Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11-09-2022 Planning Commission Agenda Packet
Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 1 of 3 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 2022 7:00 P.M. - PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Civic Theater | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 This meeting will be held in-person and by teleconference pursuant to amendments to the teleconference rules required by the Ralph M. Brown Act allowing teleconferencing during a proclaimed state of emergency when a local official has recommended social distancing. Members of the City Council and the public may participate in person at the location listed below or via the Zoom platform using the information below. Members of the public view and participate in the meeting by: 1.Using the Zoom website https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82652375945 App (Webinar ID 826 5237 5945) and using the tool to raise their hand in the Zoom platform when directed by the Chair to speak on an agenda item; OR 2. Calling 1.669.900.6833 or 1.408.638.0968 and pressing *9 to raise their hand to speak on an agenda item when directed by the Chair; OR 3. Viewing the meeting on Saratoga Community Access Television Channel 15 (Comcast Channel 15, AT&T UVerse Channel 99) and calling 1.669.900.6833 or 1.408.638.0968 and pressing *9 to raise their hand to speak on an agenda item when directed by the Chair; OR 4. Viewing online at http://saratoga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=2 and calling 1.669.900.6833 or 1.408.638.0968 and pressing *9 to raise their hand to speak on an agenda item when directed by the Chair. Members of the public can send written comments to the Commission prior to the meeting by commenting online at www.saratoga.ca.us/pc prior to the start of the meeting. These emails will be provided to the members of the Commission and will become part of the official record of the meeting. ROLL CALL 1.APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of October 12, 2022. Recommended Action: Approve Minutes of October 12, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Any member of the public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. This 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. Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 2 of 3 REPORT ON APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision. 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 (Continued from September 14, 2022) Application PDR21-0032/ARB21-0120; 20538 Lynde Court (503-52-012); Rajesh & Sunita Lalwani – The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a new 3,369 square foot two-story single-family home (maximum height 25’- 11”) with a 752 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit. Three protected trees are proposed for removal. The site is zoned R-1-10,000 with a General Plan Designation of Medium Density Residential (M-10). Staff Contact: Victoria Banfield (408) 868-1212 or vbanfield@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 22-020 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. 2.2 Application VAR22-0003; 20711 Leonard Road (503-19-035); Yueyue Wenren & Weiheng Chen – The applicant is requesting a Variance for an outdoor kitchen, firepit, and shed located within the front setback area. The site is zoned R-1-40,000 with a General Plan Designation of RVLD (Residential Very Low Density). Staff Contact: Victoria Banfield (408) 868-1212 or vbanfield@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 22-025 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. 2.3 Application SUB20-0003/ENV20-0003/ARB20-0053; 14521 Quito Road; (397-05-028); Pinn Brothers Development (Applicant) – The applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing 11.43-acre parcel located at 14521 Quito Road into ten-lots ranging in size from .92 acres to 1.2 acres. The Project would create a new private cul-de-sac with a connection to Quito Road. The private street would provide access to seven parcels and the remaining three parcels would take access from Vessing Road. A .34-acre portion of the site is located on the opposite side of Quito Road and would be dedicated to the City of Saratoga for open space use. Fifty-six protected trees are proposed for removal. The site is zoned R-1-40,000 with a General Plan Designation of Residential Very Low Density (RVLD). Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235 or criordan@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 22-023 - recommending adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. Adopt Resolution No. 22-024 - recommending approval of the ten-lot subdivision and removal of 56 protected trees 2.4 Application FER22-0002; 14920 Sobey Road (397-04-071); Creston Dr LLC – The applicant is requesting a Fence Exception for a 6-foot-tall fence within the front and exterior side setback area where 3 feet is allowed. The site is zoned R-1-40,000 with a General Plan Designation of RVLD (Residential Very Low Density). Staff Contact: Victoria Banfield (408) 868-1212 or vbanfield@saratoga.ca.us. Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 3 of 3 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 22-026 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. 3. DIRECTOR ITEMS 4. COMMISSION ITEMS 5. ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA, DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET, COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT I, Frances Reed, Administrative Analyst for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission was posted and available for review on November 4, 2022 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California and on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Signed this 4th day of November 2022 at Saratoga, California. Frances Reed, Administrative Analyst. In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the Planning Commission by City staff in connection with this agenda, copies of materials distributed to the Planning Commission concurrently with the posting of the agenda, and materials distributed to the Planning Commission by staff after the posting of the agenda are available on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us or available at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at bavrit@saratoga.ca.us or calling 408.868.1216 as soon as possible before the meeting. The City will use its best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA title II] Saratoga Planning Commission Draft Minutes – Page 1 of 2 DRAFT MINUTES WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 12, 2022 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Chair Zheng called the virtual Regular Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. via teleconferencing through Zoom. Prior to Roll Call, the Chair and Community Development Director explained that the Planning Commission meeting was conducted pursuant to Government Code section 54953(e) of the Ralph M. Brown Act allowing teleconferencing during a proclaimed state of emergency when state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing. The Planning Commission met all the applicable notice requirements and the public is welcome to participate in this meeting. Information on how the public can observe the meeting and provide public comment was also shared. Additionally, the Chair explained that votes would be taken through roll call. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Herman Zheng, Vice Chair Clinton Brownley, Commissioners Sunil Ahuja, Jojo Choi, Anjali Kausar, Ping Li, ABSENT: Commissioner Razi Mohiuddin ALSO PRESENT: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Victoria Banfield, Associate Planner Nicole Johnson, Senior Planner 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 14, 2022. Recommended Action: Approve Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 14, 2022. KAUSAR/LI MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 14, 2022 MEETING. MOTION PASSED. AYES: BROWNLEY, CHOI, KAUSAR, LI, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: MOHIUDDIN. ABSTAIN: AHUJA. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS: NONE REPORT ON APPEAL RIGHTS 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 Application PDR21-0032/ARB21-012020538 Lynde Court (503-52-012); Rajesh & Sunita Lalwani (Continued from September 14, 2022) – The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a new 3,369 square foot two-story single-family home (maximum height 25’-11”) with a 752 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit. Three protected trees are proposed for removal. The site is zoned R-1-10,000 with a General Plan Designation of Medium Density Residential (M-10). Staff Contact: Victoria Banfield (408) 868-1212 or vbanfield@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 22-020 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. 2.1 Chair Zheng opened the public hearing and notified the public that the applicant for this project requested to be continued to next meeting, November 9, 2022. 5 Saratoga Planning Commission Draft Minutes – Page 2 of 2 Chair Zheng closed the public hearing. 2.2 Application APTR22-0001; 20196 Franklin Ave (393-39-009); Jiabin Zhao. - The applicant is appealing the denial of permit application TRP22-0227 for the removal of one (1) redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) tree with a trunk diameter of 48 inches which grows in the front yard of the property, Staff contact: Christina Fusco (408) 868-1276 or cfusco@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 22-022 denying the appeal. CHOI/LI MOVED TO CONTINUE APPLICATION TO A DATE UNCERTAIN TO PROVIDE THE APPLICANT TIME TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE IF THERE ARE FOUNDATION ISSUES DUE TO TREE ROOTS AND HAVE AN INDEPENDENT ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST PROVIDE A SECOND OPINION REGARDING THE TREE. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AJHUJA, BROWNLEY, CHOI, KAUSAR, LI, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: MOHIUDDIN. ABSTAIN: NONE. 2.3 Application PDR21-0023/ARB21-0084; 19518 Glen Una Drive; (510-06-066); Cherine Bassal (Applicant) / Sanjay Banerjee and Anuja Sehgal (Property Owners) – The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a first and second story addition to an existing 4,241 square foot two story residence for a total floor area of 6,870 square feet. The project will include a detached 430 square foot pool cabana. An existing 501 square foot detached garage will be removed. Four protected trees are proposed for removal which include a Deodar cedar, coast live oak, camphor, and a Ficus. The site is zoned R-1-40,000 with a General Plan Designation of Residential Very Low Density (RVLD. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235 or criordan@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 22-019 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. CHOI/KAUSAR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 22-019 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AJHUJA, BROWNLEY, CHOI, KAUSAR, LI, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: MOHIUDDIN. ABSTAIN: NONE. 3. DIRECTOR ITEMS Director Pedro reported to the Commission that City Council voted at the October 5, 2022 meeting to begin holding hybrid (both virtual and in-person) meetings beginning November 2, 2022. The Planning Commission meeting on November 9, 2022 will be the hybrid format. 4. COMMISSION ITEMS: NONE 5. ADJOURNMENT Chair Zheng adjourned the meeting at 8:02 PM. Minutes respectfully submitted: Frances Reed, Administrative Analyst City of Saratoga 6 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: November 9, 2022 (Continued from September 14, 2022) Application: PDR21-0032/ARB21-0120 Address/APN: 20538 Lynde Court/503-52-012 Property Owner: Rajesh & Sunita Lalwani From: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Report Prepared By: Victoria Banfield, Associate Planner 7 Report to the Planning Commission 20538 Lynde Court – Application # PDR21-0032/ARB21-0120 November 9, 2022 Page | 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a new 3,403 square foot two-story residence with a 752 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit. Three protected trees are proposed for removal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 22-020 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. Pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(1), approval by the Planning Commission is required as the project includes new multi-story main structure. PROJECT DATA Gross/Net Site Area: 11,066 sq. ft. (0.25 acres) Average Site Slope: Less than 10% General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (M-10) Zoning: R-1-10,000 (Single Family Residential) Proposed Allowed/Required Site Coverage Residence w/Garage ADU Driveway/Walkways Patios/Porches Total Proposed 1,972 sq. ft. 752 sq. ft 598 sq. ft. 1,383 sq. ft. 4,705 sq. ft. (42.5%) 7,439.6 sq. ft. (60%) Floor Area Residence w/Garage ADU Total Floor Area 3,403 sq. ft. 752 sq. ft. 4,155 sq. ft.* 4,340 sq. ft.* Height 25’11” 26’ Setbacks Front: Left Side: Right Side Rear: 1st Floor 2nd Floor 30’11” 33’8” 8’5” 21’7” 8’6” 13’3” 28’6” 35’ 1st Floor 2nd Floor 25’ 25’ 8’ 3” 13’ 3” 8’ 3” 13’ 3” 25’ 35’ Grading Cut = 60 CY Fill = 10 CY Export = 50 CY No grading limit in the R-1-10,000 zoning district * Includes one-time 800 sq.ft. allowance for ADU per City code Section 15-56.025(5)(b). Background The Planning Commission previously reviewed the project at their meeting of September 14, 2022. The Commission continued the item with the recommendation that the second story balcony on the front elevation be removed and the windows on the front elevation be reduced in height to reduce privacy impacts to the neighboring property across the street located at 20579 Lynde Court. 8 Report to the Planning Commission 20538 Lynde Court – Application # PDR21-0032/ARB21-0120 November 9, 2022 Page | 3 The applicant has revised the project plans which include the following modifications: • The second story balcony on the front elevation has been reduced in length by 6’-9” from 27’-1” to 20’-4.” The reduction of the balcony length has been accomplished by enclosing the right side of the balcony to create a closet for the master bedroom. The metal wire railing along the front of the balcony has been replaced with a 3-foot-tall solid stucco wall to reduce visibility from the balcony and sliding glass doors. The balcony depth remains the same at 4’-4.” • The second story sliding glass doors on the front elevation have been reduced in length by 6’-6 ½” from 23’ to 16’-5 ½.” The reduction in the length of the sliding glass doors has been accomplished by removing one of the glass doors to accommodate the closet on the right side of the balcony. The height of the sliding glass doors remains the same, however a 3-foot-tall solid balcony wall obstructs the view of the bottom of the sliding glass doors. • The metal wire railing of the rear balcony has been replaced with a 3-foot-tall solid stucco wall to reduce visibility from the balcony and sliding glass doors. The balcony depth remains the same at 3’-8.” SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Description The project site is located at 20538 Lynde Court in the R-1-10,000 (Single Family Residential) zoning district. The 11,066 square foot property has an average slope of 1.4% and is currently developed with a single-story residence. The site is surrounded by single-family homes to the north, south and west. Saratoga High School is located to the east of the site, across Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. Project Description The proposed lower floor of the residence is 1,972 square feet and includes a living room, dining room, kitchen, office and attached two-car garage. The lower floor also contains an additional 752 square foot attached ADU which has one bedroom, one bathroom, living room, and kitchen. The proposed upper floor is 1,431 square foot and includes three bedrooms. The applicant has provided a color and materials board (Attachment 5). Below is a list of the proposed exterior materials. Detail Colors/Materials Exterior White Stucco and Brown Wood Siding Windows/Trim Black Metal Window Frames Front door/Garage door Brown Wood Roof White (flat roof) 9 Report to the Planning Commission 20538 Lynde Court – Application # PDR21-0032/ARB21-0120 November 9, 2022 Page | 4 Trees The project Arborist inventoried eight (8) protected trees on the site. Three (3) protected tree are proposed for removal. The City Arborist has approved the removal of one Liquidambar, one Silver Maple, and one Modesto Ash which are in poor condition due to disease and decay. Replacement trees are required to be planted on the site (Attachment 2). Landscaping The installation of front yard landscaping is required prior to building permit final inspection. The project includes a condition of approval that landscaping is to be installed per City Code Section 15- 12.095. FINDINGS Design Review The findings required for issuance of Design Review approval pursuant to City Code Section 15- 45.080 are set forth below. a. Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project minimizes changes to the contours of the site. Grading will be limited to the location of the new residence, as well as contouring the site as necessary to direct water to landscaped areas. The site development is appropriate to the site’s natural constraints with single family homes around it. b. All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that three (3) protected trees are requested for removal which are in poor condition. c. The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the second story has a proposed height that does not exceed the maximum allowable height for a single-family residence and proposed setbacks that are in compliance with the minimum required by the zoning district. The second story windows on the side elevations will have bottom sill heights of 6’-6” and both balconies will have 6’ tall privacy walls on the sides of the balcony and 3’ tall solid stucco walls on the front of the balconies to avoid impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties. A row of 24” box evergreen trees will also be planted along the northern side 10 Report to the Planning Commission 20538 Lynde Court – Application # PDR21-0032/ARB21-0120 November 9, 2022 Page | 5 property line to help mitigate privacy impacts. No community viewsheds are located in the vicinity of the project. d. The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the building has varying exterior materials and architectural forms. The brown wood siding combined with the white smooth stucco help break up the appearance of mass. The varying roof forms and recessed second story also reduce the overall mass of the structure. e. The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complimentary to the neighborhood and streetscape. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project includes a condition of approval that front yard landscaping is to be installed prior to building department final inspection. The City Code requires that at least 50% of the front setback area be landscaped. f. Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the development will not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy as the project complies with required setbacks. g. The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project 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. h. On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100. This finding is not applicable as the project is not on a hillside lot. The project is not located on a ridgeline, and will not affect any significant hillside features or community viewsheds. Neighbor Notification and Correspondence The Community Development Department mailed public notices to property owners within 500 feet of the site. The public hearing notice and description of the project was also published in the Saratoga News. 11 Report to the Planning Commission 20538 Lynde Court – Application # PDR21-0032/ARB21-0120 November 9, 2022 Page | 6 The City received five (5) completed neighbor notification forms, two (2) of which had no comments. Three (3) neighbor notification forms contained comments which expressed concerns with the architectural style of the home being out of place in the neighborhood, potential privacy impacts from the second story windows and balconies, and potential impacts to sunlight. The City also received three (3) letters of support from two (2) neighbors residing on Lynde Court and one (1) residing on Lynde Avenue, as well as, ten (10) comment letters from four (4) neighbors residing on Lynde Court further detailing concerns with shadows and potential privacy impacts from the second story windows and balconies. The letters include photos of the neighborhood and story poles, as well as additional diagrams (Attachment 3). The proposed second story windows on the side elevations will have sill heights 6’-6” and the balconies will have 6’ tall privacy walls on the sides to avoid impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties. Solid balcony walls are also proposed, rather than the originally proposed metal wire railings, to partially obstruct views from the balconies and sliding glass doors. A row of 10’ tall evergreen trees will also be planted along the northern side property line for privacy. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of a single-family residence and small structures in a residential area. The project, as proposed, is for the construction of a new residence replacing an existing residence. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 22-020 2. Arborist Report 3. Neighbor Notification Forms 4. Story Pole Certification 5. Material Board 6. Revised Project Plans 12 RESOLUTION NO: 22-020 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PDR21-0032 AND ARBORIST REVIEW ARB21-0120 20538 LYNDE COURT (APN 503-52-012) WHEREAS, on December 8, 2021 an application was submitted by Rajesh & Sunita Lalwani requesting Design Review approval for a 3,369 square foot two-story residence with a 752 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit. Three protected trees are proposed for removal. The site is zoned R-1-10,000 with a General Plan Designation of Medium Density Residential (M-10). WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project Categorically Exempt. WHEREAS, on November 9, 2022 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3(a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of a single- family residence and small structures in a residential area. Section 3: The proposed residence is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Section 4: The proposed residence is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings. The overall mass and height of the structure are in scale with the neighborhood; the structure is set back in proportion to the size and shape of the lot; site development follows contours and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. In addition, the proposed materials, colors, and details enhance the architecture in a well-composed manner. 13 20538 Lynde Court Application # PDR21-0032 / ARB21-0120 November 9, 2022 Resolution #22-020 Page | 2 Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR21-0032 and ARB21-0120 for 20538 Lynde Court (APN 503-52-012), subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 9th day of November 2022 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ________________________________________ Herman Zheng Chair, Planning Commission 14 20538 Lynde Court Application # PDR21-0032 / ARB21-0120 November 9, 2022 Resolution #22-020 Page | 3 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR21-0032 / ARB21-0120 20538 LYNDE COURT (APN 503-52-012) GENERAL 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga City Code incorporated herein by this reference. 4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 15 20538 Lynde Court Application # PDR21-0032 / ARB21-0120 November 9, 2022 Resolution #22-020 Page | 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 5. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Development Plans. All proposed changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with City Code. 6. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit for staff approval, a Lighting Plan for the home’s exterior and landscaped areas. Proposed exterior lighting shall be limited to full cut-off & shielded fixtures with downward directed illumination so as not to shine on adjacent properties or public right-of-way. All proposed exterior lighting shall be designed to limit illumination to the site and avoid creating glare impacts to surrounding properties. 7. In order to comply with standards that minimize impacts to the neighborhood during site preparation and construction, the applicant shall comply with City Code Sections 7-30.060 and 16-75.050, with respect to noise, construction hours, maintenance of the construction site and other requirements stated in these sections. 8. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall prepare for review and approval by City staff a Construction Management Plan for the project which includes but is not limited to the following: a. Proposed construction worker parking area. b. Proposed construction hours that are consistent with City Code. c. Proposed construction/delivery vehicle staging or parking areas. d. Proposed traffic control plan with traffic control measures, any street closure, hours for delivery/earth moving or hauling, etc. To the extent possible, any deliveries, earth moving or hauling activities will be scheduled to avoid peak commute hours. e. Proposed construction material staging/storage areas. f. Location of project construction sign outlining permitted construction work hours, name of project contractor and the contact information for both homeowner and contractor. 9. All fences, walls and hedges shall conform to height requirements provided in City Code Section 15-29. 10. The final landscaping and irrigation plan submitted for Building Permit approval shall demonstrate how the project complies with the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and shall consider the following: a. To the extent 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. b. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 16 20538 Lynde Court Application # PDR21-0032 / ARB21-0120 November 9, 2022 Resolution #22-020 Page | 5 c. 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. d. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. e. Any proposed or required under grounding of utilities shall consider potential damage to roots of protected trees 11. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or a bond satisfactory to the Community Development Department valued at 150% of the estimated cost of the installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City. 12. Privacy screening shall be planted along the northern side property lines as depicted in the approved Landscape Plans. The screening trees will be of an evergreen species, such as Swan Hill Olive or Carolina Cherry Laurel trees, or similar, with a yearly growth rate of approximately 2 - 3 feet per year and shall be at least 10 feet in height at the time of planting. 13. A Building Permit must be issued, and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or the Design Review Approval will expire unless extended in accordance with the City Code. 14. West Valley Collection & Recycling is the exclusive roll-off and debris box provider for the City of Saratoga. FIRE DEPARTMENT 15. The owner/applicant shall comply with all Fire Department requirements. ARBORIST 16. All requirements in the City Arborist Approval Letter dated June 1, 2022 are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the approved plans. PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING 17. The owner/applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding drainage, including but not limited to complying with the city approved Stormwater management plan. The project shall retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site, that is created by the proposed construction and grading project, such that adjacent down slope properties will not be negatively impacted by any increase in flow. Design must follow the current Santa Clara County Drainage Manual method criteria, as required by the building department. Retention/detention element design must follow the Drainage Manual guidelines, as required by the building department. 18. Applicant / Owner shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all improvements in any 17 20538 Lynde Court Application # PDR21-0032 / ARB21-0120 November 9, 2022 Resolution #22-020 Page | 6 City right-of-way or City easement including all new utilities prior to commencement of the work to implement this Design Review. 19. Applicant / Owner shall make the following improvements in the City right-of-way: a. Remove existing driveway approach and replace with new driveway approach per City Standard Detail 205 & 206. See City of Saratoga Standard Details for removal and new installation. New flow line shall conform to existing flow lines and grade. 20. Damages to driveway approach, curb and gutter, public streets, or other public improvements during construction shall be repaired prior to final inspection. 21. All new/upgraded utilities shall be installed underground. 22. Applicant / Owner shall maintain the streets, sidewalks and other right of way as well as adjacent properties, both public and private, in a clean, safe and usable condition. All spills of soil, rock or construction debris shall be removed immediately. 23. The Owner/Applicant shall incorporate adequate source control measures to limit pollutant generation, discharge, and runoff (e.g. landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff, promotes surface infiltration where possible, minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and incorporates appropriate sustainable landscaping practices and programs, such as Bay-Friendly Landscaping). 24. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction – Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution: a. Owner shall implement construction site inspection and control to prevent construction site discharges of pollutants into the storm drains per approved Erosion Control Plan. b. The City requires the construction sites to maintain year-round effective erosion control, run-on and run-off control, sediment control, good site management, and non-storm water management through all phases of construction (including, but not limited to, site grading, building, and finishing of lots) until the site is fully stabilized by landscaping or the installation of permanent erosion control measures. c. City will conduct inspections to determine compliance and determine the effectiveness of the BMPs in preventing the discharge of construction pollutants into the storm drain. Owner shall be required to timely correct all actual and potential discharges observed. 25. Prior to the commencement of any earthwork/grading activities, the permittee shall arrange a pre-construction meeting. The meeting shall include the City of Saratoga Grading Inspector (408-868-1201), the grading contractor, and the project Soils Engineer. The permittee or representative shall arrange the pre-construction meeting at least 48 hours prior to the start of any earthwork activities. 18 20538 Lynde Court Application # PDR21-0032 / ARB21-0120 November 9, 2022 Resolution #22-020 Page | 7 26. 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. 27. Prior to the Building final, all Public Works conditions shall be completed per approved plans. 28. Upon the completion of this project the elevation of the lowest floor including basement shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or surveyor and verified by the City's building inspector to be properly elevated. Such certification and verification shall be provided to the City’s Floodplain Administrator. 19 20538 Lynde Court Application # PDR21-0032 / ARB21-0120 November 9, 2022 Resolution #22-020 Page | 8 DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS PDR21-0032 / ARB21-0120 20538 LYNDE COURT (APN 503-52-012) The findings required for issuance of Design Review approval pursuant to City Code Section 15- 45.080 are set forth below. a. Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project minimizes changes to the contours of the site. Grading will be limited to the location of the new residence, as well as contouring the site as necessary to direct water to landscaped areas. The site development is appropriate to the site’s natural constraints with single family homes around it. b. All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that three protected trees are requested for removal which are in poor condition. c. The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the second story has a proposed height that does not exceed the maximum allowable height for a single-family residence and proposed setbacks that are in compliance with the minimum required by the zoning district. The second story windows on the side elevations will have bottom sill heights of 6’-6” and both balconies will have 6’ tall privacy walls on the sides of the balcony and 3’ tall solid stucco walls on the front of the balconies to avoid impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties. A row of 24” box evergreen trees will also be planted along the northern side property line to help mitigate privacy impacts. No community viewsheds are located in the vicinity of the project. d. The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the building has varying exterior materials and architectural forms. The brown wood siding combined with the white smooth stucco 20 20538 Lynde Court Application # PDR21-0032 / ARB21-0120 November 9, 2022 Resolution #22-020 Page | 9 help break up the appearance of mass. The varying roof forms and recessed second story also reduce the overall mass of the structure. e. The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complimentary to the neighborhood and streetscape. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project includes a condition of approval that front yard landscaping is to be installed prior to building department final inspection. The City Code requires that at least 50% of the front setback area be landscaped. f. Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the development will not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy as the project complies with required setbacks. g. The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project 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. h. On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100. This finding is not applicable as the project is not on a hillside lot. The project is not located on a ridgeline, and will not affect any significant hillside features or community viewsheds. 21 Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 www.saratoga.ca.us/171/trees 408.868.1276 CITY OF SARATOGA ARBORIST APPROVAL Conditions of Approval and Tree Protection Plan Prepared by Christina Fusco, City Arborist Application No. ARB21-0120 Phone: (408) 868-1276 Address: 20538 Lynde Ct Email: cfusco@saratoga.ca.us Owner: Rajesh Lalwani & Sunita Lalwani APN: 503-52-012 Date: June 1, 2022 PROJECT SCOPE: The applicant has submitted plans to demolish the existing residence and build a new two-story residence. Three trees are requested for removal to construct the project. PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF: Tree security deposit – Required - $4,750 Tree protection – Required – See Conditions of Approval and attached map. Tree removals – Trees 7, 11, and 13 are approved for removal once building permits have been issued. Replacement trees – Required = $2,840 ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Findings and Tree Information 2 – Tree Removal Criteria 3 – Conditions of Approval 4 – Map Showing Tree Protection 1 of 9 22 205387 Lynde Court Attachment 1 FINDINGS: Tree Removals According to Section 15-50.080 of the City Code, whenever a tree is requested for removal as part of a project, certain findings must be made and specific tree removal criteria met. One tree is in conflict with the new house, and two trees re dying. These trees meet the City’s criteria allowing them to be removed and replaced as part of the project, once building division permits have been obtained. Attachment 2 contains the tree removal criteria for reference. Table 1: Summary of Tree Removal Criteria that are met Tree No. Species Criteria met Comments 7 Liquidambar styraciflua 1, 2, 6, 9 Decay present 12 Silver maple Acer saccharinum 1, 6 Dying from ganoderma 13 Modesto Ash Fraxinus velutina ‘Modesto’ 1, 6 Dying New Construction Based on the information provided, and as conditioned, this project complies with the requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15- 50.120 of the City Code. Tree Preservation Plan Section 15-50.140 of the City Code requires a Tree Preservation Plan for this project. To satisfy this requirement the following shall be copied onto a plan sheet and included in the final sets of plans: 1)The tree information and recommendations from the submitted arborist report dated March 15, 2022; 2)The Project Data in Brief, the Conditions of Approval, and map showing tree protection from this report dated June 1, 2022. TREE INFORMATION: Project Arborist: David Beckham Date of Report: March 15, 2022 Number of protected trees inventoried: 8 Number of protected trees requested for removal: 3 A table summarizing information about each tree is below. 2 of 9 23 205387 Lynde Court Attachment 1 Table 2: Tree information from submitted arborist report dated March 15, 2022. 3 of 9 24 205387 Lynde Court Attachment 1 4 of 9 25 20538 Lynde Court Attachment 2 TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article 15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and replacement during construction. (1)The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services, and whether the tree is a Dead tree or a Fallen tree. (2)The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. (3)The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes. (4)The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. (5)The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. (6)Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. (7)Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. (8)Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in Section 15-50.010 (9)The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. (10)The necessity to remove the tree for installation and efficient operation of solar panels, subject to the requirements that the tree(s) to be removed, shall not be removed until solar panels have been installed and replacement trees planted in conformance with the City Arborist's recommendation. (11)The necessity to remove a tree following the creation of defensible space within 100 feet of a structure located within the Wildland Urban Interface, in accordance with defensible space standards established by CAL FIRE or as determined by Santa Clara County Fire Department, and that risk of increased wildfire cannot reasonably be addressed through maintenance or without tree removal. 5 of 9 26 20538 Lynde Court Attachment 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1.Owner, Architect, Contractor: It is the responsibility of the owner, architect, and contractor to be familiar with the information in this report and implement the required conditions. 2.Permit: a.Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities for protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction work. b.No protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project may be removed or encroached upon until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building division for the approved project. 3.Final Plan Sets: a.The tree information and recommendations from the submitted arborist report dated March 15, 2022; b.The Project Data in Brief, the Conditions of Approval, and map showing tree protection from this report dated June 1, 2022. 4.Tree Protection Security Deposit: a.Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080. b.Shall be $4,750 for tree(s) 1, 10, 11, 14, 15. c.Shall be obtained by the owner and filed with the Community Development Department before obtaining Building Division permits. d.May be in the form of cash, check, or a bond. e.Shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project. f.May be released once the project has been completed, inspected, and approved by the City Arborist. 5.Tree Protection Fencing: a.Shall be installed as shown on the attached map. b.Shall be shown on the Site Plan. c.Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. d.Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. e.Shall be posted with signs saying, “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, CHRISTINA FUSCO (408) 868- 1276”. f.Call City Arborist, Christina Fusco at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection fencing once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division permits. g.Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final inspection. 6 of 9 27 20538 Lynde Court Attachment 3 6.Construction: All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing unless permitted as conditioned below. These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching for utility installation, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 7.Work inside fenced areas: a.Requires a field meeting and approval from City Arborist before performing work. b.Requires Project Arborist on site to monitor work. 8.Project Arborist: a.Shall be David Beckham unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist. b.Shall visit the site every two weeks during grading, trenching, or digging activities and every six weeks thereafter. A letter/email shall be provided to the City after each inspection which documents the work performed around trees, includes photos of the work in progress, and provides information on tree condition during construction. c.Shall supervise any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site. Roots of protected trees measuring two inches in diameter or more shall not be cut without prior approval of the Project Arborist. 