Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-24-2008 Planning Commission Packet CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE : Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA T YPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Joyce Hlava, Rishi Kumar, Robert Kundtz, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Yan Zhao and Chair Manny Cappello PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: MINUTES: Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 10, 2008 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 September 18, 2008 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 #GPA08-0002 (City-Wide) - The proposed general plan amendment would update the Circulation and Scenic Highways Element on the City of Saratoga General Plan to reflect recent findings concerning bicycle safety by removing the bike route classification from Mount Eden Road, Pierce Road, and Big Basin Way in Saratoga. (John Cherbone/Richard Taylor) 2. APPLICATION #PDR 08-0020 – (397-20-096)DENNERLINE, 14781 Farwell Avenue -The applicant requests Design Review approval to add a 1,559 square foot single story addition (including garage) to the existing single story residence. The proposal includes conversion of an approximately 900 square foot garage to a second living unit/guest house. The total proposed floor area will be approximately 6,214 square feet (including garage). The maximum height of the proposed building will not exceed the 26-foot height limit. The maximum impervious coverage will not exceed the allowable 35% of the net site area. The lot size is approximately 65,247 net square feet, located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060. (Heather Bradley) 1 3. APPLICATION #PDR08-0027 (393-40-015) PRADHAN, 20295 Franklin Avenue - The applicant requests Design Review approval to substantially remodel the existing home located at 20295 Franklin Avenue. The proposed structure will be approximately 3,494-square feet and will be less than 26-feet tall. The gross lot size is 11,882 square feet, and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. Exterior colors and materials consist of neutral color stucco and brick accent and composition shingle roof material. Design Review is required pursuant to City Code section 15-45.060. (Rina Shah) 4. APPLICATION #MOD08-0003 (397-18-071) THAKUR, 14900 Baranga Lane - The applicant requests Modification of Approved Plans approval to remove an existing tree near the eastern boundary of the subject property located at 14900 Baranga Lane. Changes to the topography will be made. The gross lot size is 55,757 square feet, and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. (Shweta Bhatt) DIRECTORS ITEM: COMMISSION ITEMS: COMMUNICATIONS: ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, October 8, 2008 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 September 18, 2008, 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, September 10, 2008 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, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: None Staff: Director John Livingstone, Assistant Planner Cynthia McCormick and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of August 27, 2008. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of August 27, 2008, were adopted. (5-0-0-2; Commissioners Kumar and 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 September 4, 2008. 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). 3 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 2008 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR Capital Improvement Program/Finding of General Plan Consistency (John Cherbone) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission found the Capital Improvement Program to be consistent with the City of Saratoga General Plan. (7-0) *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 Chair Cappello advised that as he is a member of Saratoga Country Club he would recuse himself from participation on Item No. 1. He turned the meeting over to Vice Chair Zhao and left the dais and chambers for this item. APPLICATION #ASP08-0002 (366-29-007 & 366-29-009) 21990 Prospect Road: The applicant requests approval to construct and display a freestanding sign near the entrance to the Saratoga Country Club. The sign is approximately 23 square feet in area and will be externally illuminated via three ground-mounted low-voltage lights. The sign materials include stucco surface with rock veneer. The letters are bronze and include the text “Saratoga Country Club, 21990, Private – Members Only.” (Cynthia McCormick) Ms. Cynthia McCormick, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Reported that the applicant is seeking approval to construct a freestanding sign to be located near the entrance of the Saratoga Country Club. • Said that this sign would be located 12 to 15 feet behind the existing sign that will be removed as part of this application. • Described the sign as consisting of approximately 23 square feet in area. It will be externally illuminated via three ground-mounted low-voltage lights. • Advised that building materials include stucco surface with rock veneer. The letters will be bronze and include the text “Saratoga Country Club, 21990, Private – Members Only.” • Stated that staff is recommending that the Commission find this application to be exempt from CEQA and that a resolution be adopted approving this sign application. • Said that staff and the applicant are available for questions. Acting Chair Zhao opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Joe Cowen, General Manager, Saratoga Country Club: • Said that they were satisfied with the staff report. • Stated that he has nothing to add. Acting Chair Zhao closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission approved a 23 square foot freestanding sign for 4 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 2008 Page 3 the Saratoga Country Club on property located at 21990 Prospect Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Cappello Commissioner Hlava said that the applicants have done a beautiful job on the entrance to the Country Club. This sign will be a big addition and make it easier for people to find it. She said that she is thrilled to approve it. Chair Cappello returned to the chambers and dais and assumed the leadership of the meeting from Vice Chair Zhao. *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Director John Livingstone: • Reminded the Commission that the Saint Michael’s project would be coming to Council on September 17th. • Advised that typically a member of the Planning Commission attends Council meetings when larger projects are considered in case there are questions. • Reported that the Village Economic Development meeting would occur on September 16, 2008, at 6 p.m. in the Arts & Crafts Room. • Asked the Commissioners to look at their calendars for Tuesday, October 21, 2008, to see if they can book a study session on a proposed new two-story home. Most Commissioners indicated that this date would work for a study session. