b. The tree protection security deposit shall remain in place for the duration of construction
of the project to ensure the protection of the trees. Once the project has been
completed, inspected and approved by the City, the bond will be released.
3. Tree Protection:
a. Fencing (or straw wattle for tree #51) shall be installed as shown on the attached map.
b. Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site.
c. Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, 1 7/8-
inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more
than 10 feet apart.
d. Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT REMOVE
WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST”.
e. Call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection
fencing once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division
permits.
f. Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final
inspection. If contractor feels that work must be done inside the fenced area, call City
Arborist to arrange a field meeting. Failure to do so may lead to a hold on the Tree
Protection Security Deposit put in place by the property owner for a period of up to
five years after the completion of construction.
4. Utilities shall be shown on the final plans. Utilities include, but are not limited to, electrical,
drainage, water, sewer, gas and irrigation for landscaping.
5. No excavation is permitted under the canopy of any protected tree on site for capping off or
installation of utilities without prior approval from the City Arborist. Approval shall be
obtained before any work takes place. Failure to do so may lead to a hold on the Tree
Protection Security Deposit put in place by the property owner for a period of up to five
years after the completion of construction.
6. No changes in grade, including addition of fill soil, soil cuts, or trenching is permitted within
the distances listed below:
a. 2 feet – tree #33 for new retaining wall
b. 5 feet – tree #48 for new driveway
c. 7 feet – tree #25 for new retaining wall
d. 20 feet – tree #37 for the energy dissipater
166
19391 Valle Vista Lane
Page 7 of 8
7. The first two feet of the drainage trench by tree #34 shall be dug by hand or using an air
spade (a pneumatic device that blows soil away from roots using compressed air and water).
Roots measuring two inches in diameter or greater shall be left intact and drain pipes placed
underneath them. Roots measuring less than two inches in diameter may be cut using a sharp
pruning tool.
8. No protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project may be
removed or encroached upon until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building
division for the approved project.
9. 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.
10. Trees #20, 29, 36 and 45 meet the criteria for removal and may be removed once Building
Division permits have been obtained.
11. New trees equal to $8,640 shall be planted as part of the project. Replacement values for new
trees can be found at the bottom of the Tree Inventory Table attached to the end of this
report.
12. Replacement trees may be planted anywhere on the property.
13. At least three replacement trees shall reach a height at maturity of 35 feet. Otherwise they
may be of any species desired.
14. Unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist, all construction activities must be conducted
outside the designated fenced area (even after fencing is removed). These activities include,
but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment
cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle
operation and parking.
15. Any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site shall be performed under the
supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards.
16. The new driveway shall be installed entirely on top of grade where it is within 10 feet of trees
#48 and 49. Materials for the driveway shall be pervious, such as pavers on sand, gravel,
decomposed granite, or other materials that allow water to percolate through. A concrete curb
on top of grade may be used to contain the pavers, or the outer ring of pavers may be
cemented into place on top of grade to contain the rest of the pavers.
17. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited under
tree canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage to areas under tree canopies.
Herbicides shall not be applied under tree canopies.
18. At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing, call
City Arborist for a final inspection.
167
19391 Valle Vista Lane
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENTS:
Tree Removal Criteria
Tree Inventory Table
Map showing tree locations and protective fencing
TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA
Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article
15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If
findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and
replacement during construction.
(1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to
existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services;
(2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to
improvements or impervious surfaces on the property;
(3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and
the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes;
(4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal
would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the
general welfare of residents in the area;
(5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry
practices;
(6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on
the protected tree;
(7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose
and intent of this Article;
(8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes
of this ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010; and
(9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is
no other feasible alternative to the removal.
168
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 ValuePrivet 4, 4,
20 Lingustrum lucidum 4.3, 4.8 15 70 50 Good Moderate 3 $590
Coast live oak
21 Quercus agrifolia 6.1 10 80 80 Good High 4 $870
Coast live oak
22 Quercus agrifolia 14.1 25 80 80 Good High 4 $4,190
Coast live oak
23 Quercus agrifolia 11.3 30 50 40 Poor Moderate 4 $1,280
Coast live oak
24 Quercus agrifolia 9.5 12 70 50 Fair High 4 $1,350
Coast live oak
25 Quercus agrifolia 15.4 25 50 70 Fair High 3 $3,420
Coast live oak
26 Quercus agrifolia 8.6 15 60 50 Fair High 3 $1,020
Coast live oak
27 Quercus agrifolia 7.6, 8.2 20 80 50 Good High 2 $2,280
Coast live oak 6.1, Coast live oak 6.1,
28 Quercus agrifolia 7, 8.7 35 80 50 Good High 2 $3,990
Coast live oak
29 Quercus agrifolia 4.2, 4.7 15 80 40 Fair High 1 X $690
Coast live oak
30 Quercus agrifolia 5.8, 7.9 15 70 70 Fair High 3 $2,100
Coast live oak
31 Quercus agrifolia 9.8 15 80 80 Good High 2 $1,650
Coast live oak
32 Quercus agrifolia 11.5 25 80 50 Good High 3 $2,100
Coast live oak
33 Quercus agrifolia 7.8 10 70 60 Good High 2 $830
Coast live oak
34 Quercus agrifolia 16.7 25 70 70 Good High 2 $4,470
Coast live oak
35 Quercus agrifolia 40.6 80 80 60 Good High 3 $27,000
19391 Valle Vista Ln October 19, 2011
169
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
36 Ulmus americana 27.2 35 50 70 Fair Moderate 2 $4,470
Coast live oak
37 Quercus agrifolia 17.6 30 80 60 Good High 3 $5,700
Monterey pine
38 Pinus radiata 24.5 35 50 40 Fair Low 4 $1,330
Coast live oak
39 Quercus agrifolia 7, 9.6 25 70 60 Good High 4 $2,460
Coast live oak
40 Quercus agrifolia 10.2 20 80 50 Good High 4 $1,520
Coast live oak
41 Quercus agrifolia 8.1 10 80 60 Good High 4 $900
Coast live oak
42 Quercus agrifolia 5.7, 7.5 12 80 60 Good High 4 $1,700
Coast live oak
43 Quercus agrifolia 13.2 25 70 50 Fair Moderate 3 $1,960
Coast live oak
44 Quercus agrifolia 7.1 15 70 70 Good High 3 $830
Coast live oak
45 Quercus agrifolia 10 15 80 70 Good High 1 X $1,600
Coast live oak
46 Quercus agrifolia 9 12 70 70 Fair Moderate 3 $1,230
Coast live oak 9,
47 Quercus agrifolia 11, 11.6 30 50 40 Fair Moderate 3 $5,000
Coast live oak
48 Quercus agrifolia 9.5 15 70 50 Good High 2 $1,290
Coast live oak
49 Quercus agrifolia 16 30 50 50 Fair High 2 $2,520
Coast live oak
50 Quercus agrifolia 14 30 40 60 Fair Moderate 2 $2,260
Coast live oak
51 Quercus agrifolia 15.4 25 80 80 Good High 2 $4,560
Total appraised value $97,160
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
19391 Valle Vista Ln October 19, 2011
170
19391 Valle Vista Lane Legend
Tree Protective
Fencing
20
21 23 24
22 25 26
27
28
29 30
31
32 33
34
35
36
37
38
39 40
41 42
43 44 45
46
47
48 49
50
51
171
Memorandum of Geotechnical Clearance Conditions
Page 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cynthia McCormick, Project Planner, Community Development Department
CC: Bob and Kathy Hansen (Owners) / Gary Kohlsaat (Applicant)
FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Senior Engineer
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Clearance Conditions for GEO11-0006 at 19391 Valle Vista Drive
DATE: September 22, 2011
1. The applicant’s geotechnical consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects
of the project grading and construction plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage
improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their
recommendations have been properly incorporated. The consultant should specifically evaluate
the locations of the storm drain outfalls to verify that they are suitable from a geotechnical
perspective.
The results of the Geotechnical Plan Review should be summarized by the geotechnical
consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval prior to
issuance of building permits.
2. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical
aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited
to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and
excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete.
Final site drainage improvements should be inspected for conformance with geotechnical
standards.
The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by
the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to
final (granting of occupancy) project approval.
3. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical
Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance.
4. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from
any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure
or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions.
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
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, November 9th 2011 at 7:00 p.m.
The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. A
site visit will also be held by the Planning Commission at the subject property. Please contact the
Planning Department for the date and time of the site visit. The public hearing agenda item is
stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development
Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at
www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures.
APPLICATION #: PDR11-000017
APPLICANT/OWNER: Bob Hansen & Kathy Martinez
ADDRESS / APN: 19391 Valle Vista Drive / 397-11-049
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests design review approval for a new one-
story home with attached garage, detached cabana, carport, and pool house. The total floor area
proposed is 6,019 square feet. The total lot coverage proposed is 15,199 square feet. The
maximum height proposed is 23 feet and nine inches. The lot is 44,095 square feet and the site is
zoned R-1-40,000. The applicant has requested to remove three protected trees as part of the
project.