9.Tree removal: Trees 7, 12, and 13 meet the criteria for removal and may be removed building division permits have been obtained. 10.New trees: a.New trees equal to $2,840 shall be planted as part of the project before final inspection and occupancy of the new home. New trees may be of any species and planted anywhere on the property as long as they do not encroach on retained trees. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. 15 gallon = $350 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 b.Trees shall be replaced on or off site according to good forestry practices and shall provide equivalent value in terms of aesthetic and environmental quality, size, height, location, appearance, and other significant beneficial characteristics of the removed trees. 11.Damage to protected trees that will be retained: a.Should any protected tree be damaged beyond repair, new trees shall be required to replace the tree. If there is insufficient room to plant the necessary number of new trees, some of the value for trees may be paid into the City’s Tree Fund. b.Water loving plants and lawns are not permitted under oak tree canopies. Only drought tolerant plants that are compatible with oaks are permitted under the outer half of the canopy of oak trees on site. 7 of 9 28 20538 Lynde Court Attachment 3 12.Final inspection: At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing and have the tree protection security deposit released by the city, call City Arborist for a final inspection. Before scheduling a final inspection from the City Arborist, have the project arborist do an inspection, prepare a letter with their findings, and provide that letter to the city for the project file. 8 of 9 29 AƩachment 4 20538 Lynde Court 9 of 930 To:Saratoga Planning Commission Project Address: 20538 Lynde Ct, Saratoga, CA 95070 A two-story single-family home project is proposed at the above address. I have reviewed the plans. I don’t have any concerns with the project and I support it. Neighbor Name:: ________________________________________________________ Neighbor Address: __________________________________________________ Date:________________________________________________________ Neighbor Signature: ___________________________________ VIJAY SHRIVASTAV & DIPTI SRIVASTAVA LYNDE AVE, SARATOGA, CA 95070 10/10/2022 31 32 33 34 35 36 From:henry tan To:Victoria Banfield; Victoria Banfield; Lydia Tan Cc:henry tan Subject:Re: Letter to Planning Commission regarding 20538 Lynde Ct. Date:Monday, October 10, 2022 10:57:47 PM Attachments:Picture from our Backyard Patio sight.pdf Picture from our Master Bedroom sight.pdf Picture from our Backyard pool sight.pdf Hi Victoria, Somehow I couldn't find the two pictures I sent last time in the neighborhood notification forms. Therefore, I re-send them to you again and please attach them with our new comments. Surprisingly, Mr. Lalwani didn' keep his promise to remove the front balcony and high sliding doors. Obviously, Mr. Lalwani knew the front balcony with high sliding doors would invade and violate our privacy. Anyone standing on the front balcony can see through our whole backyard including my master bedroom (see attached). Let me quote what he suggested in his email. "Adding any trellis on top of your fence or planting any plants to further reduce any visibility into your backyard" , reduce not block. If I follow what he suggested. I have to remove my wooden deck and beautiful arbor, replace the fence, replace and relocate my swimming pool equipment, etc. Wow, that will cost me so much work and money. Contrarily, he should build a tall fence and plant more trees in his front yard as long as they're tall enough to block the visibility into our backyard. Once again, thank you for your assistance in this matter. Best Regards, Henry & Lydia Tan 37 38 39 40 October 10, 2022 Saratoga Planning Commission Attn.: Victoria Banfield 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Project Application of 20538 Lynde Court, Dear Chair Zheng, Vice Chair Brownley, and Planning Commission members, After reviewing the revised design of this project, I want to dispute the project builder Livio’s false claims about Vision Triangle, Limited View, and Side Window Height. The vision triangle, also known as the clear sight triangle, is a triangular shaped portion of a yard at the corner of a street or driveway intersection. It’s a term used by city street traffic engineers. Livio misused Vision Triangle and misinterpreted it as a limited view from the 2nd floor balcony and side window of this project. Humans have a slightly over 210-degree forward-facing horizontal arc of their visual field, without eye movements. The vertical range of the visual field in humans is around 150 degrees. A camera can only catch pictures at a fix location and position. On the contrary, humans move around with constant eye movements. Therefore, a digital camera, even with a fisheye lens, can’t produce the exact field of view of humans. Livio claimed our neighbors will only see a small part of our backyard is a distorted statement. Livio claimed the 2nd floor side windows will be at 6’5” high of the exterior wall. However, common sense tells us that windows at exterior wall height is not the same as the interior floor height. Because there will be more subfloor plywood, cement boards and floor coverings, such as tile, hardwood, or carpet added on top of the interior floor. So this statement from Livio is a partial truth, not the whole truth. Attached is a PDF file, including more detailed statements and pictures of my privacy concerns. Thank you for taking my privacy concerns into your consideration of this project development. I am still hoping that this project can reach a mutually acceptable solution 41 for the applicants and all concerned neighbors, so that the peace and harmony of our neighborhood can be restored. Sincerely, Koh-Shyan Chris Chiang Enclosures: As stated 42 Privacy Concerns about 20538 Lynde Ct. Project Dispute of Livio’s Vision Triangles, Limited Views, and Side Window Heights 10/10/2022 43 The vision triangle, also known as the clear sight triangle, is a triangular shaped portion of a yard at the corner of a street or driveway intersection where nothing between the height of 4 feet and 10 feet is permitted in most US cities. https://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/1744/637820860710700000 44 Livio misused Vision Triangle and misinterpreted it as limited views from the 2nd floor balcony and side window. 45 Humans have a slightly over 210- degree forward- facing horizontal arc of their visual field (i.e. without eye movements). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view 46 The vertical range of the visual field in humans is around 150 degrees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view 47 48 Livio’s false claim of limited view when a person standing on the 2nd floor back balcony 49 50 Picture taken from a ladder in my backyard at 6’ height with iPhone 13 Max Pro wide angle lens (18mm). If my camera can catch this picture, my neighbors can see my backyard even better from their back balcony. Because they will be at a higher elevation with better horizontal and vertical field of view than my camera. 51 Livio’s limited vertical view (no horizontal view) of a person standing on the 2nd floor. 52 Adding additional subfloor plywood and floor covering such as tile, hardwood, or carpet on top of level 1 structure will make these windows less than 6’5” high from the actual floor inside the house. Wall height vs. Actual height inside the house 53 54 Picture taken from the roof top of my house with iPhone 13 Max Pro wide angle lens (18mm). If my camera can catch this picture, my neighbors can see my backyard even better from their 2nd floor side windows . Because they have better horizontal and vertical field of views than my camera. 55 Livio’s limited Vision Triangles 56 57 Picture taken from a ladder inside my backyard at 6’ height with iPhone 13 Max Pro wide angle lens (18mm). If my camera can catch this picture, my neighbors can see my backyard even better from their front balcony. Because they will be at a higher elevation with better horizontal and vertical field of views than my camera. 58 59 60 From:Jerry Han To:V c oria Banf eld Cc:Li Penny Subject:Re: Privacy Concerns of 20538 Lynde Court Project Date:Wednesday September 14 2022 11:23:27 AM Attachments:image004 ng image.png image.png image.png image.png image.png Hi Victoria, Thank you and other mission members' visit yesterday. Here I just want to add one more thing about the rear side balcony since some members thought there is a wall extended outside. For the yellow frame portion, actually there is no wall there but it's miss leading with the tall poles there. The contractor finally admitted that they can see a lot of our backyard although they made a mistake in the beginning as a professional contractor. Please find the following email exchange. They claimed to plant the 20-30 feet trees to address my privacy concern caused by their backyard balcony, but it comes with the cost of losing my backyard sunshine. Based on measurements, it will block over 2000 sq ft of sunshine in the morning. That explains why they don't plan to plant trees near the border of the other neighborhood since those trees on the east will block 20538's front balcony sunshine, for their own benefits. I don't think this shows respect to the neighbourhood. Not to mention in the beginning they put the side windows which face our two bathrooms at a height of 4 feet and 6 inches high, which totally does not respect the neighbourhood. Could you please update these latest information to the members before the hearing if possible? Sorry for bothering you many times, but this project concerns us a lot. Thank you very much for your help! Appreciate it! 61 62 63 From:Joyce To:Victoria Banfield Subject:Re: Planning Commission September 2022 Meetings Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 5:41:39 PM Attachments:09132022 Site Visit Agenda.pdf 09142022 Meeting Agenda web.pdf Thank you so much for the information. Unfortunately, I am 11 hour time difference away from home, won’t to be able to attend the meeting. However, I expressed my concern to the homeowner, wished him good luck at the same time about two weeks ago. Didn’t hear from from them. 1.The proposed two story home would lower the value of my home. Because I, so are the potential buyers I would assume, love the fact that mine is the only two story home in the cul de sac, thus the privacy and the bragging right are worth some. 2. At the moment, I can enjoy a nice tree top and roof top view from my study window , the proposed modernistic two story home would impose me a light sharp edged block arising out of from the suburban residential sight. I am imagining an eye sore looking out. Since rhe homeowber didn’t respond to my message, thought to write to you directly. I don’t mind you forwarding this email to them. They are great neighbors and I wish them the best. I just hope that I don’t became the collateral damage during the process. Thank you Victoria ! Joyce Sent from my iPhone 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 From:Jerry Han To:Victoria Banfield; Li Penny Subject:Privacy Concerns of 20538 Lynde Court Project Date:Monday, August 15, 2022 1:42:48 PM Attachments:Backyard Privacy Concern - 20538 Lynde Ct.pdf Hi Victoria, I reviewed the updated project design of 20538 Lynde Court. house with you on Aug 12, 2022. As my privacy concern of this project was not fully addressed in the updated design, here I would like to reiterate it again. We have strong concerns about the planned balcony and the French windows in the back of the project. First, there is no single house in this area which has a balcony in the front or back side. Secondly and most importantly, the balcony is 24.6 feet wide with two 8 feet French window sliding doors facing to the backyard. When standing on the right corner of the balcony, the neighbor can either intentionally or unintentionally see almost half of our backyard, around 3100 sq ft. It feels like we are on exhibit at the zoo and hurts our privacy a lot. Please find the attached drawing estimation based on project plan’s page 2. Even if there is no balcony, near the French windows the neighbor can see around 1500 sq ft of our backyard, which also hurts our privacy. I would appreciate your assistance to pass this information to the commission. I will also stop by City Hall this week to give you a copy of this letter with my and my wife's signatures. Thank you! Best regards,Jerry Han 73 74 August 12, 2022 Saratoga Planning Commission Attn.: Victoria Banfield 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Project Application of 20538 Lynde Court, Dear Chair Zheng, Vice Chair Brwonley, and Planning Commission members, Our names are Koh-Shyan Chris Chiang and Ling-Ju Lynne Chiang. We are the owners of our house at 20540 Lynde Court and have been living here peacefully and happily since 1988. Last December we were informed by the applicant of 20538 Lynde Court project. Consequently, we sent our privacy concerns regarding this proposed project to the Planning Commission by the way of the City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form on December 6, 2021. As I stated in the form, the majority (more than 90%) of two-story houses in our Reid/Lynde/Deerpark neighborhood have no balconies and no side windows. In addition, most of the front and back windows of these houses have a maximum height of 3 feet. Please see the attached “Reid/Lynde/DeerPark 2-Story Houses Summary” document for more details. In contrast, the new 20538 Lynde Court proposed house design has side windows, front and back balconies, and 7 feet tall sliding doors. A south side window facing our backyard, the front and the back balconies, and 7 feet tall sliding doors in the front and back will definitely be major privacy issues for us. Because majority of our backyard will be visible from the above mentioned locations. Since we are retired seniors spending most of our time in our yard, with this new design we will be living under the constant pressure of worrying that our neighbors will be looking into our backyard either intentionally or unintentionally. A recent review of this project plan at City Hall on July 20, 2022 showed that the project applicants simply ignored our privacy concerns and moved forward with their original design without any communication with us. Therefore, we would like to bring our unaddressed privacy issues regarding 20538 Lynde Court project to your attention. 75 We respect that our neighbors have the right to pursue and build their new dream house. However, if this project comes at the cost of our anxiety and impacts our existing daily activities in our home and backyard, someone’s new dream house then becomes a nightmare for us living in our existing house. Furthermore we are conscious about not disrupting the peace and harmony of this neighborhood. We worry that this will be broken if the project proceeds. In our country, established with rules and laws, all citizens have the right to build, defense and preserve their dream homes, either new ones or existing ones, with all their heart, all their soul, all their mind, and all their strength. So I am requesting your assistance to resolve these unaddressed privacy issues. Sincerely, Koh-Shyan Chris Chiang & Ling-Ju Lynne Chiang Enclosures: As stated 76 2-Story Houses in Reid/Lynde/Deerpark Neighborhood 77 20538 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 20540 78 79 House #1 20575 Reid Lane 80 House #2 20587 Reid Lane 81 House #3 13909 LyndeAve. 82 House #4 13901 LyndeAve. 83 House #5 13893 LyndeAve. 84 House #6 13885 LyndeAve. 85 House #7 13877 LyndeAve. 86 House #8 13869 LyndeAve. 87 House #9 20557 Deerpark Ct. 88 House #10 20531 Deerpark Ct. 89 House #11 20576 Lynde Ct. 90 August 15, 2022 Saratoga Planning Commission Attn.: Victoria Banfield 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Project Application of 20538 Lynde Court, Dear Chair Zheng, Vice Chair Brownley, and Planning Commission members, To give you a better understanding of how this proposed project will seriously impact our daily life because of privacy concerns, Ms. Banfield suggested sending you pictures of our backyard facing this project. Attached are 3 sets of pictures taken after the applicant installed “story poles” on the site. 1.The first set of pictures shows what we can see from the ground level of our backyard to the front balcony of this project. 2.The second set of pictures shows the south side windows on the 2 nd floor of this project. These pictures were taken at various locations in our backyard, one of them was about 100 feet away from the fence. 3.The third set of pictures shows the back balcony. In addition, we are sending you the fourth set of pictures taken at the top of a fence separating our backyard and the applicant’s property. We raised a question about side setback compliance in last December. Based on the zoning compliance, the allowed/required right side setback of the main house (1st floor) is 8’ 3”. However, this project proposed a 5’ 4” right side setback. During my last visit to City Hall on July 20, 2022, Ms. Banfield told me the applicant has corrected his design to meet the compliance. The pictures shows that the current right side setback of the main house (1 st floor) is still 5’ 4”. There is one more issue regarding the applicant’s plan to mitigate our privacy concerns. This plan will actually create more problems for us than solving our privacy concerns. First, various tree species will take 10 – 20 years to reach enough height to block my neighbor’s view to our backyard. Second, there are grapevines in our backyard near the 91 fence. These new tree canopies will block sunshine and hinder growth of our existing grapevines. Third, since these trees will be planted so close to our backyard, we will be then forced to clean up falling leaves and trim branches regularly. Thank you for taking our privacy concerns and right side setback compliance issue into your consideration of this project development. We really hope that this project can reach a mutually acceptable solution for the applicants and all neighbors, so that the peace and harmony of our neighborhood will be preserved and grow stronger. Sincerely, Koh-Shyan Chris Chiang & Ling-Ju Lynne Chiang Enclosures: As stated 92 Privacy Concerns and Side Setback Issue of 20538 Lynde Ct. 93 Picture #1-1 Front Balcony 94 Picture #1-2 Front Balcony 95 Picture #1-3 Front Balcony 96 Picture #2-1 Right Side Windows 97 Picture #2-2 Right Side Windows 98 Picture #2-3 Right Side Windows 99 Picture #2-4 Right Side Windows 100 Picture #3-1 Back Balcony 101 Picture #3-2 Back Balcony 102 Picture #4-1 Right Side Setback 103 Picture #4-2 Right Side Setback 104 Picture #4-3 Right Side Setback 105 September 7, 2022 Saratoga Planning Commission Attn.: Victoria Banfield 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Project Application of 20538 Lynde Court, Dear Chair Zheng, Vice Chair Brownley, and Planning Commission members, Our names are Bi Jerry Han and Yanping Penny Li . We are the owners of our house at 20526 Lynde Court and just moved to this neighborhood in June last year. Last December we were informed by the applicant of the 20538 Lynde Court project. Consequently, we sent our privacy concerns regarding this proposed project to the Planning Commission in December 2021 and Aug 2022. As we stated, the balcony is 24.6 feet wide with two 8 feet French window sliding doors facing to the backyard. When standing on the boundary of the balcony, the neighbor can either intentionally or unintentionally see almost half of our backyard. It feels like we are on exhibit at the zoo and hurts our privacy a lot. Please find the estimation and the vision from our backyard side (with the mutual vision the neighbor can see our backyard as well) based on the balcony pillar location. Please see the attached document page 1&2 for more details. The new 20538 Lynde Court proposed house design with 10 ft box trees. Based on the measurement from our backyard, 10 ft trees won’t solve the privacy issue. If the trees are too tall, that will block the morning sunshine from the east to our backyard, hurt our trees and vegetables, and prevent drying clothes. Basically, trying to plant the tree on our east side to prevent the privacy issue caused by the balcony & 8 feet French window sliding doors is creating a new problem when trying to solve the old problem. Please see the attached document page 3 for more details. We noticed that the shadow analysis was done for Dec, but the sun locations are different in June and Dec and only having data for Dec is not convincing. So, we hope this issue can be addressed as well. Please see the attached document page 4 for more details. During the recent open house, we noticed that the pillar which is set by the builder to specify the boundary of the house is 8 feet close to the existing fence. According to the recent boundary survey, our front yard boundary will be moved to our side a little while most of our backyard boundary will be moved to 20538 Lynde Court side a little, which gets the setback between the pillar and the new boundary smaller than 8 feet. This issue should be addressed. Please see the attached document page 5 for more details. 106 We also noticed that the 2nd floor bathroom’s window will face our two bathrooms’ windows directly, which concerns us a lot since this is extremely private. Please see the attached document page 6 for more details. Saratoga is a community where the common good prevails and neighborhoods are peaceful. We respect our neighbors’ right to build their new houses. However, the projects should not be built at the expense of our anxiety and privacy. Furthermore, we have concerns that it might disrupt the peace and harmony of this neighborhood. So, we are requesting your assistance to resolve these privacy issues and concerns. Sincerely, Bi Jerry Han & Yanping Penny Li Enclosures: As attached 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 EXTERIOR COLOR / MATERIAL SCHEDULE MATERIAL / APPLICATION CODE COLOR MANUFACTURE FLAT ROOF METAL WINDOW FRAMES WOODEN GARAGE DOOR SLIDING GLASS DOOR METAL GUARDRAIL M1 M3 M4 M5ROOFWALL MISC.* NOTES: EXACT COLORS TO BE VERIFIED WITH OWNER & ARCHITECT M8 M6 WHITE BLACK BLACK SMOOTH STUCCO WITH PAINT WHITE WOODEN SIDING M2 CONCRETE WALKWAY M7 C.H.I OR EQ JELWEN OR EQ. JELWEN OR EQ. GAF OR EQ. - - BLACK GREY - - WOODEN BROWN WOODEN BROWN ACCORDION GLASS DOOR M9 LA CANTINA OR EQ.BLACK NOTES: NOTES: • ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES. • DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. • ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED. • IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION. • THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION. • ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS. • THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.) REVISIONS : REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022 CONTACT : EMAIL :team@golivio.com PROJECT : THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA 650-209-6500 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022 12" = 1'-0" A7.001 MATERIAL BOARD 20538, Lynde ct 29-JUNE-22 SAGAR SUBHENDU M1 M3 M4M2FLAT ROOF SMOOTH STUCCO WITH PAINT SLIDING GLASS DOORMETAL WINDOW FRAME WOODEN SIDING CONCRETE WALKWAYM5M6 M7 M8METAL GUARDRAIL WOODEN GARAGE DOOR M9ACCORDION GLASS DOOR 115 1. HERS VERIFICATION REQUIRED FOR THE HVAC COOLING, HVAC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FAN SYSTEMS, AND IAQ (INDOOR AIR QUALITY). PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION (HERS) TO PROJECT BUILDING INSPECTOR, PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION. 2. AT FINAL INSPECTION, A MANUAL, COMPACT DISC, WEB-BASED REFERENCE, OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE MEDIA INCLUDING ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 IN ACCORDANCE WITH CGBSC SECTION 4.410.1 SHALL BE PLACED IN THE BUILDING. 3. ALL ADHESIVES, SEALANTS, CAULKS, PAINTS, COATINGS, AND AEROSOL PAINT CONTAINERS MUST REMAIN ON THE SITE FOR FIELD VERIFICATION BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR. 4. PRIOR TO ENCLOSING THE WALL AND FLOOR FRAMING, CONFIRMATION MUST BE PROVIDED TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR SHOWING THE FRAMING MEMBERS DO NOT EXCEED 19% MOISTURE CONTENT. 5. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OF THE BUILDING, PROVIDE A LETTER FROM THE CERTIFIED GREENPOINT RATER THAT VERIFIES COMPLIANCE WITH THE CHECKLIST AND THE MINIMUM REQUIRED POINTS WERE ACHIEVED. 6. PROPERTY LINE SURVEY WILL BE COMPLETED BY LICENSED SURVEYOR AND PROVIDED TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION 7. BUILDING HEIGHT VERIFICATION WILL BE COMPLETED BY LICENSED SURVEYOR AND PROVIDED TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR PRIOR TO FRAMING INSPECTION 8. INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALL LISTED EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AT ROUGH INSPECTION 9. EWAS SYSTEM WILL BE INSTALLED NOTES: NOTES: • ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES. • DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. • ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED. • IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION. • THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION. • ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS. • THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.) REVISIONS : REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022 CONTACT : EMAIL :team@golivio.com PROJECT : THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA 650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022 1/4" = 1'-0" A1.001 TITLE SHEET 20538, Lynde ct 22-SEPT-2022 SAGAR SUBHENDU NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE 20538 Lynde Ct, Saratoga, CA 95070-5312 ZONING COMPLIANCE SQUARE FOOTAGE BREAKDOWN LOT CALCULATIONS VICINITY MAP N.T.S GENERAL NOTESCONTACT INFO SCOPE OF WORK SHEET INDEX DEFERRED SUBMITTALS ZONING COMPLIANCE EXISTING PROPOSED Allowed/Required LOT COVERAGE FLOOR AREA SETBACKS (MAIN HOUSE) EXISTING CHANGE IN TOTAL PROPOSED HABITABLE LIVING AREA NON-HABITABLE AREA NET LOT AREA LANDSCAPE BREAKDOWN OVERALL: VICINITY MAP N.T.S 2,494 SF 3,953 (1,972 + 384+ 1,597) SF 6639.6 SF FIRST LEVEL = 1,972 Sq.ft. COVERED PORCH = 384 Sq.ft. REMAINING IMPERVIOUS AREA =1,597 Sq.ft. 3,403 (1,972 + 1,431) SF 3,540 SF DEMOLITION OF 2,494 SF OF EXISTING RESIDENCE STRUCTURE, NEW CONSTRUCTION OF 3,403 SF MAIN HOUSE AND 752 SF ADU SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE OVER GROSS LOT AREA OF 11,066 SF. 2,494 SF (22.53 %)(35.7 %)(60 %) (22.53 %)(30.75 %)( 32 %) ADU=752 SF (6.80%)ADU=800 SF (7.22%) FIRST LEVEL= 1,972 Sq.ft, SECOND LEVEL= 1,431 Sq.ft 44' 4" 78' 8" 9' 6" 8' 3" 30' 11" / 33' 8" 28' 6" / 35' 0" 8' 5" / 21' 7" 8' 6" / 13' 3" FRONT (1st / 2nd) REAR (1st / 2nd) RIGHT SIDE (1st / 2nd) LEFT SIDE (1st / 2nd) 464' 7" 25' 0" / 25' 0" 25' 0" / 35' 0" 8' 3" / 13' 3" 8' 3" / 13' 3" OWNER : RAJESH LALWANI & SUNITA LALWANI +1 (408) 621-9305 & +1 (408) 621-9342 ARCHITECT: LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS CIVIL ENGINEER: RW ENGINEERING 408-262-1899 LAND SURVEYOR: GREG LEWIS 831-359-0960 SITE FIRE SPRINKLERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH NFPA 13D AND STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS NOTE THAT PER CRC 313.3.7, A SIGN OR VALVE TAG SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE MAIN SHUTOFF VALVE TO THE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM STATING THE FOLLOWING: WARNING, THE WATER SYSTEM FOR THIS HOME SUPPLIES FIRE SPRINKLERS THAT REQUIRE CERTAIN FLOWS AND PRESSURES TO FIGHT A FIRE. DEVICES THAT RESTRICT THE FLOW OR DECREASE THE PRESSURE OR AUTOMATICALLY SHUT OFF THE WATER TO THE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM, SUCH AS WATER SOFTENERS, FILTRATION SYSTEMS AND AUTOMATIC SHUTOFF VALVES, SHALL NOT BE ADDED TO THIS SYSTEM WITHOUT A REVIEW OF THE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM BY A FIRE PROTECTION SPECIALIST. DO NOT REMOVE THIS SIGN. LALWANI'S RESIDENCE THE PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC) 2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE 2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE 2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE 2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE 2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE 2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE CITY OF SARATOGA ORDINANCE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION : V-B ZONE DISTRICT : R-1-10 LOT AREA: 11,066 SF HISTORICAL: NO NEW STRUCTURE CALCULATION FOR ALLOWABLE FAR AS PER CITY CODE 15-12.085 3,200 + 170(2) = 3,540 SF ADU = 800SF NEW TWO STORY ALLOWABLE FAR 4340 Sq.ft. MAX TOTAL FLOOR AREA MAIN HOUSE LIVING AREA 3,403 SF ADU LIVING AREA 748 SF TOTAL COUNTABLE AREA 4,151 SF GROSS LOT AREA = 11066 SF NET LOT AREA = GROSS LOT NET LOT AREA = 11,066 IMPERVIOUS AREA DRIVEWAY 505 SF WALKWAY 93 SF BACK SIDE PORCH 1100 SF FRONT PORCH 283 SF FIRST FLOOR 1972 SF ADU 752 SF TOTAL 4705 SF AVERAGE SLOPE: S= 100(I)(L)or 0.0029(I)(L) 43560A A AVERAGE SLOPE = 0.00229(1)(160.7)/(11,067/43,560) = 1.4% FRONT YARD SETBACK CALCULATION: HARDSCAPE AREA 598 SF SOFTSCAPE AREA 997 SF FRONT YARD AREA 1595 SF SOFTSCAPE AREA (PERCENTGE) = 62.50 % SITE ADU=752 SF ADU=800 SF LOWEST ELEVATION POINT AT THE BUILDING EDGE FROM NATURAL GRADE HEIGHEST ELEVATION POINT AT THE BUILDING EDGE FROM NATURAL GRADE AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT TOP MOST ELEVATION POINT -MEASURED FROM AVERAGE POINT (ABOVE) TO THE TOP MOST POINT OF THE ROOF (INCLUDE SEPARATE CALCULATIONS FOR CHIMNEY, ETC.) HEIGHT CALCULATIONS 464' 1" 465' 3" 25' 10.75" 26' 1,955 SF 3,724 SF 431 SF 3,724 SF 431 SF502 SF TOTAL HARDSCAPE AREA (EXISTING AND PROPOSED): 4,705 Sq. ft. EXISTING SOFTSCAPE (UNDISTURBED): 0 Sq. ft. NEW SOFTSCAPE (NEW OR REPLACED LANDSCAPING)AREA: 6,361 Sq. ft. SUM OF ALL THREE SHOULD EQUAL THE SITE'S NET LOT AREA 11,066 Sq.ft (Net Lot Area) LANDSCAPE BREAKDOWN FRONT YARD:DRIVEWAY 505 SF WALKWAY 93 SF TOTAL 598 SF FRONT SETBACK AREA = 1595 SF SITE TOTAL IMPERVIOUS = 3953 + 752 TOTAL IMPERVIOUS = 4,705 SF DRG NUMBER DARWING NAME DATE A1.001 TITLE SHEET 22-SEPT-22 A1.002 NEIGHBOURHOOD SITE LAYOUT 22-SEPT-22 A1.003 NEIGHBOURHOOD CONTEXT MAP 22-SEPT-22 A1.004 SITE LAYOUT 22-SEPT-22 A1.005 SITE DEMOLITION 22-SEPT-22 A1.006 SHADOW ANALYSIS DIAGRAM 22-SEPT-22 A1.007 PRIVACY DIAGRAM 22-SEPT-22 A2.001 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 22-SEPT-22 A2.002 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 22-SEPT-22 A2.003 ROOF PLAN 22-SEPT-22 A3.001 REAR AND LEFT ELEVATION 22-SEPT-22 A3.002 FRONT AND RIGHT ELEVATION 22-SEPT-22 A4.001 SECTION A-A & B-B 22-SEPT-22 A5.001 DOOR SCHEDULE 22-SEPT-22 A5.002 WINDOW SCHEDULE 22-SEPT-22 A6.001 AREA CALCULATION 22-SEPT-22 A7.001 MATERIAL BOARD 22-SEPT-22 C-1 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 22-SEPT-22 C-2 EROSION CONTROL PLAN 22-SEPT-22 C-3 BEST CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PRACTICE 22-SEPT-22 L-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN 22-SEPT-22 SU-1 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP 22-SEPT-22 T-1 TREE PROTECTION INSTRUCTION 22-SEPT-22 T-2 TREE PROTECTION INSTRUCTION 22-SEPT-22 T-3 TREE PROTECTION PLAN 22-SEPT-22 U-1 UTILITY PLAN 22-SEPT-22 HARDSCAPE = 37.50% 116 N 49°47'51" E 178.01'N 69°38'22" E 115.61'N0°24' 00" W 121. 80' Δ = 8 1 D 5 1' 0 4"L= 60.0 0' R =42.0 0' 5' P .U. E. 5' W .C. E. LOT 11 TRACT 3 2 5 9 151 MA P S 2 7 LOT 13 TRACT 3 2 5 9 151 MA P S 2 7 4 64 .334 64 .704 64 .86464. 73SIT E B E N CHM A RKSS MH R IM4 65 .46TC4 65 .26TC4 64 .51TC4 64 .42TC4 64 .91TC4 65 .144 65 .004 64 .884 64 .844 64 .844 64 .604 64 .894 64 .534 64 .174 64 .504 64 .244 64 .464 64 .904 64 .204 64 .164 64 .224 64 .204 64 .314 64 .274 64 .554 64 .404 64 .654 64 .684 64 .494 64 .384 64 .404 64 .174 64 .504 64 .124 64 .214 64 .104 64 .124 64 .634 64 .554 64 .574 64 .484 64 .024 64 .274 64 .374 64 .394 64 .404 64 .374 64 .324 64 .254 64 .244 64 .224 63 .664 63 .134 63 .494 63 .744 63 .554 63 .284 62 .914 63 .134 62 .644 62 .414 62 .844 63 .834 64 .664 64 .484 64 .594 64 .874 64 .324 63 .874 63 .824 63 .744 63 .984 64 .374 64 .304 64 .054 6 4. 2 8 C B WM MB CONC D / W WOOD D ECK EL=465.7 SPA CONC PATI O CONC W ALK EXISTING GARA GE FF=464.4GM TR EE #19.3" /5.6 "TRE E #712.3"TRE E #23"/3"TRE E #36.5"TRE E #45.8"TRE E #65.1"TRE E #87.4"TRE E #1 014"TRE E #95.8"TRE E #1 128.8"TRE E #1 223"TRE E #1 316.1"TRE E #1 418.8"TRE E #1 521.2"LYNDE C O U R T 20538 20540 20552 20564 20576 20588 20526 13904 20579 1391713909 139011389313885 13888 13896 LYNDE CT LYNDE AVE 111.93126.59129.2779.0080.00 85.00 126.74 78.28 39.2272.09 48.9 525.67 58.0260.00 60.00 24.6 2 13.9 725.96 60. 0 0 25.5034.5087.0087.0087.0087.00115.0074.38 63.97143.00121.80 86.49 50.8737.59 104.48 31 . 4 2 1 7 8 . 0 1 115.61137.48130.5 1 115.00 115.00 115.00 96.6285.0085.0085.0085.00 96.6285.0085.0085.0085.00 120.00120.00120.00120.00120.0023.6 1 64.5429.48156.30NOTES: NOTES: • ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES. • DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. • ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED. • IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION. • THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION. • ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS. • THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.) REVISIONS : REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022 CONTACT : EMAIL :team@golivio.com PROJECT : THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA 650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022 As indicated A1.002 NEIGHBOURHOOD SITE LAYOUT 20538, Lynde ct 22-SEPT-2022 SAGAR SUBHENDU Lynde Ct 20552205402053820526 13904 Lynde Ave 20579 13909 13901 13893 20538 20526 20538 20540 1" = 20'-0"11 NEIGHBOURHOOD SITE LAYOUT 117 NOTES: NOTES: • ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES. • DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. • ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED. • IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION. • THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION. • ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS. • THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.) REVISIONS : REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022 CONTACT : EMAIL :team@golivio.com PROJECT : THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA 650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022 As indicated A1.003 NEIGHBOURHOOD CONTEXT MAP 20538, Lynde ct 22-SEPT-2022 SAGAR SUBHENDU 20526 ONE STORY, HIP AND GABLE ROOF, WIDE SIDING CONTEXT MAP 20579 ONE STORY, HIP AND GABLE ROOF, WIDE HORIZONTAL SIDING 20540 ONE STORY, HIP AND GABLE ROOF, WIDE BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING 20552 ONE STORY, HIP AND GABLE ROOF, STUCCO FINISH 20538 TWO STORY, TPO ROOF, WIDE SIDING 13909 TWO STORY, HIP AND GABLE ROOF, STUCCO FINISH 13901 TWO STORY, HIP AND GABLE ROOF, WIDE SIDING 13893 TWO STORY, HIP AND GABLE ROOF, WIDE SIDING13904ONE STORY, HIP AND GABLE ROOF, WIDE SIDING 118 N 49°47'51" E 178.01'N 69°38'22" E 115.61'N0°24'00"W 121.80' Δ=81 D 5 1' 0 4" L=60.0 0' R=42.0 0' N0°24'00"W 35.00' BASIS OF BEARINGS 5' P.U.E. 5' W.C.E. LOT 11 TRACT 3 2 5 9 151 MA P S 2 7 LOT 13 TRACT 3 2 5 9 151 MA P S 2 7 464.33464.70464.86464.73SITE BENCHMARK465.91465.60465.51SSMH RIM465.46TC465.26TC464.51TC464.42TC464.91TC465.14465.00464.88464.84464.84464.60464.89464.53464.17464.50464.24464.46464.90464.20464.16464.22464.20464.31464.27464.55464.40464.65464.68464.49464.38464.40464.17464.50464.12464.21464.10464.12464.63464.55464.57464.02464.27464.37464.39464.40464.37464.32464.25464.24464.22463.66463.13463.49463.74463.55463.28462.91463.13462.64462.41462.84463.83464.66464.48464.59464.32463.87463.82463.74463.98464.30464.28LYNDE C O U R TN 49°47'51" E 178.01'N 69°38'22" E 115.61'N0°24'00"W 121.80' Δ=81 D 5 1' 0 4" L=60.0 0' R=42.0 0' N0°24'00"W 35.00' BASIS OF BEARINGS 5' P.U.E. 5' W.C.E. LOT 11 TRACT 3 2 5 9 151 MA P S 2 7 LOT 13 TRACT 3 2 5 9 151 MA P S 2 7 464.33464.70464.86464.73SITE BENCHMARK465.91465.60465.51SSMH RIM465.46TC465.26TC464.51TC464.42TC464.91TC465.14465.00464.88464.84464.84464.60464.89464.53464.17464.50464.24464.46464.90464.20464.16464.22464.20464.31464.27464.55464.40464.65464.68464.49464.38464.40464.17464.50464.12464.21464.10464.12464.63464.55464.57464.02464.27464.37464.39464.40464.37464.32464.25464.24464.22463.66463.13463.49463.74463.55463.28462.91463.13462.64462.41462.84463.83464.66464.48464.59464.32463.87463.82463.74463.98464.30464.28LYNDE C O U R T PROPERTY LINE LEVEL 2 SETBACK LINE 9 3 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " OH OHOH OH OH SECOND LEVEL BUILDING OUTLINE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PROPERTY LINE E N T R Y CONCRETE OR TILES ON CONCRETE CONCRETE OR TILES ON CONCRETE UPNTR-1 TR-11 TR-15 4 2 ' - 0 " 3 4 ' - 1 3 / 4 " GM EM JTJTJTJTJTJTSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSCO (N)W W W W CONCRETE WALKWAY8 3 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " NEW WATER METER OPEN PATIO COVERED PORCH OPEN PORCH 4' - 11 3/4"ADJC E N T H O U S E ADJCENT HOUSE FENCING AC / HEAT PUMP AC / HEAT PUMP ADU 1ST LVL PROPSED SETBACK8' - 5"46' - 2 1 /4 "44' - 4 1 /2 "25' - 0 3 /4 " 2 0 ' - 0 " GARAGE 115' - 7 1 /4 " 1 7 7 ' - 1 0 " 122' - 0 3/4"2ND LVL ALLOWED SETBACK35' - 0"LOT WI DT H82' - 5 3/4"2ND LEVEL PROPOSED SETBACK21' - 6 3/4"2ND LVL PROPOSED SETBACK35' - 0"TREE PROTECTION FENCE 20' - 0"1 S T L V L P R O P O S E D E T B A C K 3 0 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " 2 N D L V L P R O P O S E D S E T B A C K 3 3 ' - 7 3 / 4 " DRIVEWAY O P E N I N G 21' - 3 1/2" 1ST LVL A L L O W E D S E T B A C K 8' - 3" 2ND LVL P R O P O S E D S E T B A C K 13' - 3" 2ND LV L A L L O W E D S E T B A C K 13' - 3"1ST LVL ALLOWED SETBACK25' - 0"1 S T & 2 N D L V L A L LOW E D S E T B A C K 2 5 ' - 0 " TR-1 TR-3-R TR-7-R 12" TR-8-R 7.4" TR-9-R 5.8" TR-11 29"TR-12-R 23" TR-13-R 16" TR-14 19" TR-16-R 5" CHERRY LAUREL CHERRY LAUREL LIQUIDAMABAR PEAR PLUMOT DEODAR CEDAR MODESTO ASH MODESTO ASH MODESTO ASH 7" 6.5" BLACK ACACIATR-4-R 6" LEMON MODESTO ASH DOGWOODTR-2-R 3" CHERRY LAUREL TR-6-R 5" TR-5-R 6" BLACK ACACIA TR-15 21"2ND LVL ALLOWED SETBACK13' - 3"1ST LVL PROPSED SETBACK28' - 6"1ST LVL P R O P S E D S E T B A C K 8' - 5 3/4"1ST LVL ALLOWED SETBACK8' - 3"LO T DE P TH 1 3 4 ' - 1 1 / 4 " 3' - 0 " 3' - 0 " 3' - 0 " OUTDOOR KITCHEN TREE PROTECTION FENCE SECOND STORY FOOTPRINT SETBACK LINE SITE LEGENDS : TREE TO BE REMOVE JOINT TRENCH SANITORY SEWER WATER LINE JT JT JT SS SS SS W W W 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN NOTES: NOTES: • ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES. • DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. • ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED. • IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION. • THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION. • ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS. • THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.) REVISIONS : REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022 CONTACT : EMAIL :team@golivio.com PROJECT : THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA 650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022 As indicated A1.004 SITE LAYOUT 20538, Lynde ct 22-SEPT-2022 SAGAR SUBHENDU 119 N 49°47'51" E 178.01'N 69°38'22" E 115.61'N0°24'00"W 121.80' Δ=81 D 5 1' 0 4" L=60.0 0' R=42.0 0' N0°24'00"W 35.00' BASIS OF BEARINGS 5' P.U.E. 5' W.C.E. LOT 11 TRACT 3 2 5 9 151 MA P S 2 7 LOT 13 TRACT 3 2 5 9 151 MA P S 2 7 464.33464.70464.86464.73SITE BENCHMARK465.91465.60465.51SSMH RIM465.46TC465.26TC464.51TC464.42TC464.91TC465.14465.00464.88464.84464.84464.60464.89464.53464.76464.17464.50464.24464.46464.90464.20464.27464.31464.44464.16464.20464.25464.12464.19464.77464.35464.30464.31464.31464.08464.55464.40464.41464.65464.68464.49464.38464.40464.17464.50464.12464.21464.10464.12464.63464.55464.57464.48464.02464.27464.37464.39464.40464.37464.32464.25464.24464.22463.66463.13463.49463.74463.55463.28462.91463.13462.64462.41462.84463.83464.66464.48464.59464.61464.87464.32463.87463.82463.74463.98464.42464.37464.30464.05464.03464.26464.28NEIGHB O RI N G H O USE CB WM MB CONC D/ W WOOD DECKEL=465.7SPACONC PATI O CONC WALK CHIMNEY CONC WALK NEIGHB O RI N G H O USE TREE #19.3"/5.6"TREE #712.3"TREE #23"/3"TREE #36.5"TREE #45.8"TREE #56"TREE #65.1"TREE #87.4"TREE #1014"TREE #95.8"TREE #1128.8"TREE #1223"TREE #1316.1"TREE #1418.8"TREE #1521.2"TREE #176"LYNDE C O U R TN 49°47'51" E 178.01'N 69°38'22" E 115.61'N0°24'00"W 121.80' Δ=81 D 5 1' 0 4" L=60.0 0' R=42.0 0' N0°24'00"W 35.00' BASIS OF BEARINGS 5' P.U.E. 5' W.C.E. LOT 11 TRACT 3 2 5 9 151 MA P S 2 7 LOT 13 TRACT 3 2 5 9 151 MA P S 2 7 464.33464.70464.86464.73SITE BENCHMARK465.91465.60465.51SSMH RIM465.46TC465.26TC464.51TC464.42TC464.91TC465.14465.00464.88464.84464.84464.60464.89464.53464.76464.17464.50464.24464.46464.90464.20464.27464.31464.44464.16464.20464.25464.12464.19464.77464.35464.30464.31464.31464.08464.55464.40464.41464.65464.68464.49464.38464.40464.17464.50464.12464.21464.10464.12464.63464.55464.57464.48464.02464.27464.37464.39464.40464.37464.32464.25464.24464.22463.66463.13463.49463.74463.55463.28462.91463.13462.64462.41462.84463.83464.66464.48464.59464.61464.87464.32463.87463.82463.74463.98464.42464.37464.30464.05464.03464.26464.28NEIGHB O RI N G H O USE CB WM MB CONC D/ W WOOD DECKEL=465.7SPACONC PATI O CONC WALK CHIMNEY CONC WALK NEIGHB O RI N G H O USE TREE #19.3"/5.6"TREE #712.3"TREE #23"/3"TREE #36.5"TREE #45.8"TREE #56"TREE #65.1"TREE #87.4"TREE #1014"TREE #95.8"TREE #1128.8"TREE #1223"TREE #1316.1"TREE #1418.8"TREE #1521.2"TREE #176"LYNDE C O U R TN 49°47'51" E 178.01'N 69°38'22" E 115.61'N0°24'00"W 121.80' Δ=81 D 5 1' 0 4" L=60.0 0' R=42.0 0' N0°24'00"W 35.00' BASIS OF BEARINGS 5' P.U.E. 5' W.C.E. LOT 11 TRACT 3 2 5 9 151 MA P S 2 7 LOT 13 TRACT 3 2 5 9 151 MA P S 2 7 464.33464.70464.86464.73SITE BENCHMARK465.91465.60465.51SSMH