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Hlava: • Advised that she and Kathleen King held a CH-2 District Special Committee meeting at which mostly property owners came. • Stated that problems were identified. • Said that Director John Livingstone would be formatting a report for the Planning Commission and Council. • Reported that the requirement for 50 percent retail is a hardship in the area that is predominately residential. • Pointed out that under the current overlay situation, residents would be unable to rebuild their residential units in the event that they were destroyed by fire. • Stated that this is an interesting process and changes will impact other elements, including the Housing Element. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. 5 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 2008 Page 4 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Cappello adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:11 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk 6 1 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: September 24, 2008 PROJECT APP: DEPARTMENT: Public Works PREPARED BY: John Cherbone & Richard Taylor ________________________________________________________________________ SUBJECT: Amendment to the Circulation and Scenic Highway Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan ________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council concerning adoption of the attached amendment to the Circulation and Scenic Highway Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan to implement the recommendation of the Traffic Safety Commission. REPORT SUMMARY: The City Council directed staff to review bicycle safety issues in Saratoga. Based on that review, staff and the Traffic Safety Commission recommend that the Circulation and Scenic Highway Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan be amended to remove the bike route classification on Mount Eden Road, Pierce Road, and Big Basin Way. This recommendation is based on a report from the City’s Traffic Engineer; that report is attached together with a resolution recommending adoption to the City Council. DISCUSSION: The Circulation and Scenic Highway Element of the City of Saratoga’s General Plan identifies the type and location of bicycle facilities within the City. The purpose is to identify bicycle connectivity throughout the City as part of the City’s existing and proposed major thoroughfares and transportation routes. As part of the General Plan, the Circulation and Scenic Highway Element demonstrates how the various land uses in Saratoga are served by various modes of transportation, including bicycle transportation. Earlier this year Fehr & Peers completed an evaluation of the existing on-street bicycle facilities in the City. The objective of the evaluation was to identify areas for improvement and to make recommendations to City staff. The review entailed field observations and measurements of all existing bike lanes and routes. As part of this evaluation, Fehr & Peers recommended that the Class III bike route classifications on Mount Eden Road, Pierce Road, and Big Basin Way be removed. With the exception of Big Basin Way through the Village, these three roadways are fairly narrow (20 to 24 feet), winding, hilly, and generally have 7 2 limited shoulders of two feet or less or no additional pavement. The roadway conditions in combination with the traffic volumes are not ideal for bicycle travel. Accordingly, Fehr & Peers recommended that these bike route classifications be removed from the General Plan. These roadways are heavily used by recreational bicyclists, especially on weekends. Removal of the bike route classification from these roadways would not restrict bicyclists from using these roadways. The General Plan amendment would only eliminate these streets as City-designated bicycle routes/preferred paths of travel. Bicyclists would be free to continue to use these routes. The Fehr & Peers recommendation was reviewed by the City of Saratoga’s Pedestrian, Equestrian, and Bicycle Trails Advisory Committee which recommended that the classifications be retained to support possible future efforts to obtain grant funding to improve the roads to make them suitable for the classification. Widening of these roadway sections to better accommodate bicyclists or to add Class II bike lanes would involve some combination of earthwork, retaining wall construction, right-of-way acquisition, and removal of numerous heritage oak trees amongst other species. In many cases, widening would be physically infeasible and/or cost prohibitive, where grants would not begin to cover the cost of potential improvements. The Traffic Safety Commission reviewed the Fehr & Peers report and voted to support the recommendation that the General Plan be amended to remove the designations. Alternatives Make no change to the route designations or remove only one or two of the three routes recommended for declassification. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Inform the City Council of the Commission’s recommendation. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice of this hearing was properly posted and published in the Saratoga News on September 9, 2008. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Resolution 2. September 8, 2008 Report from Fehr & Peers to John Cherbone 8 RESOLUTION NO. APPLICATION NO. GPA08-0002 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Traffic Safety Commission referred to the City of Saratoga Planning Commission recommended amendments to the Circulation and Scenic Highway Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan to remove the bike route classification on Mount Eden Road, Pierce Road, and Big Basin Way; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on September 24, 2008 at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment will not change any uses of land and therefore is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 5061(b)(3) (where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the proposed amendment is in the public interest because it will ensure that the General Plan contains accurate information concerning the suitability of bike routes n the City. Now Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED: that the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval by the City Council of a General Plan Amendment amending the Circulation and Scenic Highway Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan to remove the bike route classification on Mount Eden Road, Pierce Road, and Big Basin Way by revising Figure 6 (on page 18 of the Circulation and Scenic Highway Element) and Figure C-5 (on page 55 of the Circulation and Scenic Highway Element) to remove the “Bicycle Route (Class III Facility)” designation shown for those roadways. *** [Continued on next page] 9 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, the 24th day of September by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ________________________________ Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: ________________________________ Secretary, Planning Commission 10 MEMORANDUM Date: September 8, 2008 To: John Cherbone, City of Saratoga, Public Works Director From: Franziska Holtzman/Sohrab Rashid Subject: Removal of Bike Route Classification from Mount Eden Road, Pierce Road, and Big Basin Way in the City of Saratoga, California 1025-446 The Circulation and Scenic Highway Element of the City of Saratoga’s General Plan identifies the type and location of bic ycle facilities within the City. The purpose is to identify bicycle connectivity throughout the City as part of the City’s existing and proposed major thoroughfares and transportation routes. As part of the General Plan, the Circulation and Scenic Highway Element helps demonstrate how the various land uses in Saratoga are served by various modes of transportation, including bicycle transportation. Fehr & Peers completed an evaluation of the existing bicycle facilities in the City of Saratoga. This memorandum summarizes the existing bicycle facilities and recommendation for removing the bike route classification from Mount Eden Road, Pierce Road, and Big Basin W ay. EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES Caltrans standards (Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design of the Highway Design Manual, 2001) provide for three distinct types of bikeway facilities, as generally described below and shown on the accompanying figures. • Bike paths (Class I) are paved pathways separated from roadways that are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians. In general, bike paths serve corridors not served by streets and highways or where sufficient right-of-way exists to allow such facilities to be constructed away from the influence of parallel streets and numerous vehicle conflicts. • Bike lanes (Class II) are lanes for bicyclists adjacent to the outer vehicle travel lanes. These lanes have special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike lanes are usually constructed to better accommodate bicyclists through corridors where insufficient room exists for safe bicycling on existing streets. 11 John Cherbone September 8, 2008 Page 2 of 3 • Bike routes (Class III) in general are located on low traffic volume streets that provide alternate routes for recreational, and in some cases, commuter, and school-age cyclists. These facilities are designated Class III and are signed for bike use, but have no separated bike right-of-way or lane striping. Bike routes serve either to: a) provide continuity to other bicycle facilities, or b) designate preferred routes through high demand corridors. The City of Saratoga has six roadways classified as Class II bike lanes and seven roadways classified as Class III bike routes. Additionally, the City has several trail easements throughout the City that function as shared pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The image below shows the location of Class II and Class III bicycle facilities currently identified in the Circulation and Scenic Highway Element (2000) in figures 6 (page 18) and C-5 (page 55). BICYCLE ROUTES EVALUATION In May 2008, Fehr & Peers completed an evaluation of the existing on-street bicycle facilities in the City. The objective of the evaluation was to identify areas for improvement and to make recommendations to City staff. The review entailed field observations and measurements of all existing bike lanes and routes. As part of this evaluation, Fehr & Peers recommended that the Class III bike route classifications on Mount Eden Road, Pierce Recommended removal of bike route classification 12 John Cherbone September 8, 2008 Page 3 of 3 Road, and Big Basin W ay be removed. W ith the exception of Big Basin W ay through the Village, these three roadways are fairly narrow (20 to 24 feet), winding, hilly, and generally have limited shoulders of two feet or less or no additional pavement. Mount Eden Road, Pierce Road, and Big Basin W ay serve an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 1,660, 2,900, and 5,700 vehicles, respectively. The roadway conditions in combination with the traffic volumes are not ideal for bicycle travel; and therefore we recommend that the bike route classification be removed from the City of Saratoga’s General Plan. It is important to note that these roadways are heavily used by recreational bicyclists, especially on weekends. By no means would the removal of the bike route classification from these roadways restrict bic yclists from using these roadways; rather this would eliminate these streets as City-designated bic ycle routes and preferred paths of travel, especially for novice or less- experienced riders who may not be familiar with the area. The bicycle improvement recommendations including removal of the bike route classifications were reviewed by the City of Saratoga’s Pedestrian, Equestrian, and Bicycle Trails Advisory Committee (PEBTAC). The Committee recommended that the City retain the route classification on Mount Eden Road, Pierce Road, and Big Basin Way in the General Plan. They requested that the classification remain, so that these facilities would be eligible for any grant applications in the future. While some improvements such