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a
decision of the Planning Commission, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the Public Hearing.
This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject
of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor’s office annually, in
preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of-date information or difficulties with the U.S.
Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a
project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this
notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone
in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project.
Cynthia McCormick
Assistant Planner
(408) 868-1230
189
10/24/2011 Page 1 of 2City of Saratoga
Radius Notification Parcel Report
Parcel Number Parcel Address Owner Name Owner Address Owner City, State Zip
39710011 15200 FRUITVALE AV RIAZIAT 15200 FRUITVALE AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39710012 15160 FRUITVALE AV CHIEN ING-SHENG AND FRANCIS 15160 FRUITVALE AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39710013 15130 FRUITVALE AV SMITH LOUISE LIFE ESTATE 15130 FRUITVALE AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39710014 19471 VALLE VISTA DR RODRIGUEZ LUPE AND BARBARA S T PO BOX 3563 SARATOGA, CA 95070
39710015 19311 VALLE VISTA DR OBOT JAMES J 19311 VALLE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070
39710016 19396 MONTE VISTA DR YU MICHAEL H AND CHENG JOSEPHI 19396 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070
39710017 19388 MONTE VISTA DR HUANG MIN SIU AND PI-YU TRUSTE 19388 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070
39710018 19372 MONTE VISTA DR DORSA SHIRLEY A TRUSTEE 19372 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070
39710019 19360 MONTE VISTA DR DU BOIS FRED E AND DOLORES A T 19360 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070
39710025 19327 MONTE VISTA DR JOSHI CHANDRA S AND REKHA 19641 BRAEMAR DR SARATOGA, CA 95070
39710026 19341 MONTE VISTA DR JOHN & PATRICIA SULLIVAN FAM L 95 CHURCH ST UNIT 2205 LOS GATOS, CA 95030
39710027 19385 MONTE VISTA DR RAO SOPHIE D 19385 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070
39710028 19360 VALLE VISTA DR O CONNELL JO ANN J AND JEROME 19360 VALLE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070
39710029 15175 VIA COLINA DR HARINARAYAN VENKY 785 NORTH AMPTON DRIVE PALO ALTO, CA 94303
39710030 VALLE VISTA DR KLAYKO MICHAEL A TRUSTEE & ET 20141 RANCHO BELLA VIS SARATOGA, CA 95070
39710031 15135 VIA COLINA DR PARK HONG AND SOON 18740 HANNA DR CUPERTINO, CA 95014
39710033 15205 Via Colina VENKATESH HARINARAYAN & SUDHA15205 VIA COLINA SARATOGA, CA 95070
39711011 ,
39711012 ,
39711013 ,
39711014 19361 VALLE VISTA DR ROWEN ARLINE TRUSTEE 19361 VALLE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070
39711017 ,
39711018 ,
39711019 ,
39711022 ,
39711023 ,
39711024 ,
39711025 19450 VALLE VISTA DR PETERS JOHN K TRUSTEE & ET AL 19450 VALLE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070
39711026 19480 VALLE VISTA DR COO ROBERT G AND MARY E 19480 VALLE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070
39711027 15020 FRUITVALE AV LEE JENNIFER 15020 FRUITVALE AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39711041 ,
39711047 ,
GEO10 190
Parcel Number Parcel Address Owner Name Owner Address Owner City, State Zip
39711048 19371 VALLE VISTA DR BHARADWHAJ RAJEEV & GUYATRI 19371 VALLE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070
39711049 19391 VALLE VISTA DR HANSEN ROBERT C AND MARTINEZ K 19391 VALLE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070
39732020 ,
39735001 ,
Affected Parcels 36
GEO10 191
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: November 9, 2011
Application Type / No: Design Review / PDR11-0020
Location: 19120 Monte Vista Dr.
Owner / Applicant: DiNapoli / Kohlsaat
Staff Planner: Michael Fossati
APN: 397-09-010
Department Head: James Lindsay
19120 Monte Vista Dr.
1
192
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed: 07/21/11
Application complete: 10/18/11
Notice published: 10/25/11
Mailing completed: 10/19/11
Posting completed: 11/10/11
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant requests Design Review approval for a remodel and addition of approximately
2,706 sq. ft. to an existing 4,056 sq. ft. two-story, single family residence located at 19120
Monte Vista Drive. The addition includes a new family room, kitchen, conservatory, master
suite and detached three-car garage. The existing garage would be remodeled into a new
guest bedroom, bathroom and mud room. Three protected trees (one London plane and two
persimmons) are in conflict with the design and meet the requirements for removal per the
City Arborist. The height of the proposed residence will not increase over the 26 foot height
limit. Design Review approval is required whenever, as a result of the proposed
construction, reconstruction or expansion, the floor area of all structures on the site will
exceed six thousand square feet. The site is approximately 2.33 acres and is located within
the R-1-40,000 zoning district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission find the project exempt from CEQA and
approves the Design Review by adopting the attached resolutions. Staff is not
recommending any permanent conditions of approval.
2
193
Application No. PDR11-0020 / 19120 Monte Vista Drive
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R1-40,000 (Single-Family Residential)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density)
MEASURE G: Not applicable
PARCEL SIZE: 2.33 acres (net)
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 3.9%
GRADING REQUIRED: 100 c.y. of cut and 100 c.y. of fill. Export not required.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed new single-family residence 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.
MATERIALS AND COLORS: The proposed exterior materials include an integral color coat
smooth stucco finish, wood columns, aluminum clad wood framed windows, wood shutters,
copper ogee gutters and a slate roof. Rather than painting the stucco, a color is mixed into
the plaster, than applied to the wall. This texturing provides a mottled, spotty finish that is
common in both historic and modern residences. The proposed front entrance will now be
covered. The colors will remain taupe for the exterior, white for the trim, and black for the
wood shutters. The proposed slate roof would be earthtone gray. The single ridge roof and
boxy appearance continue the simple colonial architectural theme. A photo and color board
is available on file with the Community Development Department and will be present at the
public hearing.
Detail Colors and Materials Mfg. & Specification
Windows White - Aluminum / Wood Clad Kolbe or equivalent
Exterior Taupe Integral Color Coat Smooth
Stucco Mission Stucco or equivalent
Shutters
Columns
Dark Brown – Wood Shutters
White – Wood Columns
Existing shutters and custom
columns
Roof Earthtone Slate Black Diamond Roofing or
equivalent
3
194
Application No. PDR11-0020 / 19120 Monte Vista Drive
PROJECT DATA
R1-40,000 Zoning District
Net Site Area: 2.23 acres
Proposed Allowed
Site Coverage
Residence
Garage
Sheds
Covered Porches
Uncovered Patios
Paths
Pool
Driveway
Parking Area
Total
3,419 sq. ft.
902 sq. ft.
916 sq. ft.
3,332 sq. ft.
1,845 sq. ft.
1,000 sq. ft.
6,575 sq. ft.
2,940 sq. ft.
20,929 sq. ft. (23%)
Maximum Coverage allowed
is 35,508 sq. ft. (35%)
Floor Area
1st Floor
2nd Floor
Garage
Total
3,419 sq. ft.
2,441 sq. ft.
902 sq. ft.
6,762 sq. ft.
Maximum Floor Area is
7,020 sq. ft.
Setbacks
Front
Left Side
Right Side
Rear
1st Floor
93.75'
66.75'
165.75'
20.17'
2nd Floor
93.75'
66.75'
165.75'
20.17'
1st Floor
50'
25'
20'
20'
2nd Floor
50'
30'
25'
20'
Height
Lowest Elevation
Highest Elevation
Average Grade
Proposed Building Height
538.9'
540.6'
539.75'
564.40' (24.6')
Maximum Building Height
is 26'
PROJECT DISCUSSION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Existing Site Characteristics
The site is a developed single-family, two story residence in a low-density neighborhood
surrounded by sparse, well-established trees to the north, east and west. The site is relatively
flat with gentle slopes located north and southeast of the property. Single-family residents
are on the south and east locations while Monte Vista Drive is located north and El Camino
Grande is located east.
4
195
Application No. PDR11-0020 / 19120 Monte Vista Drive
Proposed Project and Architectural Style
The applicant’s architect has identified the style of the proposed residence as Colonial. That
architectural style and proposed project are characterized by a rectangular mass, medium
pitch, side-gable roof with narrow eaves, a balanced façade, and multi-pane, double-hung
windows. The proposed entrance is centered and accented with columns. The proposed
remodel also includes design elements such as painted wood louvered shutters, integral color
coat smooth stucco, slate tile roofing material and copper gutters and downspouts. The
proposed main residence will also include a three-car garage, attached by a covered
breezeway. Maximum building height would be approximately 24.5 feet.