RIM465.46TC465.26TC464.51TC464.42TC464.91TC465.14465.00464.88464.84464.84464.60464.89464.53464.76464.17464.50464.24464.46464.90464.20464.27464.31464.44464.16464.20464.25464.12464.19464.77464.35464.30464.31464.31464.08464.55464.40464.41464.65464.68464.49464.38464.40464.17464.50464.12464.21464.10464.12464.63464.55464.57464.48464.02464.27464.37464.39464.40464.37464.32464.25464.24464.22463.66463.13463.49463.74463.55463.28462.91463.13462.64462.41462.84463.83464.66464.48464.59464.61464.87464.32463.87463.82463.74463.98464.42464.37464.30464.05464.03464.26464.28NEIGHB O RI N G H O USE CB WM MB CONC D/ W WOOD DECKEL=465.7SPACONC PATI O CONC WALK CHIMNEY CONC WALK NEIGHB O RI N G H O USE TREE #19.3"/5.6"TREE #712.3"TREE #23"/3"TREE #36.5"TREE #45.8"TREE #56"TREE #65.1"TREE #87.4"TREE #1014"TREE #95.8"TREE #1128.8"TREE #1223"TREE #1316.1"TREE #1418.8"TREE #1521.2"TREE #176"LYNDE C O U R T HATCHED AREA TO BE DEMOLISHED NOTES: NOTES: • ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES. • DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. • ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED. • IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION. • THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION. • ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS. • THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.) REVISIONS : REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022 CONTACT : EMAIL :team@golivio.com PROJECT : THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA 650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022 1/8" = 1'-0" A1.005 SITE DEMOLITION 20538, Lynde ct 22-SEPT-2022 SAGAR SUBHENDU 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SITE DEMOLITION 120 NOTES: NOTES: • ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES. • DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. • ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED. • IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION. • THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION. • ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS. • THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.) REVISIONS : REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022 CONTACT : EMAIL :team@golivio.com PROJECT : THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA 650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022 3/64" = 1'-0" A1.006 SHADOW ANALYSIS DIAGRAM 20538, Lynde ct 22-SEPT-2022 SHRADHA M. SUBHENDU 3/64" = 1'-0"1 DECEMBER 21 AT 3.00 PM 3/64" = 1'-0"2 DECEMBER 21 AT 9.00 AM SHADOW ANALYSIS AT 09:00 AM ON 21ST DECEMBER N N Shadow at 09:00 AM falls behind the proposed building. West neighbouring house Lot Area : 11631 sq.ft.Shadow percentage on lot : 7.52 % Shadow Area : 874.88 sq.ft Roof area : 2607 sq.ft. Shadow percentage on roof : 3.20 %Shadow Area : 83.44 sq.ft. SITE SHADOW ANALYSIS AT 03:00 PM ON 21ST DECEMBER Shadow at 03:00 PM falls on the East side neighbouring house. East neighbouring house Lot Area : 11404 sq.ft.Shadow percentage on lot : 0 % Shadow Area : 0 sq.ft. Roof area : 3036 sq.ft. Shadow percentage on roof : 0 %Shadow Area : 0 sq.ft. EAST NEIGHBOURING HOUSE WEST NEIGHBOURING HOUSE EAST NEIGHBOURING HOUSE WEST NEIGHBOURING HOUSE 20538 LYNDE CT 20538 LYNDE CT 121 N 49°47'51" E 178.01'N 69°38'22" E 115.61'N0°24'00"W 121.80' Δ=81 D 5 1' 0 4 " L=60.0 0' R=42.0 0' 5' P.U.E. 5' W.C.E. LOT 11 TRACT 3 2 5 9 151 MA P S 2 7 LOT 13 TRACT 3 2 5 9 151 MA P S 2 7 464.33464.70464.86464.73SITE BENCHMARKSSMH RIM465.46TC465.26TC464.51TC464.42TC464.91TC465.14465.00464.88464.84464.84464.60464.89464.53464.17464.50464.24464.46464.90464.20464.16464.22464.20464.31464.27464.55464.40464.65464.68464.49464.38464.40464.17464.50464.12464.21464.10464.12464.63464.55464.57464.02464.27464.37464.39464.40464.37464.32464.25464.24464.22463.66463.13463.49463.74463.55463.28462.91463.13462.64462.41462.84463.83464.66464.48464.32463.87463.82463.74463.98464.30464.28LYNDE C O U R TN 49°47'51" E 178.01'N 69°38'22" E 115.61'N0°24'00"W 121.80' Δ=81 D 5 1' 0 4 " L=60.0 0' R=42.0 0' 5' P.U.E. 5' W.C.E. LOT 11 TRACT 3 2 5 9 151 MA P S 2 7 LOT 13 TRACT 3 2 5 9 151 MA P S 2 7 464.33464.70464.86464.73SITE BENCHMARKSSMH RIM465.46TC465.26TC464.51TC464.42TC464.91TC465.14465.00464.88464.84464.84464.60464.89464.53464.17464.50464.24464.46464.90464.20464.16464.22464.20464.31464.27464.55464.40464.65464.68464.49464.38464.40464.17464.50464.12464.21464.10464.12464.63464.55464.57464.02464.27464.37464.39464.40464.37464.32464.25464.24464.22463.66463.13463.49463.74463.55463.28462.91463.13462.64462.41462.84463.83464.66464.48464.32463.87463.82463.74463.98464.30464.28LYNDE C O U R TN 49°47'51" E 178.01'N 69°38'22" E 115.61'N0°24'00"W 121.80' Δ=81 D 5 1' 0 4 " L=60.0 0' R=42.0 0' 5' P.U.E. 5' W.C.E. LOT 11 TRACT 3 2 5 9 151 MA P S 2 7 LOT 13 TRACT 3 2 5 9 151 MA P S 2 7 464.33464.70464.86464.73SITE BENCHMARKSSMH RIM465.46TC465.26TC464.51TC464.42TC464.91TC465.14465.00464.88464.84464.84464.60464.89464.53464.17464.50464.24464.46464.90464.20464.16464.22464.20464.31464.27464.55464.40464.65464.68464.49464.38464.40464.17464.50464.12464.21464.10464.12464.63464.55464.57464.02464.27464.37464.39464.40464.37464.32464.25464.24464.22463.66463.13463.49463.74463.55463.28462.91463.13462.64462.41462.84463.83464.66464.48464.32463.87463.82463.74463.98464.30464.28LYNDE C O U R T ADJCENT HOUSE 2 A1.007 G R E A T R O O M B E L O W 3 A1.007 8' - 6"2' - 0"20526 20538 8' - 3"1' - 9"20540 20538 NOTES: NOTES: • ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES. • DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. • ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED. • IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION. • THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION. • ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS. • THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.) REVISIONS : REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022 CONTACT : EMAIL :team@golivio.com PROJECT : THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA 650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022 As indicated A1.007 PRIVACY DIAGRAM 20538, Lynde ct 22-SEPT-2022 SAGAR SUBHENDU 3/32" = 1'-0"1 PRIVACY DIAGRAM -LEVEL 2 3/16" = 1'-0"2 PRIVACY SECTION 1 3/16" = 1'-0"3 PRIVACY SECTION 2 ON THE LEFT AND RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOUSE, ALL ARE THE CLERESTORY WINDOWS. FRONT AND REAR SIDE OF THE LOT IS HAVING ROAD VIEWS. NOTE 122 ? FOYER 8'-9" X 6'-5" PANTRY 10'-3" X 10'-0" MUD/LAUNDRY 21'-3" X 18'-10" GARAGE 11'-10" X 10'-3" OFFICE 16'-0" X 13'-6" ADU BEDROOM 9'-7" X 4'-3" ADU WALK IN CLOSET 8'-9" X 5'-6" POWDER ROOM 4'-0" X 4'-0" ELE 13'-7" X 13'-0" ADU LIVING AREA 19'-9" X 17'-5" KITCHEN 13'-4" X 11'-3" DINING 8'-6" X 5'-2" ADU TOILET UP 22'-0" X 13'-4" GREAT ROOM 24'-11" X 4'-5" HALLWAY 4'-7" X 3'-1" ADU WC OUTDOOR KITCHEN W01 W01 W04 W01 W01 W04 W02 W02 W01 W02 W01 W02 W02 W02 W02 W01 W02 W03 W01 W04 RISER -19 NOS TRADE DEPTH -11" RISER HEIGHT -7" FLIGHT WIDTH -3'9" W01 15'-7" X 8'-9" ADU KITCHEN 43' - 10 1/4"63' - 2 3/4"56' - 9" ENTRYD1 D2 D2 D2 D4 SLD1 SLD3 D7 SLD4 SLD4 SLD5 D7 GD SLD7 W1 W1 SK7 SK7 A A4.001 B A4.001 W3 W4 ADU 4'-0" X 2'-3" CLOSET 4'-11" X 3'-2" ADU SHR 61' - 2 3/4"D2 EM GM D6 W02 W02 W03 W7 W7 0' - 7"10' - 0"1' - 4 1/4"6' - 0"0' - 6"0' - 10 1/2"4' - 4 3/4"1' - 10 1/2"4' - 4 3/4"4' - 1 3/4"11' - 6"3' - 1"12' - 0"2' - 6"20' - 0"20' - 0" 0' - 6"13' - 6"29' - 4 1/4"0' - 6" COVERED PORCH CONCRETE OR TILES ON CONCRETE PORCH MICROWAVE AND OVEN COLUMN REFRIGERATOR COLUMN FREEZER UNIT WITH BUILT-INCOFFEE MACHINE CROKERY UNIT DRYER WASHER FULL HEIGHTSTORAGEBENCH WITHDRAWERS BELOWAPPLIANCE GARAGEOVER COUNTERTOP UNDER COUNTERREFRIGERATOR ICE DRAWERS CABINETS 3' - 0"3' - 0" D8 SLD20' - 6"16' - 0"0' - 4"15' - 6 3/4"0' - 4"5' - 6"0' - 4"6' - 2 3/4"0' - 6"17' - 5 1/4"0' - 6"0' - 6"4' - 4"4' - 8"4' - 4"10' - 0 1/4"2' - 6"17' - 6"0' - 6"6' - 8"0' - 6"20' - 0"0' - 6"10' - 2 1/2"0' - 4"22' - 0 1/4"0' - 6"9' - 7"16' - 2"3' - 2 1/4"8' - 0"1' - 9 1/4"2' - 4 1/2"4' - 0 3/4"2' - 3"2' - 6 1/2"9' - 1"2' - 2 1/2"0' - 10"14' - 0"13' - 5"6' - 3"12' - 0"6' - 3"1' - 3"2' - 9" 0' - 6"53' - 0"0' - 6"2' - 3"0' - 6" W2W2 W12 W01 W13 3' - 0" TYPICAL 2X6 EXTEROIR WALL @ 16" O.C. TYPICAL 2X4 INTERIOR WALL @ 16" O.C. W01 W02 W03 TYPICAL 2X4 INTERIOR CONCRETE WALL @ 16" O.C. NOTES: NOTES: • ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES. • DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. • ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED. • IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION. • THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION. • ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS. • THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.) REVISIONS : REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022 CONTACT : EMAIL :team@golivio.com PROJECT : THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA 650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022 As indicated A2.001 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 20538, Lynde ct 22-SEPT-2022 SAGAR SUBHENDU 1/4" = 1'-0"1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN WALL LEGENDS A. ALL PLANS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO ALL APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES, INCLUDING THE 2019 CBC AND THE CRC. B. THE BUILDING ADDRESS SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION R319 CRC. C. WALL FRAMING SHALL BE 2x6 AT 16" O.C. WITH 1/2" EXTERIOR SHEATHING AT EXTERIOR WALLS AND 2x4 AT 16" O.C. WITH 5/8" GYP. BOARD AT INTERIOR WALLS. SHEAR WALL PANELS AND SPECIAL FRAMING CONDITIONS WILL BE NOTED IN THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. D. PROVIDE 1/2" GYP. BOARD AT WALLS AND CEILING UNDER STAIR USABLE ENCLOSED SPACES. E. STANDARD DOOR FRAMING SHALL OCCUR 4" FROM RETURN WALL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. HARDWARE PER OWNER. F. ALL EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL HAVE A LANDING WITH A MAXIMUM 7.75" STEP. G. ALL BEDROOMS SHALL HAVE A WINDOW THAT MEETS EGRESS REQUIREMENTS. THIS WINDOW SHALL BE DESIGNATE BY AN (E) AFTER THE WINDOW SIZE AND STYLE. EGRESS WINDOWS SHALL HAVE A NET CLEAR OPENING OF NOT LESS THAN 5.7 SQ FT. THE NET CLEAR HEIGHT OPENING SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 24 INCHES AND THE NET CLEAR WIDTH SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 20 INCHES. GRADE FLOOR AND BELOW GRADE OPENINGS SHALL HAVE A NET CLEAR OPENING OF NOT LESS THAN 5 SQ FT. EGRESS WINDOWS SHALL HAVE THE BOTTOM OF THE CLEAR OPENING NOT GREATER THAN 44 INCHES MEASURED FROM THE FLOOR. WINDOWS BELOW GRADE SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A WINDOW WELL. CRC R310.2 H. ALL OTHER WINDOWS SHALL BE OPERABLE UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. I. ALL GLAZING IN SLIDING GLASS DOORS, SHOWER ENCLOSURES, AND OTHER REQUIRED SAFETY LOCATIONS SHALL HAVE SAFETY TEMPERED GLASS. CRC R308.4 J. BALCONY FLOOR SHALL BE 2" BELOW FINISH FLOOR AND SLOPED 1/4" PER FOOT AWAY FROM DOORS. DOOR OPENINGS SHALL BE PROPERLY FLASHED. DRAINAGE PIPE WILL GO THROUGH FASCIA TO GUTTER. K. EXTERIOR A/C UNITS ARE ANCHORED TO 3" CONCRETE SLABS SHOWN ON PLANS. GENERAL NOTES 123 18'-5" X 12'-6" MASTER BEDROOM 10'-7" X 9'-6" M. BATH 9'-6" X 7'-7" M. WALKIN WARDROBE 16'-2" X 10'-8" GUEST BEDROOM 2 20'-4" X 4'-4" TERRACE 16'-4" X 8'-3" HALLWAY BELOW 4'-0" X 4'-0" ELE 16'-3" X 3'-7" PASSAGE 9'-0" X 5'-0" BATH 2 24'-2" X 3'-8" TERRACE 6'-6" X 5'-0" CLOSET 13'-0" X 12'-0" GUEST BEDROOM 1 6'-8" X 5'-7" CLOSET 9'-0" X 5'-7" BATH DN 17'-10" X 7'-6" FAMILY ROOM W03 W03 W01 W01 W04 W02W02 W02 W01 W02 W02 W02 W02 W02 W02 W01 W01 W01 W02 W01 TPO ROOF D2 D2 D2 D3 D3D3 D3 D5 D5 D5 D5 D6 SLD1 SLD1 SLD7 W4W6W6 A A4.001 B A4.001 RISER -19 NOS TRADE DEPTH -11" RISER HEIGHT -7" FLIGHT WIDTH -3'9" 4' - 0" W7 DOWN SPOUT OVER FLOW SLOPE1/4" PER FT.SLOPE1/4" PER FT.W02 24' - 2 1/4"OVERHANG SLOPE - 2" / 1'-0"1' - 6"2' - 0" 1' - 6"1' - 6"FIRST LEVEL ROOF W02 W03 W03 2' - 0"2' - 0"2' - 8" DOWN SPOUT OVER FLOW CRICKETCRICKET DOWN SPOUT OVER FLOW CRICKETCRICKET36' - 7 1/2"0' - 6"5' - 0"0' - 4"11' - 0"0' - 4"12' - 10 1/4"0' - 6"5' - 7 1/4"0' - 6"7' - 4"8' - 0"4' - 1 1/4"8' - 0"9' - 2 1/2"0' - 6"21' - 10"0' - 6"3' - 4"0' - 4"35' - 11 3/4"0' - 6"6' - 0"3' - 6 1/2"5' - 11 1/2"2' - 1"10' - 6"7' - 5 1/4"10' - 6"0' - 6"20' - 0"0' - 4"9' - 0"0' - 4"6' - 8"0' - 6" 11' - 0 1/4"10' - 0"11' - 0 1/4"4' - 6"11' - 3 1/4" 5'-5" X 4'-0" CLOSET 0' - 6"5' - 4 1/2"0' - 6"12' - 6 3/4"0' - 4"7' - 5 3/4"0' - 6"8' - 3 1/4"0' - 6"SLD3 SLD6 TYPICAL 2X6 EXTEROIR WALL @ 16" O.C. TYPICAL 2X4 INTERIOR WALL @ 16" O.C. W01 W02 W03 TYPICAL 2X4 INTERIOR CONCRETE WALL @ 16" O.C. NOTES: NOTES: • ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES. • DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. • ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED. • IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION. • THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION. • ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS. • THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.) REVISIONS : REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022 CONTACT : EMAIL :team@golivio.com PROJECT : THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA 650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022 As indicated A2.002 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 20538, Lynde ct 22-SEPT-2022 SAGAR SUBHENDU1/4" = 1'-0"1 SECOND FLOOR PLAN WALL LEGENDS A. ALL PLANS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO ALL APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES, INCLUDING THE 2019 CBC AND THE CRC. B. THE BUILDING ADDRESS SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION R319 CRC. C. WALL FRAMING SHALL BE 2x6 AT 16" O.C. WITH 1/2" EXTERIOR SHEATHING AT EXTERIOR WALLS AND 2x4 AT 16" O.C. WITH 5/8" GYP. BOARD AT INTERIOR WALLS. SHEAR WALL PANELS AND SPECIAL FRAMING CONDITIONS WILL BE NOTED IN THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. D. PROVIDE 1/2" GYP. BOARD AT WALLS AND CEILING UNDER STAIR USABLE ENCLOSED SPACES. E. STANDARD DOOR FRAMING SHALL OCCUR 4" FROM RETURN WALL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. HARDWARE PER OWNER. F. ALL EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL HAVE A LANDING WITH A MAXIMUM 7.75" STEP. G. ALL BEDROOMS SHALL HAVE A WINDOW THAT MEETS EGRESS REQUIREMENTS. THIS WINDOW SHALL BE DESIGNATE BY AN (E) AFTER THE WINDOW SIZE AND STYLE. EGRESS WINDOWS SHALL HAVE A NET CLEAR OPENING OF NOT LESS THAN 5.7 SQ FT. THE NET CLEAR HEIGHT OPENING SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 24 INCHES AND THE NET CLEAR WIDTH SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 20 INCHES. GRADE FLOOR AND BELOW GRADE OPENINGS SHALL HAVE A NET CLEAR OPENING OF NOT LESS THAN 5 SQ FT. EGRESS WINDOWS SHALL HAVE THE BOTTOM OF THE CLEAR OPENING NOT GREATER THAN 44 INCHES MEASURED FROM THE FLOOR. WINDOWS BELOW GRADE SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A WINDOW WELL. CRC R310.2 H. ALL OTHER WINDOWS SHALL BE OPERABLE UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. I. ALL GLAZING IN SLIDING GLASS DOORS, SHOWER ENCLOSURES, AND OTHER REQUIRED SAFETY LOCATIONS SHALL HAVE SAFETY TEMPERED GLASS. CRC R308.4 J. BALCONY FLOOR SHALL BE 2" BELOW FINISH FLOOR AND SLOPED 1/4" PER FOOT AWAY FROM DOORS. DOOR OPENINGS SHALL BE PROPERLY FLASHED. DRAINAGE PIPE WILL GO THROUGH FASCIA TO GUTTER. K. EXTERIOR A/C UNITS ARE ANCHORED TO 3" CONCRETE SLABS SHOWN ON PLANS. GENERAL NOTES 124 A A4.001 B A4.001 SECOND LEVEL TERRACESECOND LEVELTERRACE BELOWOVERHANG OVERHANG BELOW ROOF DOWN SPOUT OVER FLOW DOWN SPOUT OVER FLOW DOWN SPOUT OVER FLOW SLOPE1/4" PER FT.SLOPE1/4" PER FT.SLOPE1/4" PER FT.SK2 SK3 SK2 OVERHANG CRICKET CRICKETSLOPE - 2" / 1'-0"OVERHANGSLOPE - 2" / 1'-0"1' - 6"TPO TPO GUTTER OVERHANG GUTTER 1' - 6" 1' - 6" 1' - 6"1' - 6 1/4"1' - 6"FIRST LEVEL ROOF SECOND LEVEL ROOF FIRST LEVEL ROOF DOWN SPOUT OVER FLOW CRICKETCRICKET DOWN SPOUT OVER FLOW CRICKETCRICKET1' - 6" CRICKETCRICKET0' - 6"1' - 6"42' - 6" 28' - 1"18' - 6"21' - 0"10' - 6 1/2"24' - 0 1/4"22' - 3 1/2"17' - 4 1/4"57' - 0" 5' - 8"41' - 4"21' - 5 1/2"13' - 1 1/2"20' - 2 1/2"19' - 11"5' - 0"12' - 4 3/4"3' - 2" 9' - 0" 2' - 0" 2' - 0"1' - 6"2' - 1 1/4"2' - 0"2' - 0"2' - 8" 1' - 6"NOTES: NOTES: • ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES. • DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. • ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED. • IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION. • THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION. • ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS. • THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.) REVISIONS : REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022 CONTACT : EMAIL :team@golivio.com PROJECT : THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA 650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022 1/4" = 1'-0" A2.003 ROOF PLAN 20538, Lynde ct 22-SEPT-2022 SAGAR SUBHENDU 1/4" = 1'-0"1 ROOF LEVEL PLAN 125 LEVEL 1466' -2 1/2" GRADE LEVEL465' -2 1/2" LEVEL 2477' -2 1/2" SLD4SLD5 SLD1 SLD1 SLD3 W4 METAL GUARD RAIL SMOOTH STUCCO WITH PAINT SMOOTH STUCCO WITH PAINT SMOOTH STUCCO WITH PAINT 1' - 0"10' - 0"1' - 0"464' - 6"464' - 3 3/4"464' - 1" LOWEST EX-GRADE EX-GRADEHIGHEST EX-GRADEEX-GRADE 463' - 8 1/2" PROPOSED GRADE 464' - 6" PROPOSED GRADE 464' - 7" AVERAGE EX-GRADE ROOF LEVEL487' -8 1/2" TOP OF THE ROOF490' -5 3/4"2' - 9 1/4"10' - 6"HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING25' - 10 3/4"1' - 6" OVERHANG SK2 SK3 1' - 6" OVERHANG 1' - 6" OVERHANG W7 W7 SLOPE - 2" / 1'-0" SLOPE - 2" / 1'-0" 477' - 0 1/2" 487' - 8 1/2" SK2 WOOD FINISH SMOOTH STUCCO WITH PAINT SECOND LEVEL ROOF SECOND LEVEL ROOF FIRST LEVEL ROOF GUTTER GUTTER FIRST LEVEL ROOF W8 464' - 2"465' 2 1/2" 466' 2 1/2" 477' 2 1/2" 487' 8 1/2" 490' 5 3/4" 0' 0" 1' 0" 12' 0" 22' 6" 25' 4" 1' - 6" LEVEL 1466' -2 1/2" GRADE LEVEL465' -2 1/2" LEVEL 2477' -2 1/2" W3 W7 1' - 0"10' - 0"1' - 0"6' - 6"SMOOTH STUCCO WITH PAINT SMOOTH STUCCO WITH PAINT SMOOTH STUCCO WITH PAINT 464' - 7 1/4"464' - 6 1/4"464' - 1" EX-GRADE EX-GRADE EX-GRADE EX-GRADE 464' - 8 1/2" PROPOSED GRADE 463' - 8 1/2" PROPOSED GRADE 464' - 7" AVERAGE EX-GRADE 477' - 2 1/2" ROOF LEVEL487' -8 1/2" TOP OF THE ROOF490' -5 3/4"2' - 9 1/4"10' - 6"HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING25' - 10 3/4"SK2 479' - 9" 487' - 8 1/2" WOOD FINISH SLOPE - 2" / 1'-0"SECOND LEVEL ROOF 490' - 5"490' - 0" SECOND LEVEL ROOF FIRST LEVEL ROOF GUTTER W2 W2 464' - 1 1/2" 465' 2 1/2" 466' 2 1/2" 477' 2 1/2" 487' 8 1/2" 490' 5 3/4" 0' 0" 1' 0" 12' 0" 22' 6" 25' 4" 1' - 6" 2' - 0"2' - 0" OVERHANG OVERHANG W11 NOTES: NOTES: • ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES. • DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. • ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED. • IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION. • THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION. • ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS. • THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.) REVISIONS : REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022 CONTACT : EMAIL :team@golivio.com PROJECT : THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA 650-209-6500 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022 3/16" = 1'-0" A3.001 REAR AND LEFT ELEVATION 20538, Lynde ct 22-SEPT-2022 SAGAR SUBHENDU 3/16" = 1'-0"1 REAR ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"2 LEFT ELEVATION 126 LEVEL 1466' -2 1/2" GRADE LEVEL465' -2 1/2" LEVEL 2477' -2 1/2"1' - 0"9' - 10"1' - 0"GDSK7SK7 D1 SLD1 GM EM SMOOTH STUCCO WITH PAINT WOOD FINISH SMOOTH STUCCO WITH PAINT 464' - 2 1/2" 464' - 1 1/4"464' - 7 1/4" 464' - 7 1/4" EX-GRADEEX-GRADE EX-GRADE EX-GRADE 464' - 6"464' - 8 1/2" PROPOSED GRADE PROPOSED GRADE 464' - 8 1/2" PROPOSED GRADE 464' - 8 1/2" PROPOSED GRADE 464' - 4" PROPOSED GRADE 464' - 7" AVERAGE EX-GRADE 477' - 2 1/2" ROOF LEVEL487' -8 1/2" SK3 SK2 25' - 10 3/4"2' - 9 1/4"10' - 6"TOP OF THE ROOF490' -5 3/4" SK2 3' - 0"6' - 3"487' - 8 1/2" SLOPE - 2" / 1'-0" SLOPE - 2" / 1'-0" 1' - 6" OVERHANG OVERHANG GUTTER FIRST LEVEL ROOF GUTTER SECOND LEVEL ROOF SECOND LEVEL ROOFW8 1' - 6" OVERHANG W9 W10 SLD2 465' 2 1/2" 466' 2 1/2" 477' 2 1/2" 487' 8 1/2" 490' 5 3/4" 0' 0" 1' 0" 12' 0" 22' 6" 25' 4" 1' - 6 1/4" OVERHANG 2' - 0" OVERHANGW12 SLD3 SLD6 SMOOTH STUCCO WITH PAINT 3' - 0"LEVEL 1466' -2 1/2" GRADE LEVEL465' -2 1/2" LEVEL 2477' -2 1/2" W4 W6 W6 W1W1 SLD46' - 6"6' - 6"6' - 6"EM GM SMOOTH STUCCO WITH PAINT SMOOTH STUCCO WITH PAINT 1' - 0"10' - 0"1' - 0"464' - 2 1/2"465' - 3"464' - 6" 463' - 9" EX-GRADE EX-GRADEEX-GRADEHEIGHEST EX-GRADE 464' - 6" PROPOSED GRADE 464' - 8 1/2" PROPOSED GRADE 464' - 6" PROPOSED GRADE 464' - 2 1/2" EX-GRADE 464' - 7" AVERAGE EX-GRADE3' - 0"6' - 3"3' - 2" D4 480' - 9 1/2" ROOF LEVEL487' -8 1/2"HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING25' - 10 3/4"TOP OF THE ROOF490' -5 3/4" 490' - 0" SK3 SK2 490' - 5" WOOD FINISH SLOPE - 2" / 1'-0"SECOND LEVEL ROOF 1' - 6" OVERHANG FIRST LEVEL ROOF 2' - 9 1/4"10' - 6"465' 2 1/2" 466' 2 1/2" 477' 2 1/2" 487' 8 1/2" 490' 5 3/4" 0' 0" 1' 0" W13 NOTES: NOTES: • ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES. • DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. • ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED. • IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION. • THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION. • ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS. • THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.) REVISIONS : REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022 CONTACT : EMAIL :team@golivio.com PROJECT : THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA 650-209-6500 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022 3/16" = 1'-0" A3.002 FRONT AND RIGHT ELEVATION 20538, Lynde ct 22-SEPT-2022 SAGAR SUBHENDU 3/16" = 1'-0"1 FRONT ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"2 RIGHT ELEVATION 127 LEVEL 1466' -2 1/2" GRADE LEVEL465' -2 1/2" LEVEL 2477' -2 1/2" SLD4 D6D3 D1 PANTRY GUEST BEDROOM 1 TERRACE PASSAGE HALLWAY BELOW OFFICE METAL GUARD RAILMETAL GUARD RAIL 463' - 8 1/2" PAD W02 W02 W01 RISER -19 NOS TRADE DEPTH -11" RISER HEIGHT -7" FLIGHT WIDTH -3'9" 464' - 4 1/2" 464' - 4 3/4" 464' - 2 1/2"464' - 2" LOWEST EX-GRADE EX-GRADE EX-GRADE EX-GRADE 464' - 3 1/2" GLASS RAILING 466' - 2 1/2" ROOF LEVEL487' -8 1/2" SK2 W7 TOP OF THE ROOF490' -5 3/4"2' - 9 1/4"1' - 0"2' - 9 1/4"10' - 6"1' - 0"10' - 0"SECOND LEVEL ROOF FIRST LEVEL ROOF FIRST LEVEL ROOF SECOND LEVEL ROOF 1' - 6" OVERHANG W10 D8D7 465' 2 1/2" 466' 2 1/2" 477' 2 1/2" 487' 8 1/2" 490' 5 3/4" 0' 0" 1' 0" 12' 0" 22' 6" 25' 4" W11 HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING25' - 10 3/4"464' - 7" AVERAGE EX-GRADE LEVEL 1466' -2 1/2" GRADE LEVEL465' -2 1/2" LEVEL 2477' -2 1/2" RISER -19 NOS TRADE DEPTH -11" RISER HEIGHT -7" FLIGHT WIDTH -3'9" GREAT ROOM HALLWAY MUD/LAUNDRY ADU LIVING AREA ADU WALK IN CLOSET ADU TOILET HALLWAY BELOW FAMILY ROOM M. WALKIN WARDROBE M. BATH D2 D5 W02W02W02W01 W02 W02 W01 W01 2' - 9 1/4"10' - 6"1' - 0"10' - 0"1' - 0"463' - 8 1/2"464' - 5 1/4"464' - 4 3/4"464' - 4 3/4" PAD 464' - 5 1/4" LOWEST EX-GRADE LOWEST EX-GRADE EX-GRADEEX-GRADE 464' - 7" ROOF LEVEL487' -8 1/2" SK3 SECOND LEVEL ROOF FIRST LEVEL ROOF 2" 1'-0" 2" 1'-0" FIRST LEVEL ROOF SECOND LEVEL ROOF 1' - 6" 1' - 6" OVERHANG OVERHANG TOP OF THE ROOF490' -5 3/4" 1' - 6" OVERHANG D7 GUTTER 465' 2 1/2" 466' 2 1/2" 477' 2 1/2" 487' 8 1/2" 490' 5 3/4" 0' 0" 1' 0" 12' 0" 22' 6" 25' 4" D6 HEIGHT OF THE BUILIDING25' - 10 3/4"AVERAGE EX-GRADE W02 NOTES: NOTES: • ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES. • DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. • ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED. • IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION. • THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION. • ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS. • THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.) REVISIONS : REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022 CONTACT : EMAIL :team@golivio.com PROJECT : THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA 650-209-6500 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022 1/4" = 1'-0" A4.001 SECTION A-A & B-B 20538, Lynde ct 22-SEPT-2022 SAGAR SUBHENDU 1/4" = 1'-0"A SECTION A-A 1/4" = 1'-0"B SECTION B-B 128 4' - 3" D1 8' - 0"3' - 0" D2 8' - 0"2' - 8" D3 9' - 0"3' - 0" D4 6' - 0"2' - 6" D5 8' - 0"2' - 6" D6 D88' - 0"3' - 8" SLD1 8' - 0"9' - 1" SLD2 8' - 0"6' - 0" SLD3 SLD4 11' - 6"8' - 0"SLD58' - 0"12' - 0" SLD6 8' - 0"3' - 0" D7 SLD7 9' - 0"16' - 0" GD8' - 0"2' - 6"8' - 0"10' - 6"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"2' - 8" D9 6' - 6"3' - 3" D10 8' - 0"3' - 0" D11 NOTES: NOTES: • ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES. • DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. • ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED. • IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION. • THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION. • ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS. • THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.) REVISIONS : REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022 CONTACT : EMAIL :team@golivio.com PROJECT : THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA 650-209-6500 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022 3/8" = 1'-0" A5.001 DOOR SCHEDULE 20538, Lynde ct 22-SEPT-2022 SAGAR SUBHENDU DOOR SCHEDULE Mark Count Width Height Head Height D1 1 4' - 3"8' - 0"8' - 0" D2 7 3' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0" D3 4 2' - 8"8' - 0"8' - 0" D4 1 3' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0" D5 5 2' - 6"6' - 0"6' - 0" D6 3 2' - 6"8' - 0"8' - 0" D7 2 3' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0" D8 1 3' - 8"8' - 0"8' - 0" D9 1 2' - 8"8' - 0"8' - 0" D10 1 3' - 3"6' - 6" D11 1 3' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0" GD 1 16' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0" SLD1 3 8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0" SLD2 1 9' - 1"8' - 0"8' - 0" SLD3 2 6' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0" SLD4 2 11' - 6"8' - 0"8' - 0" SLD5 1 12' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0" SLD6 1 10' - 6"8' - 0"8' - 0" SLD7 2 2' - 6"8' - 0"8' - 0" 6' -6" 129 W18' - 0"4' - 4"7' - 0"1' - 0"W2 5' - 4 1/2"14' - 0"1' - 9"3' - 7 1/2"W3 8' - 6"10' - 0"1' - 9"6' - 9"W4 W5 8' - 6"5' - 0"2' - 0"6' - 6"W6 W78' - 6"4' - 6"2' - 0"6' - 6"3' - 1"3' - 1" SK2SK13' - 1"6' - 1"8' - 0"2' - 3"10' - 0"0' - 3 3/4"4' - 0"22' - 0 1/4"9' - 0 3/4"16' - 0"0' - 4 3/4"3' - 0"W8 W91' - 0"7' - 0"6' - 3"8' - 0"6' - 0"2' - 0"6' - 0"W10 6' - 6"2' - 0"10' - 0"8' - 6"W11 8' - 0"3' - 0"3' - 6"4' - 6"W12 3' - 0"5' - 0"8' - 0"4' - 0" W13 NOTES: NOTES: • ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES. • DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. • ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED. • IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION. • THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION. • ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS. • THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.) REVISIONS : REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022 CONTACT : EMAIL :team@golivio.com PROJECT : THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA 650-209-6500 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022 3/8" = 1'-0" A5.002 WINDOW SCHEDULE 20538, Lynde ct 22-SEPT-2022 SAGAR SUBHENDU WINDOW SCHEDULE Mark Count Width Height SK1 1 6' - 0"3' - 0" SK2 2 3' - 0"3' - 0" W1 3 W2 2 6' - 3"7' - 0" W3 1 14' - 0"1' - 9" W4 2 10' - 0"1' - 9" W5 2 2' - 3"8' - 0" W6 2 5' - 0"2' - 0" W7 3 4' - 6"2' - 0" W8 2 16' - 0"3' - 0" W9 1 22' - 0 1/4"4' - 0" W10 1 6' - 0"2' - 0" W11 1 10' - 0"2' - 0" W12 1 3' - 0"3' - 6" W13 1 4' - 0"5' - 0" 130 167 SF H 499 SF I 431 SF G1 283 SF B 238 SF A 138 SF C 132 SF D 47 SF J 10 SF K 239 SF F 177 SF P1 207 SF P2 6' - 8 3/4"22' - 10 1/4"21' - 0"9' - 2"21' - 0"2' - 6 3/4"12' - 0 3/4"18' - 5 1/4"12' - 10 3/4"9' - 3 1/4"4' - 10"4' - 4"22' - 2"4' - 0"22' - 6 1/4"10' - 6 1/2"21' - 0"7' - 2"511 SF E 29 SF L 26 SF A 470 SF B 739 SF C 168 SF D 4' - 4"6' - 2"20' - 6"12' - 10"4' - 0"30' - 0 1/4"OPEN THROUGHOUT 6' - 7 1/4"8' - 9 1/4"7' - 11 3/4"12' - 10 3/4"6' - 4 1/2"4' - 0"12' - 10"20' - 6"10' - 6" 28 SF E NOTES: NOTES: • ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES. • DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. • ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED. • IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION. • THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION. • ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS. • THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.) REVISIONS : REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022 CONTACT : EMAIL :team@golivio.com PROJECT : THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA 650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022 1/8" = 1'-0" A6.001 AREA CALCULATION 20538, Lynde ct 22-SEPT-2022 SAGAR SUBHENDU 1/8" = 1'-0"1 LEVEL 1 1/8" = 1'-0"2 LEVEL 2 FIRST LEVEL AREA + SECOND LEVEL AREA = TOTAL FLOOR AREA FIRST LEVEL AREA + PORCH + ADU = TOTAL LOT COVERAGE AREA 1,972 + 1431 = 3,403 SF 1972 + 384 + 752 = 3,108 SF AREA CALCULATION FOR SECOND FLOOR MARK AREA LENGTH AREA WIDTH AREA A 4' - 0"6' - 7 1/4"26 SF B 12' - 10"36' - 7 3/4"470 SF C 20' - 6"36' - 0 1/4"739 SF D 6' - 2"27' - 3"168 SF E 4' - 4"6' - 4 1/2"28 SF Grand total: 5 1431 SF AREA CALCULATION FOR PORCH MARK AREA LENGTH AREA WIDTH AREA P1 6' - 8 3/4"26' - 3 1/2"177 SF P2 6' - 2 1/2"33' - 4 1/4"207 SF Grand total: 2 384 SF FLOOR AREA FOR ADU = 752 SF AREA CALCULATION FOR FIRST FLOOR MARK AREA LENGTH AREA WIDTH AREA A 12' - 10 3/4"18' - 5 1/4"238 SF B 9' - 3 1/4"30' - 6"283 SF C 4' - 10"28' - 6"138 SF D 4' - 4"30' - 6"132 SF E 511 SF F 10' - 6 1/2"22' - 8"239 SF G1 20' - 6"21' - 0"431 SF Grand total: 7 1971 SF AREA CALCULATION FOR ADU MARK AREA LENGTH AREA WIDTH AREA H 7' - 2"23' - 4 1/4"167 SF I 21' - 0"23' - 9 1/4"499 SF J 2' - 6 3/4"18' - 5 1/4"47 SF K 2' - 0"4' - 10"10 SF L 2' - 0"14' - 6"29 SF Grand total: 5 753 SF 1972 22' -2"22' -6" 752 131 EXTERIOR COLOR / MATERIAL SCHEDULE MATERIAL / APPLICATION CODE COLOR MANUFACTURE FLAT ROOF METAL WINDOW FRAMES WOODEN GARAGE DOOR SLIDING GLASS DOOR METAL GUARDRAIL M1 M3 M4 M5ROOFWALL MISC.* NOTES: EXACT COLORS TO BE VERIFIED WITH OWNER & ARCHITECT M8 M6 WHITE BLACK BLACK SMOOTH STUCCO WITH PAINT WHITE WOODEN SIDING M2 CONCRETE WALKWAY M7 C.H.I OR EQ JELWEN OR EQ. JELWEN OR EQ. GAF OR EQ. - - BLACK GREY - - WOODEN BROWN WOODEN BROWN ACCORDION GLASS DOOR M9 LA CANTINA OR EQ.BLACK NOTES: NOTES: • ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES. • DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. • ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED. • IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION. • THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION. • ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS. • THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.) REVISIONS : REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022 CONTACT : EMAIL :team@golivio.com PROJECT : THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA 650-209-6500 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022 12" = 1'-0" A7.001 MATERIAL BOARD 20538, Lynde ct 22-SEPT-2022 SAGAR SUBHENDU M1 M3 M4M2FLAT ROOF SMOOTH STUCCO WITH PAINT SLIDING GLASS DOORMETAL WINDOW FRAME WOODEN SIDING CONCRETE WALKWAYM5M6 M7 M8METAL GUARDRAIL WOODEN GARAGE DOOR M9ACCORDION GLASS DOOR 132 SPECIAL GRADING NOTES: STANDARD GRADING NOTES: GENERAL NOTES: FINAL INSPECTION:GRADING ANDDRAINAGE PLANC-1 DATE: SHEET NO. SCALE: DRAWN BY: DESIGNED BY:RW ENGINEERING, INC.DATEBYREVISIONNO.RWSANTA CLARA COUNTY20538 LYNDE COURTSARATOGA, CAAPN: 503-52-012BASIS OF BEARINGS: SITE BENCHMARK: LEGEND ABBREVIATION C-1 SWALE2 TYPICAL GRADING AROUND FOUNDATION C-1 1 1 C-1 BUBBLER GM EM LYNDE COURTNPervious PavingConc. or Tiles on Conc. Spa Bench BenchFountain Pervious P a v i n g Gravel Conc.or Tiles on Conc. Lawn Concrete Driveway Conc.PathFountainSteps Wo o d B e n c h 133 (TO BE MAINTAINED)STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE FIBER ROLL EROSIONCONTROL PLANLEGEND HYDROSEEDING: GENERAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: ADDITONAL NOTES: C-2 DATE: SHEET NO. SCALE: DRAWN BY: DESIGNED BY:RW ENGINEERING, INC.DATEBYREVISIONNO.RWSANTA CLARA COUNTY20538 LYNDE COURTSARATOGA, CAAPN: 503-52-012LYNDE COURTNINLET SEDIMENTATION BARRIER 134 NOTES: NOTES: • ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES. • DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. • ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED. • IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION. • THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION. • ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS. • THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.) REVISIONS : REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022 CONTACT : EMAIL :team@golivio.com PROJECT : THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA 650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022 C-3 BEST CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PRACTICE 20538, Lynde ct 22-SEPT-2022 SAGAR SUBHENDU 135 OHOHOHOHOH25'-0"LOT 11TRACT 3259151 MAPS 27LOT 13TRACT 3259151 MAPS 27LYNDE COURTof#2176GREGORY LEWIS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 736 Park Way Santa Cruz, CA 95065 (831) 359-0960 1Driveway - Concrete, color, pattern, and finish to be determined byowner2Front walkways -Concrete pads, color, pattern, and finishto be determined by owner - Install gray gravel in spaces betweenthem3Pondless Fountain with 3'x3' underground reservoir in front and4'x4' underground reservoir in rear and gravel on top of grill withadditional splash zone with pond liner sloped back to reservoir.Install GFIC outlet for pump that can be turned on inside houseand also with outside switch on house4Conc. paving - finish and color to be determined by owner5Portable spa to be selected by owner with custom concrete or wood skirt on 3 sides6Custom IPE bench - owner will provide photo7Conc. or non-slip Tile on Conc. base8Fountain - similar to #3 above9Tall narrow square ceramic planters - set on stable concrete orgravel base so they don't tip and lean over time10Pervious paving - Pervious paver system - pavers to be selectedby owners11IPE Bench - owner to provide photo12Lawn sprinklers are min. 24 inches from impervious paving133 foot tall horizontal wood fence146 foot tall horizontal wood fence153' wide x 6' tall horizontal wood gate16Motorized awning can be extended just when needed17Outdoor kitchen with grill, sink, burner, fridge, under counter storage, granite counter top, stainless steel storage doors18Tree protection fence as required in arborist report - 6' high chainlink with 2 inch dia. steel posts driven min. 24 inches into groundand spaced no more than 10 feet apart - see most recent versionof Arborist Report by Kielty Arborist Services LLC kkarbor0476@yahoo.comlewislandscape@sbcglobal.net"I have complied with the criteria of the Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance and appliedthem for the efficient use of water in the landscape design plan"Gregory Lewis - Landscape Architect Lic. #2176 6/24/22Hydrozone Table3/30/22Tree ProtectionFencing4/25/22Setbacks, housemoved on my planHydroz numbersfysb numbers6/24/22House plan, paving136 LYNDE COURT 20538 LYNDE COURT SARATOGA, CA TOPOGRAPHIC & BOUNDARY SURVEY SANTA CLARA COUNTYDATE:SHEET NO.SCALE:DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:RW ENGINEERING, INC. DATE BYREVISIONNO.OF SHEETSRW APN: 503-52-012SU-1BASIS OF BEARINGS:SITE BENCHMARK:NOTES:ABBREVIATIONLEGENDSITE DATA:N 137 NOTES: NOTES: • ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES. • DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. • ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED. • IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION. • THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION. • ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS. • THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.) REVISIONS : REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022 CONTACT : EMAIL :team@golivio.com PROJECT : THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA 650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022 T-1 TREE PROTECTION INSTRUCTION 20538, Lynde ct 22-SEPT-2022 SAGAR SUBHENDU 138 NOTES: NOTES: • ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES. • DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. • ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED. • IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION. • THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION. • ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS. • THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.) REVISIONS : REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022 CONTACT : EMAIL :team@golivio.com PROJECT : THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA 650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022 T-2 TREE PROTECTION INSTRUCTION 20538, Lynde ct 22-SEPT-2022 SAGAR SUBHENDU 139 LOT 11 TRACT 3 2 5 9 151 MA P S 2 7 LOT 13 TRACT 3 2 5 9 151 MA P S 2 7 LYNDE C O U R T LOT 11 TRACT 3 2 5 9 151 MA P S 2 7 LOT 13 TRACT 3 2 5 9 151 MA P S 2 7 LYNDE C O U R T PROPERTY LINE LEVEL 2 SETBACK LINE 9 3 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " SECOND LEVEL BUILDING OUTLINE CONCRE T E DRIVEWA Y PROPERTY LINE E N T R Y CONCRETE OR TILES ON CONCRETE CONCRETE OR TILES ON CONCRETE NTR-1 TR-3-R TR-7-R 12" TR-8-R 7.4" TR-9-R 5.8" TR-11 29"TR-12-R 23" TR-13-R 16" TR-14 19" TR-16-R 5" CHERRY LAUREL CHERRY LAUREL LIQUIDAMABAR PEAR PLUMOT DEODAR CEDAR MODESTO ASH MODESTO ASH MODESTO ASH 2 5 ' - 0 " GM EM SSSSSSW W W W CONCRETE WALK WAY 8 3 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " PROPOSED MAIN HOUSE 7" 6.5" BLACK ACACIATR-4-R 6" LEMON TREE PROTECTION AREA TREE PROTECTION AREA COVERED PATIO OPEN PATIO COVERED PORCH OPEN PORCH MODESTO ASH DOGWOODTR-2-R 3" CHERRY LAUREL TR-6-R 5" TR-5-R 6" BLACK ACACIA TR-15 21" AC / HEAT PUMP AC / HEAT PUMP OUTDOOR KITCHEN TABLE TREE SIZE NOTE TR1 TR2 TR3 TR4 TR5 TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES EXISTED AT SITE -17 NOS TR6 NAME OF TREE CHERRY LAUREL DOGWOOD LIQUIDAMBAR PEAR PLUMOT DEODAR CEDAR SILVER MAPLE TR7 TR8 TR9 TR10 TR11 TR12 HOLLY OAKS TO BE REMOVED BLACK ACACIA TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED PROTECTED OUT OF THE LOT PROTECTED TREE PORTECTION NOTE: TREE PROTECTION FENCING AROUND TREE NOS. 1,2,11,12,13,14,15 CHERRY LAUREL CHERRY LAUREL BLACK ACACIA MODESTO ASH LEMON PERSIMMON TR13 TR14 TR15 TR16 TR17 PROTECTED PROTECTED MODESTO ASH MODESTO ASH TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED OUT OF THE LOT TO BE REMOVED 9.3" 3" 6.5" 5.8" 6" 5.1" 12.3" 7.4" 5.8" 14" 28.8" 23" 16.1" 18.8" 21.2" 4.2" 6" TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED SECOND STORY FOOTPRINT SETBACK LINE SITE LEGENDS : TREE TO BE REMOVE JOINT TRENCH SANITORY SEWER WATER LINE JT JT JT SS SS SS W W W NOTES: NOTES: • ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES. • DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. • ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED. • IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION. • THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION. • ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS. • THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.) REVISIONS : REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022 CONTACT : EMAIL :team@golivio.com PROJECT : THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA 650-209-6500 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022 As indicated T-3 TREE PROTECTION PLAN 20538, Lynde ct 22-SEPT-2022 SAGAR SUBHENDU 1/8" = 1'-0"1 TREE PROTECTION PLAN 140 N 49°47'51" E 178.01'N 69°38'22" E 115.61'N0°24'00"W 121.80' Δ=81 D 5 1' 0 4" L=60.0 0' R=42.0 0' 5' P.U.E. 5' W.C.E.464.33464.70464.86464.73SITE BENCHMARK465.46TC465.26TC464.51TC464.42464.91TC465.14465.00464.88464.84464.84464.60464.89464.53464.76464.17464.50464.24464.46464.90464.20464.27464.44464.16464.22464.20464.25464.12464.19464.77464.35464.30464.31464.31464.08464.27464.55464.40464.41464.65464.68464.49464.38464.40464.17464.50464.12464.21464.10464.12464.63464.55464.57464.48464.02464.27464.37464.39464.40464.37464.32464.25464.24464.22463.66463.13463.49463.74463.55463.28462.91463.13462.64462.41462.84463.83464.66464.48464.59464.61464.87464.32463.87463.82463.74463.98464.42464.37464.30464.05464.03464.26464.28LYNDE C O U R T PROPERTY LINE LEVEL 1 SETBACK LINE LEVEL 2 SETBACK LINE 9 3 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " OH OHOHOHOH SECOND LEVEL BUILDING OUTLINE CONCRE T E DRIVEWA Y PROPERTY LINE E N T R Y CONCRETE OR TILES ON CONCRETE CONCRETE OR TILES ON CONCRETE UPNGM EM JTJTJTJTJTJTSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSCO (N)W W W W CONCRETE WALK WAY 8 3 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 "JTCOVERED PATIO OPEN PATIO COVERED PORCH OPEN PORCH 122' - 0 1/2"115' - 7 1 /4 " AC / HEAT PUMP AC / HEAT PUMP OUTDOOR KITCHEN SECOND STORY FOOTPRINT SETBACK LINE SITE LEGENDS : TREE TO BE REMOVE JOINT TRENCH SANITORY SEWER WATER LINE JT JT JT SS SS SS W W W NOTES: NOTES: • ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES. • DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. • ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED. • IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION. • THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION. • ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS. • THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.) REVISIONS : REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022 CONTACT : EMAIL :team@golivio.com PROJECT : THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA 650-209-6500 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022 REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022 As indicated U-1 UTILITY PLAN 20538, Lynde ct 22-SEPT-2022 SAGAR SUBHENDU1/8" = 1'-0"1 UTILITY PLAN 141 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: November 9, 2022 Application: VAR22-0003 Address/APN: 20711 Leonard Road / 503-19-035 Property Owner: Yueyue Wenren & Weiheng Chen From: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Report Prepared By: Victoria Banfield, Associate Planner 142 Report to the Planning Commission 20711 Leonard Road – Application # VAR22-003 November 9,2022 Page | 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting a variance to construct an outdoor kitchen, firepit, and shed within the front setback area, where accessory structures are not permitted. No protected trees are proposed for removal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 22-025 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. Pursuant to City Code Section 15-70.020(a), approval by the Planning Commission is required as the project requests a variance to required setbacks. PROJECT DATA Gross/Net Site Area: 44, 290 sq. ft. (1.02 acres) Average Site Slope: 20.88 % General Plan Designation: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) Zoning: R-1-40,000 Proposed Allowed/Required Site Coverage Residence Patios/Porches Driveway/Walkways New Paving Total Proposed 2,085 sq. ft. 1,502 sq. ft 4,594 sq. ft. 614 sq. ft. 8,795 sq. ft. (20%) 15,501 sq. ft. (35%) SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Description The subject property is located at the end of Leonard Road, west of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. The 44,290 square foot property has an average slope of 20.88% and is currently developed with a two- story residence. Surrounding uses on all sides include single-family homes on similar sized lots. Per section 15-06.430(a) of the City Code, a front lot line for a flag lot is defined as the interior lot line most parallel to and nearest the street providing site access. Due to the orientation of the lot at the end of Leonard Road, the front lot line is the southern property line. Project Description Due to the site’s topography and orientation at the end of the street, the existing two-story residence and site improvements have been developed along the southern portion of the lot, with the “backyard” of the residence occupying the front setback area of the lot. The majority of the development is located on the most level portion of the site to avoid excessive grading. 