as pavement widening could be implemented along selected section of these streets, various physical/environmental, topographic, and right-of-way constraints on these roadways would severely limit implementation of substantial route enhancements. Widening of these roadway sections to better accommodate bicyclists or to add Class II bike lanes would involve some combination of earthwork, retaining wall construction, right-of-way acquisition, and removal of numerous heritage oak trees amongst other species. In many cases, widening would be physically infeasible and/or cost prohibitive, where grants would not begin to cover the cost of potential improvements. SUMMARY Fehr & Peers recommends that the bike route classification on Mount Eden Road, Pierce Road, and Big Basin W ay be removed from the City of Saratoga’s General Plan. The roadway conditions and existing traffic volumes are not ideal for bicycle travel and the physical constraints make any bicycle improvements to these roadways costly and unlikely to be subsidized by any available future funding opportunities. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Item 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. & Location: PDR 08-0020; 14781 Farwell Avenue Type of Application: Design Review to add a single-story addition to an existing one-story residence Applicant/Owner: Dennerline Staff Planner: Heather Bradley, Contract Planner Meeting Date: September 24, 2008 APN: 397-20-096 Department Head:_____________ John F. Livingstone, AICP 14781 Farwell Avenue 45 Application No. PDR-08-020; 14781Farwell Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 12/03/07 Application complete: 08/21/08 Notice published: 09/10/08 Mailing completed: 09/08/08 Posting completed: 09/18/08 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicants request Design Review approval to add a 1,559 square foot single-story addition (including garage) and new basement to the existing single story residence. The proposal includes conversion of an approximately 900 square foot garage to a second living unit/guest house. The total proposed floor area would be approximately 6,214 square feet (including garage). The maximum height of the proposed building would be approximately 22 feet. The maximum impervious coverage would not exceed the allowable 35% of the net site area. The lot size is approximately 65,247 net square feet, located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060 for structures over 6,000 square feet and over 18 feet in height. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve this design review application by adopting the attached Resolution. Staff is not recommending any permanent conditions of approval for this project. 46 Application No. PDR-08-020; 14781Farwell Avenue PROJECT DATA ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: VRLD (Very Low Density Residential) MEASURE G: Not applicable. PARCEL SIZE: 87,325 gross square feet, 65,247 net square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 15.3% GRADING REQUIRED: 620 cubic yards of cut for basement GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNATION: Sun ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed single-family residential addition is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (c) New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family dwellings. PROPOSED EXTERIOR MATERIALS AND COLORS The proposed colors include beige painted stucco siding on the exterior walls with dark brown accents. Materials include a slate roof in a gray-brown palette, stone siding also in a gray-brown palette, wood carriage style garage doors, wood details, copper standing roof over the dining room, and an existing black iron door. A color and material board will be available at the public hearing. Detail Colors and Material Mfg. & Specification # Windows dark brown to match existing Front Door existing to remain Garage Door Stained wood, carriage style wood Roof Slate in China Gold, Imperial Blend, and Safari slate Exterior Elkhorn Benjamin Moore Detail Stone in Semco Blue River Country Blend Stone veneer 47 Application No. PDR-08-020; 14781Farwell Avenue PROJECT DATA Proposal Code Requirements Site Coverage Residence/accessory bldg. Driveway/Walks Deck/gazebo TOTAL 6,258 sq. ft. 9,128 sq. ft. 1,638 sq. ft. 17,024 sq. ft. 26% of net site area Maximum Allowable: 35% 22,836 + 10%1 bonus = 25,119 sq. ft. max. Floor Area Existing house Existing garage House addition Garage addition Basement addition TOTAL 3,755 sq. ft. 900 sq. ft. 574 sq. ft. 985 sq. ft. (1,282 sq. ft.) 6,214 sq. ft. 6,220 sq. ft. + 10% bonus = 6,842 sq. ft. Setbacks Front yard Rear yard Right side Left side 51.5 ft. 60 ft. 30 ft 20 ft. 30 ft. 50 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Height in feet Lowest elevation Highest elevation Average Elevation Topmost elevation Proposed height 489.7 ft. 490.5 ft. 490.1 ft. 512.2 ft. 22.1 ft. Maximum height = 26 ft. (516.1 ft. elevation) 110% bonus is given for allowable floor area and site coverage when properties record a deed restriction for a second living unit. PROJECT DISCUSSION Site The site has a 15 percent average slope and is relatively level except for a steep slope dropping away from Farwell Avenue, and Wildcat creek that bisects the western portion of the property. The residence is accessed via a long driveway from Farwell Avenue, and a bridge over the creek provides access to the existing garage. The property has many mature trees and landscaping which create a heavily wooded appearance and help screen the residence from neighboring properties. 