The project includes several outdoor spaces adjacent to the main structure, including
multiple gravel paths and a large front parking area, a covered porch, balcony, and patio, an
paver/asphalt driveway, a fountain and bubbling water feature. In addition, the rear of the
property will include a new swimming pool, limestone pool deck and patio. The fire-truck
turnaround will be located in the middle of the property, near the proposed garage.
Landscaping would feature native and low-water use tree species such as coast live oak,
citrus lemon, flowering crab apple, olive, and the london plane variety. The front gravel
parking area would be surrounded by lavender shrubs. The driveway would be lined with
24” box london plane trees. Lemon trees would surround the pool located south of the
property. The north and east property lines (adjacent to Monte Vista Dr. and El Camino
Grande) would be lined with coast live oaks and olive trees, along with the existing well-
established trees currently in place.
HPC Review
The Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) determined the existing 1938 single-family
residence at 19120 Monte Vista Drive did not qualify as a Heritage Resource. The project
was reviewed by the HPC at the regularly scheduled meeting on August 9, 2011. The HPC
approval letter has been included as Attachment 2.
Access
Site access would remain off of Monte Vista Drive. The existing driveway would be
removed in order to construct a new driveway made of pavers, asphalt and gold fine gravel.
Fireplaces
The project would have one wood-burning fireplace in the living room. City Code Section
15-48.030 establishes a limit of one wood burning fireplace per structure.
Air Conditioning / HVAC
The applicant is proposing to install two A/C units. One of the units will be installed
near the guest bedroom at the wall that faces the breezeway. The other unit would go to
the left of the side covered porch. Both units will be substantially outside the rear and
exterior side setbacks. City Code Section 15-80.030 (i) require A/C units be located out
of required setbacks.
Grading and Drainage
5
196
Application No. PDR11-0020 / 19120 Monte Vista Drive
The applicant is proposing approximately 200 cubic yards of grading. The project would
require 100 cubic yards of cut and 100 cubic yards of fill in order to properly landscape the
project. The existing gentle slopes from the north will direct stormwater to proposed
drainage and dispersion swales located to the south, as well as existing and proposed
landscape. Due to the size of the lot, limit of impervious coverage, and drainage plan of
directing stormwater run-off to proposed swales and vegetation, the proposed project has
adequately been designed to handle future stormwater run-off.
Trees
The applicant has worked with the City Arborist to limit the number of trees impacted by the
proposed project to the extent feasible. Twenty trees protected by City Code were
inventoried for this project. Three of those trees have been approved for removal due to their
conflicting location with the project. The applicant has proposed to plant 100 new trees,
totaling a replacement value of over $20,000. The applicant (as conditioned) will also be
required to place a bond of approximately $171,000 for the protection of the 17 trees onsite.
The Arborist Report has been included as Attachment 3.
Neighbor Correspondence
The applicant has submitted Neighbor Notification forms from seven nearby neighbors of
the project. Furthermore, Staff has noticed property owners within 500 feet of the proposed
project. No negative comments have been received as of the writing of this staff report. Staff
has included the Neighbor Notification forms and required noticing as Attachment 4 and 5 of
this report.
Energy Efficiency
Although not required, the applicant submitted a GreenPoint Rated Checklist. The
proposed project would earn a score of 148 points which would exceed the minimum 50
points required by the City. The majority of points came from energy efficient
landscaping techniques, such as using native, drought tolerant non-invasive plants,
limited turf and low-flow water conserving irrigation features. Additional green features
include the installation of effective ductwork, the installation of ENERGY STAR
appliances, low-VOC paints, and environmentally preferable materials for interior and
exterior finishes. The GreenPoint Checklist has been included as Attachment 6.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission find this Application exempt from CEQA and
approves the application for Design Review by adopting the attached Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval – 19120 Monte Vista Dr.
2. HPC Approval Letter – 19120 Monte Vista Dr.
3. Arborist Report – 19120 Monte Vista Dr.
4. Neighbor Notification Forms – 19120 Monte Vista Dr.
5. Affidavit of mailing notices, public hearing notice, and copy of mailing labels
for project notification.
6
197
Application No. PDR11-0020 / 19120 Monte Vista Drive
7
6. Build-it-Green – GreenPoint Checklist
7. Photo and Color Board
8. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A."
198
Attachment 1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 11-024 FOR APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW
Application PDR11-0020
DiNapoli / Kohlsaat : 19120 Monte Vista Dr.
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" date stamped respectively September 27,
2011 incorporated by this reference. This Project consists of a remodel and addition of
approximately 2,706 sq. ft. to an existing 4,056 sq. ft. two-story, single family residence
located at 19120 Monte Vista Drive. The addition includes a new family room, kitchen,
conservatory, master suite and detached three-car garage. The existing garage would be
remodeled into new guest bedroom, bathroom and mud room. Three protected trees (one
London plane and two persimmons) are in conflict with the design and meet the
requirements for removal per the City Arborist. The height of the proposed residence will
not increase over the 26 foot height limit. The lot size is approximately 2.23 acres, located
in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in this
Resolution.
II. Design Review Requirement
Per City Code Section 15-45.060 (a) (6), Planning Commission Design review approval is
required whenever, as a result of proposed construction, reconstruction, or expansion, the
floor area of all structures on the site will exceed six thousand square feet. The project
includes the remodel of an existing 4,056 sq. ft. residence and addition of 2,706 sq. ft into a
6,762 sq. ft. single-family, two-story residence. 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; and (3) Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which
provides that the City shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and
approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits.
199
2
Application No. PDR11-0020 – 19120 Monte Vista Dr. – DiNapoli / Kohlsaat
III. Planning Commission Review
On November 9, 2011 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the
Project at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to
present evidence and argument. The Planning Commission considered the Project, the Staff
Report on the Project, CEQA documentation, correspondence, presentations from the
Applicant and the public, and all testimony and other evidence presented at the Public
Hearing.
IV. Environmental Review
The Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. Section 15303) “New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures.” This exemption allows for the construction of one single-
family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to
three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption.
V. Design Review Findings
The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code
Section Article 15-45.080 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof
to support making all of those required findings:
(a) The project avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project
has been designed in a manner that minimizes interference with neighboring views
and privacy by doing the following:
1. Concentrating the addition within the center of the subject property to allow
more privacy from adjacent properties.
2. Constructing a major addition under the existing main ridge of the main
residence.
3. Exceeding setback requirements on all sides of the proposed project.
4. Orienting upper floor windows towards the large front and rear yard.
5. Utilizing the established, well-matured landscaping to continue the buffer of
privacy screening of adjacent properties.
As discussed above, the finding can be made in the affirmative.
(b) The project preserves the natural landscape. The property is surrounded by
established trees and landscape. The majority of the project is within the existing
200
3
Application No. PDR11-0020 – 19120 Monte Vista Dr. – DiNapoli / Kohlsaat
building footprint of the existing structure. The vast majority of mature trees will be
preserved and remain onsite. The applicant has worked with the City Arborist to
incorporate protective measures to preserve existing mature and protected trees
onsite. This finding can be made in the affirmative.
(c) The project preserves native and heritage trees. The proposed addition is
consistent with this finding in that no Native or Heritage trees will be removed from
the site. In order to preserve the highest degree of survival for existing native and
protected trees on-site, the applicant has changed the design to minimize the impact
of four coast live oaks and two redwoods. The applicant has agreed plant up to 100
trees in order to mitigate the required removal of three protected trees. Furthermore,
the applicant (as conditioned) will be required to submit a protection bond in the
amount of $117,000 in order to provide security for the remainder of protected trees
onsite. This finding can be made in the affirmative.
(d) The project minimizes the perception of excessive bulk. The project meets this
finding in that the proposed remodel and addition have been designed and properly
situated within the center of the lot. Although the proposed project does have
substantial bulk as a rectangular mass, its size and scale blend in nicely with the
relatively large lot and neighboring properties. This finding can be made in the
affirmative.
(e) The project is of compatible bulk and height. The project meets this finding in that
the proposed remodel and addition has been designed to continue its compatibility
with the existing neighborhood. The immediate neighborhood includes a mixture of
large older ranch-style residences and newer Mediterranean (Tuscan and French)
residences. The compatibility is in the size and scale of the residences, not so much
the architecture. The appearance and size of the proposed addition will continue the
residential character of the existing homes in the surrounding area. This finding can
be made in the affirmative.
(f) The project uses current grading and erosion control methods. The project meets
this finding in that the proposed addition will not substantially alter existing grading
and drainage patterns. The property has a gently sloped land area in the northern
portion. Stormwater will be diverted into either drainage or dispersion swales which
will properly channel water onto existing vegetation. All erosion control measure
shall conform to both the City of Saratoga and the County of Santa Clara erosion
control standards. This finding can be made in the affirmative.
(g) The project follows appropriate design policies and techniques. The project meets
this finding in that it will utilize the following:
201
4
Application No. PDR11-0020 – 19120 Monte Vista Dr. – DiNapoli / Kohlsaat
1. The proposed project is compatible in terms of proportion, size, mass and
height with neighboring properties.