143 Report to the Planning Commission 20711 Leonard Road – Application # VAR22-003 November 9,2022 Page | 3 Per Section 15-80.030(d) of the City Code, enclosed accessory structures and outdoor cooking devices are not permitted within the front yard setback area but may be allowed in the side or rear setbacks subject to certain limitations. The applicant is requesting a variance for the following: 1. 7-foot-tall garden shed within the front setback 2. 3’11” counter with built-in gas grill and sink within the front setback 3. Firepit within the front setback The applicant is proposing to relocate a 7-foot-tall garden shed 23’9” from the front property line, an outdoor kitchen 6’ from the front property line, and a firepit 11’6” from the front property line, where a 30’ front setback is required. However, due to the orientation of the existing residence and site improvements, the front yard has been developed as a rear yard and the proposed shed, outdoor kitchen and firepit would be in compliance with the required rear yard setbacks for accessory structures. The applicant has also stated that due to the slope of the site (20.88%) and the existing protected trees on the site, the proposed location within the front setback area, which is relatively level, is the most ideal location for the proposed accessory structures. Trees The City Arborist has reviewed the plans and approved a Tree Permit (TRP22-0242), approving the location of the proposed accessory structures, which is included in the plan set on Sheet L-3.1. All protected trees in the vicinity of the project will be protected throughout the duration of the project. The applicant has paid a tree security deposit of $4,750, and should any protected tree be damaged as a result of the project, new trees shall be required to replace the trees. FINDINGS The findings required for issuance of a Variance pursuant to City Code Section 15-70.060 are set forth below. The Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that due to the site’s location at the end of the street and the orientation of the front property line, strict enforcement of the front setback requirement would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district with regard to placement of accessory structures in the backyard. In addition, due to the topography of the property, the proposed location of the site improvements within the front setback area will result in the least impact to the natural topography of the site. 144 Report to the Planning Commission 20711 Leonard Road – Application # VAR22-003 November 9,2022 Page | 4 2. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the location of the site at the end of a street results in a unique orientation of the front property line which is not typical of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. 3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed location of the accessory structures will comply with the required setbacks for accessory structures within a rear yard setback and will not be detrimental to public health and safety, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. If the variance is for any regulation pertaining to signs, the Planning Commission shall also find that the granting of the variance will not introduce a visual element which is inconsistent with the appearance of the immediately surrounding area. This finding is not applicable as the variance request does not involve any regulation pertaining to signage. 5. If the variance is for any regulation pertaining to off-street parking or loading facilities, the Planning Commission shall make the following additional findings:(1)That strict enforcement of the specified regulation is not required by either present or anticipated future traffic volume or traffic circulation on the site.(2)That the granting of the variance will not result in the parking or loading of vehicles on public streets in such a manner as to interfere with the free flow of traffic on the streets. This finding is not applicable as the variance request does not involve any regulation pertaining to off-street parking or loading facilities. Neighbor Notification and Correspondence A public notice was sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site. In addition, the public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga News. The applicant also provided five (5) signed neighbor notification forms with no negative comments. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed Variance request is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. Section 15303) “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.” This exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures. 145 Report to the Planning Commission 20711 Leonard Road – Application # VAR22-003 November 9,2022 Page | 5 ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 22-025 2. Applicant Letter 3. Neighbor Notification Forms 4. Project Plans 146 RESOLUTION NO: 22-025 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING VARIANCE VAR22-0003 20711 LEONARD ROAD (503-19-035) WHEREAS, on September 26, 2022 an application was submitted by Yueyue Wenren & Weiheng Chen requesting a variance to construct an outdoor kitchen, firepit, and shed within the front setback area, where accessory structures are not allowed. No protected trees are proposed for removal. The site is zoned R-1-40,000 with a General Plan Designation of Residential Very Low Density (RVLD). WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project Categorically Exempt. WHEREAS, on November 9, 2022 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The proposed Variance Request is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. Section 15303) “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. This exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures. Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use Policy 13.1 which provides that the City utilize the design review process and the California Environmental Quality Act in the review of proposed projects to promote high quality design, to ensure compliance with applicable regulations, to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties and use, and to minimize environmental impacts; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that due to special circumstances applicable to the property, including shape, topography, and location, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district; due to the unique orientation of the front property line, the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in 147 20711 Leonard Road Application # VAR22-0003 Resolution #22-025 Page | 2 the same zoning district; the accessory structures will comply with the required setbacks for accessory structures within a rear yard setback and will not be detrimental to public health and safety, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves VAR22-0003 located at 20711 Leonard Road (503-19-035), subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 9th day of November 2022 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Herman Zheng Chair, Planning Commission 148 20711 Leonard Road Application # VAR22-0003 Resolution #22-025 Page | 3 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VAR22-0003 20711 LEONARD ROAD (503-19-035) GENERAL 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga City Code incorporated herein by this reference. 4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 149 20711 Leonard Road Application # VAR22-0003 Resolution #22-025 Page | 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 5. The owner/applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding drainage, including but not limited to complying with the city approved Stormwater management plan. The project shall retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site, that is created by the proposed construction and grading project, such that adjacent down slope properties will not be negatively impacted by any increase in flow. Design must follow the current Santa Clara County Drainage Manual method criteria, as required by the building department. Retention/detention element design must follow the Drainage Manual guidelines, as required by the building department. 6. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans. All proposed changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with City Code. 7. In order to comply with standards that minimize impacts to the neighborhood during site preparation and construction, the applicant shall comply with City Code Sections 7-30.060 and 16-75.050, with respect to noise, construction hours, maintenance of the construction site and other requirements stated in these sections. 8. Construction must commence within 24 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or the Variance Approval will expire unless extended in accordance with the City Code. 9. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval required by Tree Permit application TRP22-0242. 150 20711 Leonard Road Application # VAR22-0003 Resolution #22-025 Page | 5 FINDINGS OF APPROVAL VAR22-0003 20711 LEONARD ROAD (503-19-035) 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that due to the site’s location at the end of the street and the orientation of the front property line, strict enforcement of the front setback requirement would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district with regard to placement of accessory structures in the backyard. In addition, due to the topography of the property, the proposed location of the site improvements within the front setback area will result in the least impact to the natural topography of the site. 2. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the location of the site at the end of a street results in a unique orientation of the front property line which is not typical of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. 3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed location of the accessory structures will comply with the required setbacks for accessory structures within a rear yard setback and will not be detrimental to public health and safety, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. If the variance is for any regulation pertaining to signs, the Planning Commission shall also find that the granting of the variance will not introduce a visual element which is inconsistent with the appearance of the immediately surrounding area. This finding is not applicable as the variance request does not involve any regulation pertaining to signage. 5. If the variance is for any regulation pertaining to off-street parking or loading facilities, the Planning Commission shall make the following additional findings:(1)That strict enforcement of the specified regulation is not required by either present or anticipated future traffic volume or traffic circulation on the site.(2)That the granting of the variance will not result in the parking or loading of vehicles on public streets in such a manner as to interfere with the free flow of traffic on the streets. This finding is not applicable as the variance request does not involve any regulation pertaining to off-street parking or loading facilities. 151 Rhadiante Van de Voorde Elemental Design Group 13090 Central Avenue, Ste #3 Boulder Creek, CA 95006 September 26, 2022 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear City of Saratoga Planning Commission: Weiheng Chen and Yueyue Wenren, the property owners of 20711 Leonard Road in Saratoga, hired our firm, Elemental Design Group, to design a new rear yard for their property. When the firm submitted the plans to the City of Saratoga, we were notified that the usable rear yard is within the 30-foot front yard setback. There are no other options for the location of the landscape improvements. The Planning Department has advised us to apply for a variance to move forward with the project. Please take into consideration our findings stated below. Variance Findings: 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. The 30-foot front yard setback, which encompasses the majority of the homeowners’ rear yard, prohibits the addition of a built-in BBQ and prefabricated gas fire pit in locations that integrate best with existing conditions. Most of the property is sloped (average of 20%) with many trees, which is not appropriate for the hardscape shown in the plans. The area outside of the setback is the front yard, which is also sloped, and the entrance to the house. 2. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the in the same zoning district because this is an extremely rare and unique situation. 3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project has zero detrimental effect to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. If the variance is for any regulation pertaining to signs, the Planning Commission shall also find that 152 the granting of the variance will not introduce a visual element which is inconsistent with the appearance of the immediately surrounding area. Variance finding #4 is not applicable because there are no signs involved in the scope of this project. 5. If the variance is for any regulation pertaining to off-street parking or loading facilities, the Planning Commission shall make the following additional findings: a. That strict enforcement of the specified regulation is not required by either present or anticipated future traffic volume or traffic circulation on the site. b. That the granting of the variance will not result in the parking or loading of vehicles on public streets in such a manner as to interfere with the free flow of traffic on the streets. Variance Finding #5 does not apply to this project because the scope of the project does not involve off-street parking or loading facilities. Given these considerations, we look forward to your ruling in favor of granting the variance for the BBQ and fire pit for 20711 Leonard Road. If you have any questions or need any clarifications prior to the Planning Commission meeting, please feel free to contact me at 831-234-5496. Sincerely, Rhadiante Van de Voorde, ASLA Registered Landscape Architect #3944 153 20711 Leonard Road 154 155 156 20711 Leonard Road 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: November 9, 2022 Application: SUB20-0003/ENV20-0003/ARB20-0053 Address/APN: 14521 Quito Road (397-05-028) Owner/Applicant: Maria Orlando-Hinz Trustee / Pinn Brothers Development From: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Report Prepared by: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner 168 Report to the Planning Commission 14521 Quito Road SUB20-0003/ENV20-0003/ARB20-0053) November 9, 2022 Page | 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant is proposing to subdivide the site into ten-lots ranging in size from .92 acres to 1.2 acres. The Project would create a new private cul-de-sac with a connection to Quito Road. The private street would provide access to seven parcels and the remaining three parcels would take access from Vessing Road. A .34-acre portion of the site is located on the opposite side of Quito Road and would be dedicated to the City of Saratoga for open space use. The subdivision would allow for the construction of ten new single-family homes each with an accessory dwelling unit. An existing bridge over San Thomas Aquino Creek that spans Quito Road adjacent to the project site is located to the north of the proposed new private street. The location of the bridge is most clearly shown on Sheet TM-6 of the Tentative Map (Attachment 5). As one of the City’s major infrastructure improvement projects, this bridge is scheduled to be replaced with a new bridge with a wider span to improve the flow of the creek. At this time the City has not yet completed the regulatory review process with local and state agencies. Construction of the bridge is currently estimated to begin in late Spring or early Summer of 2023. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt Resolution No. 22-023 approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment #1) 2. Adopt Resolution No. 22-024 approving the ten-lot subdivision and removal of 56 protected trees (Attachment #2) PROJECT DATA General Plan Designation: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) Zoning: R-1-40,000 Lot Size: 11.43 acres gross / 9.44 acres net Average Slope: 7.43% The General Plan designation for this property is Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) with a maximum density of 1.09 dwelling units per net acre. The R-1-40,000 zoning is consistent with the RVLD General Plan designation because the minimum lot size for this zone district is 40,000 square feet. Proposed Lot Sizes, Site Coverage and Allowable Floor Area Lot Number Net Site Area (sq. ft) Maximum Site Coverage (sq. ft) Allowable Floor Area (sq. ft) 1 40,224 14,078 6,020 2 40,170 14,060 6,020 3 48,020 16,807 6,060 4 48,125 16,844 6,060 5 40,135 14,047 6,020 6 40,119 14,042 6,020 169 Report to the Planning Commission 14521 Quito Road SUB20-0003/ENV20-0003/ARB20-0053) November 9, 2022 Page | 3 7 48,020 16,807 6,180 8 40,928 14,325 6,020 9 40,317 14,111 5,688 10 48,187 16,865 6,040 SITE DESCRIPTION The Project site is located at 14521 Quito Road. The site is bounded to the north by single family homes, to the east by Quito Road, to the south by Vessing Road, and to the west by single family homes. To the east across Quito Road is San Tomas Aquino Creek, which is the City boundary line with the Town of Los Gatos. San Tomas Aquino Creek crosses under Quito Road onto the project site and runs north through the north-eastern corner of the site along Quito Road. There are three existing structures on site which are accessible from an unpaved driveway off of Quito Road. The three structures include a single-family home, an accessory structure, and an in-ground swimming pool. All existing structures would be demolished. The property is covered by native trees with many Coast Live Oaks. The Arborist Report inventoried a total of 683 trees. Over five hundred of the trees are classified as protected trees under the City of Saratoga Tree Regulations. Tree species include, but are not limited to Coast Live Oak, Black Walnut and Black Acacia. Subdivision Map Findings The Planning Commission shall not approve any tentative map if the commission finds the proposal supports any of the following nine findings [City Code Section 14- 20.070(b)]. Staff has provided evidence, which does not support any of the findings. 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans in that proposed parcels are consistent with the General Plan designation of Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) defined as 1.09 dwelling units per net acre. The proposed parcels meet the minimum lot size required by the city code for the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Proposed lot dimensions including width, depth and frontage meet or exceed the minimums required by the city code. 2. That the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The proposed parcel sizes, configuration, access and building envelopes are consistent with the General Plan designation of Residential Very Low Density (RVLD), are consistent with the zoning regulations, and are compatible with the existing densities in the project vicinity. The proposed building envelopes are sufficient in size and dimension to accommodate single-family residences and accessory dwelling units. Building envelopes provided on the proposed tentative map indicate that required setbacks can be provided to meet the 170 Report to the Planning Commission 14521 Quito Road SUB20-0003/ENV20-0003/ARB20-0053) November 9, 2022 Page | 4 development regulations. All existing structures on site are to be removed. Design review approval shall be required, as applicable in the city code, for the new single- family residences on the ten new parcels. At the time an application to construct a single-family residence is filed with the planning department, the mass, bulk, view, privacy, and compatibility issues of the proposed residence with the existing neighborhood and residences shall be examined. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The site is suitable for the type of development proposed in that the proposed building envelopes and the surrounding areas have a minimum percentage of slope. The subdivision will not impose features on the proposed parcels regarding size or shape that may constrain future development on the site. The existing conditions are such that there are no physical features including topography, location, or surroundings that may hinder future development on the site. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the site currently has one existing single-family home which will be removed. The subdivision application would result in the construction of ten single-family residences. Surrounding properties in the immediate surrounding are characterized by low-density single-family residential uses on similar sized parcels. 5. That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat in that the proposed project includes a subdivision which has completed environmental review. The City of Saratoga, as the Lead Agency, has prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed subdivision and no significant environmental impacts were found. 6. That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause serious health or safety problems. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious health or safety problems in that the proposed project is consistent with the zoning and subdivision regulations in the City Code and General Plan. The Tentative Map has been reviewed by West Valley Sanitary District, Santa Clara County Fire Department, Pacific Gas & Electric, School Districts, Planning Department and Public Works, and Engineering. All structural improvements to the property will be reviewed by the Community Development Department. 7. That the design of the subdivision will conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access or use. The design of the subdivision would not conflict with easements for access or use. Access to the new parcels would be provided by a new private road. There are no access easements in the area that would be affected by the subdivision. 171 Report to the Planning Commission 14521 Quito Road SUB20-0003/ENV20-0003/ARB20-0053) November 9, 2022 Page | 5 8. That a proposed subdivision of land which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the Williamson Act will result in the creation of parcels to sustain their agricultural use. The project site does not include a Williamson Act Contract and therefore this finding is not applicable to the project. 9. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would result in violation of existing requirements. The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would not result in violation of existing requirements in that the West Valley Sanitary District operates a sewer line in Quito Road. Grading and Public Improvements Grading proposed for the subdivision improvements would be limited to the excavation for the private road, bioretention areas, and utility trenching. The site has an average slope of 7.43 % with a 30-foot rise in elevation from Quito Road to the cul-de-sac portion of the new private street. Approximately 7,000 cubic yards of grading (3,500 cy of cut and 3,500 cy of fill) is proposed with the grading balanced to construct the new road with no off haul anticipated. No grading for the individual lots is included at this time. As part of this subdivision the developer is required to install public improvements. • Expanding the width of the public right-of-way dedication along the full Quito Road frontage to a 30-foot half width where it is currently a 20-foot half width. • The installation of a 5’wide asphalt walkway along the entire length of the Quito Road frontage. The location and extent of the walkway is illustrated on Sheet TM-2 of the Development Plans. The City is not requiring the installation of a walkway along the Vessing Road street frontage. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) The City of Saratoga, as the Lead Agency, has prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed subdivision. No significant environmental impacts were found which could not be mitigated. A Notice of Intent to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was sent to those within 500’ of the project site as well as interested parties for a 30-day public comment period. The comment period ended on September 30, 2022. The IS/MND analyzed potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project in the following areas: Aesthetics; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Energy; Geology & Soils; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hazards & Hazardous Materials; Hydrology & Water Quality; Land Use & Planning; Noise; Public Services & Safety; Recreation; Transportation; Tribal Cultural Resources; Utilities & Service Systems; and Wildfire. A detailed discussion about the potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures can be found in Attachment 4. 172 Report to the Planning Commission 14521 Quito Road SUB20-0003/ENV20-0003/ARB20-0053) November 9, 2022 Page | 6 City Department/Outside Agency Review This Tentative Parcel Map was forwarded for review to the Saratoga Public Works Department, Engineering, the City Arborist, and the following agencies. No concerns or objections have been received. • Santa Clara County Fire Department • West Valley Sanitary District • Pacific Gas and Electric • San Jose Water Company • School Districts Community Outreach On March 23, 2022, the City hosted a community meeting for the applicant to review the project with neighboring property owners and to receive public comments on the application. The applicant presented the design of the subdivision and the layout of the proposed lots, reviewed conceptual renderings of both one- and two-story residences that could be constructed on the site, and discussed the project proposed landscaping. Some of the issues that were raised were the number of trees to be preserved, the need for a sidewalk from Vessing Road to Old Adobe, traffic control and noise impacts during construction, and the estimated date of project completion. On October 11, 2022, Planning Commission held a Study Session to discuss the subdivision application. Prior to the Study Session there was a hybrid site visit where neighbors joined the Planning Commissioners as they walked around the property looking at the proposed new private road access, location of the proposed new lots, trees proposed for removal, and the projects frontage along Vessing Road. During the Study Session the Planning Commissioners received public comments which included 1) questions related to the projects future mix of one and two-story homes, 2) the timing of construction of the Quito Road bridge replacement, and 3) the request by the residents of Vessing Road for the applicant to renumerate a portion of the funds that they paid approximately 20 years ago to bring Vessing Road up to city standards which included widening Vessing Road and installing curb and gutter. Neighbor Notification A public notice was sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site and interested parties. In addition, the public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga News. Public Comment The City has received a number of written comments on the proposed application which are included in Attachment 3. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 22-023 2. Resolution No. 22-024 3. Public Comments 173 Report to the Planning Commission 14521 Quito Road SUB20-0003/ENV20-0003/ARB20-0053) November 9, 2022 Page | 7 4. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 5. Tentative Map 174 RESOLUTION NO: 22-023 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION AND MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM FOR APPLICATION NO. ENV-20-0003 14521 Quito Road (APN 397-05-028) WHEREAS, on October 21, 2020, an application was submitted by Maria Orlando-Hinz (owner) and Pinn Brothers Development (applicant) requesting subdivision approval to subdivide the site into ten-lots ranging in size from .92 acres to 1.2 acres. The Project would create a new private cul-de-sac with a connection to Quito Road. The private street would provide access to seven parcels and the remaining three parcels would take access from Vessing Road. A .34-acre portion of the site is located on the opposite side of Quito Road and would be dedicated to the City of Saratoga for open space use. The subdivision would allow for the construction of ten new single- family homes each with an accessory dwelling unit. WHEREAS, an Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared for the Project by the City of Saratoga, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq.), CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations sections 15000 et seq.), and any other applicable requirements. WHEREAS, the IS and a notice of intent to adopt an MND were duly noticed and circulated for a public review period from September 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022. WHEREAS, all Interested Parties desiring to comment on the MND were given the opportunity to submit written and oral comments on the adequacy of the MND up to and including the close of the Public Hearing on the Project before the Planning Commission on November 9, 2022. WHEREAS, the IS and MND represents the City’s independent judgment and analysis. WHEREAS, on November 9, 2022 the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on the Project, during which opportunity was given to address the adequacy of the MND. All comments on the IS and MND raised during the public and agency comment period and at the Public Hearing(s) on the Project were considered by the Planning Commission. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was presented with and/or had the opportunity to review all the information in the administrative record. NOW THEREFORE, after the conclusion of such Public Hearing, the Planning Commission considered all oral and written comments and a staff recommendation for approval of the MND and reviewed and considered the information in the IS/MND, public and agency comments on the IS and MND, the administrative record, and the staff report for completeness 175 and compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and all other applicable requirements. Section 1: The Project has been the subject of a MND under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code § 21064.5 and 21157.5, and pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 § 15070 of the CEQA Guidelines. The MND has been completed in compliance with the intent and requirements of CEQA, CEQA Guidelines and all other applicable requirements. The Planning Commission has considered the information contained in the IS/MND and the record in considering the Project and related actions. Section 2: The documents constituting the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are kept in the City of Saratoga Community Development Department and are maintained by the Community Development Director. Section 3: Pursuant to CEQA and CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds on the basis of, and after review of, the whole record before it (including the Initial Study, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, any and all comments received, and in light of expert and other evidence submitted), that there is no credible, substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment as to any issue raised. Section 4: After careful consideration of the matter, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project, which was presented to the Planning Commission on November 9, 2022, and circulated for a public review period from September 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022 and is on file with the Community Development Department. WHEREAS, on November 9, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 9th day of November 2022 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Herman Zheng Chair, Planning Commission 176 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 14521 Quito Road Ten-Lot Subdivision November 9, 2022 Mitigation Measure Responsible Department Must Be Completed By Done 1 MM – Air Quality – 1) All exposed surfaces (e.g. parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, stockpiles, graded area, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered twice daily, or as often as needed, treated with non-toxic soil stabilizers, or covered to control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Building Department Ongoing 2 MM – Air Quality – 2) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered. Building Department Ongoing 3 MM – Air Quality – 3) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads and paved access roads shall be removed using wet power (with reclaimed water, if possible) vacuum street sweepers at least once per day, or as often as needed. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. Building Department Ongoing 4 MM – Air Quality – 4) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. Building Department Ongoing 5 MM – Air Quality – 5) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Building Department Ongoing 6 MM – Air Quality – 6) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or by reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by California airborne toxics control measure Title 13 CCR Section 2485). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. Building Department During construction 177 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Ten-Lot Subdivision, 14521 Quito Road APN 397-05-028 Page 2 of 13 7 MM – Air Quality – 7) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. Building Department During Construction 8 MM – Air Quality – 8) A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number also shall be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Community Development Department Prior to start of construction 9 MM – Air Quality – 9) The Applicant’s project manager or his/her designee shall verify compliance that these measures are included in the Project’s grading plan and have been implemented during normal construction site inspections. Community Development Department Prior to start of construction 10 MM – Biologic Resources – 1) Corps and State Regulated Wetlands/Waters – Jurisdictional wetlands and waters potentially regulated under the authority of the Corps, RWQCB and CDFW are present on the property. Fill of these regulated features shall require authorization under Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and authorization under 1600 of the Fish and Wildlife Code. A Corps wetland delineation should be prepared to document the actual extent of jurisdictional features if any construction activity could result in impacts to wetland/waters. If the wetland/waters are deemed jurisdictional and construction activities are proposed that could impact these features, permits shall be obtained prior to construction. Setbacks from the wetlands/water features shall be required to protect habitat quality and to protect water quality. Community Development Department Prior to start of construction 11 MM – Biologic Resources – 2) Creek Protection Easement – A Creek Protection Easement that protects the creek, its banks, and riparian habitat shall be established that precludes the construction of new permanent structures of any kind within the riparian drip Community Development Department Prior to recordation of Final Map 178 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Ten-Lot Subdivision, 14521 Quito Road APN 397-05-028 Page 3 of 13 line as seen on Figure 10 – Habitat Map prepared by Olbering Environmental, Inc. This would ensure that the trees of the riparian corridor are protected from damage to their roots and crowns and would provide a significant buffer from the creek and its banks. 12 MM - Biologic Resources – 3) Riparian Buffer Zone – A 50-foot riparian buffer zone measured from the Riparian Dripline as shown on Figure 10 – Habitat Map prepared by Olbering Environmental, Inc., shall be established and shown on the final subdivision map, where construction of new structures may take place within the following additional mitigation and minimization measures. a) Installation of a wildlife exclusion fence. The fence shall be a minimum of 3-feet in height and shall be placed at the edge of the riparian drip line to prevent any potential wildlife from entering the construction area from the creek and riparian corridor. b) Construction Monitoring. A qualified biological construction monitor shall be present daily while initial grubbing and grading takes place. Once the construction area has been cleared of all vegetation and select trees have been removed, biological construction monitoring can be reduced to once per week site checks for the remainder of the grading period. c) Installation of BMPs along the Creek Protection Easement shall be included. Community Development Department Prior to recordation of Final Map 13 MM – Biologic Resources – 4) Creek Protection Easement planting –Within the 50- foot riparian buffer zone any new landscaping shall be limited to native riparian plant materials. Community Development Department Ongoing 14 MM - Biologic Resources – 5) Tree Preservation and Protection (non-riparian) – Tree protection shall be implemented during construction activities as follows: City Arborist Prior to arrival of construction equipment or materials on site 179 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Ten-Lot Subdivision, 14521 Quito Road APN 397-05-028 Page 4 of 13 a) Site Preparation: All existing trees shall be fenced off 10’ beyond the outside drip line (foliar spread) of the tree. Alternatively, where this is not feasible, fence to the drip line of the tree. Where fencing is not possible, the trunk shall be protected straw waddle and orange snow fencing. The fence shall be a minimum of six feet high, made of pig wire with steel stakes or any material superior in quality, such as cyclone fencing. Tree protection zone sign shall be affixed to fencing at appropriate intervals as determined by the arborist on site. If the fence is within the dripline of the trees, the foliar fringe shall be raised to offset the chance of limb breakage from construction equipment encroaching within the dripline. All contractors, subcontractors and other personnel shall be warned that encroachment withing the fenced area is forbidden without the consent of the certified arborist on the project. This includes, but is not limited to, storage of lumber and other materials, disposal of paints, solvents or other noxious materials, parked cars, grading equipment or other heavy equipment. Penalties, based on the cost of remedial repairs and the evaluation guide published by the international society of arboriculture, shall be assessed for damages to the trees. See tree preservation detail for additional information, including tree protection zone sign. b) Grading/excavating: All grading plans that specify grading within the dripline of any tree, or within the distance from the trunk as outlined in the site preparation section above when said distance is outside the dripline, shall first be reviewed by a certified arborist. Provisions for aeration, drainage, pruning tunneling beneath roots, root pruning or other necessary actions to protect the trees shall be outlined by an arborist. If trenching is necessary within the area as described above, said trenching shall be undertaken by hand labor and dug directly beneath the trunk of the tree. All roots 2 inches or larger shall be tunneled under and other roots shall be cut smoothly to the trunk side of the trench. The trunk side should be draped immediately with two layers of untreated burlap to a depth of 3 feet from the surface. The burlap shall be soaked nightly and left in place until the trench is back filled to the original level. An arborist shall examine the 180 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Ten-Lot Subdivision, 14521 Quito Road APN 397-05-028 Page 5 of 13 trench prior to back filling to ascertain the number and size of root cuts and shall suggest the necessary remedial repairs. c) Remedial repairs: An arborist shall have the responsibility of observing all ongoing activities that may affect the trees and prescribing necessary remedial work to ensure the health and stability of the trees. This includes, but is not limited to, all arborist activities brought out in the previous sections. In addition, pruning, as outlined in the “pruning standards” of the western chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture, shall be prescribed as necessary. Fertilizing, aeration, irrigation, pest control and other activities shall be prescribed according to the tree needs, local site requirements, and state agricultural pest control laws. All specifications shall be in writing. For pest control operations, consult the local county agricultural commissioner’s office for individuals licensed as pest control advisors or pest control operators. d) Final inspection: Upon completion of the project, the arborist shall review all work undertaken that may impact the existing trees. Special attention shall be given to cuts and fills, compacting, drainage, pruning and future remedial work. An arborist should submit a final report in writing outlining the ongoing remedial care following the final inspection. 