48 Application No. PDR-08-020; 14781Farwell Avenue Project Design Characteristics The applicants are requesting Design Review approval to add a single-story addition to the existing single-story residence and convert the existing garage into a separate guest house/living unit. Because the addition will exceed 18 feet in height and 6,000 square feet in floor area the application requires review by the Planning Commission. The height of the existing structure is 19.7 feet and the maximum height proposed of the proposed addition is 22.1 feet. The project includes a 574 square foot addition to the exiting 3,755 square foot residence, and a new 985 square foot four-car tandem garage and basement. The additional square footage in the house will accommodate a new bedroom, laundry room and mud room. The existing garage located across the creek will be converted into a guest house/living unit with an exercise room, bedroom, bathroom, sitting room and kitchen area. The total proposed floor area is approximately 6,214 square feet (including garage and accessory building). The home was built around 1949 and was designed in a Modern-Contemporary architectural style with vertical wood siding, exposed roof beams and gabled roof forms with some windows extending up to the full height of the gabled roof ends. The proposed single-story addition and remodel are designed in a contemporary style with hints of a Spanish architectural style. Materials include stucco and stone veneer across the front elevation, wood timber accents over the window and doorframes, and a matching wood trellis across the front porch area. A slate roof is proposed in a light gray and brown blend which picks up on the colors of the stone veneer. The colors include medium beige painted stucco and dark brown trim around the windows. Other materials include a copper accent roof at the dining room along the front elevation, new stained cedar carriage-style garage doors and an existing iron entry door. The existing house has one wood-burning fireplace in the living room that would remain, but would be shifted in order to be centered on the living room wall. No other fireplaces are proposed. Fencing and Landscaping The existing fencing and landscaping is proposed to remain. The site is heavily wooded with California native trees and flowering trees and shrubs. At the request of the rear neighbor on Bella Vista, the applicants propose to install a new fence (at the maximum height allowable per City Code) and additional shrubs for screening at the rear of the existing garage, proposed to be the guest house/living unit. This is not reflected on the plans, but is referred to in Attachment #4 the letter from Mrs. Dennerline to the neighbor Ms. Susman. It is also included as a condition of approval in the attached Resolution. Wildcat Creek bisects the property with Santa Clara Valley Water District having easement rights over the entire creek and approximately 20 to 30 feet on either side of the banks. The District has reviewed the plans and their recommendations have been incorporated as conditions of approval in the attached Resolution. The proposal includes 49 Application No. PDR-08-020; 14781Farwell Avenue the addition of a sewer and utility line that would be trenched under the existing asphalt driveway and would be suspended under the existing bridge. The District will require permits for any work done in the District's easement area. Second Living Unit The existing garage would be converted to a guest house/living unit with an exercise room, bedroom, bathroom, sitting room and kitchen area. The exterior of the structure would also be remodeled to match the proposed architectural style of the remodeled residence. The exterior would be changed from wood siding to stucco painted to match the main residence with wood timbers over the sliding glass door, a matching slate roof and stone planter to match the veneer of the front elevation of the main residence. If the applicant chooses, they can file a Declaration of Restriction with Santa Clara County to assure that future rental of the unit would be to a person or household that qualifies as low or very-low income. The property owners would be allowed one-time ten percent (10%) increase in allowable floor area and site coverage as allowed per Municipal Code Section 15-56.030. Municipal Code Section 15-56.030 specifies development standards for second dwelling units as described below. The proposed project meets all of these requirements: · Lot size. The net site area of the lot shall not be less than the minimum standard prescribed for the district. The minimum lot size for the R-1, 40,000 is 40,000 square feet. The net lot size for this property, after the slope reduction and easement deduction is 52,198 square feet. · Unit size. The second dwelling unit shall be at least four hundred square feet and shall not exceed one thousand two hundred square feet of living space. The second dwelling unit is 900 square-feet. · Building codes. The second dwelling unit shall comply with applicable building, health and fire codes. As conditioned, the second unit will meet required applicable building, health and fire codes. · Zoning regulations. The second dwelling unit shall comply with applicable zoning regulations (including, but not limited to, required setbacks, coverage, and height limits). The second unit as conditioned will comply with all applicable zoning regulations. · Parking. A minimum of one off-street covered parking space within a garage shall be provided for the second dwelling unit in addition to the off-street covered parking spaces required for the main dwelling. The garage requirement may be waived if the second dwelling unit is deed restricted so that they may only be rented to below market rate households. If the garage requirement is waived, an open parking space must be provided. The main residence provides a four-car garage which meets the requirements for covered parking for the main residence and second unit, and there are 50 Application No. PDR-08-020; 14781Farwell Avenue three additional uncovered off street parking spaces on site. Therefore the available parking on site is more than the minimum required. · Access. The second dwelling unit shall be served by the same driveway access to the street as the existing main dwelling. The existing driveway will will serve both the second unit and the main dwelling. · Common entrance. If the second dwelling unit is attached to the main dwelling, both the second dwelling unit and the main dwelling must be served by either a common entrance or a separate entrance to the second dwelling unit must be located on the side or at the rear of the main dwelling. The second dwelling unit is not attached to the main dwelling and therefore meets this requirement. · Limitations on number of bedrooms. A second dwelling unit may not have more than two bedrooms. The secondary dwelling unit has one bedroom and therefore meets this requirement. · Appearance. All new construction to create a second dwelling unit must match the existing main structure in color, materials and architectural design. Construction of the second dwelling unit involves conversion of an exiting garage, exterior colors and materials will be use to match the remodel of the main residence in overall appearance. Basement The project proposes