Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-28-2009 Planning Commission Packet CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Joyce Hlava, Rishi Kumar, Robert Kundtz, Linda Rodgers, Yan Zhao and Chair Manny Cappello PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: MINUTES: Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 14, 2009 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. 1. PG&E Presentation ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF: REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: REPORT OF APPEAL R IGHTS: 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). CONSENT CALENDAR: PUBLIC HEARINGS: All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. APPLICATION #MOD08-0004 (410-40-003) Douglas, 18595 Avon Lane - The applicant requests modifications to an approved Design Review application. Original February 14, 2007 approval was for a 5,844 square foot, 24’-10” tall single family residence with related site improvements. Proposed modifications include the construction of a new 15’ tall carport in the southeast corner of the lot and reductions in the amount of impervious site coverage. The site is zoned R-1-40,000. (Chris Riordan) 2. APPLICATION #PDR08-0034 (397-04-061) Jean, 14966 Sobey Road - The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a new two-story, single-family detached residence, a three (3) car garage and a daylight basement. The project includes 3,246 sq. ft. of floor area at the main level, 1,555 sq. ft. at the upper level, and 953 sq. ft. of garage space, totaling 5,754 sq. ft. The basement will encompass an additional 1,724 sq. ft. of living space. Per Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC) Section 15-06.090, the floor area of basement will not be included in the allowable floor area calculation. The proposal also includes removal of five Ordinance size tree (four Mulberries and one Canary Island Date Palm). The Date Palm 1 was removed prior to applying for a tree removal permit. All five trees have been authorized for removal by the City Arborist. The applicant has submitted an After the Fact tree removal permit for the Date Palm. The maximum height of the proposed residence will be not higher than 26-feet. The net lot size is 37,524 square-feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. (Michael Fossati) DIRECTORS ITEM: COMMISSION ITEMS: COMMUNICATIONS: ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING: - Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Abby Ayende, Office Specialist 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 January 22, 2009, 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 2 MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Cappello called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: None Staff: Director John Livingstone, Assistant Planner Cynthia McCormick, Assistant Planner Michael Fossati and City Attorney Richard Taylor PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of December 10, 2008. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of December 10, 2008, were adopted with an edit to page 7. (5-0-0-1; Commissioner Kundtz abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 8, 2009. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Cappello announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing 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). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. 3 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 14, 2009 Page 2 *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #PSP08-0003 (366-12-054) Goodere, 12333 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road: The applicant requests Planning Commission approval to construct and display a freestanding identification sign. The sign will be approximately 34 square feet in size. Sign materials include a concrete base, aluminum skin, lettering and numbers. Sign colors include white, black and warm gray. The sign will be externally illuminated with a 20-watt halogen up light. Per Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC) Section 15-30.060(a), illuminated signs require Planning Commission approval. The property location is approximately 45,000 square feet and the zoning is Commercial-Visitor (CV). (Michael Fossati) Mr. Michael Fossati, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that illuminated sign requests require Planning Commission approval. • Said that the application is Categorically Exempt under CEQA. • Described the proposed sign as being located in the front of 12333 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road consisting of approximately 34 square feet and constructed of aluminum and concrete with an aluminum skin. The colors of the sign are black, white and gray. The sign is approximately four feet, six inches tall. The illumination will be ground-mounted low voltage with 20 watts of light per fixture and three fixtures per side for a total of 60 watts per side of the side. • Explained that this sign wattage is the same as the Saratoga Country Club sign that was approved last year. • Reported that this sign is to be placed in a landscape area where there is currently a Chinese Pistach tree. That tree will be relocated into the street side planter strip. • Added that both Public Works and Parks staff reviewed the relocation of the Chinese Pistach tree and agreed that it would be acceptable. There was such a tree there in the past that was knocked over by a truck and never replaced. • Reported that the 500-foot neighbor notification was distributed and no negative comments were received. • Said that all findings required per Code and the Gateway Guidelines have been met. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the handout this evening should be attached to Exhibit A. Planner Michael Fossati deferred to the City Attorney. City Attorney Richard Taylor said that it could be added to the resolution. Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Kurt Goodere, Applicant: • Said that his business is being relocated onto this property where there is currently no sign. 4 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 14, 2009 Page 3 • Added that no one can find the site right now. • Explained that this is a two-story building with seven tenants. They will be the main tenants. Chair Cappello closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Hlava pointed out that there is existing language in the resolution requiring replanting as shown on Exhibit A. She suggested making tonight’s handout a part of Exhibit A. City Attorney Richard Taylor said that is a fine idea. Commissioner Hlava said that she has no problems with this request. If there is no further discussion required, she said she would be willing to make the motion. Commissioner Rodgers said that she has no problem and is happy that this business is relocating to Saratoga. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission approved a freestanding exterior illuminated sign of approximately 34 square on property located at 12333 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, with the addition to Exhibit A, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #PDR08-0028 (517-20-027) Jensen, 14890 Montalvo Road: The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a second-story addition to an existing single- story single-family residence. The project will add 135 square feet to the ground level and 1,028 square feet to a new second story for a total floor area of 4,967 square feet. No trees are proposed for removal. The proposed height of the home is less than 26 feet. The lot is 20,794 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-20,000. (Cynthia McCormick) Ms. Cynthia McCormick, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Provided a revised draft resolution that includes changes to Condition 18 on the indemnification clause. • Explained that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to allow the construction of a 1,028 square foot second story addition and a 135 square foot ground level addition to an existing single-story residence. The total floor area would be 4,967 square feet. 5 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 14, 2009 Page 4 • Reported that the site includes an existing secondary dwelling unit that will be deed restricted to allow a one-time ten-percent floor area bonus. • Advised that the existing residence was reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission on December 9, 2008, and was found not to be historic. • Reported that the home will include the two existing wood burning fireplaces, two existing gas fireplaces and one new gas fireplace on the second floor for a total of five fireplaces. • Said that no trees are proposed for removal. • Said that a variety of green strategies will be implemented as described in Attachment 4. • Reported that the project color board is being distributed. • Stated that the home will maintain the existing brick and wood siding façade. • Pointed out that the surrounding neighborhood is a mixture of both one and two-story homes. • Said that the perception of bulk is reduced through the use of undulating walls and a low- pitch roof. The home will not exceed 26 feet in height and privacy impacts are minimized by locating the majority of the second story toward the front of the property. • Recommended that this project be found Categorically Exempt from CEQA and that the Commission adopt a resolution approving PDR08-0028 as amended. Commissioner Rodger said she was not sure that she had an Attachment 4 in her packet. Planner Cynthia McCormick said she would pass around her copy of Attachment 4. Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Ms. Kirsten Jensen, Applicant and Property Owner: • Explained that she is here with her husband, David Kerley. • Reported that her mother is also here this evening. She will be moving out here from New Jersey when the addition is done. Mr. Roger Griffin, Paragon Design Group, Los Gatos: • Explained that this existing residence has one bedroom on the main floor and the goal is to have a sleeping room on the ground floor for parents to use without their having to negotiate stairways. • Reported that they had first looked at converting the existing garage into a master bedroom and move the garage under the rear patios but the driveway for this new garage would be near an existing oak tree along Montalvo Road, which brought up uncomfortable issues. • Added that they brought in an arborist, Barrie Coate, for an evaluation and guidelines that would preserve this magnificent oak tree. It soon became clear that any excavation would be detrimental to this tree. Then, and only then, did they consider adding a second story. • Said that this second story has been designed to be entirely compatible with the original architecture to look as though it was built at the time of original construction. • Stated that in addition, they have utilized one-story elements, stepping up to the upper floor, and have avoided two-story full-height walls. • Said that this undulation of the wall plain significantly reduces the apparent mass of the structure. 6 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 14, 2009 Page 5 • Advised that they believe this solution is highly compatible with the neighborhood and is smaller in appearance than the other larger two-story homes across the street. • Requested approval and said he was available for any questions. Commissioner Hlava pointed out a typographical error that reads “thankless” water heater rather than the intended “tankless” water heater. Commissioner Zhao asked about allowances for five fireplaces. Chair Cappello explained that as they are existing, it is okay to keep them. Chair Cappello closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Hlava said that she could make the findings to support this application with no problem. There are lots of two-stories in the vicinity and this is a half-acre lot. Commissioner Rodgers said that this proposed new second story is so well articulated and uses the same wood as the original house as well as using the same brick company to provide bricks that match existing bricks. She said that this would be practically an invisible addition. Commissioner Kundtz said that there is no excess bulk. They have done a great job with the design. The house remains compatible with the neighborhood and he can support this request. Commissioner Zhao said that she can make all the findings and finds that this home appears like a single-story structure. Commissioner Kumar said he too could make the required findings. While the project is up to the maximum allowed square footage, there is no impression of bulk. He reminded that this is a larger lot at half an acre. He advised he could support this request. Chair Cappello: • Explained that it is important for the Commission to carefully look at two-story additions closely. These applications are not rubber-stamped. • Added that each application is evaluated on its own merits and design. • Agreed that all the findings could be made in support of this application. • Stated that the home fits in this neighborhood and on this lot and allows the retention of views and privacy. • Said that this home has a great appearance. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #PDR08-0028) to construct a 135 square foot first floor addition and 1,028 square foot new second story on an existing resident located at 14890 Montalvo Road, as amended and including a deed 7 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 14, 2009 Page 6 restriction for the existing secondary dwelling unit, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Director John Livingstone: • Pointed out the tentative agenda that forecasts out to March. • Reminded that a question was raised about having a Planning Commission retreat/workshop on January 27th. However, staff has learned that Jonathan Wittwer cannot attend a meeting on that date. He would like to participate in a training session with the Commission in the near future. • Suggested that the Commission could still meet on January 27th at approximately 5:30 p.m. after the site visits in order to prepare for the February 4th joint Council/Planning Commission session. Commissioner Hlava: • Pointed out that there are two things to accomplish. One is a training session that Jonathan Wittwer wants to conduct. The second is an opportunity for the Commissioners to get together to look at the work schedule for the rest of the year. • Questioned whether this should happen before the February 4th joint meeting with Council or after. • Added that Commissioner Rodgers had previously indicated to her that it might be helpful for the Commission to meet before the joint meeting with Council. She said that she thinks that with so many new members on the Council, the previous priority list might change so perhaps this part of the discussion should occur after the joint session. Chair Cappello said that the Commission typically has a preparation meeting prior to a joint session with Council. It gives the Commission the opportunity to gather and organize its thoughts. Commissioner Kundtz said that at these preparation meetings, Director Livingstone gives the Commissioners an overview of the coming year’s priorities. Commissioner Cappello sought clarification from Director John Livingstone that City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer wants to conduct the training portion of the Commissioners’ meeting. Director John Livingstone replied yes, he’s prepared an extensive template and format for resolutions and reports and he wanted to go over that before staff starts using it. He added that Council has its own retreat on January 30th. Commissioner Rodgers said that the Commission gives its priorities and feedback to Council. 