15 MM - Biologic Resources – 6) Riparian Tree Removal – If trees within the riparian habitat must be removed for any reason, a California Department of Fish and Wildlife Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be required. For riparian trees, a mitigation ratio of 1 replacement tree for every inch of DBH of riparian tree is required for all trees larger than 6” DBH. (Example: a 12” DBH tree removed shall be mitigated by planting a minimum of 12 individual replacement trees). Each mitigation tree shall be a minimum of 5-gallon size. Community Development Department Prior to arrival of construction equipment or materials on site and during construction 181 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Ten-Lot Subdivision, 14521 Quito Road APN 397-05-028 Page 6 of 13 16 MM - Biologic Resources – 7) Pre-Construction Avian Survey – If project construction- related activities take place during the nesting season (February through August), preconstruction surveys for nesting passerine birds and raptors (birds of prey) within the project site and the large trees within the oak woodland and riparian areas, shall be conducted by a competent biologist 14 days prior to the commencement of the tree removal or site grading activities. If any bird listed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is found to be nesting within the project site or within the area of influence, an adequate protective buffer zone shall be established by a qualified biologist to protect the nesting site. This buffer shall be a minimum of 75 feet from the project activities for passerine birds, and a minimum of 200 feet for raptors. The distance shall be determined by a competent biologist based on the site conditions (topography, if the nest is in line of sight of the construction and the sensitivity of the birds nesting). The nest site(s) shall be monitored by a competent biologist periodically to see if the birds are stressed by the construction activities and if the protective buffer needs to be increased. Once the young have fledged and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones (typically by August), the project can proceed without further regard to the nest site(s). Community Development Department Prior to arrival of construction equipment or materials on site 17 MM - Biologic Resources – 8) Pre-construction Bat Survey – To avoid “take” of special- status bats, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to the removal of any existing trees or structures on the project site: a) A bat habitat assessment shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist during seasonal periods of bat activity (mid-February through mid-October) to determine suitability of each existing structure as bat roost habitat. b) Structures found to have no suitable openings can be considered clear for project activities as long as they are maintained so that new openings do not occur. c) Structures found to provide suitable roosting habitat, but without evidence of use by bats, may be sealed until project activities occur, as recommended by the bat biologist. Structures with openings and exhibiting evidence of use by bats shall be scheduled for humane bat exclusion and eviction, Community Development Department Prior to arrival of construction equipment or materials on site 182 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Ten-Lot Subdivision, 14521 Quito Road APN 397-05-028 Page 7 of 13 conducted during appropriate seasons, and under supervision of a qualified bat biologist. d) Bat exclusion and eviction shall only occur between February 15 and April 15, and from August 15 through October 30, in order to avoid take of non- volant (non-flying or inactive, either young, or seasonally torpid individuals. OR A qualified wildlife biologist experienced in surveying for identifying bat species shall survey the portion of the project site with large trees and abandoned structures. Any special-status bats identified should be removed without harm. Bat houses sufficient to shelter the number of bats removed shall be erected in open space areas that would not be disturbed by project development. 18 MM - Biologic Resources – 9) Pre-construction Amphibian (CRLF Protocol-FYLF VES) Surveys – A qualified Biologist shall survey the project site for CRLF (and other sensitive wildlife species including FYLF) preceding the commencement of construction activities to verify absence/presence of the species. Surveys shall be performed using USFWS protocol. Surveys Performed during the breeding season (October 1 – June 30): USFWS recommends a total of up to eight surveys to determine the absence of CRLF at or near a project site. Two-day surveys and four-night surveys would be required during the breading season. If CRLF are identified at any time during the course of surveys, no additional surveys are needed. Surveys Performed during the non-breeding season (July 1 – September 30): One day and one night survey would be required during the non-breeding season. At least one survey shall be completed between January 1 and August 15. If CRLF are identified at any time during the course of surveys, no additional surveys are needed. Community Development Department Prior to arrival of construction equipment or materials on site 183 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Ten-Lot Subdivision, 14521 Quito Road APN 397-05-028 Page 8 of 13 19 MM – Biologic Resources – 10) Pre-Construction Dusky-footed Woodrat Survey – Prior to commencing any Project activities that may result in the destruction of dusky- footed woodrat nests; surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine the occurrence of the nests. Community Development Department Prior to arrival of construction equipment or materials on site 20 MM – Biologic Resources – 11) Erosion Control – During construction, runoff from the Property could adversely affect aquatic life within the adjacent water features. Surface water runoff could remove particles of fill or excavated soil from the site, or could erode soil down-gradient, if the flow were not controlled. Deposition of eroded material in adjacent water features could increase turbidity, thereby endangering aquatic life, and reducing wildlife habitat. Implementation of appropriate mitigation measures would ensure that impacts to aquatic organisms would be avoided or minimized. Mitigation measures shall include best management practices (BMP’s) such as hay bales, silt fencing, placement of straw mulch and hydro seeding of exposed soils after construction as identified in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Community Development Department Engineer Ongoing 21 MM – Biologic Resources – 12) Tree Protection - A tree protection plan shall be developed by the project arborist and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. Adhering to this plan will become a condition of approval for the project. The project arborist shall visit the site every two weeks during grading trenching or digging activities and every six weeks thereafter. The project arborist shall supervise any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site. Roots of protected trees measuring two inches in diameter or more shall not be cut without prior approval of the Project Arborist. Should any protected tree be damaged beyond repair, new trees shall be planted as required by the City Arborist. City Arborist Prior to arrival of construction equipment or materials on site 22 MM – Biologic Resources – 13) Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative’s Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams, adopted as guidelines by the City shall be implemented. A 2:1 slope stability protection area as measured from the toe of the bank of the creek shall be shown on parcels 3, 4 and 10. No structures including pools shall be located within the slope stability protection area. Community Development Department Ongoing 184 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Ten-Lot Subdivision, 14521 Quito Road APN 397-05-028 Page 9 of 13 23 MM – Biologic Resources – 14) Riparian Vegetation removal and disturbance shall be avoided during grading activities to prevent the degradation of existing riparian habitat and/or contribute to soil loss critical to the continued health and regeneration of riparian trees. Community Development Department Engineer Ongoing 24 MM – Cultural Resource – 1) If human remains are encountered within the Project Area during Project-related activities, all work shall stop within 100-feet of the discovery area, the area shall be secured to prevent further disturbance. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified immediately. The suspected human remains, and the area around them, shall be undisturbed and the proper authorities are called to the scene as soon as possible. The Corner shall determine if the remains are pre-contact period Native American remains or of modern origin and if there are any further investigation by the coroner is warranted. If the corner suspects the remains are those of a pre-contact period Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24-hours so that a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) can be designated to provide further recommendations regarding treatment of the remains. The MDL has 48-hours to make recommendations to the landowner for treatment or disposition of the human remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48-hours, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance. If the landowner does not accept the descendant’s recommendations, the owner or the descendant may request mediation by NAHC. According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitutes a cemetery (Section 8100), and willful disturbance of human remains is a felony (Section 7052). An archaeologist shall also be retained to evaluate the historical significance of the discovery, the potential for additional remains, and to provide further recommendations for treatment of the site in coordination with the MLD. Community Development Department Ongoing 25 MM – Cultural Resource – 2) Prepare an Archaeological Monitoring Plan Specific to the Proposed Development and Monitor for the Presence of Buried Historic-Period Archaeological Resources. A Secretary of Interior qualified archaeologist shall prepare an Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) and provide the appropriate level of archaeological monitoring for Project-related ground-disturbing activities. The AMP shall provide details regarding the types of archaeological resources that could potentially be Community Development Department Prior to recordation of Final Map and ongoing 185 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Ten-Lot Subdivision, 14521 Quito Road APN 397-05-028 Page 10 of 13 found within the Project Area during construction, the locations where they would most likely occur, and procedures to follow should any archaeological material be encountered. The AMP shall provide procedures and guidelines for proper notification to agencies and stakeholders, in-field assessment of the significance of any archaeological deposits identified during monitoring, and the permanent curation of artifacts from CRHR-eligible deposits that may be discovered. The archaeological monitor shall be empowered to halt construction activities at the location of a discovery to review possible archaeological material and to protect the resource while the deposit is being assessed. Monitoring shall continue until, in the archaeologist’s judgement, archaeological resources are not likely to be encountered. A report shall also be prepared to document the findings after construction is completed. 26 MM – Cultural Resource – 3) Stop Work if Archaeological Resources Are Discovered During Ground-Disturbing Activities. If an archaeological deposit is encountered during Project-related, ground disturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until the archaeologist assesses the find and makes recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. If avoidance of the archaeological deposit is not feasible, the archaeological deposit shall be evaluated for its eligibility for listing in the CRHR. If the deposit is found to be eligible, adverse impacts shall be mitigated. Mitigation may include excavation of the archaeological deposit in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Documentation that may include data recovery using standard archaeological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials; preparation of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; and accessioning of archaeological materials and a technical data recovery report at a curation facility. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report to document the methods and results of the assessment. The report shall be submitted to the Project applicant, City of Saratoga, and the NWIC upon completion of the resource assessment. Community Development Department Ongoing 27 MM – Geology and Soils – 1) The applicant’s Consultant shall coordinate with the Project Team to provide water well destruction, grading and demolition recommendations and observe site demolition for conformance with their recommendations. Any wells found on- Community Development Department Prior to commencement of grading 186 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Ten-Lot Subdivision, 14521 Quito Road APN 397-05-028 Page 11 of 13 site that will not be used shall be properly destroyed in accordance with Valley Water Ordinance 90-1, which requires the issuance of a well destruction permit. Property owners or their representative shall call the Wells and Water Measurement Unit at (408) 630-2660 for information regarding well destruction permits. activities 28 MM – Geology and Soils – 2) The applicant’s consultant shall delineate the extent of the in-ground swimming pool backfill on final maps prior to final map recordation to assist with anticipated site development. Community Development Department Prior to recordation of Final Map 29 MM – Hydrology and Water Quality – 1) Prior to beginning of construction, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with Regional Water Quality Control Board, if required, to obtain coverage under the State General Construction Activity NPDES Permit. Satisfactory evidence of the filing of the NOI shall be furnished to the City. The applicant shall comply with all provisions and conditions of the State Permit, including preparation and implementation of a Strom Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Copies of the SWPPP shall be submitted to the City prior to beginning of construction and maintained on site at all times. Community Development Department Engineer Prior to commencement of grading 30 MM – Hydrology and Water Quality – 2) Disposition and treatment of stormwater shall comply with the applicable requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit issued to the City of Saratoga and the implementation standards established by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (collectively the "NPDES Permit Standards"). To avoid the potential impact on natural groundwater recharge from new impervious surfaces (proposed roads and future homes), the applicant shall be required to implement stormwater retention on-site (NPDES design stormwater standards) which will allow stormwater to percolate into the ground in a manner that is protective of surface groundwater. Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Demolition, Grading or Building Permit for this Project, a Stormwater Management Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval demonstrating how all storm water will be retained on-site and in compliance with the NPDES Permit Standards. If not all stormwater can be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, and if complete retention is not otherwise required by the NPDES Permit Standards, the Project shall be designed to retain on-site the maximum reasonably Community Development Department Engineer Prior to commencement of grading 187 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Ten-Lot Subdivision, 14521 Quito Road APN 397-05-028 Page 12 of 13 feasible amount of stormwater and to direct all excess stormwater away from adjoining property and toward stormwater drains, drainageways, streets or road right-of- ways and otherwise comply with the NPDES Permit Standards. 31 MM – Hydrology and Water Quality – 3) In areas of special flood hazard designated as floodways as established in SMC §16-66.050(b) encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvement, and other new development is prohibited unless certifications by a registered professional engineer or architect is provided demonstrating that encroachments shall not result in any increase in the base flood elevation during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. All new construction, substantial improvement, and other proposed new development shall comply with all other applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of SMC §16-66.090 through §16-66.140. Community Development Department Engineer Ongoing 32 MM – Hydrology and Water Quality – 4) In all areas of special flood hazard zones new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed in accordance with SMC §16.66.090 Standards for Construction, and §16.66.100 Standards for Utilities. Community Development Department Engineer Ongoing 33 MM – Hydrology and Water Quality – 5) All new structures located on Parcels 3, 4 and 10 shall be located outside the 2:1 Slope Stability Protection Area as measured from the toe of the bank of the creek in accordance with the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative’s Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. Community Development Department Engineer Ongoing 34 MM – Tribal Cultural Resources – 1) Upon discovery of any tribal cultural resources (TCR’s), all ground-disturbing and construction activities shall cease on the Project site until the find can be assessed by a registered professional archeologist. Community Development Department Ongoing 35 MM – Tribal Cultural Resources – 2) Although unlikely, if human remains are encountered within the Project Area during Project-related ground-disturbing activities, all work must stop within 100-feet of the discovery area, the area shall be secured to prevent further disturbance, and the Santa Clara County Coroner must be notified immediately. It is very important that the suspected human remains, and the area around them, are undisturbed and the proper authorities are called to the scene as soon as possible, as it could Community Development Department Engineer Ongoing 188 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Ten-Lot Subdivision, 14521 Quito Road APN 397-05-028 Page 13 of 13 be a crime scene. The corner will determine if the remains are precontact period Native American remains or of modern origin and if there are any further investigation by the coroner is warranted. If the remains are suspected to be those of a precontact period Native American, the coroner shall contact the NAHC by telephone within 24-hours. The NAHC will immediately notify the person it believes to be the most likely descendant (MLD) of the remains. The MLD has 48-hours to make recommendations to the landowner for treatment or disposition of the human remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48-hours, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance. If the landowner does not accept the descendant’s recommendations, the owner or the descendant may request mediation by NAHC. According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitutes a cemetery (Section 8100), and willful disturbance of human remains is a felony (Section 7052). An archaeologist shall also be retained to evaluate the historical significance of the discovery, the potential for additional remains, and to provide further recommendations for treatment of the site in coordination with the MLD. 189 RESOLUTION NO: 22-024 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP APPLICATION: SUB20-0003/ARB20-0053 14521 Quito Road (APN 397-05-028) WHEREAS, on November 23, 2020, an application was submitted by Pinn Brothers Development requesting tentative map approval to subdivide a 11.43-acre site located at 14521 Quito Road into 10 lots ranging in size from .92 acres to 1.2 acres. The project would also create a new private road accessed from Quito Road which would serve seven of the 10 parcels within the subdivision – three of the parcels would be accessed from Vessing Road. A total of 56 protected trees will be removed to construct the subdivision improvements. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an Initial Study for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and it has been determined that, based on the information contained in the Initial Study, the project as mitigated would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to avoid or reduce to a less-than-significant level the project’s potentially significant effects on the environment. These mitigation measures are hereby incorporated and fully made part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. WHEREAS, on November 9, 2022, Planning Commission opened the public hearing and received public comments on the project. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project and it has been determined that the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment with mitigation measures. Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use LU 1.1 which provide that the city shall continue to be predominantly a community of single- family detached residences; Land Use Policy LU 1.3 which provides that the city shall ensure that existing undeveloped sites zoned single-family detached residential remain so designated; Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the Planning Commission shall not approve any tentative map if the commission finds the proposal supports any 190 of the required nine findings [Municipal Code Section 14-20.070(b)]. Staff has provided evidence, which does not support the findings. 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans in that proposed parcels are consistent with the General Plan designation of Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) defined as 1.09 dwelling units per net acre. The proposed parcels meet the minimum lot size required by the city code for the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Proposed lot dimensions including width, depth and frontage meet or exceed the minimums required by the city code. 2. That the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The proposed parcel sizes, configuration, access and building envelopes are consistent with the General Plan designation of Residential Very Low Density (RVLD), are consistent with the zoning regulations, and are compatible with the existing densities in the project vicinity. The proposed building envelopes are sufficient in size and dimension to accommodate single-family residences and accessory dwelling units. Building envelopes provided on the proposed tentative map indicate that required setbacks can be provided to meet the development regulations. All existing structures on site are to be removed. Design review approval shall be required, as applicable in the city code, for the new single-family residences on the ten new parcels. At the time an application to construct a single-family residence is filed with the planning department, the mass, bulk, view, privacy, and compatibility issues of the proposed residence with the existing neighborhood and residences shall be examined. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The site is suitable for the type of development proposed in that the proposed building envelopes and the surrounding areas have a minimum percentage of slope. The subdivision will not impose features on the proposed parcels regarding size or shape that may constrain future development on the site. The existing conditions are such that there are no physical features including topography, location, or surroundings that may hinder future development on the site. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the site currently has one existing single-family home that will be removed. The subdivision application would result in the addition of ten additional single-family residences. Surrounding properties in the immediate surrounding are characterized by low-density single-family residential uses on similar sized parcels. 5. That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The City of Saratoga, as the Lead Agency, has prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the 191 proposed subdivision and no significant environmental impacts were found. 6. That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause serious health or safety problems. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious health or safety problems in that the proposed project is consistent with the zoning and subdivision regulations in the City Code and General Plan. The Tentative Map has been reviewed by West Valley Sanitary District, Santa Clara County Fire Department, Pacific Gas & Electric and the City of Saratoga Planning Department, Public Works, and Engineering. All structural improvements to the property will be reviewed by the Community Development Department. 7. That the design of the subdivision will conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access or use. The design of the subdivision would not conflict with easements for access or use. Access to the seven of the ten parcels would be provided by a new private road and three parcels would have site frontage and access from Vessing Road. There are no access easements in the area that would be affected by the subdivision. 8. That a proposed subdivision of land which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the Williamson Act will result in the creation of parcels to sustain their agricultural use. The project site is not subject to a Williamson Act Conservation Agreement. 9. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would result in violation of existing requirements. The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would not result in violation of existing requirements in that the West Valley Sanitary District operates a sewer line in Quito Road. Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby recommends approvals of SUB20-0003 -0002 and ARB20-0053located at 14521 Quito Road subject to the Findings, and Conditions PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 9th day of November 2022 by the following vote: AYES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSED: Herman Zheng Chair, Planning Commission 192 4 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL APPLICATION NUMBERS SUB20-0003//ARB20-0053 14521 Quito Road (APN 397-05-028) A. GENERAL 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. 2. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 3. Conditions may be modified only by the Planning Commission unless modification is expressly otherwise allowed by the City Code including but not limited to Sections 15-80.120 and/or 16- 05.035, as applicable. 4. The City shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice in writing, on or after the time the Resolution granting this Approval is duly executed containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the Community Development Director certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 5. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference. 6. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 193 5 B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 7. An application for Design Review shall be submitted for any new single-family home to be constructed on the parcels. 8. The applicant shall submit for Arborist Review for any future Design Review application that includes proposed removals of any ordinance sized trees per Saratoga Municipal Section 15-50. 9. The tentative map shall expire 24 months from the date on which it was approved unless a final map is approved by the City Council prior to the date of expiration. An extension of the expiration date may be granted by the Planning Commission for a period not exceeding 36 months. The application for extension with the payment of a fee shall be filed prior to the expiration date. Extension of tentative map approval is not a matter of right and the Planning Commission may deny the application. 10. All existing wells shall be abandoned and destroyed in accordance with Santa Clara Valley Water District permits. C. WEST VALLEY SANTITATION DISTRICT 11. The developer is required to pay all applicable fees prior to the recordation of the Final Map. The fees will be determined upon submittal of the improvement plan. District approval will be in the form of sewer connection permits after payment of fees. D. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 12. The developer is to submit a completed application for service, approved site, utility and elevation plans, appropriate engineering, and pay all fees prior to gas and electric service being provided. All necessary Public Utilities Easements or Rights of Way must be secured by the applicant prior to the installation of service. The gas and electric service facilities will be installed under the applicable rules and tariffs in effect at the time of application. E. CITY ARBORIST 13. The owner/applicant shall comply with all City Arborist requirements as in the arborist report dated August 10, 2022. F. FIRE DEPARTMENT 14. The owner/applicant shall comply with all Fire Department requirements dated December 21, 2020. G. CITY GEOLOGIST 15. The owner/applicant shall comply with all City Geologist requirements dated March 16, 2021. H. ENGINEERING 16. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers 194 6 harmless from and against: • any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and • any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director. Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 17. Tentative Subdivision Map. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Tentative Subdivision Map. A final map shall be prepared substantially in accord with the tentative map as approved. Any substantial change to the tentative may require additional review by the Planning Commission. All proposed changes to the Tentative Subdivision Map must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. 18. Stormwater. The project shall retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site, that is created by future construction and grading, such that adjacent down slope properties will not be negatively impacted by any increase in flow. The project will be reviewed in accordance with the most recent and up to date NPDES Standards which are jointly administered by CDD) and DPW. Disposition and treatment of stormwater shall comply with the applicable requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit issued to the City of Saratoga and the implementation standards established by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (collectively the "NPDES Permit Standards"). Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Demolition, Grading or Building Permit for this Project, a Stormwater Management Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval demonstrating how all storm water will be retained on-site and in compliance with the NPDES Permit Standards. If not all stormwater can be retained on- site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, and if complete retention is not otherwise required by the NPDES Permit Standards, the Project shall be designed to retain on-site the maximum reasonably feasible amount of stormwater and to direct all excess stormwater away from adjoining property and toward stormwater drains, drainageways, streets or road right-of- ways and otherwise comply with the NPDES Permit Standards and applicable City Codes. 19. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the City Engineer, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 195 7 20. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14- 40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the information required in Section 14-40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items: • Two copies of map checking calculations. • Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. • Two copies of each map referenced on the Final Map. • Two copies of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map. • Two copies of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the City Engineer. 21. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. 22. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the Final Map or some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by the City Engineer shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. 23. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements and/or rights-of-way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval. Additional easements for storm water drainage and treatment facilities shall be dedicated on the Final Map as needed. 24. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans to the City Engineer in conformance with the approved Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the appropriate officials from other public agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and private utility providers, prior to approval of the Final Map. Improvement requirements shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: a) Install a new 5’ raised AC pathway along the property’s full Quito Road frontage. b) Prepare phasing plans for the construction of the subdivision improvements under three scenarios: i. All subdivision improvements are completed prior to start of bridge construction. ii. Construction of subdivision improvements occurs concurrent with bridge construction. iii. Construction of subdivision improvements begins after bridge construction has been completed. 196 8 c) Design and install storm water treatment facilities required by the City's NPDES Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, Order R2-2009-0074. 25. Prior to the first Building Permit final on a new lot, the owner (applicant) shall pay an in-lieu fee equal to the construction cost for any portion of the raised AC pathway that cannot be constructed due to conflicts with the bridge construction. 26. If the owner (applicant) sells one or more of the lots fronting Quito Road (Lots 3, 4, and 10), the responsibility for constructing the portion of the works of improvement adjacent to the respective lot transfers to the new property owner. Each new property owner must enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement and furnish Improvement Securities for this work prior to Building Permit approval. 27. Prior to March 15, 2023, the owner (applicant) shall record an extension to the existing temporary construction easements. This extension shall state that all temporary easements are valid until the Quito Road Bridges project is complete. 28. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Plans are submitted for review. 29. The owner (applicant) shall enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the City in accordance with Section 14-60.010 of the Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval. 30. The owner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities in accordance with Section 1460.020 of the Municipal Code in the manner and amounts determined by the Public Works Director prior to Final Map approval. 31. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with Section 14-05.050 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map approval. 32. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to the City Engineer. 33. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park Development fee prior to Final Map approval. 34. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the City Engineer with satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serve the subdivision. 35. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Agreement for Stormwater Treatment Measures Construction, Inspection and Maintenance. 36. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an agreement with the City, waiving the owner/applicant’s right, and the right of the owner/applicant’s successor(s) in interest, to protest the annexation of the property or any portion thereof into the Saratoga Landscape and Lighting 197 9 Assessment District No. 1 for the purpose of providing for the maintenance of any landscape stormwater treatment systems and/or hydromodification controls developed on the property, or enter into a maintenance agreement with the City making the property owners responsible for the same. 37. The owner/applicant shall provide the Director of Public Works with a plan describing how owner/applicant will implement all BMPs and other measures required to reduce the stormwater runoff impacts of the project, as described in and required by the City’s NPDES Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, Order R2-2022-0018, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. The measures included in this plan shall include, but are not limited to, construction site control measures, plans for storm drain stenciling, and landscaping measures. This plan must be approved by the Director of Public Works. Prior to final map approval, the owner/applicant shall implement the plan, including paying City any fees for reviewing the plan, inspection and reporting. 38. Prior to beginning of construction, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, if required, to obtain coverage under the State General Construction Activity NPDES Permit. Satisfactory evidence of the filing of the NOI shall be furnished to the City. The applicant shall comply with all provisions and conditions of the State Permit, including preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (S WPPP). Copies of the SWPPP shall be submitted to the City prior to beginning of construction and maintained on site at all times during construction. 39. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction – Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 40. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. 41. Geotechnical Clearance. All requirements in the Geotechnical Clearance memorandum dated August 21, 2012, and as specified by the City Engineer are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. 42. Conditions Requested by Other Agencies or Utilities. Applicant shall comply with all conditions regarding improvements, whether on-site or off-site requested by other Agencies or Utilities having jurisdiction over the project. Such agencies include but are not limited to the Santa Clara Valley Water District and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Prior to issuance of city permits, the applicant must present evidence of permit approval by any such agencies, as required for any activities within jurisdictional areas of said agencies. 43. In areas of special flood hazard designated as floodways as established in SMC §16-66.050(b) encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvement, and other new development is prohibited unless certifications by a registered professional engineer or architect is provided demonstrating that encroachments shall not result in any increase in the base flood elevation during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. All new construction, substantial improvement, and other proposed new development shall comply with all other applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of SMC §16-66.090 through §16-66.140. 