2. Use earth tone colors and natural materials, while allowing the mature
landscaping to remain onsite to visually buffer the structure from adjacent
properties.
3. Avoid interference with privacy by orienting upper floor windows to large
yard areas instead of neighboring properties.
4. Preserve views and access to views by locating the addition significantly
outside the setbacks.
5. The proposed project has been designed for energy efficiency by relocating
the family room and living room along the southern elevations as well as
utilizing horizontal and vertical articulation and outdoor covered spaces to
gain shade, exposure and natural ventilation.
VI. Project Approval
After careful consideration of the application, site plan, architectural drawings, plans, CEQA
documentation, and other materials, exhibits and evidence submitted to the City in
connection with this matter, Application No. PDR11-0020 for Design Review Approval is
approved subject to the conditions set forth below.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. GENERAL
1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative
period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the
landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or
demolition, grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a
certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent of other term-specified
conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s
office in form and content to the Community Development Director.
2. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in
effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its
equivalent.
202
5
Application No. PDR11-0020 – 19120 Monte Vista Dr. – DiNapoli / Kohlsaat
3. Conditions may be modified only by the Planning Commission unless modification is
expressly otherwise allowed by the City Code including but not limited to Sections 15-
80.120 and/or 16-05.035, as applicable.
4. The Community Development Director shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice
in writing, on or after the time the Resolution granting this Approval is duly executed by
the City, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this
application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). THIS
APPROVAL OR PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE SIXTY (60) DAYS AFTER THE
DATE SAID NOTICE IS MAILED IF ALL PROCESSING FEES CONTAINED
IN THE NOTICE HAVE NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL. No Zoning Clearance or
Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the Community
Development Director certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for
deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained).
5. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from
the date of adoption of this Resolution or the Design Review Approval will expire
unless extended in accordance with the City Code.
6. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State,
County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without
limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by
this reference.
7. Prior to issuance of any Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit to implement this
Design Review Approval the Owner or Applicant shall obtain a “Zoning Clearance”
from the Community Development Director by submitting final plans for the requested
permit to the Community Development Department for review to ascertain compliance
with the requirements of this Resolution.
8. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend,
indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions,
employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against:
a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul
any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or
determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and
b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in
any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation,
203
6
Application No. PDR11-0020 – 19120 Monte Vista Dr. – DiNapoli / Kohlsaat
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
September 27, 2011, denominated Exhibit "A". All proposed changes to the Approved
Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded
set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in
accordance with Condition A.3, above.
10. Downgrading of Materials. No downgrading in the exterior appearance of the
proposed residence will be approved by Staff. Downgrades may include, but are not
limited to garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway
materials, etc. Any exterior changes to approved plans may require filing an additional
application and fees for approval of modification by the Planning Commission
11. 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.
204
7
Application No. PDR11-0020 – 19120 Monte Vista Dr. – DiNapoli / Kohlsaat
12. 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.
13. 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 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;
205
8
Application No. PDR11-0020 – 19120 Monte Vista Dr. – DiNapoli / Kohlsaat
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 October 19, 2011 onto separate construction plan
pages;
g. A final Drainage and Grading Plan stamped by a registered Civil Engineer
combined with the above-required Stormwater Detention Plan; and
h. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the
Building Division.
14. Wood-burning fireplace limitation. 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.
15. Fences. Fences and walls shall comply with City Code Article 15-29.
16. Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine on adjacent properties or
public right-of-way.
17. Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Plan. Because this Design Review
Approval authorizes a construction 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.
18. 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.
19. HVAC System. No HVAC mechanical equipment shall be allowed between the lot line
and any required front, side or rear setback line.
20. Accessory Structures. Accessory structures shall comply with City Code Article 15-
80.
C. CITY ARBORIST.
21. Compliance with Tree Regulations and City Arborist Reports. All requirements in
the City Arborist Reports dated October 19, 2011 are hereby adopted as conditions of
206
9
Application No. PDR11-0020 – 19120 Monte Vista Dr. – DiNapoli / Kohlsaat
approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. This includes, but is
not limited to, the following standard conditions of approval:
a. Arborist Report. The October 19, 2011 report, including the map showing the
location of the tree and protective fencing, shall be incorporated into the final set of
plans and titled “Tree Preservation”.
b. Tree Removal. 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.
c. Tree Protective Fencing. Tree protective fencing shall be installed as shown on the
October 19, 2011 Arborist Report and established prior to the arrival of construction
equipment or materials on site. It shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link
fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, 1 7/8-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24
inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the
fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction
process until final inspection. Call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an
inspection after the fence has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining
building division permits.
d. Security Deposit. Owner shall obtain, and file with the Community Development
Director, a Tree Protection security deposit in the amount of $171,830, 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.
D. PUBLIC WORKS
22. Swale Construction. Applicant (owner) shall construct a swale along El Camino
Grande side of the property to direct stormwater and prevent erosion. Plans for this
improvement shall be submitted with the encroachment permit application
23. Encroachment Permit. Applicant (owner) shall obtain an encroachment permit for any
and all improvements in any City right-of-way or City easement including the
stormwater swale prior to commencement of the work to implement this Design Review
Approval.
207
10
Application No. PDR11-0020 – 19120 Monte Vista Dr. – DiNapoli / Kohlsaat
E. FIRE SAFETY OR FIRE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS
24. Fire Agency Conditions. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Agency requirements
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 9th day
of November 2011 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Douglas R. Robertson
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
___________________________________
James Lindsay
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
208
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
August 10, 2011
John and Melinda DiNapoli
19120 Monte Vista Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Application HPC11-0007 – Determination for Major Addition
19120 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga, CA
Dear Mr. & Mrs. DiNapoli:
Your application to the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) to determine if the existing
residence at 19120 Monte Vista Drive (APN 397-09-010) qualifies as a Heritage Resource, as
defined per City Code Section 13-10.050 was reviewed at the regularly scheduled HPC meeting on
August 9, 2011.
The HPC determined (5 ayes, 1 noes, 1 absent) the existing residence at 19120 Monte Vista Drive
does NOT qualify as a Heritage Resource. This letter gives the applicant approval to move forward
with the proposed project, pending further City Planning, Building, and Public Works permit
approval.
One condition on the approval is that this approval letter be incorporated into the final set of plans
and titled “Heritage Preservation Commission Approval”.
If you have any questions, please call me at 408-868-1212
Respectfully,
Michael Fossati
Planner / HPC Liaison
City of Saratoga
209
Page 1 of 8
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
ARBORIST REPORT
It is the responsibility of the owner, architect and contractor to be familiar with the
information in this report and implement the required conditions.
Application #: B11-0043
Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 19120 Monte Vista Drive
Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: John and Melinda DiNapoli
Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 397-09-010
Email: garykohlsaatarch.com
Report History: #1 Date: September 6, 2011
#2 This report revises and
replaces report #1
October 19, 2011
PROJECT SCOPE
The applicant has submitted revised plans to the City to remodel the house and add a detached
garage and a pool. The revised plans address the design requirement comments from the first report.
Three trees (#53, 59 and 60) protected by City Code are requested for removal to construct the
project. They meet the criteria for removal, and may be removed and replaced once Building
Division permits have been issued for the project. See the Findings section below for details.
A fourth tree (#43) protected by City Code is requested for relocation so that it can be retained and
preserved, while allowing the installation of a Mediterranean landscape.
CLEARANCE – with conditions
The project has clearance from the arborist to proceed, with the conditions noted in the
Requirements section below. The design has been modified to avoid the removal of tree #43 and to
better protect trees #51, 52, 54, 55, 56 and 57.
PLAN REVIEW
Plans Reviewed:
Architectural plans were prepared by Kohlsaat and Associates, dated July 20, 2011 and revised
September 26, 2011. Plan sheets reviewed for this report include Sheet A-1, Cover Sheet; Sheet A-2,
Site Plan; Sheet A-3, As-Built Demo and First and Second Floor Plans; Sheet A-4, As-Built
Elevations; Sheet A-5, Remodel and Garage Floor Plans; Sheet A-6, Remodel Second Floor Plan;
Sheets A-7 and A-8, Elevations; and Sheets A-9 and A-10, Sections.
A Boundary and Topographic Survey was prepared by RJA Engineers, Planners, and Surveyors and
dated April 8, 2011.
Landscape plans were prepared by Mission Landscaping and dated June 2, 2011. They have been
revised to include tree protection requirements specified in the previous arborist report. Plans
reviewed for this report include Sheet L1.0, Overall Plan; Sheet L2.0, Overall Planting Plan; Sheets
L2.1 (Parking Area), 2.2 (Pool Area) and 2.3 (Driveway Area), Planting Plans; Sheet L3.0, Pool Plan
210
19120 Monte Vista Drive
Page 2 of 8
and Details; Sheet L4.0, Grading and Drainage Plan Mainline Plan; Sheet L5.0, Irrigation Main Line
Plan; and Sheets L6.0 and L6.1, Details.