8 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 14, 2009 Page 7 Chair Cappello said that there is real value and purpose in the Commission having such a preparation meeting prior to the joint session with Council. He said that while January 27th might not be the best day, there may not be any other choices available. Commissioner Kumar supported holding a meeting of the Commissioners on January 27th to open the discussion on the issues and priorities of the Commission prior to meeting with Council. After than, another meeting can be set in the future for training with City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer. Chair Cappello agreed. Director John Livingstone pointed out that the schedule is pretty packed. If this preparation meeting is held on January 27th, there are study sessions set through March. This Commission is going to be busy until summer. Commissioner Hlava cautioned that the Housing Element would be the focus through June. It will take up so much time and other priorities might have to wait until after June. Director John Livingstone agreed. He added that he is working on a draft game plan for the Housing Element Update. However, Council has also asked that the Planning Commission work on an ordinance update to extend the relaxed parking. Chair Cappello said that the meeting on January 27th appears to be necessary and can be scheduled. Director John Livingstone advised that this session was plugged into the schedule yesterday. Chair Cappello pointed out that Commissioner Kumar has prepared a list of suggested priorities and suggested that the other Commissioners also do so in preparation for the January 27th meeting. COMMISSION ITEMS There were no Commission Items. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, Chair Cappello adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:39 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: PDR08-0034 – 14966 Sobey Road Type of Application: New Two-Story Single Family Residence Owner: James and Tina Jean Staff Planner: Michael Fossati, Assistant Planner Meeting Date: January 28, 2009 APN: 397-04-061 Department Head: John Livingstone, AICP 14966 Sobey Road 28 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 10/07/08 Application complete: 12/15/08 Notice published: 12/29/08 Mailing completed: 12/29/08 Posting completed: 01/08/09 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to demolish an existing one-story, single-family Ranch house and construct a new two-story, single-family residence, a three car garage and a basement. The proposal is a “Country Craftsman” style home. The project includes 3,246 sq. ft. of floor area at the main level, 1,555 sq. ft. at the upper level, and 953 sq. ft. of garage space, totaling 5,754 sq. ft. The basement will encompass an additional 1,724 sq. ft. of living space. Per Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC) Section 15-45.060 (a)(1), any new multi-story main structure requires Planning Commission approval. The project also includes removal of four Ordinance size Mulberry trees. One Canary Island Date Palm and two Pines were removed prior to applying for a tree removal permit. All seven trees were authorized for removal by the City Arborist. The applicant has submitted an “After the Fact” tree removal permit for the Date Palm and Pines. The maximum height of the proposed residence will be not higher than 26-feet. The net lot size is 37,524 square-feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Design Review application with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. Staff is recommending a permanent condition of approval. 2 29 Application No. PDR08-0034 / 14966 Sobey Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very Low Density Residential (RVLD) MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: Gross: 48, 337 sq. ft.; Net: 37,524 sq. ft. SLOPE: Approximately 13.9 % average site slope and 2.2 % at building site GRADING REQUIRED: The project includes 1154 cubic yards (c.y.) to be cut for the new residence, pool and spa. An additional 386 c.y. of soil will be retained on site. This calculation does not include cut for the basement. 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: Materials include an authentic slate roof, horizontal wood siding and natural stone veneer. Colors include different shades of brown tones such as “Baseball Mitt” and “Willow Brook” and natural colors of tan rock and gray slate. A colors and materials board is available on file with the Community Development Department and will be presented at the site visits and public hearing. Detail Colors Mfg. / Material Windows Baseball Mitt Brown Kolbe / Wood Siding Willow Bark Brown Kolbe / Wood Veneer Khaki Brown Custom / Natural Stone Roof Slate Gray Custom / Authentic Slate Gutters Copper Custom / Copper 3 30 Application No. PDR08-0034 / 14966 Sobey Road PROJECT DATA: R-1-40,000 Zoning Net Site Area: 45,760 sq. ft. Proposed Required Site Coverage Maximum Allowable = 16,016 SF (35%) Residence: 4,199 sq. ft. Porches: 1,112 sq. ft. Patio and Walkway(s): 2,911 sq. ft. Driveway: 1,152 sq. ft. Swimming Pool & Spa 952 sq. ft. TOTAL Site Coverage 10,326 sq. ft. (22%) Floor Area Maximum Allowable = 5,844 sq. ft. (After slope reduction of 14 %) Proposed First Floor Area: 3,246 sq. ft. Proposed Second Floor Area: 1,317 sq. ft. Proposed Garage Area: 953 sq. ft. Proposed Double-Counted Area: 238 sq. ft. TOTAL Proposed Floor Area 5,754 sq. ft. Proposed Basement: 1,724 sq. ft. Setbacks First Floor Second Floor First Floor Second Floor Front: 225’ 244’ 30’ 30’ Rear: 56’8” 79’ 50’ 60’ Left Side: 20’1” 39’ 20’ 25’ Right Side: 20’1” 50’ 20’ 25’ Height Maximum Height = 416’ (26’) Lowest Elevation Point: 389’ Highest Elevation Point: 391’ Average Elevation Point: 390’ Proposed Topmost Point: 416’(26’) 4 31 Application No. PDR08-0034 / 14966 Sobey Road PROJECT DISCUSSION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS Architectural Style The proposed two-story residence is most similar to a “Country Craftsman” architectural style. The project features a covered entry porch and front poolside patio. The exterior materials consist of horizontal wood siding, natural stone and authentic slate roofing. The design features an above ground level resting on a partially revealed basement level cut into the natural slope of the hillside. The home is characterized