198 10 44. In all areas of special flood hazard zones new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed in accordance with SMC §16.66.090 Standards for Construction, and §16.66.100 Standards for Utilities. *** End of Conditions *** 199 From:Greg Pinn To:Christopher Riordan Subject:Re: PC Response Letter Date:Monday, October 10, 2022 5:19:56 PM Attachments:image001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Chris, I’ve reviewed the Quito Neighbors letters expressing a few concerns regarding our proposed 10 home subdivision at Quito Rd and Vessing Rd. As you know, we’ve spent approximately 2 years working through the difficult logistics of this parcel, and are excited about the result. During that time, I’ve had an opportunity to discuss all of these issues with several of the neighbors. Jeff Curran, our COO, and I even visited a neighbors home to discuss site lines and privacy issues. These meetings were a success with the concerns quelled. Just last week I met at the Mueller’s home to discuss with a few neighbors their request for remuneration of funds they paid a while back to bring Vessing Rd up to City spec in order for the City to take ownership and maintenance of the road. I see that Vessing is not listed on the City’s roster of Private Roads and see that it’s street swept and maintained by the City. However, in good faith we have agreed to pay what would amount to our portion (Vessing frontage) which seems to be acceptable to the neighbors at this time. As always with our developments, High Quality Design and Construction, Noise and Dust Abatement, Proper Drainage, Tree Preservation, Safety and Privacy are always in the forefront of our minds. I’ve lived almost my entire life in Saratoga, have developed over 50 homes in the City and continue to take great pride in our work here in Saratoga. These homes will be no different. I personally live only minutes from this site and each and every neighbor will have my cell phone number should they want to discuss anything. I believe these homes and the families who‘ll eventuality live in them will be a welcome addition to the neighborhood and the Saratoga Community. Please forward this note on to the Planning Commission as I look forward to working with them, as we have with you and your Staff over the past several years. Best Regards, Greg A. Pinn, VP Pinn Bros. Fine Homes 200 From:Debbie Pedro To:Christopher Riordan; Cynthia Richardson Subject:Fwd: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form Date:Monday, October 10, 2022 6:21:48 PM Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: noreply@civicplus.com Date: October 8, 2022 at 10:13:29 PM PDT To: Sunil Ahuja <ahujasu@yahoo.com>, Clinton Brownley <cbrownley@gmail.com>, Anjali Kausar <aakausar@outlook.com>, Razi Mohiuddin <razi@mohiuddin.com>, Herman Zheng <zheng.herman@gmail.com>, Jonathan Choi <jojo.choi@gmail.com>, Ping Li <ping.li2@comcast.net>, Debbie Pedro <dpedro@saratoga.ca.us>, Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>, Frances Reed <freed@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name ART W DANA Phone Number Email Address Comments To: City of Saratoga Planning Commission From: Art & Jean Dana 18500 Vessing Rd Re: Comments for 14521 Quito Rd 10 Lot Subdivision We have lived at 18500 Vessing Rd for 34 years. We have 3 strong preferences regarding the 14521 Quito Rd 10 Lot Subdivision project: 1. Start construction at north end of property. 2. No access to Vessing Rd. If this is not feasible then Pinn Bros should pay their fair share of Vessing Rd improvements adjusted for inflation. 3. Coordinate all construction with the rebuilding of the 2 Quito 201 Rd bridges so that both projects do not overlap, thus minimizing traffic delays Thank you Art & Jean Dana Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 202 From:Austin Kilburn To:Christopher Riordan Subject:Vessing Road project Date:Monday, October 10, 2022 5:03:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Chris. Here is a letter that I wanted to send you but did not have your email until just now. It was me responding to John Brosnan''s letter to you. Probably we'll see you tomorrow on the walk thru. Austin Hi John. (and others) Your great letter to the city planning folks looked so great. I thought I'd add a few thoughts and concur with yours but I could not find an email address for either Chris Riordan or John Cherbone. I think that since Les Hinz never paid a penny towards Vessing resurface and redesign project that the rest of us had to pay for the costs of the widening all the way down Vessing and also for the curb along the Hinz property line. Absolutely he had no reason to have to pay into the project as he did not have any ingress or water hookups or any other attachment to the project. But, if the PINN project is going to put new driveways onto Vessing, and hookup to the water supply lines which we paid for , then I feel that they should kick in money to all of us who paid who still live here. I would absolutely prefer that they used the new road in to their project for all the homes (and then there would be no need for any payments), but if that it not possible then they should pay into the project at a current dollar value. Also, the "STREET SWEEPER" came up the street this morning at 7:00 AM and woke us up and at least also Bonnie Mueller (We talked to her when she drove down the street and we were out raking leaves that he didn't pick up in front of our hedges). Number 1. I didn't think anyone was supposed to be making noise before 8:00 AM by city ordinance and 2. He didn't do much cleaning. Looking up and down Vessing it looks like he missed the corners, our property, the Hinze property, etc. I sure hope that they don't pay that guy much. When I have seen him during regular hours before he drives with the brushes not spinning and raised up off the pavement so no cleaning is actually done. What a waste of time and money! One more thing. I see that the Civil Engineers for PINN project have put a marker where our current fence exists. I don't think this is correct as when the road project was ongoing, the marker for our property was on the Hinz side of the fence, not in the middle. I remember there was a metal rod (maybe rebar?) that marked it. I don't have a metal sensor but I wonder if anyone has the drawings of the property lines back from 2002. I looked but all I found was the architectural drawings of our remake of this home. Austin 203 From:Debbie Pedro To:Christopher Riordan Cc:Cynthia Richardson Subject:Fwd: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form Date:Monday, October 10, 2022 6:19:06 PM Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: noreply@civicplus.com Date: October 10, 2022 at 5:03:32 PM PDT To: Sunil Ahuja <ahujasu@yahoo.com>, Clinton Brownley <cbrownley@gmail.com>, Anjali Kausar <aakausar@outlook.com>, Razi Mohiuddin <razi@mohiuddin.com>, Herman Zheng <zheng.herman@gmail.com>, Jonathan Choi <jojo.choi@gmail.com>, Ping Li <ping.li2@comcast.net>, Debbie Pedro <dpedro@saratoga.ca.us>, Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>, Frances Reed <freed@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Jim Gannon Phone Number Email Address Comments For the Quito Road/Vessing Road subdivision session I have the following questions: 1) Is Vessing Road public or private? 2) How does the designation of our street (ie public or private) impact decisions about development? 3) How will sight lines be effected by the homes that are proposed to be built? 4) what is the current state of the Pinn Bros bid? Is it still in escrow? What are the steps to finalize the sale? 5) Which trees will be removed? 6) Will trees be planted in consideration for the trees that are proposed to be removed? 7) what are the rules about setbacks? 8) what is the next milestones in the process for the development? 9) what % of each lot can be developed (ie hardscaping plus house footprint)? 204 From:Jim Lafferty To:Christopher Riordan Subject:14521 Quito Road Date:Monday, October 10, 2022 2:43:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. I think it would be appropriate to include a walking/biking path through to Evans Lane so all could have a safer path than Quito Road. This is especially true for students walking or riding to Marshall Lane School. Jim Lafferty 205 From:Debbie Pedro To:Christopher Riordan Cc:Cynthia Richardson Subject:Fwd: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form Date:Monday, October 10, 2022 6:19:29 PM Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: noreply@civicplus.com Date: October 10, 2022 at 4:01:42 PM PDT To: Sunil Ahuja <ahujasu@yahoo.com>, Clinton Brownley <cbrownley@gmail.com>, Anjali Kausar <aakausar@outlook.com>, Razi Mohiuddin <razi@mohiuddin.com>, Herman Zheng <zheng.herman@gmail.com>, Jonathan Choi <jojo.choi@gmail.com>, Ping Li <ping.li2@comcast.net>, Debbie Pedro <dpedro@saratoga.ca.us>, Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>, Frances Reed <freed@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Karen Louie Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Comments Dear Saratoga Planning Commission, I am one of the property owners on Vessing Road and I'm writing about the development of 14521 Vessing Rd by the Pinn Brothers. First, it will be good to have nice houses with large parcels on that property which has sat vacant and unattended to for so many years. Pertaining to the development, I respectfully request to minimize disruption to the property owners on Vessing Rd and Courts. Specifically - A) perform the development of the houses, landscaping, and hardscaping all at once rather than spacing it out over years. B) Place the heavy equipment when not in use on the property rather than on Vessing Road which will block or slow Vessing residents' incoming and outgoing. C) 206 Clean 100+ feet daily beyond where the construction and worker vehicles park and drive on Vessing and Quito Roads for nails and other debris. Over the years, there have been other construction projects where nails end up on road causing flat tires. D) Park vehicles on one side of Vessing rather than both as that blocks Emergency vehicles access to houses on Vessing. E) Minimize airborne dirt and toxic vapors from construction at a minimum to minimize health for residents. I also request that the Quito Bridge Project take place after all of the construction is finished on this new development. Thank you, Karen Louie Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 207 From:Debbie Pedro To:Christopher Riordan Cc:Cynthia Richardson Subject:Fwd: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form Date:Monday, October 10, 2022 6:21:48 PM Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: noreply@civicplus.com Date: October 9, 2022 at 3:23:16 PM PDT To: Sunil Ahuja <ahujasu@yahoo.com>, Clinton Brownley <cbrownley@gmail.com>, Anjali Kausar <aakausar@outlook.com>, Razi Mohiuddin <razi@mohiuddin.com>, Herman Zheng <zheng.herman@gmail.com>, Jonathan Choi <jojo.choi@gmail.com>, Ping Li <ping.li2@comcast.net>, Debbie Pedro <dpedro@saratoga.ca.us>, Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>, Frances Reed <freed@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Kurt Guttenberg Phone Number Email Address Comments Re: Pinn Bros development on the Hinz property (located @ Vessing x Quito). I would like to understand why this development has to rely on Vessing Rd for access to some of its homes. I would prefer to see Quito used as its sole entry point. It’s especially of interest to me as the city had the neighborhood cover the funding to improve the road frontage (curbs), street construction and water main installation for the Hinz property back in 2002 as part of a special assessment district (as Hinz would not participate). We were told at the time that this parcel had its address and main frontage along Quito, and would have no use for the road 208 improvements on Vessing – and now the city is turning around and letting the developer utilize these improvements – and I imagine the city is collecting some pretty hefty fees for access to Vessing Rd improvements the city never funded. If the Vessing houses get approved, I would expect the neighborhood to be reimbursed by either the developer or the city for our costs to at least cover Hinz’s portion and adjusted for the 20 years of inflation. Also, if the Vessing houses get approved, I would like to see those 3 built at the same time. I understand the plan is to build 2 houses at a time, but that means Vessing gets 2 construction periods instead of just one. I would prefer to keep the trucks, the noise, the road getting torn up to one instance instead of two. Finally, I would like to hear how the city plans to manage this development effort if the Quito Roads bridges’ project occurs at the same time. The bridges’ project would close Quito to all traffic for ~9 months, and there should be a plan to manage how these two major projects will coexist in roughly the same location. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 209 From:Manju Banerje To:Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; Mary-Lynne Bernald; Rishi Kumar; Yan Zhao; James Lindsay; City Council; Christopher Riordan Subject:Planning Commission Study Session Quito/Vessing Road 10-Lot Subdivision Tuesday October 11 Date:Sunday, October 9, 2022 7:55:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hello Tina, Kookie, Rishi, Yan, James and Chris, First some background - Dan and I have been the resident of Vessing Road for more than 30 years. Almost 20 years ago, the residents got together and privately funded the rebuilding of the private road that was in dire need for repair. We worked with the city to upgrade/widen the road and new water pipes were laid. At that time, the property owner of the 11 acre lot on Quito road, that had the side boundary on Vessing Road not only refused to cooperate/collaborate on the improvement, he sued each property owner on stopping the improvement specifically mentioning that he is not on Vessing Road and had no interest in Vessing Road improvement as he will not benefit from it. So, the Vessing Road residents had to pay for his portion and also for the law suit. The cost of the rebuilding itself was more that 1/2 a million at that time. In today's housing and construction inflation, that cost will be at least twice or 3 times if not more. Vessing Road stands privately funded by the property owners. We are all for growth and development and have no objection of the development on that lot as long as all the 210 new homes have contained access from Quito Road only. This will allow for containment of congestion at the bottom of the hill with cars and utility access to 3 additional homes and there will be nothing to stop the cars from backing into Vessing Road from these 3 proposed homes with limited visibility onto the oncoming traffic. This may actually be a traffic hazard. Wondering if this was in consideration in the planning of the parcels. Appreciate your support in containing access to these homes from Quito Road and keeping Vessing Road private and safe. Another option is having just 1 driveway for the 3 homes and cars from these homes should not back into Vessing Road. In this option, our expectation is Pin Brothers compensate the Vessing Road home owners the fair value of the improvements in todays housing inflation and cost and the value it adds to their improvements and profits. Thanks, Manju Banerje 211 From:Barry Fernald To:Christopher Riordan Subject:14521 Quito Road Subdivision Date:Wednesday, September 14, 2022 12:03:01 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Mr. Riordan, Regarding the public review period for the above referenced project, I have two concerns that I would like to share with you and the Planning Commission. I live at 1 Evans Lane, and have been a very close neighbor to this property for almost 44 years. The first and most important issue is that during winter rains (hopefully we have them again) a river flows from the subject property through the back (and some front) yards of Evans Lane homes, creating flood conditions. What I ask, is that the drainage on this property be directed into Quito Creek before it leaves the subject property. Quito Creek is very close to the property and can easily receive the runoff from the rain. Secondly, the designs sketches of the homes show some very similar and dated architecture. Hopefully, the Pinn Brothers will do a better job in making the homes have a diversity of different designs, so they fit into the existing neighborhood. Along with design, they call for wooden fences separating the lots, I would suggest black chainlink fences similar to the Evans Lane homes, as this provides a more open feel to the area. Thank you for hearing my comments. Barry Fernald 212 From:Barry Fernald To:Christopher Riordan Subject:!4521 Quito Road Date:Sunday, June 27, 2021 5:10:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Chris, I am a resident of Evans Lane for the past 42 years, and am writing you on behalf of myself and my neighbors because I understand you are the City Planner working on the development of the 11.43 acres just south of us at the end of Evans Lane and on Quito Road. Would you mind letting me know what is happening regarding this development? In particular, I am concerned that the new homes may gain access from Evans Lane, as well as I would like to inform the civil engineers for that site of a major drainage problem that floods the Evans Lane backyards in wet years (hopefully we will have wet years). You have my email address from this letter, and my cell phone is , and my land line is Thank you, Barry Fernald 213 214 From:Debbie Pedro To:Christopher Riordan Cc:Frances Reed Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form Date:Monday, October 3, 2022 9:17:36 AM From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 9:16 AM To: Sunil Ahuja <ahujasu@yahoo.com>; Clinton Brownley <cbrownley@gmail.com>; Anjali Kausar <aakausar@outlook.com>; Razi Mohiuddin <razi@mohiuddin.com>; Herman Zheng <zheng.herman@gmail.com>; Jonathan Choi <jojo.choi@gmail.com>; Ping Li <ping.li2@comcast.net>; Debbie Pedro <dpedro@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Frances Reed <freed@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Bonnie Mueller Phone Number Email Address Comments My question is - why is it possible that 3 of the homes will have ingress and egress on Vessing Road when the family that owned the property for many years had a Quito Road address only and never entered their property from Vessing Road? This will add at least 6-9 vehicles entering and exiting at the bottom of Vessing Road and Quito on a daily basis. I feel that is dangerous. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 215 From:Debbie Pedro To:Christopher Riordan Cc:Frances Reed Subject:FW: Planning Commission Study Session Quito/Vessing Road 10-Lot Subdivision Tuesday October 11 Date:Monday, October 31, 2022 1:51:18 PM Attachments:Vessing Road Record 1997.pdf From: John Brosnan Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 12:35 PM To: James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us> Cc: Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Mary-Lynne Bernald <mlbernald@saratoga.ca.us>; Rishi Kumar <rkumar@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Debbie Pedro <dpedro@saratoga.ca.us>; Crystal Bothelio <cbothelio@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Re: Planning Commission Study Session Quito/Vessing Road 10-Lot Subdivision Tuesday October 11 CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear City Manager James Lindsay, You were cc'd on a letter I sent to the Planning Commission for the Planning Commission meeting on October 11, 2022 regarding the Pinn Brothers' development proposal for 14521 Quito Road. The letter expresses my and the neighborhood's concern regarding Pinn Brothers' proposed use of Vessing Road for access for three of the proposed subdivided parcels. The concerns are due to 14521 Quito Road not having contributed and being a member of the Vessing Road Assessment District when it was formed to improve Vessing Road to City standard roads in the early 2000s. The costs of the road improvements were borne by the 20 parcels within Vessing Road. I am asking for your help and perhaps the City Attorney to declare the official ownership of Vessing Road. I made a public information request about this with the City but I believe the map I received from the City Clerk was recorded in April 1997. It not an official record as there are handwritten and hand colored delineations on the map. This modified map shows there may be different ownership of various segments of Vessing Road; some may have been dedicated to the City as an easement; and some were not. Again, I cannot tell if this is an official Santa Clara County record of the property rights. Due to this unclear information, the Vessing Road neighbors are not certain the City can rightfully give Pinn Brothers the right to use Vessing Road for their project. In addition at the Planning Commission meeting, the staff planner noted that Pinn Brothers may be paying the Vessing Road neighbors for use of Vessing Road and 216 that this issue was a private issue. I strongly disagree with staff's recommendation. The reason is that it is the City in the review for approval of the development proposal who has any "teeth" in this negotiations for Pinn Brothers to pay for use of Vessing Road. In summary, I am asking the CIty to: 1) provide official documents and statements to declare the rightful ownership of Vessing Road; and 2) remain as a facilitator in the negotiations with the Vessing Road neighbors and Pinn Brothers for Pinn Brothers to pay for the use of Vessing Road. Before the Vessing Road ownership information is confirmed, the City should not be approving the current Pinn Brothers development proposal at 14521 Quito Road to use Vessing Road for access. I look forward to the information. Thank you for your time. John Brosnan cc: Mayor and CIty Councilmembers On Friday, October 7, 2022, 12:16:37 PM PDT, James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us> wrote: Hi John, A quick reply to acknowledge the City Council has received the letter you sent to the Planning Commission. Sincerely, James Lindsay City Manager From: John Brosnan Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2022 10:15 PM To: Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Mary-Lynne Bernald <mlbernald@saratoga.ca.us>; Rishi Kumar <rkumar@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Planning Commission Study Session Quito/Vessing Road 10-Lot Subdivision Tuesday October 11 217 CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Mayor Tina Walia, Vice Mayor Kookie Fitzsimmons, Councilmember Mary-Lynne Bernard, Councilmember Rishi Kumar, Councilmember Yan Zhao, City Manager James Lindsay, We are writing to express our concerns regarding the Pinn Brothers' development project at 14521 Quito Road. Please see attached letter. 218 219 220 18620 Vessing Road October 4, 2022 City of Saratoga Planning Commissioners: Commission Chair Herman Zhang Vice Chair Clinton Brownley Sunil Ahuja, Jojo Choi, Anjali Kausar, Ping Li, and Razi Mohiuddin RE: 14521 Quito Road Proposed Development’s NegaSve Impacts to Vessing Road Residents Dear Commissioners, My family lives on 18620 Vessing Road, and we are wriSng to raise several issues about the Pinn Brothers development proposal at 14521 Quito Road that will be studied at the October 11, 2022 Planning Commission meeSng. The meeSng’s noSce provides that three of the proposed subdivided parcels would have access from Vessing Road. This part of the project has several flaws. As you may be aware, the public improvements to Vessing Road were paid for by the 20 parcel owners of Vessing Road under the Vessing Road Assessment District developed by the CIty. When we say Vessing Road, we also include neighbors on Vessing Court. The previous owner of 14521 Quito Road legally fought the City and the Vessing Road neighbors to not contribute to the costs of improving Vessing Road, noSng that they use Quito Road for public access. 14521 Quito Road contributed $0 for the Vessing Road roadway and uSlity improvements while the rest of the neighbors contributed a total of $620,000. (The Vessing Road neighbors also had to pay for legal fees outside of the public improvement costs.) We believe there are two opSons if you are approving for this development to conSnue: A.Do not allow the Pinn Brothers development to have access to Vessing Road since 14521 Quito Road did not and have not contributed to the costs of the public improvements on Vessing Road. Pinn Brothers has not paid for use of Vessing Road. Every parcel pays for the public improvements fronEng their property either when it is originally developed or through the purchase price of the parcel. Would you allow Pinn Brothers to have free access to the public improvements on Vessing Road paid for by the Vessing Road neighborhood? B.If you allow Pinn Brothers access to Vessing Road, have Pinn Brothers reimburse the 20 parcels who paid for the Vessing Road public improvements in today’s dollars for their share of the frontage and other improvements like the water main along Vessing Road which is the responsible thing to do. When 14521 Quito Road did not contribute for improvements to Vessing Road, the City should have paid for 14521 Quito’s share at that Sme instead of having the 20 Vessing Road parcels be responsible for this missing partner’s costs. 1 221 18620 Vessing Road There is a City municipal code - 14-25.030 - Design standards and dedicaEon of streets, secEon i.4. that may not fit the exact scenario we are describing but provides a good foundaSon for how the previous public improvements should have been handled by the City. The code states : (4) ………Where the street will border on other property not owned by the applicant, at the subdivider's or owner's request, the City will enter into a reimbursement agreement with the subdivider or owner whereby future developers of property abutting such improvement will be required to pay a pro rata share of the cost of the full street as a condition of future subdivision or site approval of such abutting property. Such reimbursement agreement shall have a term of not less than ten years. The pro rata share to be paid shall be determined by dividing the actual construction costs of the street by the total number of potential building sites which will border on or otherwise have access over the street and which are unapproved building sites at the time of the first street improvement, and multiplying the cost per building site thus obtained by the number of sites for which approval is sought. In this case, the 20 parcel owners are the “subdividers” stated in the Code. The Vessing Road public road improvements were conducted acer the 20 parcels were subdivided and developed. We believe the City should have complied with the Municipal Code noted above at the Sme of the Vessing Road street improvements. The City should have entered into a reimbursement agreement with the 20 parcel owners such that future developers along the 14521 Quito Road parcel would reimburse the 20 parcels for use of the Vessing Road frontage. In fact, the City should have paid for 14521 Quito Road’s share of the road and uSlity improvements, so the City could be the one to be reimbursed by the future developer (who is today’s Pinn Brothers) instead of pudng the burden on the 20 Vessing Road neighbors to pay. In summary, neither the City nor the owner(s), past and present, of 14521 Quito Road paid for the road and uSlity improvements on Vessing Road. Those improvements were privately paid for by the 20 Vessing Road parcels. If the City allows Pinn Brothers to use Vessing Road for access, the 20 Vessing Road parcels should be fairly reimbursed for helping to pay for 14521 Quito Road’s share of the road and uSlity improvements in 2022 dollar value. If you do not have Pinn Brothers pay for use of Vessing Road, you are making the 20 Vessing Road neighbors contribute, against their will, to the profits of Pinn Brothers. Overall, we are disappointed the City has not even considered doing the right thing and allowing Pinn Brothers to have progressed so far along with the proposed use of Vessing Road and not considering paying for their share of the public improvements on Vessing to the Vessing Road neighbors. 2 222 18620 Vessing Road We ask you as fellow community members to act upon maeers fairly and responsibly and correct the City’s acSons from the past. We look forward to the neighbors of Vessing Road’s interests be righfully represented and respected by the City in the consideraSon of the development proposal by the City denying the development access to Vessing Road or properly compensaSng the 20 Vessing Road property owners fairly. Thank you for your consideraSon. Sincerely, John Brosnan 18620 Vessing Road Cc: Mayor Tina Walia Vice Mayor Kookie Fitzsimmons Councilmember Mary-Lynne Bernard Councilmember Rishi Kumar Councilmember Yan Zhao City Manager James Lindsay 3 223 From:Karen Huang To:Christopher Riordan Subject:Re: 14521 Quito Road Proposed Development’s Negative Impacts to Vessing Road Residents Date:Thursday, October 13, 2022 11:08:25 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Chris, I never heard back from you and wonder if you received my message about the Pinn Project on Quito at Vessing Road. Regards, Karen On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 2:30 PM Karen Huang wrote: Hi Chris, Thanks for the voicemail last night. My family has lived at Vessing Court, Saratoga, CA 95070 since 1977. Hence, I would like to express my strong objections regarding the proposed development on the corner of Quito and Vessing Road. In particular, I object to the addition of 3 driveways onto Vessing Road for the Pinn Brother project. I think that all of the properties in the Pinn project should be accessed via the private road that will connect to Quito road. I object to having any of the parcels taking access from Vessing Road. Rather than taking access from Vessing, the three properties that are proposed to have driveways on Vessing should instead be flag lots accessed via the private road and its cul de sac. As you know, Quito Road has a great deal of vehicular traffic, as well as joggers and bicyclists. Where Vessing meets Quito, Quito is very winding with limited sight lines, no sidewalks, and no shoulder. Yet, many drivers enjoy the road curves as though it is a fun racetrack. As a result, turning onto Vessing from Quito AND turning onto Quito from Vessing is treacherous. Hence, the 19 and 21 MPH signs. Check out that intersection. It is already a dangerous one. Adding any driveways, let alone 3 of them, within 500 yards of the Vessing/Quito intersection will invite more vehicles to that intersection and increase the chances of accidents with cars, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The proposed homes with driveways on Vessing will mean that their visitors, delivery trucks, landscaper vehicles, etc. will park on Vessing very close to Quito Road. Vessing is simply too narrow for good visibility around those parked vehicles. Cars trying to go around those parked vehicles will have poor sight lines when turning onto Quito from Vessing or turning onto Vessing from Quito. This high risk situation can easily be prevented by simply having all of the Pinn project homes accessed via the private road and its cul de sac. 224 Adding three driveways to Vessing contributes nothing positive to the current Vessing neighborhood. Rather, they would unnecessarily create harmful risks for anyone using the Vessing/Quito intersection. There are simply no good reasons for building risks into a new housing development, especially when they can be so easily avoided. Sincerely, Karen Huang 225 226 227 From:Barry Fernald To:Christopher Riordan Subject:14521 Quito Road Subdivision Date:Wednesday, September 14, 2022 12:03:01 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Mr. Riordan, Regarding the public review period for the above referenced project, I have two concerns that I would like to share with you and the Planning Commission. I live at 14344 Evans Lane, and have been a very close neighbor to this property for almost 44 years. The first and most important issue is that during winter rains (hopefully we have them again) a river flows from the subject property through the back (and some front) yards of Evans Lane homes, creating flood conditions. What I ask, is that the drainage on this property be directed into Quito Creek before it leaves the subject property. Quito Creek is very close to the property and can easily receive the runoff from the rain. Secondly, the designs sketches of the homes show some very similar and dated architecture. Hopefully, the Pinn Brothers will do a better job in making the homes have a diversity of different designs, so they fit into the existing neighborhood. Along with design, they call for wooden fences separating the lots, I would suggest black chainlink fences similar to the Evans Lane homes, as this provides a more open feel to the area. Thank you for hearing my comments. Barry Fernald 228 From:Debbie Pedro To:Christopher Riordan Cc:Frances Reed Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form Date:Monday, October 3, 2022 9:17:36 AM From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 9:16 AM To: Sunil Ahuja <ahujasu@yahoo.com>; Clinton Brownley <cbrownley@gmail.com>; Anjali Kausar <aakausar@outlook.com>; Razi Mohiuddin <razi@mohiuddin.com>; Herman Zheng <zheng.herman@gmail.com>; Jonathan Choi <jojo.choi@gmail.com>; Ping Li <ping.li2@comcast.net>; Debbie Pedro <dpedro@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Frances Reed <freed@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Bonnie Mueller Phone Number Email Address Comments My question is - why is it possible that 3 of the homes will have ingress and egress on Vessing Road when the family that owned the property for many years had a Quito Road address only and never entered their property from Vessing Road? This will add at least 6-9 vehicles entering and exiting at the bottom of Vessing Road and Quito on a daily basis. I feel that is dangerous. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 October 11, 2022 From: Saeed & Evelyn Shakeri Vessing Court Saratoga, CA 95070 To: City of Saratoga Planning Department Re: Application SUB20-0003/ENV20-0003/ARB20-0053; 14521 Quito Road; (397-05-028) To Saratoga Planning Department: We would like to give the Planning Department our comments regarding this development. We have lived at 18632 Vessing Court since 2001. Back then Vessing Road was a dirt road. We paid $24,200 for the improvements and giving the City to maintain it from there. We remember the Hinz family who have sold this property to Pinn Brothers was not cooperative with the City and did not pay their fair share. Our preference is to have Pinn Brothers access all the homes through Quito Road. We realized this may be a hard one to sell but we would like the City to consider it. If the City gives permit to Pinn brothers to get access through Vessing Drive then they should pay their share of the costs related to the improvements made 20 years ago. Regards, Saeed & Evelyn Shakeri Saratoga, CA 95070 236 Initial Study Ten-Lot Subdivision 14521 Quito Road Saratoga, CA (APN 397-05-028) Owner: Maria Orlando-Hinz Trustee Public Review Period September 1, 2022 to September 30, 2022 Revised October 3, 2022 237 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 2 | Page The City of Saratoga, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for a proposed ten-lot subdivision at 14521 Quito Road (Project). The Project also includes demolition of three existing structures including a single-family home, an ancillary building and an inground swimming pool. Subdivision improvements include the construction of a private cul-de-sac and associated utility and drainage facilities. If the subdivision is approved, it would allow for the construction of ten new single-family homes each with an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) (Pub Resources Codes § 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal Code Regs., 15000 et seq.) this document, combined with the attached supporting data and exhibits, constitutes the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration on the subject Project. This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) provides the basis for the determination that with mitigation measures, this Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. PUBLIC REVIEW In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a 20-day public review period for this IS/MND commenced on September 1, 2022 and will conclude on September 30, 2022. During this period, the IS/MND will be available to local, state, and federal agencies and to interested organizations and individuals for review. All written comments must be received prior to 5:00 P.M. on September 30, 2022. Please submit written comments to: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 criordan@saratoga.ca.us Following the conclusion of the public review period, the Planning Commission will consider the IS/MND for the Project at a publicly noticed meeting. The Planning Commission shall consider the IS/MND together with any comments received during the public review process. The Planning Commission will provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Project and the IS/MND. 238 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 3 | Page A. PROJECT OVERVIEW 1. Project title: Ten-Lot subdivision at 14521 Quito Road 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Saratoga; Planning Division 13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga, CA 95070 3. Contact person and phone number: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner criordan@saratoga.ca.us / (408) 868-1235 4. Project location/APN: 14521 Quito Road, Saratoga, CA 95070 (APN 397-05-028) 5. Project Applicant name and address: Pinn Brothers Development Jeff Curran 12382 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Saratoga, CA 95070 6. Property Owner name and address: Maria Orlando-Hinz Trustee 860 Hermiston Drive San Jose, CA 95136 7. General Plan Designation: Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) 8. Zoning: Single Family Residential (R-1-40,000) Description of Project: The Project Applicant, Pinn Brothers Development, is proposing to subdivide an existing 11.43-acre parcel located at 14521 Quito Road into ten-lots ranging in size from .92 acres to 1.2 acres. The location of the Project site is shown on Figure 1. The Project would create a new private cul-de-sac with a connection to Quito Road. The private street would provide access to seven parcels and the remaining three parcels would take access from Vessing Road. A .34-acre portion of the site (Lot A) is located on the opposite side of Quito Road and would be dedicated to the City of Saratoga for open space use. The Project subdivision improvements (road and storm drain improvements) would require the removal of 56 protected trees. If the subdivision is approved, it would allow for the construction of ten, new single-family homes and accessory dwelling units. The Tentative Map is shown on Figure 2 (Exhibit A). 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The Project site is located at 14521 Quito Road. The site is bounded to the north by single family homes, to the east by Quito Road, to the south by Vessing Road, and to the west by Single family homes. To the east across Quito Road is San Tomas Aquino Creek, which is the City boundary line with the Town of Los Gatos. San Tomas Aquino Creek crosses under Quito Road onto the project site and runs north through the north-eastern corner of the site along Quito Road. There are three existing structures on site that are accessible from an unpaved driveway off Quito Road. The three structures include a single-family home, an accessory structure, two abandon wells and an in-ground swimming pool. All existing structures would be demolished. Any wells found 239 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 4 | Page on-site that will not be used must be properly destroyed in accordance with Valley Water Ordinance 90-1, which requires the issuance of a well destruction permit. The property is covered by native trees with many Coast Live Oaks. An Arborist Report was prepared, and 683 trees were inventoried. Over five hundred of the trees are classified as protected trees under the City of Saratoga Tree Regulations. Tree species include, but are not limited to Coast Live Oak, Black Walnut and Black Acacia. The Project subdivision improvements include the new streets, utility and storm drain improvements and would require the removal of 56 protected trees. A separate project by the City of Saratoga, the Town of Los Gatos and the Santa Clara Valley Water District is in the permitting phase, to replace a bridge that crosses Quito Road adjacent to and within the Project site. The existing bridge would be replaced with a wider span structure that would allow a 100-year design flow. Easements on the project site have been obtained and recorded including, temporary construction easements and mitigation planting areas. The new bridge would clear-span the creek and include bridge abutments supported on piles placed in cast-in-drilled-holes. The bridge project includes minor grading in the San Tomas Aquino Creek channel at the bridge location to reduce the angle of the channel at the crossing and to minimize the potential for erosion. The bridge project includes bank stabilization measures consisting of a combination of rock slope protection and wing/retaining walls. Riparian restoration and mitigation planting would occur on the Project site. At this time the City has not received final permits/approvals from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The Public Works Department anticipates their project to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act because it is a replacement and reconstruction of existing structures where the new structures would be located on the same sites and would have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the replaced structures. Construction of the replacement bridge is expected to begin in the Spring of 2023. 10. Other public agencies whose review is required San Jose Water Company; West Valley Sanitation District; Santa Clara Valley Water District and the Santa Clara County Fire Department. 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality etc.? The Tamien Nation has requested formal notice of and information on all projects requiring environmental review within the City of Saratoga. The Tamien Nation along with eight other tribes were formally notified of this project. 240 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 5 | Page Figure 1: Project Location Figure 2: Tentative Map 241 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 6 | Page 242 B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. Please see the checklist beginning on page 6 for additional information. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required Signature: Date: August 25, 2022 Printed Name: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner 243 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 8 | Page 1. AESTHETICS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? DISCUSSION: a-d) The proposed Tentative Map would subdivide an existing 11.43-acre parcel into ten lots. A new cul-de-sac would take access from Quito Road and would serve lots 4 through 10. Lots 1 through 3 would be served off Vessing Road. There are no scenic views or view sheds explicitly identified for this project area in the City of Saratoga’s General Plan or other planning documents. The project area does not include any portions of a State Scenic Highway identified by the California Department of Transportation. There are no identified scenic resources or historic buildings within a state scenic highway located within the project area. An Arborist Report was prepared by HMH dated February 11, 2022 (Exhibit B). The property is covered by native trees with many Coast Live Oaks. The Arborist Report inventoried 682 trees and over five hundred of the trees are classified as protected trees under the City of Saratoga Tree Regulations. Tree species include, but are not limited to Coast Live Oak, Black Walnut and Black Acacia. The Project subdivision improvements include the new cul-de-sac, utility and storm drain improvements, pathway along Quito Road and would require the removal of 56 protected trees. The project includes the removal of all existing structures and though this Project is only for the subdivision of ten lots, it is anticipated that a single-family home and an accessory dwelling unit would be developed on each of the new lots. Future development would be subject to zoning regulations, which include limits on building height, setbacks, grading and tree removal. In addition, the City’s Design Review process, which includes substantial conformance with the Single-Family Residential Design Review Handbook, would be used to ensure visual compatibility within the project area. The construction of the new homes would be similar to existing homes in the neighborhood and therefore would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Several protected and smaller trees would be removed along Quito Road to install the storm drainage system required for the project. However, the building setbacks along Quito Road would protect existing trees and shrubbery and would help to screen the new homes from the street. A .34-acre portion of the site is located on the east side of Quito Road and would be dedicated to the City of Saratoga. 244 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 9 | Page The Arborist Report prepared by HMH, contains recommendations for tree protection during construction. The City Arborist has reviewed the plans and recommendations for tree replacement are included in the approval (Exhibit C). Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings. MITIGATION: None Sources: 1, 2, 3 & 6 245 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 10 | Page 2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? DISCUSSION: a-e) The project site has been developed with a residential home and accessory structures for many years and is in an area fully developed with urbanized uses. At one time in the past the property had been planted with fruit trees such as prunes, apricots, peaches and walnuts. The fruit trees were removed around 2007 and the walnut trees remain. There are remnants of the former orchard; however, there is no pattern of planted trees and currently the property is dominated by Coast Live Oak and pine trees. There is no agricultural land or productive forestland on or adjacent to the site. 246 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 11 | Page The project site and all surroundings are designated “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the Department of Conservation (DOC), a department of California Resources Agency. The DOC’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) publishes Farmland Maps, and the most recent map was prepared in 2018. The map shows there is no farmland on or near the project site; therefore, there is no potential to convert Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use. The Land Use Element of the General Plan notes that there are no timber production areas within the City. There is no potential for the project to adversely affect timber resources. Therefore, the project would have no impact on agriculture and forest resources. MITIGATION: None Sources: 2, 3 & 8 247 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 12 | Page 3. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? DISCUSSION: a-e) The City of Saratoga, including the project site, is within the boundaries of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The Bay Area Air Quality Management district (BAAQMD) is the regional agency responsible for the regulation and enforcement of federal, state, and local air pollution control regulations in the SFBAAB, where the project site is located. Policies that support improving air quality are also contained in multiple locations in the City’s General Plan. Subdivision improvements include grading for installation of the private street, overall drainage improvements, utility installation, bioretention area excavations and utility trenching. The project includes earthwork estimates of 3,500 cubic yards of cut that will be exported off the project site. The Project subdivision improvement plans are subject to best management practices to minimize Project related effects on air quality to a less than significant level. Construction activities and debris removal trucks are expected during the 7-month construction time frame. None of these short-term construction activities would potentially effect air quality or create objectionable odors. The future development of each single-family home would be subject to the City’s design review process and would include individual conditions of approval for each lot requiring best management practices during construction to minimize project related effects on air quality to a less than significant level. Therefore, the projects construction activities for the subdivision improvements with the mitigation implemented below, would have a less than significant impact on the existing air quality of the site and its surroundings. 248 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 13 | Page MITIGATION: MM – Air Quality – 1) All exposed surfaces (e.g. parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, stockpiles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered twice daily, or as often as needed, treated with non-toxic soil stabilizers, or covered to control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. MM – Air Quality – 2) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered. MM – Air Quality – 3) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads and paved access roads shall be removed using wet power (with reclaimed water, if possible) vacuum street sweepers at least once per day, or as often as needed. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. MM – Air Quality – 4) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. MM – Air Quality – 5) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. MM – Air Quality – 6) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or by reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by California airborne toxics control measure Title 13 CCR Section 2485). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. MM – Air Quality – 7) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. MM – Air Quality – 8) A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number also shall be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. MM – Air Quality – 9) The Applicant’s project manager or his/her designee shall verify compliance that these measures are included in the Project’s grading plan and have been implemented during normal construction site inspections. Source: 2, 9 & 10 249 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 14 | Page 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? DISCUSSION: a-e) Olbering Environmental, Inc. conducted a field reconnaissance survey and prepared a Biological Resources Analysis Report dated January 2022 (Exhibit D). The report was prepared for the purpose of identifying sensitive plant and wildlife species, sensitive habitats, and biological constraints potentially occurring on the property. The search and review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) database reports revealed the occurrence of special-status plant and wildlife species that occur in the habitats found within the project site. The property is located along San Tomas Aquino Creek with a portion of the creek abutting the northeast corner of the parcel along Quito Road. This area is a Special Flood Hazard Area, Regulatory Floodway, Zone AE and would qualify as a Protected Creek. A protected creek is any creek identified in the most recently available Maps of Flood Control Facilities and Limits of One Percent Flooding prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Saratoga Code of Ordinance 15-06.525). 250 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 15 | Page A field survey was performed to determine the potential presence or absence of special-status species habitat listed in the CNDDB database report and to identify any wetland areas that could be potentially regulated by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The report concludes that the property includes wetlands/waters that may be considered jurisdictional by the Army Corps of Engineers, RWQCB, or the CDFW. The northeast corner of the property contains San Tomas Aquino Creek. If any project related activities are to occur within these features, an Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional delineation would be required along with permits from CDFW and the RWQCB. Sensitive habitats include riparian corridors, wetlands, habitats for legally protected species and California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern, areas of high biological diversity, areas providing important wildlife habitat, and unusual or regionally restricted habitat types. Habitat types considered sensitive include those listed on the CNDDB working list of “high priority” habitats The Report concludes that no special-status plant species were determined to have potential to occur on the project site. However special-status wildlife, mammals, amphibian, and reptile species were found to have the potential to occur on the project site. Site drainage is generally characterized by infiltration or sheetflow ultimately intercepted by San Tomas Aquino Creek. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 06085C0238J map revision date February 19, 2014, a portion of the site is located within a Special Flood Hazard Zone, Zone AE. The base flood elevation has been determined to be between 325 feet and 342 feet (NAVD88) in the area and a floodway has been delineated within a portion of the flood zone. Note, a portion of the AE zone is outside of the floodway (APN 397-05-028). The remaining portion of the site is within Zone X, an area of 100-year flooding with average depths of less than a foot or with a drainage area of less than one square mile or 0.2% flooding. The Olbering Report includes recommendations for Creek Protection to protect the creek, its banks, and riparian habitat. The protection zone would be shown on the final subdivision map as a Creek Protection Easement that would preclude the construction of new permanent structures (buildings) within the riparian drip line as shown in Figure 10 – Habitat Map within the report. This would ensure that the trees of the riparian corridor are protected from damage to their roots and crowns and provides a significant buffer from the creek and its banks. A 50-foot riparian buffer zone as shown in Figure 10 – Habitat Map within the report, would be established and shown on the final subdivision map. The 50-foot riparian buffer zone would include measures to protect wildlife and provide for construction monitoring by a qualified biologist during construction. The Arborist Report inventoried 682 trees. Tree species include, but are not limited to Coast Live Oak, Black Walnut and Black Acacia. There are 515 native and 63 non-native trees that would be considered “protected trees” by the City of Saratoga Tree Regulations. The Project subdivision improvements include new streets, utility and storm drain improvements and would require the removal of 56 251 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 16 | Page protected trees. For those trees that are to remain, the arborist report contains recommendations for tree replacement and protection during construction and are included as mitigation measures. The City Arborist has reviewed and approved the tree removals associated with the subdivision improvements. A total of five bird species were identified to have a high potential to occur on the property in a nesting and/or foraging capacity. One of the five birds was present, observed foraging on the property. Construction related activities should not take place during the nesting season (February through August), unless a preconstruction survey for nesting birds and raptors has been completed. The Biological Report indicates that there is habitat to support breeding, upland refuge and dispersal for both the California red-legged frog and the foothill yellow-legged frog. Both species are listed on the California data base and have a moderate potential to occur on the property. In addition, the western pond turtle has a moderate potential to occur on the property, therefore prior to construction a preconstruction survey for special status reptiles and amphibians are included mitigation measures. Bat species with project site habitat suitability include hoary bat and yuma myotis. The report recommends that prior to tree removal or structure demolition, preconstruction survey for these species is conducted by a qualified bat biologist during seasonal periods of bat activity to determine suitability of the on-site habitat. The San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat is listed as occurring within a 5-mile radius of the Property. The creek banks and riparian woodland offer highly suitable habitat for nesting and foraging. The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat has a high potential to occur on the Property. When the below mitigation measures are implemented the project will meet the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams through protection of the riparian buffer zone, creek protection easement, the limitation of non-native landscaping and the limitation on the construction of new permanent structures within the riparian drip line.. f) The project site is not part of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or any other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, with the implementation of the below mitigation measures, the project would have a less than significant impact on the existing Biological Resources of the site and its surroundings. MITIGATION: MM – Biologic Resources – 1) Corps and State Regulated Wetlands/Waters – Jurisdictional wetlands and waters potentially regulated under the authority of the Corps, RWQCB and CDFW are present on the property. Fill of these regulated features shall require authorization under Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and authorization under 1600 of the Fish and Wildlife Code. A Corps wetland delineation should be prepared to document the actual extent of jurisdictional features if any construction activity could result in impacts to wetland/waters. If the wetland/waters are deemed jurisdictional and construction activities are proposed that could impact these features, permits shall be obtained prior to construction. Setbacks from the wetlands/water features shall be required to protect habitat quality and to protect water quality. 252 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 17 | Page MM – Biologic Resources – 2) Creek Protection Easement – A Creek Protection Easement that protects the creek, its banks, and riparian habitat shall be established that precludes the construction of new permanent structures of any kind within the riparian drip line as seen on Figure 10 – Habitat Map prepared by Olbering Environmental, Inc. This would ensure that the trees of the riparian corridor are protected from damage to their roots and crowns and would provide a significant buffer from the creek and its banks. MM - Biologic Resources – 3) Riparian Buffer Zone – A 50-foot riparian buffer zone measured from the Riparian Dripline as shown on Figure 10 – Habitat Map prepared by Olbering Environmental, Inc., shall be established and shown on the final subdivision map, where construction of new structures may take place within the following additional mitigation and minimization measures. a) Installation of a wildlife exclusion fence. The fence shall be a minimum of 3-feet in height and shall be placed at the edge of the riparian drip line to prevent any potential wildlife from entering the construction area from the creek and riparian corridor. b) Construction Monitoring. A qualified biological construction monitor shall be present daily while initial grubbing and grading takes place. Once the construction area has been cleared of all vegetation and select trees have been removed, biological construction monitoring can be reduced to once per week site checks for the remainder of the grading period. c) Installation of BMPs along the Creek Protection Easement shall be included. MM – Biologic Resources – 4) Creek Protection Easement planting –Within the 50-foot riparian buffer zone any new landscaping shall be limited to native riparian plant materials in accordance with the Guidelines and Standards, Design Guides 1 & 2. MM - Biologic Resources – 5) Tree Preservation and Protection (non-riparian) – Tree protection shall be implemented during construction activities as follows: a) Site Preparation: All existing trees shall be fenced off 10’ beyond the outside drip line (foliar spread) of the tree. Alternatively, where this is not feasible, fence to the drip line of the tree. Where fencing is not possible, the trunk shall be protected straw waddle and orange snow fencing. The fence shall be a minimum of six feet high, made of pig wire with steel stakes or any material superior in quality, such as cyclone fencing. Tree protection zone sign shall be affixed to fencing at appropriate intervals as determined by the arborist on site. If the fence is within the dripline of the trees, the foliar fringe shall be raised to offset the chance of limb breakage from construction equipment encroaching within the dripline. All contractors, subcontractors and other personnel shall be warned that encroachment withing the fenced area is forbidden without the consent of the certified arborist on the project. This includes, but is not limited to, storage of lumber and other materials, disposal of paints, solvents or other noxious materials, parked cars, grading equipment or other heavy equipment. Penalties, based on the cost of remedial repairs and the evaluation guide published by the international society of arboriculture, shall be assessed for damages to the trees. See tree preservation detail for additional information, including tree protection zone sign. 253 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 18 | Page b) Grading/excavating: All grading plans that specify grading within the dripline of any tree, or within the distance from the trunk as outlined in the site preparation section above when said distance is outside the dripline, shall first be reviewed by a certified arborist. Provisions for aeration, drainage, pruning tunneling beneath roots, root pruning or other necessary actions to protect the trees shall be outlined by an arborist. If trenching is necessary within the area as described above, said trenching shall be undertaken by hand labor and dug directly beneath the trunk of the tree. All roots 2 inches or larger shall be tunneled under and other roots shall be cut smoothly to the trunk side of the trench. The trunk side should be draped immediately with two layers of untreated burlap to a depth of 3 feet from the surface. The burlap shall be soaked nightly and left in place until the trench is back filled to the original level. An arborist shall examine the trench prior to back filling to ascertain the number and size of root cuts and shall suggest the necessary remedial repairs. c) Remedial repairs: An arborist shall have the responsibility of observing all ongoing activities that may affect the trees and prescribing necessary remedial work to ensure the health and stability of the trees. This includes, but is not limited to, all arborist activities brought out in the previous sections. In addition, pruning, as outlined in the “pruning standards” of the western chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture, shall be prescribed as necessary. Fertilizing, aeration, irrigation, pest control and other activities shall be prescribed according to the tree needs, local site requirements, and state agricultural pest control laws. All specifications shall be in writing. For pest control operations, consult the local county agricultural commissioner’s office for individuals licensed as pest control advisors or pest control operators. d) Final inspection: Upon completion of the project, the arborist shall review all work undertaken that may impact the existing trees. Special attention shall be given to cuts and fills, compacting, drainage, pruning and future remedial work. An arborist should submit a final report in writing outlining the ongoing remedial care following the final inspection. MM - Biologic Resources – 6) Riparian Tree Removal – If trees within the riparian habitat must be removed for any reason, a California Department of Fish and Wildlife Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be required. For riparian trees, a mitigation ratio of 1 replacement tree for every inch of DBH of riparian tree is required for all trees larger than 6” DBH. (Example: a 12” DBH tree removed shall be mitigated by planting a minimum of 12 individual replacement trees). Each mitigation tree shall be a minimum of 5-gallon size. MM - Biologic Resources – 7) Pre-Construction Avian Survey – If project construction-related activities take place during the nesting season (February through August), preconstruction surveys for nesting passerine birds and raptors (birds of prey) within the project site and the large trees within the oak woodland and riparian areas, shall be conducted by a competent biologist 14 days prior to the commencement of the tree removal or site grading activities. If any bird listed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is found to be nesting within the project site or within the area of influence, an adequate protective buffer zone shall be established by a qualified biologist to protect the nesting site. This buffer shall be a minimum of 75 feet from the project activities for passerine birds, and a minimum of 254 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 19 | Page 200 feet for raptors. The distance shall be determined by a competent biologist based on the site conditions (topography, if the nest is in line of sight of the construction and the sensitivity of the birds nesting). The nest site(s) shall be monitored by a competent biologist periodically to see if the birds are stressed by the construction activities and if the protective buffer needs to be increased. Once the young have fledged and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones (typically by August), the project can proceed without further regard to the nest site(s). MM - Biologic Resources – 8) Pre-construction Bat Survey – To avoid “take” of special-status bats, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to the removal of any existing trees or structures on the project site: a) A bat habitat assessment shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist during seasonal periods of bat activity (mid-February through mid-October) to determine suitability of each existing structure as bat roost habitat. b) Structures found to have no suitable openings can be considered clear for project activities as long as they are maintained so that new openings do not occur. c) Structures found to provide suitable roosting habitat, but without evidence of use by bats, may be sealed until project activities occur, as recommended by the bat biologist. Structures with openings and exhibiting evidence of use by bats shall be scheduled for humane bat exclusion and eviction, conducted during appropriate seasons, and under supervision of a qualified bat biologist. d) Bat exclusion and eviction shall only occur between February 15 and April 15, and from August 15 through October 30, in order to avoid take of non-volant (non-flying or inactive, either young, or seasonally torpid individuals. OR A qualified wildlife biologist experienced in surveying for identifying bat species shall survey the portion of the project site with large trees and abandoned structures. Any special-status bats identified should be removed without harm. Bat houses sufficient to shelter the number of bats removed shall be erected in open space areas that would not be disturbed by project development. MM - Biologic Resources – 9) Pre-construction Amphibian (CRLF Protocol-FYLF VES) Surveys – A qualified Biologist shall survey the project site for CRLF (and other sensitive wildlife species including FYLF) preceding the commencement of construction activities to verify absence/presence of the species. Surveys shall be performed using USFWS protocol. Surveys Performed during the breeding season (October 1 – June 30): USFWS recommends a total of up to eight surveys to determine the absence of CRLF at or near a project site. Two- day surveys and four-night surveys would be required during the breading season. If CRLF are identified at any time during the course of surveys, no additional surveys are needed. Surveys Performed during the non-breeding season (July 1 – September 30): One day and one night survey would be required during the non-breeding season. At least one survey shall 255 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 20 | Page be completed between January 1 and August 15. If CRLF are identified at any time during the course of surveys, no additional surveys are needed. MM – Biologic Resources – 10) Pre-Construction Dusky-footed Woodrat Survey – Prior to commencing any Project activities that may result in the destruction of dusky-footed woodrat nests; surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine the occurrence of the nests. MM – Biologic Resources – 11) Erosion Control – During construction, runoff from the Property could adversely affect aquatic life within the adjacent water features. Surface water runoff could remove particles of fill or excavated soil from the site, or could erode soil down-gradient, if the flow were not controlled. Deposition of eroded material in adjacent water features could increase turbidity, thereby endangering aquatic life, and reducing wildlife habitat. Implementation of appropriate mitigation measures would ensure that impacts to aquatic organisms would be avoided or minimized. Mitigation measures shall include best management practices (BMP’s) such as hay bales, silt fencing, placement of straw mulch and hydro seeding of exposed soils after construction as identified in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). MM – Biologic Resources – 12) Tree Protection - A tree protection plan shall be developed by the project arborist and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. Adhering to this plan will become a condition of approval for the project. The project arborist shall visit the site every two weeks during grading trenching or digging activities and every six weeks thereafter. The project arborist shall supervise any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site. Roots of protected trees measuring two inches in diameter or more shall not be cut without prior approval of the Project Arborist. Should any protected tree be damaged beyond repair, new trees shall be planted as required by the City Arborist. MM – Biologic Resources – 13) Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative’s Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams, adopted as guidelines by the City shall be implemented. A 2:1 slope stability protection area as measured from the toe of the bank of the creek shall be shown on parcels 3, 4 and 10. No structures including pools shall be located within the slope stability protection area. MM – Biologic Resources – 14) Riparian Vegetation removal and disturbance shall be avoided during grading activities to prevent the degradation of existing riparian habitat and/or contribute to soil loss critical to the continued health and regeneration of riparian trees. Sources: 1, 2 & 3 256 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 21 | Page 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including that interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? DISCUSSION: a-b) The 11.43-acre Project site includes a 1942 house, a 1942 ancillary building, a 1950 inground swimming pool, and associated landscaping. A Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) of the property was prepared by Evans & DeShazo dated September 6, 2021 (Exhibit E). The HRE was based on specific guidelines and evaluation criteria of the CRHR (14 CCR 15064.5 and PRC 21084.1). The purpose of the report was to evaluate the history of the property and the history of the surrounding area and to evaluate the historical significance of the existing structures that are at least 45 years in age or older. DPR forms were also completed for the property and are attached to the report. The report revealed that in 2011 the main home was evaluated as part of a Historic Resource Evaluation Report of the Quito Road Bridges Replacement Project and was documented on DPR 523 forms (P-43-002807). However, because the property was surveyed from Quito Road and was largely not visible from the public right-of-way, the documentation was incomplete, and the evaluation did not meet the CEQA guidelines for evaluating historical resources. The current HRE prepared by Evans & DeShazo does meet the CEQA guidelines for evaluating historical resources. The HRE determined that the property containing the 1942 house, 1942 ancillary building and the 1950 inground swimming pool, and associated landscape does not meet the eligibility requirements for listing on the CRHR and is not currently listed on any national, state, or local register of historic resources; therefore, the property does not meet the definition of a historic resource under CEQA. As such, any future proposed project will not impact built environment historical resources within the property. In addition, an Archaeological Study was prepared by Evans & DeShazo dated March 31, 2022 (Exhibit F). The study was needed to identify archaeological resources that could be impacted by the proposed Project and provide recommendations if warranted. The Archaeological Study, which included an extended Phase 1 survey did not result in the identification of any precontact period archaeological resources within the Project Area; however, nineteen isolated historic-period artifacts, a concrete perimeter foundation of brick and artifact scatter were identified that appear to be associated with historic occupation of the Project Area from approximately 1876 to 1965. While none of the historic period artifacts or features identified within the Project area appeared to be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the presence of these historic artifacts and 257 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 22 | Page features, as well as the results of the historic research, indicates a high potential/sensitivity for subsurface historic-period archaeological deposits to be present within the Project Area that could be eligible for the CRHR. Therefore, Project-specific mitigations are provided below to address the high potential/sensitivity for historic-period archaeological resources to be encountered during Project- related, ground-disturbing activities. It is anticipated that implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce or eliminate adverse impacts to archaeological resources if discovered during construction. c) During grading operations if human remains are discovered within the Project site, all work shall stop, and the mitigation measures shall be followed. MITIGATION: MM – Cultural Resource – 1) If human remains are encountered within the Project Area during Project-related activities, all work shall stop within 100-feet of the discovery area and the area shall be secured to prevent further disturbance. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified immediately. The suspected human remains, and the area around them, shall be undisturbed and the proper authorities are called to the scene as soon as possible. The Coroner shall determine if the remains are pre-contact period Native American remains or of modern origin and if there are any further investigation by the coroner to be warranted. If the Coroner suspects the remains are those of a pre-contact period Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24- hours so that a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) can be designated to provide further recommendations regarding treatment of the remains. The MDL has 48-hours to make recommendations to the landowner for treatment or disposition of the human remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48-hours, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance. If the landowner does not accept the descendant’s recommendations, the owner or the descendant may request mediation by NAHC. According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitutes a cemetery (Section 8100), and willful disturbance of human remains is a felony (Section 7052). An archaeologist shall also be retained to evaluate the historical significance of the discovery, the potential for additional remains, and to provide further recommendations for treatment of the site in coordination with the MLD. MM – Cultural Resource – 2) Prepare an Archaeological Monitoring Plan Specific to the Proposed Development and Monitor for the Presence of Buried Historic-Period Archaeological Resources. A Secretary of Interior qualified archaeologist shall prepare an Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) and provide the appropriate level of archaeological monitoring for Project-related ground- disturbing activities. The AMP shall provide details regarding the types of archaeological resources that could potentially be found within the Project Area during construction, the locations where they would most likely occur, and procedures to follow should any archaeological material be encountered. The AMP shall provide procedures and guidelines for proper notification to agencies and stakeholders, in-field assessment of the significance of any archaeological deposits identified during monitoring, and the permanent curation of artifacts from CRHR-eligible deposits that may be discovered. The archaeological monitor shall be empowered to halt construction activities at the location of a discovery to review possible archaeological material and to protect the resource while the deposit is being assessed. Monitoring shall continue until, in the archaeologist’s judgement, archaeological resources are not likely to be encountered. A report shall also be prepared to document the findings after construction is completed. 258 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 23 | Page MM – Cultural Resource – 3) Stop Work if Archaeological Resources Are Discovered During Ground-Disturbing Activities. If an archaeological deposit is encountered during Project-related, ground disturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until the archaeologist assesses the find and makes recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. If avoidance of the archaeological deposit is not feasible, the archaeological deposit shall be evaluated for its eligibility for listing in the CRHR. If the deposit is found to be eligible, adverse impacts shall be mitigated. Mitigation may include excavation of the archaeological deposit in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Documentation that may include data recovery using standard archaeological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials; preparation of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; and accessioning of archaeological materials and a technical data recovery report at a curation facility. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report to document the methods and results of the assessment. The report shall be submitted to the Project applicant, City of Saratoga, and the NWIC upon completion of the resource assessment. Sources: 1, 2, 3 & 4 259 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 24 | Page 6. ENERGY: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? DISCUSSION: a-b) Implementation of the Project would not be considered to result in wasteful or inefficient consumption of energy. The project includes the construction of subdivision improvements such as utility extensions, bio retention basins and a new private street. No additional development is proposed at this time; however, it is expected that ten new single-family residences and accessory dwelling units will be constructed. Energy consumption would be expected to be commensurate with similar uses and wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction is not to be expected. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on Energy. MITIGATION: None Sources: 1, 2 & 3 260 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 25 | Page 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? DISCUSSION: a-f) The project site is located west of Quito Road. San Tomas Aquino Creek flows from south to north on the eastern side of Quito Road and crosses under the roadway and flows through Lot 10. Lower portions of the property comprising proposed Lot 10 is within regulatory floodways mapped by FEMA. Lots 3 and 10 are located within a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Zone AE. The Project Geotechnical Consultant advanced 4 subsurface borings to a depth of 45 feet below the ground surface. The Consultant reported encountering surficial stiff sandy silt, underlain by sands and gravels with interbeds of silt. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 9 feet below the ground surface. Therefore, it was concluded that the magnitude of liquefaction induced settlements are on the order of less than an inch and is tolerable for the planned structures. 261 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 26 | Page The City Geotechnical Consultant reviewed the project Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Assessment Report prepared by Quantum Geotechnical, Inc dated November 16, 2020 (Exhibit G) along with the Tentative Map prepared by HMH Engineers. The Project Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility report does not include review of any subdivision level improvements or recommendations, or geotechnical design criteria for individual lots. It is anticipated that each lot will require site-specific geotechnical reports and design recommendations. The City Geotechnical Consultant reviewed and approved the project Geotechnical Feasibility. The approval states that the lower portions of the Project comprising proposed Lots 3, 4 and 10 may be within regulatory floodways mapped by FEMA. These lower portions of the property are also mapped within a State delineated liquefaction hazard zone. Based on the City’s Ground Movement Potential map, the subject property is mapped within a ‘Sun’ zone with unconsolidated stream deposits. Slopes on the property range from moderately steep to gentle. A trace of the Shannon Fault is mapped approximately 200 feet northwest of the Project. It is anticipated that site-specific geotechnical investigations for potential residential development of the proposed lots will be completed at the time of development. MITIGATION: MM – Geology and Soils – 1) The applicant’s Consultant shall coordinate with the Project Team to provide water well destruction, grading and demolition recommendations and observe site demolition for conformance with their recommendations. Any wells found on-site that will not be used shall be properly destroyed in accordance with Valley Water Ordinance 90-1, which requires the issuance of a well destruction permit. Property owners or their representative shall call the Wells and Water Measurement Unit at (408) 630-2660 for information regarding well destruction permits. MM – Geology and Soils – 2) The applicant’s consultant shall delineate the extent of the in-ground swimming pool backfill on final maps prior to final map recordation to assist with anticipated site development. Sources: 2, 3, 5 & 12 262 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 27 | Page 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: An assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is included in the body of environmental document. While Caltrans has included this good faith effort in order to provide the public and decision-makers as much information as possible about the project, it is Caltrans determination that in the absence of further regulatory or scientific information related to GHG emissions and CEQA significance, it is too speculative to make a significance determination regarding the project’s direct and indirect impact with respect to climate change. Caltrans does remain firmly committed to implementing measures to help reduce the potential effects of the project. These measures are outlined in the body of the environmental document. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? DISCUSSION: a-b) The Project site would create greenhouse gas emissions mainly from the generation of electricity for the residential development and vehicle trips. Solid waste would make up a small amount of the total generation of greenhouse gas emissions. The BAAQMD identifies screening levels for evaluation of operational GHG emissions. The City of Saratoga does not have an adopted greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan. Regarding impacts from GHGs, both BAAQMD and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association consider GHG impacts to be exclusively cumulative impacts (BAAQMD 2017b; CAPCOA 2008); therefore, assessment of significance is based on a determination of whether the GHG emissions from a project represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to the global atmosphere. This analysis uses both a quantitative and a qualitative approach. The quantitative approach is used to address the first significance criterion: “Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?” This analysis considers that, because the quantifiable thresholds developed by BAAQMD were formulated based on AB 32 and California Climate Change Scoping Plan reduction targets, for which its set of strategies were developed to reduce GHG emissions statewide, a project cannot exceed a numeric BAAQMD threshold without also conflicting with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Therefore, if a project exceeds a numeric threshold and results in a significant cumulative impact, it will also result in a significant cumulative impact with respect to plan, policy, or regulation consistency, even though the project may incorporate measures and have features that would reduce its contribution to cumulative GHG emissions. 