TREE INFORMATION
Tree Inventory:
Twenty trees protected by City Code were inventoried for this report. Each tree was tagged with a
round aluminum tag containing a number from 41 – 60. Inventoried trees include two deodar cedars
(#41 and 42), five coast live oaks (#43, 51, 52, 54 and 55), five European olives (#44 – 48), one
almond (#49), one avocado (#50), one London plane tree (#53), two coast redwoods (#56 and 57),
one California bay (#58) and two persimmons (#59 and 60). Data for each tree is included in the
Tree Inventory Table at the end of this report. Their locations are shown on the attached site map.
Tree Removals:
Three trees protected by City Code are shown on the Site Plan to be removed to construct the
project. They include London plane #53, and persimmon trees #59 and 60. See the Findings section
below for a detailed discussion of trees #53, 59 and 60.
Three other trees not protected by City Code are shown to be removed on the plans. One is a walnut
growing next to oak tree #43, one is an avocado growing near to tree #50 (labeled a chestnut on the
plans), and the third is an apple tree growing near to the avocado tree. These trees may be removed
at any time without a permit.
Tree replacements:
The project proposes to plant 100 new trees for a total replacement value of $20,500. This is greater
than the value of the trees to be removed, and satisfies the tree replacement requirement for the
project as proposed.
Condition of Trees:
Deodar cedar trees #41 and 42: Tree #41 is quite sparse and is in poor condition, while tree #42 is in
good condition. Neither is in conflict with the proposed project and they do not require removal to
construct the project.
Oak tree #43 is young and in very good condition. The revised plans indicate that it will be relocated
to a nearby spot on the property that removes it from impacts created by the proposed parking and
walkways. In order to survive relocation, a company experienced in the relocation and establishment
of oak trees must be preapproved by the City Arborist prior to the start of work. In addition, an
establishment period of at least one year must occur where the newly moved oak is cared for by the
company that has done the move.
The olive trees (#44 – 48) appear to be stressed. They have sparse canopies, many sprouts from the
base of the trunks, and numerous gopher holes around the base of the trees. They were topped at
some point in the past, maybe in order to relocate them to this site, and appear to have been
sunburned after planting. Areas on the branches and trunks are sunken and flattened, which is often
an indication of sunburn. These trees would benefit from deep root watering or watering with a
soaker hose that allows the water to penetrate at least a foot into the soil. If gophers are present, they
should be removed from the area so that the tree’s smaller roots have a chance to absorb water and
nutrients. The trees should not be fertilized until their health improves.
211
19120 Monte Vista Drive
Page 3 of 8
Almond tree #49 is in poor condition. It is not in conflict with the project and does not require
removal, but does not serve the site in its current condition. It is not clear if its health could be
improved or if it is at the end of its life and would be best removed and replaced with a younger tree.
No action on this tree is required for the current project.
Avocado tree #50 is in good condition and has good structure. It will be somewhat impacted by the
installation of pathways, but can be adequately protected if the pathways are installed entirely on top
of grade.
Coast live oaks 51 and 52 are either on the adjacent property, or are very close to the property line.
They, as well as coast live oak #54 are in good condition and provide significant shade and scenic
beauty to the site. Grading for the pool must remain outside of their canopies to best protect them.
The new main line for irrigation has been relocated so that it is outside of their canopies and is
acceptable.
Coast live oak #55 is in good condition and can have a long life or have its life cut short depending
on how the project is built. Currently, the parking area is very close to its trunk, which impacts its
root system on one side. However, the other side of the tree has an open field for its root system,
providing the best possible situation for a tree. The proposed design shows structures, driveways or
parking areas on all four sides of the tree, which will effectively place this tree in a planter. To
minimize the impact, these improvements must be far enough from the tree’s trunk to provide an
adequate growing area. Any improvements within 25 feet of the tree should be built entirely on top
of grade. Biaxial geo grid fabric under base rock should be used to help to disperse the weight of
vehicles on this driveway.
Coast redwoods #56 and 57 appear stressed. It is normal for this species to show browning of branch
tips at this time of year, but these two trees would do well with additional water. This species likes a
lot of water, and currently appears to be receiving little or no summer irrigation. The new main line
for irrigation has been relocated outside of their canopies and is acceptable. Starting now, and
throughout construction, these two trees should receive regular watering with a soaker hose or
through “deep root watering” from a tree contractor, where the water is forced about 1 – 2 feet into
the ground. No fertilizer should be used if this method is taken.
California bay tree #58 is in fair condition. New coast live oaks should not be planted within 30 feet
of this tree in order to be adequately protected. This species can harbor the organism that spreads the
sudden oak death disease, while not succumbing to the disease itself. Although the disease has not
been seen in this neighborhood, it is still best to take preventive measures and plant the oak trees far
enough from the bay so that this will not be a concern. Removal of the bay tree is not necessary.
Security Deposit for the Projection of Trees:
Per City Ordinance 15-50.080, a Tree Protection security deposit equal to 100% of the appraised
value of trees impacted by the project is required. Owner shall obtain, and file with the Community
Development Director, the required security deposit prior to the receipt of building permits. The
security deposit may be in the form of a savings account, a certificate of deposit account or a bond.
The required security deposit for this project is $171,830 and is the total appraised value of trees
#42, 46, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58. This deposit will be held until completion of the project
and acceptance by the City.
212
19120 Monte Vista Drive
Page 4 of 8
Appraisals:
Appraised values were calculated using the Trunk Formula Method and according to the Guide for
Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000.
This was used in conjunction with the Species Classification and Group Assignment, published by
the Western Chapter of the ISA, 2004.
FINDINGS
Tree Removal
The project was reviewed for the removal of trees #53, 59 and 60, three trees protected by City
Code. Whenever a tree is requested for removal to construct a project, certain findings must be met.
A list of criteria permitting the removal of trees is attached to the end of this report. The table below
summarizes the criteria met allowing the removal of each tree. All three trees meet the criteria for
removal overall, and may be removed and replaced as part of the project, once all permits have been
obtained. No trees may be removed until all applicable permits have been obtained.
Summary of Tree Removal Criteria
Tree # Criteria met Criteria not met Criteria not pertinent
53 1, 2, 4, 7, 9 5, 6 3, 8
59 1, 4, 6, 7, 9 5 2, 3, 8
60 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 2, 3, 8
Tree #53 – London plane: Tree #53 is a London plane in good condition that is in conflict with the
patio between the house and the pool. It has been pollarded to maintain a reduced height. It has
reached a size where it requires more space than is available with the proposed plans.
Tree #53 is in conflict with the proposed patio between the house and the pool and so it meets
criterion #1. If not removed, its roots will threaten damage to the improvements as they are
proposed, so it meets criterion #2. Criterion #3 is not a consideration in this situation, in that the lot
is flat and erosion is not an issue. Removal will have an impact on the shade for the house, but will
not have an impact on the privacy or aesthetic nature of the property due to its location. There are
many other trees on site, including two large coast live oaks and two coast redwoods. Therefore
removal of this tree does meet criterion #4. Criterion #5 is not met in that this London plane is not
crowded by any other trees in the yard. The alternative to removing this tree is to redesign the
project around the tree by installing a deck instead of a patio or leaving a lawn area around the tree.
Walkways to the pool can be placed on either side of the tree, rather than right in its location.
Therefore there are feasible alternatives to this project that allow the retention of this tree without a
major redesign of the project and it does not meet criterion #6. Removal and replacement of tree #53
is consistent with the intent of this article and does meet criterion #7. The intent of the Tree
Regulation is to recognize that property values are inseparable from the rural attractiveness of the
area, and that trees add value to the community by maintaining climatic balance and counteracting
pollutants in the air. The removal of tree #53 is being offset by planting 34 London planes and 35
coast live oaks plus other ornamental trees to make a total of 100 new trees as part of the project.
This will replenish and significantly add to the aesthetic value of the property. Safety is not an issue
with respect to this tree so criterion #8 does not pertain to this project. Removal of this tree provides
economic enjoyment to the property owners (criterion #9).
213
19120 Monte Vista Drive
Page 5 of 8
Tree #59 and 60 – persimmons: Trees #59 and 60 are persimmon trees in good condition. One
grows right next to a proposed covered patio, and the other grows between oak tree #55 and the
breezeway to the new garage.
Persimmon #59 would not survive construction of the proposed patio next to it and should be
considered a total loss from construction impacts even though it is not actually within the footprint
of the project. Persimmon #60 could be retained and preserved, but would suffer significant impacts
from the project because it is so close to the proposed breezeway and addition. Neither tree is of
such a high value to the site that the project should be designed around them, so both meet criterion
#1. Criteria #2 and 3 do not pertain to the situation, in that the trees do not threaten damage to the
structures on site and erosion is not an issue for this property. Removal of these trees will have an
insignificant impact on screening, aesthetic beauty and privacy of the property, so they meet
criterion #4. Persimmon #59 is not too close to any other trees so it does not meet criterion #5.