by a low-pitch gabled and hipped roof line. The overhanging eaves, revealing rafters and braces emphasize craftsman style. Fireplaces The proposed residence will include three fireplaces. Two of the fireplaces are gas and one will be wood-burning. Per City Code, one wood-burning fireplace is allowed per structure. Trees The City Arborist has approved the removal of four mulberry trees protected by City Ordinance, as they are in conflict with the design and are in fair condition. The applicant removed one Canary Island Date Palm and two pines without permits. The applicant has applied and received an “After-the-Fact” permit for the removal of these trees. The conceptual landscape plan indicates approximately 39 new trees to be planted. As a condition of approval, the Final Landscaping Plan requires all new trees to be 24” box size or greater. Five of those new trees will be of the Native variety, as defined in the City Code. Geotechnical Clearance The project received Geotechnical Clearance from the City Geologist on November 18, 2008. Conditions provided by the City Geologist have been added to the Resolution. Drainage Roof drains will discharge water onto splash blocks. Additional water will either percolate into the proposed landscaping or collect into service drains that follow the natural terrain and flow onto the western portion of the site, where it will dissipate and seep into the native soil. Energy Efficiency The project includes a hydronic under floor heating system. High efficiency insulation will be installed in the walls and attic. All exterior windows and doors will incorporate Low-E glass. The design incorporates covered porches and roof overhangs to create shaded, cool areas. The building fits a portion of the structure (basement) into the hillside to reduce wall exposure and provide wind protection. The proposed landscaping and planting of trees on the north and south property line will form a wind buffer. All planting will be irrigated with automatic water conserving irrigation. Energy Star® appliances will be used throughout the home. Neighbor Correspondence 5 32 Application No. PDR08-0034 / 14966 Sobey Road The applicant obtained signed notification forms from the adjacent neighbors. Two of the adjacent neighbors (18600 Rancho Las Cimas and 14976 Sobey Road) and one additional property owner (14971 Quito Road) expressed the following concerns with the project. • 18600 Rancho Las Cimas - The property owner had concerns with the height of the proposed new home, planting of tall trees, and the undergrounding of utilities. The applicant constructed story poles to demonstrate the roof ridge of the project. Once the proposed height was seen by the neighbor, his concern was eliminated. Staff believes the view corridor impacts from trees would only occur in the rear yard. As conditioned, no trees reaching 50-feet in height, at full maturity are allowed to be planted in the required rear yard. The landscaping plan has no new trees proposed in the rear yard. An existing power pole is located on 14906 Sobey Road. Utility cables from this pole run along the eastern portion of the project site (14966 Sobey Road). The neighbor was informed that the City does not have the authority to require the applicant to underground cables crossing their property and that the pole is not located on the subject property. • 14976 Sobey Road – The property owner expressed concerns regarding second story privacy impacts, proposed guest parking on the private street, and construction trucks on the owner’s property. The applicant is proposing tree landscaping to be planted on the southern property line and has omitted windows and balconies from the second story north and south elevations to alleviate privacy concerns. The applicant has removed the guest parking proposed on the private street and informed the neighbor that construction trucks will not turn onto his property. Although the neighbor expressed gratitude for the changes, he does not believe the applicant has thoroughly addressed the issue of privacy. • 14971 Quito Road – The property owner expressed concerns regarding the height of the house and interference with views from their rear yard. Staff believes the project will not unreasonably interfere with the view since the applicant has met the allowable height limit and located the second-story portion beyond the minimum second story setback requirement. 6 33 Application No. PDR08-0034 / 14966 Sobey Road General Plan Findings The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 – Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The proposed project incorporates earth tone colors and materials, such as authentic slate and natural stone, that blend in well with the existing surroundings. The project will also follow the natural hillside topography in order to minimize the prominence of the structure while increase the compatibility with the natural terrain. 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 proposed project has utilized policies and techniques from the Saratoga Residential Design Handbook such as designing the structure to follow the natural slope contours of the project site to minimize its perception of bulk, maximizing energy efficiency by locating portions of the residence into the grade to reduce wind exposure, and utilizing landscaping to screen living areas most sensitive to privacy. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all of the following Design Review findings stated in City Code Section 15-45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project has been designed in a manner that minimizes interference with neighboring views and privacy to adjacent properties by doing the following: a. Locating the second-story structure out of the direct line-of-sight of neighboring properties. b. Removal of second-story windows facing the north and south properties, in order to protect neighboring privacy. c. Situating the proposed home on a lower portion of the lot in order to follow the contours of the site slope while protecting the views, to the maximum extent feasible, of elevated properties located to the east. d. The new construction is located toward the rear of the lot, providing an increased front setback greater than the minimum required by the Municipal Code. e. To the east of the proposed building, the site slopes upward to existing dense landscaping. The parcels to the north and south are well screened with existing and proposed landscaping. 7 34 Application No. PDR08-0034 / 14966 Sobey Road f. Extensive tree planting using both existing and new trees is proposed on the south property line, adjacent to the access easement, in order to create a visual barrier between properties to the south. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Seven protected trees will be removed. The building has been located in an effort to minimize impacts on all other existing trees. The 30 existing trees potentially impacted by the project will be protected during construction and incorporated into the formal landscaping plan. Additionally, 39 new trees will be added to the site. The area to the west of the residence will have a vineyard. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. One four inch oak is in conflict with the design and proposed for removal. No Heritage trees are located onsite. As conditioned, 39 new trees will be added to the site. Five of those new trees will be of the native species, as defined per City Code. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The project incorporates an earth tone color pallet and high-quality materials into its design. These materials include horizontal wood siding, natural stone veneer, and authentic slate. These colors and materials will reduce the perception of excessive bulk in the rural environment. The size of the second story is located to the center of the building footprint so that the majority of house footprint is a single story. The project has been designed to follow the natural contours of the existing slope, thereby minimizing the prominence of the structure, and increasing the compatibility with the natural terrain. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed home is compatible in terms of bulk and height with the existing residential structures on nearby lots. The varying rooflines, architectural detailing, and high-quality exterior materials will minimize the perception of bulk. The height of the project is consistent with adjacent properties. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The applicant has submitted a grading and drainage plan incorporating current grading and erosion control methods. The geotechnical report recommendations are included as a condition of approval. Furthermore, the project is conditioned to require retention of stormwater on site, to the maximum extent reasonably feasible. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in that the design will follow the sites natural contours, utilize materials that blend with the natural environment, use landscaping to screen living areas most sensitive to privacy, protect neighbor’s privacy by proper site planning and the use of appropriate landscape, and locating portions of the residence into the grade to reduce wind exposure and provide wind protection. 8 35 Application No. PDR08-0034 / 14966 Sobey Road 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find this application exempt from CEQA and approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Neighbor Notification 3. Arborist Reports and tree fencing by City Arborist Kate Bear, dated November 17, 2008. 4. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A". 36 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. XX-XXX Application No. PDR08-0034 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Jean / 14966 Sobey Road Approval to construct a new two-story, single-family residence with attached garage and basement WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 5,754 square foot residence on a 48,337 square foot parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission find the proposed project to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”. This exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of single-family residences; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review Approval, as consistent with the below General Plan policies and the following findings specified in City Code Section Article 15-45.080 and the City’s Residential Design Handbook: General Plan Findings The proposed project is consistent with all of the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 – Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The proposed project incorporates earth tones and materials, such as authentic slate and natural stone, that blend in well with the existing surroundings. The project will also follow the natural hillside slope in order to minimize the prominence of the structure while increase the compatibility with the natural terrain. 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 proposed project has utilized policies and techniques from the Saratoga Residential Design Handbook such as designing the structure to follow the natural slope contours of site to minimize its perception of bulk, maximize energy 37 efficiency by fitting certain portions of the residence into the grade to reduce wind exposure, and the use of landscaping to screen living areas most sensitive to privacy. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all of the following Design Review findings stated in City Code Section 15-45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project has been designed in a manner that minimizes interference with neighboring views and privacy to adjacent properties by doing the following: a. Locating the second-story structure out of the direct line-of-sight of neighboring properties. b. Removal of second-story windows facing the north and south properties, in order to protect neighboring privacy. c. Situating the proposed home on a lower portion of the lot in order to follow the contours of the site slope while protect the views, to the extent feasible, of elevated properties located to the east. d. The new construction is located toward the rear of the lot, providing an increased front setback greater than the minimum required by the Municipal Code. e. To the east of the proposed building, the site slopes upward to dense landscaping. The parcel to the north and south are well screened with existing mature landscaping. f. Extensive tree planting using existing and new landscape is proposed to the south property line, adjacent to the access easement, in order to create a visual screen between properties to the south. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Seven protected trees will be removed. The building has been located in an effort to minimize its impacts on all other existing trees. The 30 existing trees potentially impacted by the project will be protected during the construction process and incorporated into the formal landscaping plan. Additionally, 39 new trees will be added to the site. The area to the west of the residence will have a vineyard. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. One four inch oak is proposed for removal, as it is in conflict with the design. No Heritage trees are onsite. As conditioned, 39 new trees will be added to the site. Five of those trees will be of the Native species. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The project incorporates an earth tone color pallet and high-quality materials into its design. These materials include 38 horizontal wood siding, natural stone veneer, and an authentic slate roof. These colors and materials will reduce the perception of excessive bulk in the rural environment. The size of the second story is located to the center of the building footprint so that the majority of house footprint is a single story. The project has been designed to follow the natural contour of the existing slope, thereby minimizing the prominence of the structure and increase the compatibility with the natural terrain. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed home with a height of 26 feet is compatible in terms of bulk and height with the existing residential structures on nearby lots. The varying rooflines, architectural detailing, and combination of high-quality exterior materials will minimize the perception of bulk. The height of the project is consistent with adjacent properties and will be alleviated by the large setbacks and landscape screening. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The applicant has submitted a grading and drainage plan, which incorporates current grading and erosion control methods. The geotechnical report and recommendations are included as a condition of approval. Furthermore, the project is conditioned to require retention of stormwater on site, to the maximum extent reasonably feasible. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in that the design will follow the natural slope contours of site, utilize materials that blend with the natural environment, use landscaping to screen living areas most sensitive to privacy, protect neighbor’s privacy by proper site planning and appropriate landscape, and fit certain portions of the residence into the grade to reduce wind exposure and provide wind protection. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the exemption from CEQA is approved and required findings being made that the application number of PDR08-0034 for a Planning Commission Design Review Approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 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 demolition, grading, or building permit for this project shall take effect until 39 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 or 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 15-80.120 and/or 16.05.035, as applicable. 4. 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 5. 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. 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. STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY 1. Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend City. Owner and Applicant shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its employees, agents, independent contractors and volunteers (collectively “City”) from any and all costs and expenses, including, but not limited to attorney’s fees incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City’s defense in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City’s action with respect to the applicant’s project or contesting any action or inaction in the City’s processing and/or approval of the subject application. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans 40 dated January 8, 2009 denominated Exhibit “A” and the Color Board dated October 7, 2008 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. 3. Tree Planting. The Property Owner shall not plant any trees that reach 50 feet in height, at full maturity, within any required rear yard. All proposed trees, as shown on the Conceptual Landscaping Plan per Exhibit “A”, must be 24 inch box size or greater. Five of the proposed trees must be of the native species, as defined in Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-50.020(n). 4. 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 toward stormwater drains, drainage ways, streets or road right-of- ways and otherwise comply with the NPDES Permit Standards and applicable City Codes. 6. Final 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 required) to eliminate or reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and 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; 41 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 Chapter 15-47 and Section 16-75.030 of the City Code to the extent applicable. 7. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the 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” dated January 8, 2009 on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. 2 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 drip line 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 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 November 17, 2008 printed 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. 8. Fences, Walls and Hedges. All fences, walls and hedges shall conform to height requirements provided in City Code Article 15-29. Any existing fences or walls not meeting the zoning ordinance standards shall be removed prior to final planning inspection. 42 9. Heating, Ventilation, or Air Conditioning (HVAC). No new or replacement HVAC mechanical equipment shall be allowed between the lot line and any required front, side or rear setback. 10. Wood-Burning Fireplaces. Per City Code, one wood-burning fireplace per structure maybe installed in any new construction. 11. Exterior Lighting. All lighting in connection with the proposed project shall not produce glare or spillover to adjacent properties. 12. Water Conservation. All newly constructed buildings and irrigation systems shall be equipped with water conservation plumbing fixtures, satisfactory to the Building Official. 13. Construction Trucks. All Construction trucks and vehicles shall use designated truck routes only. 14. Noise and Construction Hours. In order to comply with standards that minimize impacts to the neighborhood during site preparation and construction, the applicant shall comply with City Code Sections 7-30.060 and 16-75.050, with respect to noise, construction hours, maintenance of the construction site and other requirements stated in these sections. CITY ARBORIST 15. Arborist Report. All recommendations of the Arborist Report dated November 17, 2008, and incorporated herein by this reference shall be followed and incorporated (in its entirety) into the plans. PUBLIC WORKS 16. Final Improvement. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final improvement plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for building foundations and swimming pool) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultant’s recommendations. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 17. Project Construction. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, pier excavations, and retaining walls prior to the placement of fill, steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the 43 geotechnical consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final (as-built) Project Approval. 18. Outstanding Fees. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 19. Hold Harmless agreement. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. 20. Encroachment Permit. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for construction within the public right-of-way. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 21. Fire Development Review. Owner/applicant shall comply with all Fire Department requirements. 44 Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 36 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 28th day of January 2009 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Manny Cappello Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John F. Livingstone, AICP Secretary, Planning Commission 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 recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. ________________________________ ______________________________ Property Owner Date 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Page 1 of 4 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ARBORIST REVIEW Application #:ARB 08-0073 By Kate Bear, City Arborist 14966 Sobey Road Phone: (408) 869-1276 Owner: Jim and Tina Jean Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN 397-04-061 Report History: #1 Date: November 17, 2008 INTRODUCTION The applicant wishes to demolish the existing house and garage and build a two story house with a basement, new patio areas and a new pool. Five trees protected by City Code were inventoried for this report. All are requested for removal to construct the project. In addition, a Canary Island date palm was removed without a permit prior to submitting for