a basement below the garage and bedroom addition on the left side of the existing residence. The basement plan has been reviewed by the City Geologist and City Arborist for impacts to the site and adjacent trees. The City Geologist has given a clearance to the project including basement excavation. The Arborist has indicated that basement excavation must stay at least 25 feet away from ordinance-protected trees. Since the plans indicate an approximately 30-foot distance the Arborist has also given clearance to the project. All Arborist and City Geologist recommendations have been incorporated as condition into the attached Resolution. Correspondence and Neighbor Review Staff has received Neighbor Notification forms from 8 of the immediate neighbors and two additional letters of concern. Some neighbors have expressed concern with the potential for additional traffic and noise from the guest house/living unit to neighbors on Bella Vista, as well as impacts to the creek and existing trees. The owners have contacted the neighbor to their rear on Bella Vista to work through some of the concerns. The owners have agreed to add a new fence and landscaping to screen the guest house/second living unit and to prevent drive through traffic. The Santa Clara Valley Water District has jurisdiction over the Wildcat Creek and Staff has included a condition in the Resolution requiring verification of permits from the District prior to issuance of City building permits for any work on site. Staff has included the Neighbor Notification forms and correspondence as Attachment #3 of this report. 51 Application No. PDR-08-020; 14781Farwell Avenue Arborist Review No trees are proposed for removal. The City Arborist has identified 15 ordinance- protected trees that could potentially be impacted by the proposed construction. The 15 trees include three coast live oaks, four valley oaks, four California bays, three redwoods and one black oak. The Arborist has determined that all these trees can be protected with fencing during construction. The City Arborist has recommended standard tree protective measures that are included as conditions within the attached Resolution. The Arborist reports are included as Attachment #2. Green Building Techniques The applicants have submitted a detailed list of green building techniques and materials, which included low-VOC paint and insulation, as well as energy efficient appliances. The complete list is shown as Attachment #4. GENERAL PLAN FINDINGS 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 project proposes a relatively small single-story addition and accessory structure conversion that will utilize Earthtone colors and materials that will blend with the overall appearance of the site. All mature trees will be retained as part of the project and will help to screen the residence from neighboring properties and the street. · 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. As conditioned the application meets the Findings required for Design Review Approval. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in City Code Section 15-45.080: a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project meets this finding in that the single-story addition has been designed with substantial setbacks and the addition is relatively small and will not exceed 22.1 feet in height. This finding can be made in the affirmative. b) Preserve Natural Landscape. No grading topographical changes are proposed for this project and all mature trees will remain and will be protected with fencing during the construction process in accordance with the City Arborist’s recommendations. This finding can be made in the affirmative. 52 Application No. PDR-08-020; 14781Farwell Avenue c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The proposed single-story addition is consistent with this finding in that no native or Heritage trees will be removed and all the recommendations of the Arborist report have been made conditions of project approval to ensure a high degree of survival for all of the trees retained on site. The trees will be protected during the construction process with tree fencing and the applicant will be required to post a tree bond prior to issuance of City permits, to ensure that no damage occurs to the protected tree. This finding can be made in the affirmative. d) Minimize the perception of excessive bulk. The proposed single-story addition conforms to the maximum height requirement and the architectural massing and style of the home will reduce the overall appearance of bulk. Additionally decorative elements, materials and a varied roofline will create interest and add detail to the façades. This finding can be made in the affirmative. e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed single-story addition is compatible in terms of size and height to other homes in the neighborhood. The proposed home will be in keeping with other homes in the surrounding neighborhood. This finding can be made in the affirmative. f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed single-story addition would conform to the City’s current grading and erosion control methods. The applicant is required to maintain stormwater on site where feasible and this finding can be made in the affirmative. g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed single-story addition conforms to 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. This finding can be made in the affirmative. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Design Review application by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Arborist Reports dated March 4, 2008, and September 12, 2008 3. Neighbor Notification forms and correspondence from neighbors 4. Correspondence from Mrs. Dennerline to Ms. Susman dated September 3, 2008 5. Green Building Strategies 6. City of Saratoga Notice, Noticing Affidavit, and Noticing Labels 7. Applicant’s Plans, Exhibit "A" 53 RESOLUTION NO. _____ Application No. PDR 08-0026 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Dennerline; 14781 Farwell Avenue Approval of a single-story addition to an existing one-story residence with attached garage and second living unit/guest house WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a 1,559 square foot single story addition (including garage) to the existing single story residence. The proposal includes conversion of an approximately 900 square foot garage to a guest house/living unit. The new