Persimmon #60 is close to oak tree #55, so it does meet criterion #5. It will gradually be shaded by
the oak the oak matures and will decline in health as a result. Neither tree is of a size or a species
that warrants redesigning the project in order to preserve them, so they do meet criterion #6.
Removal of these trees and planting new trees is consistent with the intent of the Tree Regulations
(criterion #7), especially since the new trees will have more room to grow than these two trees would
if retained during constriction. Criterion #8 is not pertinent to this situation in that there are no safety
issues with respect to these two persimmon trees. Removal of these trees would provide the owner
with economic and other enjoyment of the property, so they do meet criterion #9.
Replacement Trees:
Trees #53, 59 and 60 have a total appraised value of $19,270. New trees equal to their appraised
value will be required as part of the project.
The applicant has proposed planting 100 trees on the project with a replacement value of $20,200.
The number, species and value of trees proposed meet the replacement requirement for new trees are
acceptable. Locations of some replacement trees are needed to adequately protect existing trees. For
reference, replacement values for new trees can be found at the bottom of the Tree Inventory Table.
New Construction
Based on a review of information provided, and as conditioned, the project complies with the
requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15-50.120 of the
City Code.
REQUIREMENTS
1. This entire arborist report, including the Tree Inventory Table and map showing locations of
trees and protective fencing, shall be incorporated into the plans and titled “Tree
Preservation”.
2. Tree Protection Security Deposit - $171,830
a. Owner shall obtain, and file with the Community Development Director, a Tree
Protection security deposit for trees #42, 46, 50, 51,52, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58, prior to
obtaining Building Division permits.
214
19120 Monte Vista Drive
Page 6 of 8
b. The tree protection security deposit shall remain in place for the duration of construction
of the project to ensure the protection of the trees. Once the project has been
completed, inspected and approved by the City, the bond will be released.
3. Tree Protection Fencing:
a. Shall be installed as shown on the attached map.
b. Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site.
c. Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, 1 7/8-
inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more
than 10 feet apart.
d. Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT REMOVE
WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST”.
e. Call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection
fencing once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division
permits.
f. Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final
inspection. If contractor feels that work must be done inside the fenced area, call City
Arborist to arrange a field meeting. Failure to do so may lead to a hold on the Tree
Protection Security Deposit put in place by the property owner for a period of up to
five years after the completion of construction.
4. Utilities shall be shown on the final plans. Utilities include, but are not limited to, electrical,
drainage, water, sewer, gas and irrigation for landscaping.
5. If new utility connections are required, approval of utility locations shall be obtained from
City Arborist before issuance of building permits. No excavation for utilities is permitted
under the canopy of protected trees unless approved by City Arborist beforehand. Failure to
obtain approval prior to the start of work may lead to a hold on the Tree Protection Security
Deposit put in place by the property owner for a period of up to five years after the
completion of construction.
6. No trees shall be planted within 25 feet of deodar cedar #42.
7. Oak #43 is approved for relocation:
a. Owner shall obtain approval from City Arborist for the company that will relocate the
tree prior to having the tree moved.
b. Owner shall hire the same tree moving company to establish it for a minimum of one
year.
c. If oak tree #43 fails to survive relocation, owner shall plant new trees equal to its
appraised value as part of the project.
8. Oak trees #51, 52 and 54:
a. No grading for the new pool and patio is permitted within 25 feet of tree trunks.
b. Dry stack retaining walls may be used at the edge of the canopies to retain fill soil.
c. No new trees shall be planted within 25 feet of tree trunks.
d. No bay trees shall be planted within 30 feet of trees.
e. No plants shall be installed within 12 feet of tree trunks.
f. Only drought tolerant plants compatible with oaks are permitted under the canopies.
215
19120 Monte Vista Drive
Page 7 of 8
9. Oak tree #55:
a. The new parking areas and driveway shall be constructed entirely of pervious
materials and on top of grade where they are within 25 feet of the trunk.
b. Biaxial geo grid fabric shall be installed under the base material and pavers where the
driveway and parking areas are within 25 feet of the tree’s trunk.
10. Redwoods #56 and 57:
a. Irrigation lateral lines shall be installed radially, where they are within 25 feet of the
trees.
b. Addition of fill soil up to 4 inches is acceptable, but compaction of fill soil is not
permitted beyond 80%.
11. Coast live oaks shall be planted at least 30 feet from bay tree #58.
12. No changes in grade, including addition of fill soil, soil cuts, or trenching is permitted within
the distances listed below:
a. 20 feet – tree #42,
b. 25 feet – trees #51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57
13. No protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project may be
removed or encroached upon until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building
division for the approved project.
14. 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.
15. Trees #53, 59 and 60 meet the criteria for removal and may be removed once Building
Division permits have been obtained.
16. New trees with a replacement value of $19, 270 shall be planted to replace trees #53, 59 and
60. Replacement values for new trees can be found at the bottom of the Tree Inventory Table
attached to the end of this report.
17. Replacement trees may be planted anywhere on the property and shall be planted prior to
final inspection of the project.
18. Replacement trees may be of any species.
19. Unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist, all construction activities must be conducted
outside the designated fenced area (even after fencing is removed). These activities include,
but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment
cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle
operation and parking.
20. Any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site shall be performed under the
supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards.
216
19120 Monte Vista Drive
Page 8 of 8
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. At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing, call
City Arborist for a final inspection.
ATTACHMENTS:
Tree Removal Criteria
Tree Inventory Table
Map showing tree locations and protective fencing
TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA
Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article
15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If
findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and
replacement during construction.
(1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to
existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services;
(2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to
improvements or impervious surfaces on the property;
(3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and
the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes;
(4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal
would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the
general welfare of residents in the area;
(5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry
practices;
(6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on
the protected tree;
(7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose
and intent of this Article;
(8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes
of this ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010; and
(9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is
no other feasible alternative to the removal.
217
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 ValueDeodar cedar
41 Cedrus deodara 18 25 30 50 Poor Low 2 $2,960
Deodar cedar
42 Cedrus deodara 29.4 50 70 70 Good High 2 $13,000
Coast live oak
43 Quercus agrifolia 11.1 30 90 80 Good High 1 X $2,800
Olive
44 Olea europaea 12 20 70 70 Fair Moderate 2 $2,090
Olive
45 Olea europaea 13.5 25 50 70 Fair Moderate 2 $2,090
Olive
46 Olea europaea 16.7 25 50 50 Fair Moderate 2 $2,720
Olive
47 Olea europaea 12.5 25 40 50 Fair Moderate 3 $1,450
Olive
48 Olea europaea 10.8 25 50 70 Fair Moderate 4 $1,460
AlmondAlmond
49 Prunus dulcis 19.5 15 30 30 Poor Low 4 $1,250
Avocado
50 Persea americana 17 35 70 50 Good High 2 $1,510
Coast live oak
51 Quercus agrifolia 23 40 70 70 Good High 2 X $8,800
Coast live oak
52 Quercus agrifolia 25 40 70 80 Good High 2 X $10,600
London plane
53 Platanus acerifolia 31.5 55 90 50 Good High 1 X $13,400
Coast live oak
54 Quercus agrifolia 31 55 80 80 Good High 2 $36,500
Coast live oak
55 Quercus agrifolia 35.3 55 80 80 Good High 2 $28,900
19120 Monte Vista Drive
September 19, 2011
218
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE
NO. TREE NAME Trunk Diameter (in,) - per Guide for Plant AppraisalEstimated Canopy Spread (ft.)Health Condition (100% = best, 0% = worst)Structural Integrity (100% = best, 0% = worst)Overall ConditionSuitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Intensity of Impacts (1 = Highest, 5 = Lowest)In Conflict with Proposed DesignNot Shown on PlansOn Adjacent ProprtyAppraised ValueCoast redwood
56 Sequoia sempervirens 42, 14 60 70 80 Good High 2 $34,600
Coast redwood 19, 10,
57 Sequoia sempervirens 25.2 50 60 50 Fair High 2 $15,900
California bay 14.8,
58 Umbellularia californica 20.5 40 70 60 Fair High 3 $16,500
Persimmon
59 Diospyros virginiana 10.9 20 90 80 Good Moderate 2 X $2,920
Persimmon
60 Diospyros virginiana 11.3 20 90 70 Good Moderate 2 X $2,950
Total appraised value $202,400
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
19120 Monte Vista Drive
September 19, 2011
219
19120 Monte Vista Drive
Legend
Tree Protective
Fencing
41
42
43
47 46 45 44
49 48
50
51
52
53
54
55
57
56
58
59
60
43
New location for #43
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: November 9, 2011
Application Type / No: Fence Exception / FER11-0003
Location: 20040 Mendelsohn Lane
Owner / Applicant: Larry and Lisa Pott
Staff Planner: Michael Fossati
APN: 503-13-117
Department Head: James Lindsay
20040 Mendelsohn Lane
1
240
Application No. FER11-0003 / 20040 Mendelsohn Lane
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed: 05/26/11
Application complete: 10/13/11
Notice published: 10/25/11
Mailing completed: 10/17/11
Posting completed: 11/03/11
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant requests a fence exception to replace the existing wood fence within the front and
exterior side setback with a new ten foot tall cedar fence. The new fence would be a combination of
cedar boards and cedar pickets. The fence would be approximately 320 feet long and would border
the property along portions of the northern (adjacent to Mendelsohn Lane), eastern (adjacent to
Piedmont Road), and southern (adjacent to a neighboring driveway) property lines. The portion of
new fencing along the southern property line would step down in height to approximately eight feet.