design review. It would not have been in conflict with the proposed design. This project is cleared by the arborist to proceed with the conditions noted below. SITE VISIT, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION Plans reviewed for this report include Sheet A, a Boundary and Topographic Survey; Sheets B and C, Grading and Drainage; and Sheet D, Sections and Details, by Westfall Engineers, Inc. dated February 2008. Architectural plans reviewed include Sheet 1, Conceptual Landscape Plan; Sheets 2 and 3, Floor Plans; Sheets 4 and 5, Elevations; and Sheets 6 and 7, Sections, by Oakley and Associates Planning and Design, dated September 2008. Five trees protected by City ordinance and potentially impacted by construction were inventoried for this report. Data for each tree is included in a Tree Inventory Table at the end of this report. Tree locations are marked on the attached copy of the Site Plan. Inventoried trees include four mulberries (#1 – 3 and 5), and one Canary Island date palm (#4). The property has many other trees which will be retained throughout construction and can be adequately protected during construction. Trees # 1 – 3 are fruitless mulberries in fair condition which are indicated on the plans to be removed. Trees #1 and 2 will likely be impacted by excavation for the basement, and tree #3 is in conflict with the stairs and retaining wall that is proposed. It is acceptable to remove trees #1 – 3 to construct the house, and to replace them with new trees following construction. The replacement trees should be equal to 55 14966 Sobey Road Page 2 of 4 $2,940, which is the total appraised value of these three trees. Replacement values can be found at the bottom of the Tree Inventory Table attached to the end of this report. Canary Island date palm #4 was removed without a permit. It could have been left in place and the house built without removing it. This species of palm typically sells for about $600 per linear foot of brown trunk (below the fronds) plus the cost to install it. A conservative estimate of the value of this tree is about $5,000. The owners need to apply for an After-the-Fact tree removal permit, and to replace this tree with new trees on the property equal to its appraised value 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. Tree #5 is a mulberry in the back yard near to an existing retaining wall and a proposed bocce court. It is not shown to be removed on the plans, but appears to be in conflict with the proposed patio and bocce court and isn’t shown to be retained on the landscape plan. It has an appraised value of $390, and it is acceptable to remove and replace this tree with new trees following construction. Per City Ordinance 15-50.080, a security deposit equal to 100% of the appraised value of all trees potentially impacted by the project is required. At this time, no trees protected by City Ordinance are potentially impacted by the project and no security deposit is required. This condition may change if additional information indicates that work will occur within five feet of the edge of the canopy of a protected tree. The security deposit may be in the form of a savings account, a certificate of deposit account or a bond. Appraisal values are calculated using the Trunk Formula Method and according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000, in conjunction with the Species Classification and Group Assignment published by the Western Chapter of the ISA, 2004. 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 building plans. 2. Trees shall be numbered on the plans for ease of reference. 3. Plans shall clarify whether tree #5 will be removed or retained. If it will be removed, it shall be indicated for removal. If it will be retained, it shall be clearly shown on the landscape plans. 4. Tree protective fencing shall be installed as shown on the attached map and established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. It shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, two-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. Tree protective fencing shall be inspected and approved by the City Arborist prior to obtaining building division permits. 5. No Tree Protection Security Deposit is required for this project. This may change if additional information indicates that work will be performed within five feet of the edge of the canopy of a protected tree. If required, it shall be obtained prior to receipt of building division permits and 56 14966 Sobey Road Page 3 of 4 shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project. Once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City Arborist, the bond can be released. 6. It is acceptable to remove trees #1 – 3 and #5 to construct the project. They shall not be removed until receipt of a building division permit for the project. 7. New trees to replace trees #1 – 3 and #5 shall be required following completion of construction. They shall have a replacement value equal to $3,330. Replacement values for trees can be found at the bottom of the Tree Inventory Table attached at the end of this report. The new trees can be of any species and planted anywhere on the property. 8. Owner shall obtain an After-the-Fact Tree Removal permit for the Canary Island date palm (tree #4) that was removed. An application has been included with this report. 9. Owner shall plant new trees on the property equal to $5,000 to replace tree #4. 10. Excavation for utilities is not permitted under tree canopies. Utilities include electrical, drainage, water, sewer, gas and irrigation for landscaping. 11. The City Arborist shall approve any grading, trenching or excavation under a tree’s canopy prior to performing work. If approved, it shall be done manually using shovels or an air spade. Any roots measuring two inches or larger shall be retained and tunneled under or otherwise worked around; roots measuring less than two inches may be cut with a sharp pruning instrument. 12. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the designated fenced area (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 13. Any pruning or root pruning of trees on site must be performed by a state licensed tree contractor under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. No more than 25% of the canopy may be removed during pruning. 14. Trees shall be watered during construction in a manner to ensure their good health. Established trees may need water only once a month, but younger trees or trees that are not drought tolerant may need to be watered once a week. Trees can be watered using a soaker or drip hose at a point about midway between the trunk and the edge of the tree’s canopy. 15. Design landscape as follows: a. Design irrigation so that valve boxes, controllers and main and lateral lines remain outside of tree canopies. b. Select plants with similar water requirements to the trees under which they will be placed. c. Trenching for irrigation lines shall remain outside of tree canopies. Only drip irrigation on top of grade (underneath mulch) shall be used under trees. d. Place only mulch under oak trees. e. Lawns shall remain outside of the canopies of trees. f. Design topdressings so that stones or mulch remain at least one foot from the trunks of retained trees. 