residence will be approximately 22.1 ft. in height and will be situated on an 87,325 gross square foot lot (65,247 net square foot lot) located at 14781 Farwell Avenue, which is located in the R-1-40,000 district; 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 project, which proposes construction of a single-story addition to an existing single-family residence is Categorically exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303(c) New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. This exemption allows for construction of a single family home in an urban area; and WHEREAS, the application is consistent with the following policies specified in the Saratoga General Plan: · Conservation Element Policy 6.0 – Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The project proposes a relatively small single-story addition and accessory structure that will utilize Earthtone colors and materials that will blend with the overall appearance of the site. All mature trees will be retained as part of the project and will help to screen the residence from neighboring properties and the street. · 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. As conditioned the application meets the Findings required for Design Review Approval. 54 Application No. PDR-08-020; 14781Farwell Avenue WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings specified in Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 and the City’s Residential Design Handbook have been determined: a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project meets this finding in that the single-story addition has been designed with substantial setbacks from the front, rear and right side and meets the minimum side setback on the left side, the addition is relatively small and will not exceed 22.1 feet in height. This finding can be made in the affirmative. b) Preserve Natural Landscape. No grading topographical changes are proposed for this project and all mature trees will remain and will be protected with fencing during the construction process in accordance with the City Arborist’s recommendations. This finding can be made in the affirmative. c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The proposed single-story addition is consistent with this finding in that no native or Heritage trees will be removed and all the recommendations of the Arborist report have been made conditions of project approval to ensure a high degree of survival for all of the trees retained on site. The trees will be protected during the construction process with tree fencing and the applicant will be required to post a tree bond prior to issuance of City permits, to ensure that no damage occurs to the protected tree. This finding can be made in the affirmative. d) Minimize the perception of excessive bulk. The proposed single-story addition conforms to the maximum height requirement and the architectural massing and style of the home will reduce the overall appearance of bulk. Additionally decorative elements, materials and a varied roofline will create interest and add detail to the façades. This finding can be made in the affirmative. e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed single-story addition is compatible in terms of size and height to other homes in the neighborhood. The proposed home will be in keeping with other homes in the surrounding neighborhood. This finding can be made in the affirmative. f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed single-story addition would conform to the City’s current grading and erosion control methods. The applicant is required to maintain stormwater on site where feasible and this finding can be made in the affirmative. g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed single-story addition conforms to 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. This finding can be made in the affirmative. Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the exemption from 55 Application No. PDR-08-020; 14781Farwell Avenue CEQA is approved, the required findings are made, application number PDR08-020 for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: PERMANENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL There are no permanent conditions of approval for this project. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The proposed home shall be located and constructed as shown on “Exhibit A”, (incorporated by reference, date stamped September 9, 2008), in compliance with the conditions stated in this Resolution. 2. Any proposed changes-including but not limited to façade design and materials – to the approved plans shall be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. No downgrading in the exterior appearance of the approved residence will be approved by staff. Downgrades may include but are not limited to garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, 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. 3. The project shall use materials and colors as illustrated on the Finish Materials Board dated stamped September 9, 2008 and on file with the City. 4. The applicants shall install fencing and landscaping between the guest house/living unit and the property at 19915 Bella Vista prior to issuance of the final building permit. The fence shall be built to the maximum height allowable under current City Code regulations and shall be painted brown or other color as agreed to by the owners and the neighbor. Landscape shall be planted as recommended by a landscape professional for planting near oak trees. The fence shall continue to be gated. 5. The applicants shall submit 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. 6. Any proposed improvements within the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) easements or right of way shall receive permit approval from the District, and copies shall be given to the City, prior to issuance of building permits for said improvements. 7. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 56 Application No. PDR-08-020; 14781Farwell Avenue 8. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans.” 9. A stormwater retention plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site to the maximum extent reasonably feasible, and incorporating the New Development and Construction – Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be detained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory not shall be provided on the Approved Plans and subject to prior City review and approval. 