Along with the new fence, the applicant is replacing the existing wood columns and gate with new
natural stone columns and a cedar wood gate. The columns and gate would be constructed near the
southeastern property line, near an adjacent neighboring driveway. Section 15-29.090 of the City
Code allows property owners to apply for fence exceptions. The subject property is located in the R-
1-20,000 zoning district and is approximately one acre is size.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Fence Exception Request application
with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution.
241
Application No. FER11-0003 / 20040 Mendelsohn Lane
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R-1-20,000
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Low Density (RLD)
MEASURE G: Not Applicable
PARCEL SIZE: 43,996 square feet (gross & net)
SLOPE: 16% average site slope
GRADING REQUIRED: None
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed Fence Exception Request 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.
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The proposed fence and gate would be stained in a dark
brown color and constructed of cedar wood. The proposed columns would be covered in a natural
stone clad.
3
242
Application No. FER11-0003 / 20040 Mendelsohn Lane
PROJECT DISCUSSION:
Fence Exception
The property owner of 20040 Mendelsohn Lane has requested approval to rebuild their existing
fence in the front and exterior side setback of their property located at the corner of Mendelsohn
Lane and Piedmont Road. The existing fence is currently legally non-conforming. It is
approximately six feet tall and is located within the front setback (at Mendelsohn Lane) and
exterior side setback (at Piedmont Road). The applicant is requesting a fence exception to
increase the height of the existing fence due to the significant grade change between the existing
streets (Mendelsohn Lane and Piedmont Road) and the existing grade of the subject property.
The elevation from the street level is approximately five feet taller than the elevation of the
subject property.
The applicant has applied for a fence exception to address their privacy concerns within their
front and side yard. Due to the steep topography and building placement, the property has no
rear yard. Most properties are allowed taller fences for their rear yards, in order to preserve
privacy for recreational activities. The applicant does not have that advantage, because their
property does not have a rear yard. The majority of open space for recreation is located within
the front and exterior side yard.
The existing fencing creates minimal privacy screening due to its existing height and its relation
to the grade of the street. As previously stated, the grade elevation from the street is
considerably higher than the grade elevation from the owner’s property, which allows anyone
utilizing the street to see directly into their front and side yard. If the proposed fencing were
allowed, this would significantly increase the privacy of the property owner while maintain
compatibility within the neighborhood. There are numerous properties along Mendelsohn and
Piedmont that have taller fences along their front property lines.
Property Description
As previously stated, the property is located on the corner of Mendelsohn Lane and Piedmont Road.
The site is presently developed with an existing one-story (with a daylight basement) single-family
residence surrounded by dense tree vegetation. The site can be accessed at two locations. The main
access is through an existing main gate along Mendelsohn Lane. The secondary access is an
accessory gate facing Piedmont Road.
Fence Design and Placement
The proposed fence along Mendelsohn and the northeastern portion of Piedmont would be eight feet
in height with a two foot vertical decorative element on top. The fence would be stained dark brown
and constructed with the existing cedar planks. As a decorative element, new cedar pickets would
be spaced apart and attached to the top of the fence. The new fence would step down from ten feet
to eight feet approximately 30 feet from the corner of the property line abutting Piedmont Road and
the adjacent neighbor. This new lower fence would transition into the proposed eight foot stone
columns and seven foot high wood gate. The columns would re-attach to the eight feet of fencing,
which would run along the remainder of the eastern and southern property line. A sketch of the
proposed fence, gate and columns are included as Attachment 2.
4
243
Application No. FER11-0003 / 20040 Mendelsohn Lane
5
Gate Design and Placement
The proposed gate would be constructed of cedar wood. The design of the fence would include
horizontal and vertical boards. The gate would be six feet wide and seven feet tall.
Neighborhood Compatibility
Several fences along Mendelsohn Lane are located within the required front setback. The home
across the street to the subject property along Mendelsohn has a fence of approximately the same
height and location as the proposed fence. The design, color, and materials of the proposed fence is
complimentary to existing fences in the surrounding neighborhood.
Neighborhood Notification
The applicant received one signed neighborhood notification form. The public hearing notice was
mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. The neighbor notification form is
included as Attachment 3. The public notice is included as Attachment 4. Staff has not received any
comments to date.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find this application exempt from CEQA and
approve the application for Fence Exception Request with required findings and conditions by
adopting the attached Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval.
2. Proposed Fence and Gate – Materials Board
3. Neighbor Notification
4. Mailed Notice, Address Labels, Mailing Affidavit
5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A".
244
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 11-023
Attachment 1
Application FER11-0003
Lawrence and Lisa Pott; 20040 Mendelsohn Lane
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 a Fence Exception for
the Project shown in Exhibit "A" and Materials Board, shown as Exhibit “B”, date stamped August
23, 2011, incorporated by this reference. The applicant is requesting to install a fence, gates and
columns, up to ten feet (10’) in height in the front and exterior side yard setback. The fence and
gates would be constructed of cedar wood and attached to concrete columns covered with cultured
stone veneer. The fence would be located along the eastern property line and a portion of the
northern and southern property line. The net lot size is 44,000 square feet and located in the R1-
20,000 zoning district. The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in this Resolution.
II. Fence Exception Requirement
City Code Section 15-29.090 allows an exception to the fence regulations with approval by the
Planning Commission.
III. Planning Commission Review
On November 9, 2011 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the Project
at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence
and argument and the Planning Commission considered the Project, the staff report on the Project,
correspondence from the Applicant and the public, and all testimony and evidence presented at the
Public Hearing.
IV. Environmental Review
The project is 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 and location of a new small
structure such as a fence or gate. No exception to this exemption applies.
V. Fence Exception Findings
The Applicant has met the burden of proof to support the Findings required for approval of a Fence
Exception under City Code Section 15-29.090, as set forth below:
Finding #1: The subject fence will be compatible with other similar structures in the
neighborhood. The fence would be compatible with the location, height and placement of
existing fencing in the existing and immediate neighborhood. The proposed style, cedar wood
245
2
Application No. FER11-0003; 20040 Mendelsohn Lane
boards and pickets, and cultured stone columns would be complimentary to the surrounding rural
neighborhood. This finding can be made in the affirmative.
Finding #2: The entirety of the subject fence will be constructed of materials that are of high
quality, exhibit superior craftsmanship, and that are durable. The fence and gate would be
constructed with cedar wood and attached to concrete columns covered with a cultured stone
veneer. Cedar is a lightweight and dimensionally stable wood that discourages moisture rot and
maintains shape and form. The natural stone columns are earthtone and consistent with the rural
character of the surrounding properties. All of the materials used will be high quality and
durable enough to weather the outdoor environment. This finding can be made in the affirmative.
Finding #3: The modification will not impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood
in which the fence is located. The proposed fence would continue the consistency in character of
the existing neighborhood. The proposed fence, gate, and modified columns would incorporate
high-quality materials that are not only consistent with the main residence, but would
complement the integrity of the existing community. This finding can be in made in the
affirmative.
Finding #4: The granting of the exception will not be detrimental or injurious to the property,
adjacent neighbors, or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property
is located. All the proposed materials for the fence and gate would be high quality and the
similar in height and placement to existing fences and gates in the immediate surrounding
neighborhood. The fence and gate would be installed more than twenty feet from the edge of
pavement, in order to maintain clearance for ongoing traffic within the public right-of-way. This
finding can be made in the affirmative.
Finding #5: The granting of the exception will not create a safety hazard for vehicular,
pedestrian or bicycle traffic and does not obstruct the safe access to and from adjacent
properties. As previously stated, the proposed fence and gate would be installed away from street
pavement substantially more than the required distance as per the City Code. The proposed fence
and gate would not interfere with visibility for pedestrian, bicyclist and vehicular traffic within
the area due to the placement of the fence along the property line of the existing lot along both
Mendelsohn Lane and Piedmont Road. This finding can be made in the affirmative.
246
3
Application No. FER11-0003; 20040 Mendelsohn Lane
VI. Project Approval
After careful consideration of the application, site plan, and other materials and exhibits submitted
to the City in connection with this matter, Application No. FER11-0003 for a fence exception is
approved subject to the conditions set forth below.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. GENERAL
1. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use
Permit and may, at any time, modify, delete, or impose, any new conditions of the permit to
preserve the public health, safety, and welfare.
