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