10. Water and/or runoff from the project site shall not be directed toward the adjacent properties. 11. Any proposed landscape, irrigation and utility plans shall be incorporated into the construction plan set and shall take into account the following requirements: · The applicant shall mitigate increased runoff by incorporating vegetated swales and buffer strips into the landscape plans in compliance with Santa Clara Valley Water District Design Guide 9 – Use of Vegetated Swales and Buffer Strips. · Landscape plan shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution. · Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water 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 prolong exposure to water shall be specified. · Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. · Plant materials selected shall 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. · Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum reasonably feasible. · Locally native plants shall be used to the extent feasible. Non invasive, drought tolerant, non-native ornamentals and non-local California natives can also be used as they will not cross-pollinate with native riparian and local native species. 57 Application No. PDR-08-020; 14781Farwell Avenue · A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. 12. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace per residential structure may be installed. All other fireplaces shall be gas-fired fireplaces (natural or proposed) with gas jets, direct venting, convection chambers, heat exchanger, variable heat output, and flame control, and permanently affixed artificial logs. 13. Exterior lighting shall be positioned so as to not shine into or on adjacent properties. CITY ARBORIST 14. The entire Arborist reports dated March 3, 2008 and September 12, 2008, including the Tree Inventory Table and map showing locations of trees and protective fencing shall be incorporated into the set of final building plans. Where conditions from the September 12, 2008 report are different than those in the report dated March 3, 2008, the conditions from the September 12, 2008 report shall supersede those of the previous report. 15. The Tree Inventory Table and map showing locations of trees and protective fencing from this report shall be used in the final set of building plans in place of the Inventory Table and map from the first arborist report. 16. All inventoried trees shall be surveyed and shown on the final set of building plans and numbered on the site plan for reference. 17. Tree protective fencing shall be installed as shown on the attached map and established prior to any grading or 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. 18. Owner shall provide a tree protection bond in the amount of $154,370 (for trees #4 – 6, and 8 – 15) prior to obtaining building division permits. 19. No excavation for the basement or drainage shall occur within 25 feet of trees #1, 8 or 9. 20. The stone planter around the second unit shall be constructed in such a manner that no excavation or fill soil is required under the canopies of the trees around the building. It may be necessary to delete it in order to protect 58 Application No. PDR-08-020; 14781Farwell Avenue the trees, but additional information about its location and construction methods are needed in order to make this assessment. 21. A layer of wood chips four inches deep shall be placed under trees #6 and #7 within the tree protective fencing prior to installing the fencing. 22. The driveway turn around area shall be comprised of pervious materials such as pavers on sand on top of grade. 23. No excavation shall occur within 25 feet of any of the oak trees by the turn around. 24. The first three feet of the holes for the footing for the gate pillar shall be hand dug. Any roots measuring two inches or larger shall be retained and worked around; roots measuring less than two inches may be cut with a sharp pruning instrument. If necessary, the hole for the footing shall be adjusted to avoid roots measuring two inches or more. 25. 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. 26. Plans shall show all utilities and any required trenching to install them. Utilities include electrical, drainage, water, sewer, gas and irrigation for landscaping. 27. Any pruning of trees on site must be performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. 28. The disposal of harmful products, including but not limited to chemicals, paint rinse water, fuel, cement rinse water, herbicides, or other materials, is prohibited beneath tree canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath tree canopies. CITY GEOLOGIST 29. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants’ recommendations. The consultant should address whether any project retaining walls warrant design consideration for vehicle surcharge loads. 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 prior to issuance of permits for project construction. 59 Application No. PDR-08-020; 14781Farwell Avenue 30. The Project Geotechnical Engineer 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 basement excavation, and foundation construction, prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. Due to the proposed basement’s location at the base of a very steep slope with a road above, the consultant should carefully observe the basement excavation for indication of instability in the slope above. Supplemental recommendations for shoring or other mitigation measures should be provided as needed. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final Project Approval. 31. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. PUBLIC WORKS 32. An encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department is required for all improvements in any portion of the public right of way or of a public easement. FIRE DEPARTMENT 33. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Saratoga Fire Department. CITY ATTORNEY 34. 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. 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. 60 Application No. PDR-08-020; 14781Farwell Avenue PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 24th day of September, 2008 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ________________________________________________ Manny Capello, 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 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128