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 Section 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 Use Permit will expire unless extended in accordance with
the City Code.
6. The use 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 use
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.
7. Prior to issuance of any demolition, use, grading, or building permit to implement this 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
247
4
Application No. FER11-0003; 20040 Mendelsohn Lane
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
1. Compliance with Plans and Description of Use. The use and development shall be operated,
located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the
Approved Plans and Description of Use denominated Exhibit "A" date June 11, 2009
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. No downgrading in the exterior appearance of the approved residence will be
approved by staff. Downgrades may include but are not limited to garage doors, architectural
detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, etc. Proposed changes to the
approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and may
require review by the Planning Commission.
2. 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:
248
5
Application No. FER11-0003; 20040 Mendelsohn Lane
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.
3. 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.
4. Hedge in Site Triangle Maintenance. Prior to issuance of the fence permit, the applicant must
maintain any hedge or shrub within or near the subject property, located within a triangle having
sides fifty feet in length from a street intersection, as measured from intersecting curb lines or
intersecting edges of the street pavement where no curb exists, to an overall height of no more
than three feet above established grade of the adjoining street. This condition is permanent.
5. Trees in Site Triangle Maintenance. Any tree located within a site triangle having sides fifty
feet in length from a street intersection, as measured from intersecting curb lines or intersecting
edges of the street pavement where no curb exists, must have the limbs of which are less than
ten feet above the ground surface removed. This condition is permanent.
6. Fence Design. Prior to issuance of a fence permit, the applicant must submit a fence design that
does not incorporate spears or top spikes, to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.
249
6
Application No. FER11-0003; 20040 Mendelsohn Lane
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 9th day of November
2011 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Douglas R. Robertson
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
___________________________________
James Lindsay
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
250
251
252
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 November, 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: FER11-0003 / 20040 Mendelsohn Lane
APPLICANT/OWNER: Pott
APN: 503-13-117
DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests a fence exception to replace an existing wood fence
within the front and exterior side setback with a new taller cedar fence. The majority of the
fence would be constructed of eight foot tall cedar boards and two foot tall cedar pickets. The
new fence would be approximately 320 feet long and would border the property along portions
of the northern (adjacent to Mendelsohn Lane), eastern (adjacent to Piedmont Road), and
southern property lines (adjacent to a neighboring driveway). The portion of new fencing along
the southern property line would step down in height to approximately eight feet of fencing and
six inch cedar pickets.
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, November 1, 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
Planner
(408) 868-1212
253
10/17/2011 City of Saratoga Page -1 of 1 Radius Notification Parcel Report For the Period 10/17/2011 thru 10/17/2011Parcel Number Parcel Address Owner Name Owner Address Owner City, State Zip51001001 20040 MENDELSOHN LN LAWRENCE AND LISA POTT 20040 MENDELSOHN LN SARATOGA, CA 9507051001002 19916 MENDELSOHN LN RODONI DOUGLAS AND HILARY 19916 MENDELSOHN LN SARATOGA, CA 9507051001003 19892 MENDELSOHN LN QUICKE ROBERT D AND JANIE 19892 MENDELSOHN LN SARATOGA, CA 9507051001004 19870 MENDELSOHN LN REDFORD 19870 MENDELSOHN LN SARATOGA, CA 9507051001006 15055 PARK DR LAMPSHIRE WARREN AND YVONNE TR 15055 PARK DR SARATOGA, CA 9507051001007 15069 PARK DR BAKER JERRY M AND SANDY L TRUS 15069 PARK DR SARATOGA, CA 9507051001008 15083 PARK DR KAYHAN JOYCE 15083 PARK DR SARATOGA, CA 9507051001009 15097 PARK DR ROBINSON CARLA L AND TIMOTHY K 15097 PARK DR SARATOGA, CA 9507051001010 15111 PARK DR WAYNE KENNETH J AND SUE E TRUS 15111 PARK DR SARATOGA, CA 9507051001012 15139 PARK DR PEPPER LANE - INVESTMENT LLC ATTN: MYRA REINHARD LOS GATOS, CA 9503251001013 15195 PARK DR STUTZMAN FRANCIS L AND EDYTHMA 15195 PARK DR SARATOGA, CA 9507051001017 19921 PARK DR ROUPE GEORGE A AND BARBARA D 19921 PARK DR SARATOGA, CA 9507051001018 15150 PARK DR DON ALLEN AND PATRICIA 15150 PARK DR SARATOGA, CA 9507051001019 15100 PARK DR UMESH K & NIRAJ SINGH 15100 PARK DR SARATOGA, CA 9507051001020 15070 PARK DR LARSON ROBERT G AND BERNADINE 15070 PARK DR SARATOGA, CA 9507051001021 15060 PARK DR LIGHTBODY DONALD C AND MAUREEN 15060 PARK DR SARATOGA, CA 9507051001029 19897 PARK DR WORTLEY JOHN M AND LORI TRUSTE 19897 PARK DR SARATOGA, CA 9507051001043 FRANKLIN DAVID R AND FRANCES L 15177 PARK DR SARATOGA, CA 9507051001044 15177 PARK DR POELLOT, J. MICHAEL, BEVERLY 15177 PARK DR SARATOGA, CA 9507051001045 15052 PIEDMONT RD KENNY JAMES AND SHERRIL P 15052 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA, CA 9507051721004 20045 MENDELSOHN LN CHENG DAVID CHENG-YI AND JUNE 18601 EUCALYPTUS DR LOS GATOS, CA 9503051721007 20017 MENDELSOHN LN THERMOND JEFFREY L AND CATHERI 20017 MENDELSOHN LN SARATOGA, CA 9507051721008 19911 MENDELSOHN LN DEL CARLO ARNOLD S AND JOYCE M 19911 MENDELSOHN LN SARATOGA, CA 9507051721009 19935 MENDELSOHN LN PIVK LEOPOLD JR 19935 MENDELSOHN LN SARATOGA, CA 9507051721011 FARWELL AV DEL CARLO ARNOLD S AND JOYCE M 19911 MENDELSOHN LN SARATOGA, CA 9507051721012 20067 MENDELSOHN LN WANG MARGARET MENG YIN AND PAU 20067 MENDELSOHN LN SARATOGA, CA 9507051721013 20077 MENDELSOHN LN TKALCEVIC NANCY L TRUSTEE 20077 MENDELSOHN LN SARATOGA, CA 9507051721014 20087 MENDELSOHN LN KESSLER BRIAN TRUSTEE 20087 MENDELSOHN LN SARATOGA, CA 9507051721015 20097 MENDELSOHN LN RUTTI PETER J AND CHRISTINE L 20097 MENDELSOHN LN SARATOGA, CA 9507051721021 20140 RANCHO BELLA VISTA ADAMSON G DAVID AND ROSEMARY C 20140 RANCHO BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507051721022 20130 RANCHO BELLA VISTA CHANG CHIEN C TRUSTEE & ET AL 20130 RANCHO BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507051721023 20121 RANCHO BELLA VISTA HUANG 20121 RANCHO BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507051721024 20131 RANCHO BELLA VISTA SMALL KIMBALL W AND MARTHA L 20131 RANCHO BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507051721025 20141 RANCHO BELLA VISTA KLAYKO MICHAEL A AND PATRICIA 20141 RANCHO BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 9507051722011 20100 BONNIE BRAE LN Barry Ford 20100 Bonnie Brae Lane Saratoga, CA 9507051722012 15050 BONNIE BRAE LN CHANG HENRY S AND LISA S 15050 BONNIE BRAE LN SARATOGA, CA 9507051722015 15041 PIEDMONT RD PASHOS THOMAS J AND ROSE M TRU 15041 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA, CA 9507051722016 15091 PIEDMONT RD WINOVICH WARREN TRUSTEE & ET A 15091 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA, CA 9507051722035 15166 PIEDMONT RD GIANSIRACUSA BERNICE K AND FRA P O BOX 2430 SARATOGA, CA 9507051722036 PIEDMONT RD STUTZMAN FRANCIS L AND EDYTHMA 15195 PARK DR SARATOGA, CA 9507051722037 PIEDMONT RD PEPPER LANE - INVESTMENT LLC ATTN: MYRA REINHARD LOS GATOS, CA 9503251722038 PIEDMONT RD KENNY JAMES AND SHERRIL P 15052 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA, CA 9507051722039 PIEDMONT RD SESHADRI KISHORE AND ASOK KALP 20040 MENDELSOHN LN SARATOGA, CA 9507051722058 20076 MENDELSOHN LN RAGHU RAMAKRISHNAN 20076 MENDELSOHN LANE SARATOGA, CA 9507051722120 15000 BONNIE BRAE LN MONTGOMERY TIMOTHY K AND HUGIL 15000 BONNIE BRAE LN SARATOGA, CA 9507045 Affected Parcels254
255