57 14966 Sobey Road Page 4 of 4 g. Do not allow tilling or stripping of the topsoil under trees. h. Establish edging material proposed under trees on top of existing soil grade using stakes. Attachments: Tree Security Deposit form Tree Inventory Table Map showing tree locations and tree protective fencing After-the-Fact Tree Removal Permit application 58 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 ValueMulberry 1 Morus alba 10.5 25 50 70 Fair Low 1 X $590 Mulberry 2 Morus alba 10.1 25 50 50 Fair Low 1 X $400 Mulberry 3 Morus alba 17.9 35 70 70 Fair Moderate 1 X $1,950 Canary Island date palm 4 Phoenix canariensis 30 NA NA NA NA NA 4 $5,000 Mulberry 5 Morus alba 10 25 50 50 Fair Moderate 1 X $390 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 Should any tree listed above become damaged owner will be required to repair the damage. Should any tree listed above be removed owner will be required to replace that tree with trees equal in value to its assessed value. 14966 Sobey Road November 17, 2008 59 Legend Tree Protective Fencing Tree Canopy 14966 Sobey Road 1 2 3 4 5 60 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, Denise Kaspar , 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 12th t day of January , 2009, that I deposited 41 notices in the United States Post Office, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property described as: Address: 14966 Sobey Road APN: 397-04-061 that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. 61 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 28th day of January, 2009, 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: PDR08-0034 / 14966 Sobey Road APPLICANT/OWNER: Jean APN: 397-04-061 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a new two-story, single-family detached residence, a three (3) car garage and a daylight basement. The project includes 3,246 sq. ft. of floor area at the main level, 1,555 sq. ft. at the upper level, and 953 sq. ft. of garage space, totaling 5,754 sq. ft. The basement will encompass an additional 1,724 sq. ft. of living space. The proposal also includes removal of five Ordinance size tree (four Mulberries and one Canary Island Date Palm). The Date Palm was removed prior to applying for a tree removal permit. All five trees have been authorized for removal by the City Arborist. The applicant has submitted an After the Fact tree removal permit for the Date Palm. The maximum height of the proposed residence will be not higher than 26-feet. The net lot size is 37,524 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 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, January 20, 2009. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor’s office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of-date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Michael Fossati Assistant Planner (408) 868-1212 62 January 11, 2009 500' Ownership Listing Prepared for: 397-04-061 JAMES JEAN 14966 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 397-04-013 FELIX BERNARD R 4107 WOODBRIAR CT SUGAR LAND TX 77479 397-04-014, 119 STEPHEN LUCZO PO BOX 67249 SCOTTS VALLEY CA 95067-7249 397-04-015 HARPREET & PAYAL CHADHA OR CURRENT OWNER 14900 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6236 397-04-061 JAMES JEAN 14906 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6236 397-04-063 MICHAEL & KIM SINGLETARY OR CURRENT OWNER 14982 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6236 397-04-070 KENNETH A OKIN OR CURRENT OWNER 14880 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6286 397-04-071 PENNY L RIGSBEE OR CURRENT OWNER 14920 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6236 397-04-082 JAVAD & MITTA ASHJAY 14403 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5607 397-04-083 WILLIAM M & CLAUDIA WEIST OR CURRENT OWNER 14952 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6236 397-04-089 RICHARD L & COLLEEN POULIOT OR CURRENT OWNER 14976 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6236 397-04-090 ANDREA SKOV OR CURRENT OWNER 14970 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6236 397-04-093 JAGDISH G & SHAKUNTALA BELANI OR CURRENT OWNER 14960 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6236 397-04-094 SUBHASH & UMA CHOWDARY OR CURRENT OWNER 14964 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6236 397-04-118 FRANKIE J & DORIS YOUNGBLOOD 14820 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6286 397-04-124 ANAFLOR SMITH OR CURRENT OWNER 14910 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6236 397-04-125 JEAN LIVING TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER 14906 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6236 397-06-022 ALLAN TO OR CURRENT OWNER 14975 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6263 397-06-023 RICHARD F & DIANA ANDERSON OR CURRENT OWNER 14971 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6263 397-06-051, 085 NADINE MCCULLOUGH OR CURRENT OWNER 14985 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6263 397-06-091 W & VIVIANE ROTH OR CURRENT OWNER 18593 ARBOLADO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6205 397-06-092 AJAY & KAAJAL NARAIN OR CURRENT OWNER 18596 ARBOLADO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6205 397-06-093 ROBERT J & DIANE GROSSO OR CURRENT OWNER 18564 ARBOLADO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6205 397-06-094 BARBARA K FOX OR CURRENT OWNER 18585 RANCHO LAS CIMASWAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6256 397-06-095 RICHARD & FRANCE PAPAPIETRO OR CURRENT OWNER 18601 RANCHO LAS CIMASWAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6256 63 397-06-096 DENNIS MCFARLANE OR CURRENT OWNER 18600 RANCHO LAS CIMASWAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6256 397-06-097 HACKWORTH FAMILY TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER 18586 RANCHO LAS CIMASWAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6256 397-06-098 SUSAN B & R MCCABE OR CURRENT OWNER 18564 RANCHO LAS CIMASWAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6256 397-07-001 ELIZABETH PESCHKE OR CURRENT OWNER 15020 EL QUITO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6209 397-07-002 TING YEN OR CURRENT OWNER 15040 EL QUITO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6209 397-07-007 SAMUEL STOTZER 5417 NORWICH AVE SHERMAN OAKS CA 91411-3635 397-07-009 INSIK & KYUNGSOO HONG OR CURRENT OWNER 15010 EL QUITO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6209 397-07-029 RAJIV V & KALA LIMAYE OR CURRENT OWNER 15050 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6237 397-07-030 THOMAS A & NINA CARINE PO BOX 3183 SARATOGA CA 95070-1183 397-07-031 QUAT TRAN OR CURRENT OWNER 15020 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6237 397-07-064 DAVID D & CHRISTINE KENNEDY OR CURRENT OWNER 15055 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6296 397-07-088 VALLURI R & RADHA RAO OR CURRENT OWNER 15115 EL QUITO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6209 397-07-089 RAYMOND CHOW OR CURRENT OWNER 15129 EL QUITO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6209 397-07-104 LLOYD H & KAREN LUND OR CURRENT OWNER 18665 MAUDE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-6215 Northern California Carpenters Regional Council Alex Lantsberg, Research Dept. 265 Hegenberger Rd., Suite 220 Oakland, CA 94621 CITY OF SARATOGA ATTN: Michael Fossati 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CA 95070 Advanced Listing Services P.O. Box 2593 Dana Point CA 92624 64