263 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 28 | Page Separate thresholds of significance have been established by the BAAQMD for operational emissions from stationary sources (such as generators, furnaces, and boilers) and nonstationary sources (such as on-road vehicles) (BAAQMD 2017b). The threshold for stationary sources is 10,000 MT CO2e per year (i.e., emissions above this level may be considered significant). Projects that could exceed the threshold of 10.000 metric tons of CO2 per year might involve use of equipment such as production flares, steam generators, thermal oxidizers and furnaces with an individual or combined project power rating of 20 MMBtu/hr or greater. None of these examples will be in use on this Project site. The quantitative threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e annually adopted by BAAQMD is applied to this analysis. If the project-related GHG emissions would exceed this threshold then, consistent with BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, it would be considered to have a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact on climate change. Because the Project’s estimated operational greenhouse gas emissions falls below this threshold, there is a less than significant impact to greenhouse gas emissions. MITIGATION: none Sources: 1, 2, 9 & 10 264 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 29 | Page 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? DISCUSSION: a-c) The proposed Project is a residential development located in a residential zoning district that does not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste. Nominal amounts of hazardous material in the form of fuels and other construction materials are routinely used during construction processes. 265 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 30 | Page The Project includes the removal of three structures including a single-family home, accessory structure, and an in-ground swimming pool. The construction of the subdivision improvements would not be a source of hazardous emissions. d) Government Code Section 65962.5 requires that the Department of Toxic Substances Control compile and regularly update a list of hazardous waste facilities and sites. A search of the Envirostor website (Department of Toxic Substances Control 2018) revealed that the Project site is not on the list. e-f) The Project site is not within an airport land use plan, is not within two miles of a public airport, and is not near a private landing strip. The nearest airports are San Jose International Airport ten miles to the northeast, and Reid-Hillview Airport 16 miles to the east, northeast. g) The City participates in the Santa Clara County Operational Emergency Plan. The plan is an all- hazards document describing the County's Emergency Operations organization, compliance with relevant legal statutes, other guidelines, and critical components of the Emergency Response System. Development of the Project would not impair the implementation of this plan. h) The Project site is not located within the Wildland-Urban Interface Area. Development of the project site is not expected to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on Hazards and Hazardous Materials. MITIGATION: none Sources: 1, 2, 11, 12 & 13 266 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 31 | Page 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow 267 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 32 | Page DISCUSSION: a-f) The Project would subdivide an existing 11.43-acre parcel into ten-lots ranging in size from .92 acres to 1.2 acres. The existing home, accessory structure and in-ground swimming pool would be removed from the site. There are two abandoned wells on the site. The Project would create a new private cul-de-sac with a connection to Quito Road which would provide access to seven parcels with the remaining three parcels taking access from Vessing Road. If the subdivision is approved, it would allow for the construction of ten, new single-family homes and accessory dwelling units. The proposed Project would retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site. The Project would be reviewed in accordance with the most recent and up to date NPDES Standards, which are jointly administered by CDD and DPW. Disposition and treatment of stormwater would comply with the applicable requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit issued to the City of Saratoga and the implementation standards established by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (collectively the “NPDES Permit Standards”). The proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The proposed Project would utilize public water provided by the San Jose Water Company and would not use groundwater for any phase of the project. Regarding surface water that recharges the groundwater, the project site is located part of the Santa Clara Plain Recharge Area that supports natural groundwater recharge (see Valley Water’s 2021 Groundwater Management Plan for the Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasin). The Project would have no impact on groundwater supplies or recharge other than its indirect impact on the use of groundwater by the San Jose Water Company. The Water Company receives water from Santa Clara Groundwater Basin supplied by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. According to the water district's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, there is adequate groundwater recharge within the Basin. The proposed Project would not deplete groundwater resources nor substantially interfere with groundwater recharge and the impact is less than significant. New development of the Project site is required to comply with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit and the Construction General Stormwater Permit. The Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit and the Construction General Stormwater Permit require that any development on the Project site incorporate Low Impact Design techniques, provide erosion control measures during construction, and ensure that runoff does not exceed the rate and duration of that existing runoff. Further, the required Low Impact Design techniques require pre-treatment of runoff before it enters the City's storm water system. Project plans for the subdivision improvements would include a storm water management plan which would be reviewed by City staff to ensure the plan meets the City's requirements for storm water management. These requirements would ensure that the Project will have no impact on downstream flooding, including impacts on downstream creeks. These requirements would ensure that the Project would not create or contribute substantial amounts of runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems. g-i) Large scale flooding is not a significant hazard in the City. Site drainage is generally characterized by infiltration or sheetflow ultimately intercepted by San Tomas Aquino Creek. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 06085C0238J map revision date February 19, 2014, a portion of the site is located within a Special Flood Hazard Zone, Zone AE. The base flood elevation has been determined to be between 325 feet and 342 feet (NAVD88) in the area and a floodway has been delineated within a portion of the flood zone. Note, 268 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 33 | Page a portion of the AE zone is outside of the floodway (APN 397-05-028). The remaining portion of the site is within Zone X, an area of 100-year flooding with average depths of less than a foot or with a drainage area of less than one square mile or 0.2% flooding. New foundations would be set above the base flood elevation in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. Development of lot 10 would be conditioned such that a hydrology report would be required to establish the construction constraints associated with the floodway. With the implementation of the below mitigation, the project impacts on Hydrology and Water Quality would be less than significant. In addition, the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative’s Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams calls for a 2:1 slope stability protection area as measured from the toe of bank of the creek. Parcels 3, 4 and 10 would be subject to these guidelines. j) The Project site is located inland and is not at risk of inundation by a tsunami. Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. No major water-retaining structures are located immediately up gradient from the Project site. Flooding from a seismically induced seiche is unlikely. The Project site is not located at the base of a hill and the area surrounding is developed with single-family homes on sites heavily vegetated. The Project site would not be subject to inundation by mudflow. MITIGATION: MM – Hydrology and Water Quality – 1) Prior to beginning of construction, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with Regional Water Quality Control Board, if required, to obtain coverage under the State General Construction Activity NPDES Permit. Satisfactory evidence of the filing of the NOI shall be furnished to the City. The applicant shall comply with all provisions and conditions of the State Permit, including preparation and implementation of a Strom Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Copies of the SWPPP shall be submitted to the City prior to beginning of construction and maintained on site at all times. MM – Hydrology and Water Quality – 2) Disposition and treatment of stormwater shall comply with the applicable requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit issued to the City of Saratoga and the implementation standards established by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (collectively the "NPDES Permit Standards"). To avoid the potential impact on natural groundwater recharge from new impervious surfaces (proposed roads and future homes), the applicant shall be required to implement stormwater retention on-site (NPDES design stormwater standards) which will allow stormwater to percolate into the ground in a manner that is protective of surface groundwater. Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Demolition, Grading or Building Permit for this Project, a Stormwater Management Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval demonstrating how all storm water will be retained on-site and in compliance with the NPDES Permit Standards. If not all stormwater can be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, and if complete retention is not otherwise required by the NPDES Permit Standards, the Project shall be designed to retain on-site the maximum reasonably feasible amount of stormwater and to direct all excess stormwater away from adjoining property and toward stormwater drains, drainageways, streets or road right-of- ways and otherwise comply with the NPDES Permit Standards. 269 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 34 | Page MM – Hydrology and Water Quality – 3) In areas of special flood hazard designated as floodways as established in SMC §16-66.050(b) encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvement, and other new development is prohibited unless certifications by a registered professional engineer or architect is provided demonstrating that encroachments shall not result in any increase in the base flood elevation during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. All new construction, substantial improvement, and other proposed new development shall comply with all other applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of SMC §16-66.090 through §16-66.140. MM – Hydrology and Water Quality – 4) In all areas of special flood hazard zones new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed in accordance with SMC §16.66.090 Standards for Construction, and §16.66.100 Standards for Utilities. MM – Hydrology and Water Quality – 5) All new structures located on Parcels 3, 4 and 10 shall be located outside the 2:1 Slope Stability Protection Area as measured from the toe of the bank of the creek in accordance with the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative’s Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. Sources: 1, 2, 3, 12 & 14 270 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 35 | Page 11. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? DISCUSSION: a-b) The Project site contains a one-story single-family home and associated improvements. Surrounding land uses include single-family residential. The proposed Project would include the subdivision of the site into ten-lots for single-family homes and would not physically divide an established community. c) The Project site is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. Therefore, no habitat conservation plan conflicts/impacts would occur. MITIGATION: none Sources:1, 2 & 3 271 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 36 | Page 12. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? DISCUSSION: a-b) Within the City of Saratoga there are no designated important mineral resources that need to be protected. Mineral resources in the city are limited primarily to sandstone and shale. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in impacts to known mineral resources or result in the loss of availability of a locally important resource recovery site. MITIGATION: none Sources: 2 & 3 272 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 37 | Page 13. NOISE: Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? DISCUSSION: a) The standards of the City of Saratoga General Plan Noise Element utilize the Day-Night Level (DNL) noise descriptor. The Noise Element of the General Plan includes the existing roadway noise and noise contour distances for various roadway segments within the city (Table NE-A1) including the portion of Quito Road which borders the project. Based on the table, the Project can expect a DNL of 66 dB as measured 50 feet from the roadway center line. The Noise Element includes land-use compatibility guidelines (Table NE-2) which lists a DNL of between 60 to 70 dB as being in the range of being conditionally acceptable for single-family residential land uses. Policy 2.2 of the General Plan Noise Element requires residential development be designed and constructed to reduce interior noise levels of DNL 45 dB or less in habitable rooms. Implementation of standard building design and construction techniques per CALgreen standards will ensure that noise impacts are less than significant. b) Equipment expected to be used during the construction phase of the project, would generate ground- borne vibration levels on a short-term basis. There are no long-term effects that would result from ground-borne vibration. c) The primary source of ambient noise levels associated with the project would be traffic noise. The General Plan Noise Element includes projected future noise contours. The portion of Quito Road 273 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 38 | Page adjacent to the project is expected to have a DNL of 65-70 in 2030 which is still conditionally acceptable for residential land uses. d) Short-term noise impacts may be created during construction of the subdivision improvements such as grading for the new street and utilities. Temporary noise excesses will occur at the properties adjacent to the site during construction of the Project. The noise levels are expected to be consistent with typical single-family home construction within the city. Compliance with the City’s construction hours will reduce the Project’s impacts on noise to less than significant. e) The Project site is not located within an airport land-use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public-use airport, and therefore, would not expose people residing in the Project area to excessive noise levels. f) The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and therefore, would not expose people residing in the Project area to excessive noise levels. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on noise. MITIGATION: none Sources: 1, 2 & 3 274 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 39 | Page 14. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? DISCUSSION: a) The Project would create ten additional parcels for the future construction of single-family homes and accessory dwelling units. The existing home would be demolished, and the subdivision improvements would be constructed. Once complete, the developer could construct new homes on all the new parcels or choose to sell individual parcels. Construction of ten single-family homes and accessory dwelling units would not induce substantial population growth in the area. b-c) The Project would create ten new single-family homes and accessory dwelling units and will not displace existing housing, nor would the Project displace any people. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on population and housing. MITIGATION: none Sources: 1, 2 & 3 275 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 40 | Page 15. PUBLIC SERVICES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks? e. Other public facilities? DISCUSSION: a-b) The Santa Clara County Fire Department provides fire protection to the City of Saratoga. The closest fire station to the project site is the Quito Fire Station located at 18870 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, which is approximately 2 miles south of the project site. The Santa Clara County Sheriff provides law enforcement services to the city. The Project is an urbanized infill site therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered police or fire facility. c-e) The Project would create ten parcels for future development of single-family homes and accessory dwelling units that would have a negligible increase in the demand for schools, parks, or public facilities. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact Public Services. MITIGATION: None Sources: 1, 2 & 3 276 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 41 | Page 16. RECREATION: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? DISCUSSION: a-b) The Project would create parcels for ten future single-family home sites. The development of ten single-family homes and accessory dwelling units would have a negligible increase in the demand for existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on recreation. MITIGATION: none Sources: 1, 2 & 3 277 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 42 | Page 17. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? DISCUSSION: a-f) The project would construct ten detached single-family homes and accessory dwelling units. The current home would be demolished. Access to seven of the homes would be provided via a new private roadway off Quito Road. The new cul-de-sac road would intersect as a T-intersection with Quito Road, approximately 450 feet north of Vessing Road. Access to the remaining three homes would be provided along Vessing Road. The project includes a pedestrian pathway to be constructed along the frontage of Quito Road within the proposed public right of way, for the length of the property. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis dated December 3, 2021 (Exhibit H). The report was conducted to identify the potential traffic impacts related to the proposed development. The Project is estimated to generate 85 net new daily trips, with 7 trips during the AM peak hour and 9 trips during the PM peak hour. The report determined that under all scenarios with and without the project, both study intersections would operate in accordance with local standards 278 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 43 | Page during both AM and PM peak hours. The General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highway Element requires a transportation analysis to all new development projects resulting in 25 or more new net peak- hour trips. The report also concludes that site access and on-site circulation is adequate and that the Project would not have an adverse effect on the existing pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities in the study area. Due to the minimal trip generation with the project, the Project would result in a less than significant impact to traffic circulation. MITIGATION: none Sources: 1, 2 & 3 279 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 44 | Page 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21704 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: 1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources code section 5020.1(k), or 2) A resource determined by the lead agency, or in it discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision © of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe. DISCUSSION: The 11.43-acre Project site includes a 1942 house, a 1942 ancillary building, a 1950 inground swimming pool, and associated landscaping. An Archaeological Study was prepared by Evans & DeShazo dated March 31, 2022 (Exhibit F). Evans & DeShazo completed a record search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information Systems (CHRIS) to identify cultural resources previously recorded within or near the Project Area and the environments in which they are located; and completed a literature review of documents related to the history of the Project Area and its geoarchaeological setting to assess the potential/sensitivity for surficial or subsurface archaeological resources within the Project Area. As recommended by the NAHC, a letter was sent to nine individuals and organizations on the Native American contact list to request further information about Sacred Sites, Traditional Cultural Resources, or other properties of traditional religious and cultural importance located within or near to the Project Area, and to inquire about Native American issues related to the overall Project. The closest precontact period archaeological resource is located approximately 0.25 miles north of the Project Area. The site was described as a midden with a large quantity of fire cracked rock, small amounts of chipped stone lithics, including flakes of green and red Franciscan chert, and midden soil. The site was relocated in 2020 and 15 prehistoric artifacts and two areas with well-developed midden soil was observed. Subsequent archaeological testing revealed a low density and low diversity of artifacts, and previous disturbances that reduced the overall integrity of the deposit. Based on the evaluation, the site was determined ineligible for the CRHR, and as a unique archaeological source. 280 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 45 | Page Therefore, Project-specific mitigations are provided to address the high potential/sensitivity for historic-period archaeological resources to be encountered during Project-related, ground-disturbing activities. It is anticipated that implementation of mitigation measures noted here and within the Cultural Resources section of this document, will reduce, or eliminate adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources if discovered during construction. MITIGATION: MM – Tribal Cultural Resources – 1) Upon discovery of any tribal cultural resources (TCR’s), all ground-disturbing and construction activities shall cease on the Project site until the find can be assessed by a registered professional archeologist. MM – Tribal Cultural Resources – 2) Although unlikely, if human remains are encountered within the Project Area during Project-related ground-disturbing activities, all work must stop within 100-feet of the discovery area, the area shall be secured to prevent further disturbance, and the Santa Clara County Coroner must be notified immediately. It is very important that the suspected human remains, and the area around them, are undisturbed and the proper authorities are called to the scene as soon as possible, as it could be a crime scene. The Coroner will determine if the remains are precontact period Native American remains or of modern origin and if any further investigation by the Coroner is warranted. If the remains are suspected to be those of a precontact period Native American, the Coroner shall contact the NAHC by telephone within 24-hours. The NAHC will immediately notify the person it believes to be the most likely descendant (MLD) of the remains. The MLD has 48-hours to make recommendations to the landowner for treatment or disposition of the human remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48-hours, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance. If the landowner does not accept the descendant’s recommendations, the owner or the descendant may request mediation by NAHC. According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitutes a cemetery (Section 8100), and willful disturbance of human remains is a felony (Section 7052). An archaeologist shall also be retained to evaluate the historical significance of the discovery, the potential for additional remains, and to provide further recommendations for treatment of the site in coordination with the MLD. Sources: 1, 2 & 4 281 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 46 | Page 19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with enough permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? DISCUSSION: a) Wastewater treatment services are provided by the West Valley Sanitation District. The district has adequate capacity to service the site and therefore the proposed Project would not cause the district to exceed wastewater treatment requirements. b, d, e) The Santa Clara County Valley Water District and San Jose Water Company provide water service to the City of Saratoga. The District is responsible for designing and building local water reservoirs and water distribution facilities and operating water treatment plants. The District then sells treated water to local water retail agencies that serve communities using their own distribution systems. San Jose Water Company is the water retailer that provides water to Saratoga residents. c) The City uses a storm water collection system, in conjunction with the natural creek drainage system, to manage storm water runoff. Storm water collected through this system ultimately drains into the San Francisco Bay. The Project includes several bioretention basins which would be required to be installed as part of the subdivision improvements for adequate storm water disposal. In addition, the 282 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 47 | Page proposed development will require any new development on site to incorporate Low Impact Design techniques and that stormwater runoff be maintained on site to the maximum extent possible. f) Solid waste and recycling service are provided by West Valley Collection and Recycling (WVC&R). Solid waste is picked up Monday through Friday weekly, depending on the Saratoga neighborhood. Paper, plastic, metal, glass and green waste, such as lawn trimmings, can be recycled. All recyclables collected are transmitted to the Material Recovery Facility located in San Jose, where they are sorted and processed into new materials. E-waste is not collected by WVC&R at this time but may be dropped off by residents at the Material Recovery Facility. g) Solid waste and recycling services is available to the Project. Development of the site would be consistent with the proposed General Plan and would need to comply with all federal and state regulations as well as any local goals and policies related to solid waste. Therefore, the Project would be less than significant impact on utilities and service systems. MITIGATION: None Sources: 2 & 14 283 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 48 | Page 20. WILDFIRE: Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post- fire slope instability, or drainage changes? DISCUSSION: a-d) Based on the Fire Hazard Severity Zone mapping prepared by Cal FIRE, the project site is not in a designated Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fire area as identified in the Safety Element of the Saratoga General Plan. Therefore, the Project would not likely be threatened by wildfires or pollutants from a wildfire or uncontrolled spread of wildfire. Quito Road which borders the property, is designated as an evacuation route in the Safety Element of the Saratoga General Plan. The site and surrounding sites are on level topography so there are no impacts from runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. MITIGATION: none Sources: 1, 2 & 13 284 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 49 | Page 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION: a) The Project Applicant, Pinn Brothers Development, is proposing to subdivide the existing 11.43- acre parcel into ten-lots ranging in size from .92 acres to 1.2 acres. The Project would create a new private cul-de-sac with a connection to Quito Road. The private street would provide access to seven parcels and the remaining three parcels would take access from Vessing Road. If the subdivision is approved, it would allow for the construction of ten, new single-family homes and accessory dwelling units. The Project Arborist Report inventoried 683 trees. Tree species include, but are not limited to Coast Live Oak, Black Walnut and Black Acacia. There are 515 native and 63 non-native trees that would be considered “protected trees” by the City of Saratoga Code of Ordinance. The Project subdivision improvements include a new cul-de-sac, utility and storm drain improvements and would require the removal of 56 protected trees. For those trees that are to remain, the arborist report contains recommendations for tree replacements and protection during construction and are included as mitigation measures in the Biology section of this document. The City Arborist has reviewed and approved the tree removal associated with the subdivision improvements. City arborist review and approval would also be required at the time of development of the individual parcels. Olbering Environmental, Inc. conducted a field reconnaissance survey and prepared a Biological Resources Analysis Report as discussed in the Biology section of this document. The report was prepared for the purpose of identifying sensitive plant and wildlife species, sensitive habitats, and 285 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 50 | Page biological constraints potentially occurring on the property. The property is located along San Tomas Aquino Creek with a portion of the creek abutting the northeast corner of the parcel along Quito Road. The report concludes that the property includes wetlands/waters that may be considered jurisdictional by the Army Corps of Engineers, RWQCB, or the CDFW. The report includes recommendations for Creek Protection to protect the creek, its banks, and riparian habitat. The protection zone would be shown on the final subdivision map as a Creek Protection Easement that would preclude the construction of new permanent structures (buildings) within the riparian drip line as shown in Figure 10 – Habitat Map within the report. This would ensure that the trees of the riparian corridor are protected from damage to their roots and crowns and provides a significant buffer from the creek and its banks. The Report concludes that no special-status plant species were determined to have potential to occur on the project site. However special-status wildlife, mammals, amphibian, and reptile species were found to have the potential to occur on the project site. Mitigation Measures are included in the Biology section of this document. Mitigation measures would decrease any impacts to wildlife, mammals, amphibians, and reptile species. There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed project has the potential to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. However, during grading activities, there is always the potential to inadvertently disturb previously unknown historic and prehistoric resources. In the event this should occur, mitigation measures are included in the Cultural Resource section to ensure the impact would not be significant. b) The Project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The Project site is surrounded by developed single family homes on lots of similar size. c) The proposed Project is a residential project and does not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 286 D. SOURCES 1. Tentative Map 2. City of Saratoga General Plan 3. City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance and Map 4. City of Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory 5. City of Saratoga Ground Movement Potential Map 6. City staff review of the project. 7. California Department of Transportation State Scenic Highways Map 8. Department of Conservation Farmland Map 2018 9. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017. 10. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate. April 19, 2017. 11. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor Database; June 2021 12. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 13. Cal Fire Hazard Zone Map October 2008 14. Santa Clara Valley Water District 2015 Urban Water Management Plan E. EXHIBITS A. Tentative Map for 14521 Quito Road, dated August 11, 2022 B. HMH Arborist Report dated February 11, 2022 C. City Arborist Memo dated August 10, 2022 D. Olbering Environmental, Inc. Biological Resources Analysis Report dated January 2022 E. Evans & DeShazo Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) dated September 6, 2021 F. Evans & De Shazo Archaeological Study dated March 31, 2022 G. Quantum Geotechnical, Inc Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Assessment Report dated November 16, 2020 H. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis dated December 3, 2021 287 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 52 | Page MITIGATION MEASURES Ten-Lot Subdivision 14521 Quito Road Saratoga, CA (APN 397-05-028) MM – Air Quality – 1) All exposed surfaces (e.g. parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, stockpiles, graded area, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered twice daily, or as often as needed, treated with non-toxic soil stabilizers, or covered to control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. MM – Air Quality – 2) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered. MM – Air Quality – 3) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads and paved access roads shall be removed using wet power (with reclaimed water, if possible) vacuum street sweepers at least once per day, or as often as needed. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. MM – Air Quality – 4) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. MM – Air Quality – 5) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. MM – Air Quality – 6) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or by reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by California airborne toxics control measure Title 13 CCR Section 2485). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. MM – Air Quality – 7) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. MM – Air Quality – 8) A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number also shall be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. MM – Air Quality – 9) The Applicant’s project manager or his/her designee shall verify compliance that these measures are included in the Project’s grading plan and have been implemented during normal construction site inspections. 288 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 53 | Page MM – Biologic Resources – 1) Corps and State Regulated Wetlands/Waters – Jurisdictional wetlands and waters potentially regulated under the authority of the Corps, RWQCB and CDFW are present on the property. Fill of these regulated features shall require authorization under Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and authorization under 1600 of the Fish and Wildlife Code. A Corps wetland delineation should be prepared to document the actual extent of jurisdictional features if any construction activity could result in impacts to wetland/waters. If the wetland/waters are deemed jurisdictional and construction activities are proposed that could impact these features, permits shall be obtained prior to construction. Setbacks from the wetlands/water features shall be required to protect habitat quality and to protect water quality. MM – Biologic Resources – 2) Creek Protection Easement – A Creek Protection Easement that protects the creek, its banks, and riparian habitat shall be established that precludes the construction of new permanent structures of any kind within the riparian drip line as seen on Figure 10 – Habitat Map prepared by Olbering Environmental, Inc. This would ensure that the trees of the riparian corridor are protected from damage to their roots and crowns and would provide a significant buffer from the creek and its banks. MM - Biologic Resources – 3) Riparian Buffer Zone – A 50-foot riparian buffer zone measured from the Riparian Dripline as shown on Figure 10 – Habitat Map prepared by Olbering Environmental, Inc., shall be established and shown on the final subdivision map, where construction of new structures may take place within the following additional mitigation and minimization measures. a) Installation of a wildlife exclusion fence. The fence shall be a minimum of 3-feet in height and shall be placed at the edge of the riparian drip line to prevent any potential wildlife from entering the construction area from the creek and riparian corridor. b) Construction Monitoring. A qualified biological construction monitor shall be present daily while initial grubbing and grading takes place. Once the construction area has been cleared of all vegetation and select trees have been removed, biological construction monitoring can be reduced to once per week site checks for the remainder of the grading period. c) Installation of BMPs along the Creek Protection Easement shall be included. MM – Biologic Resources – 4) Creek Protection Easement planting –Within the 50-foot riparian buffer zone any new landscaping shall be limited to native riparian plant materials. MM - Biologic Resources – 5) Tree Preservation and Protection (non-riparian) – Tree protection shall be implemented during construction activities as follows: a) Site Preparation: All existing trees shall be fenced off 10’ beyond the outside drip line (foliar spread) of the tree. Alternatively, where this is not feasible, fence to the drip line of the tree. Where fencing is not possible, the trunk shall be protected straw waddle and orange snow fencing. The fence shall be a minimum of six feet high, made of pig wire with steel stakes or any material superior in quality, such as cyclone fencing. Tree protection zone sign shall be affixed to fencing at appropriate intervals as determined by the arborist on site. If the fence is within the dripline of the trees, the foliar fringe shall be raised to offset the chance of limb breakage from construction equipment encroaching within the dripline. All contractors, subcontractors and other personnel 289 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 54 | Page shall be warned that encroachment withing the fenced area is forbidden without the consent of the certified arborist on the project. This includes, but is not limited to, storage of lumber and other materials, disposal of paints, solvents or other noxious materials, parked cars, grading equipment or other heavy equipment. Penalties, based on the cost of remedial repairs and the evaluation guide published by the international society of arboriculture, shall be assessed for damages to the trees. See tree preservation detail for additional information, including tree protection zone sign. b) Grading/excavating: All grading plans that specify grading within the dripline of any tree, or within the distance from the trunk as outlined in the site preparation section above when said distance is outside the dripline, shall first be reviewed by a certified arborist. Provisions for aeration, drainage, pruning tunneling beneath roots, root pruning or other necessary actions to protect the trees shall be outlined by an arborist. If trenching is necessary within the area as described above, said trenching shall be undertaken by hand labor and dug directly beneath the trunk of the tree. All roots 2 inches or larger shall be tunneled under and other roots shall be cut smoothly to the trunk side of the trench. The trunk side should be draped immediately with two layers of untreated burlap to a depth of 3 feet from the surface. The burlap shall be soaked nightly and left in place until the trench is back filled to the original level. An arborist shall examine the trench prior to back filling to ascertain the number and size of root cuts and shall suggest the necessary remedial repairs. c) Remedial repairs: An arborist shall have the responsibility of observing all ongoing activities that may affect the trees and prescribing necessary remedial work to ensure the health and stability of the trees. This includes, but is not limited to, all arborist activities brought out in the previous sections. In addition, pruning, as outlined in the “pruning standards” of the western chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture, shall be prescribed as necessary. Fertilizing, aeration, irrigation, pest control and other activities shall be prescribed according to the tree needs, local site requirements, and state agricultural pest control laws. All specifications shall be in writing. For pest control operations, consult the local county agricultural commissioner’s office for individuals licensed as pest control advisors or pest control operators. d) Final inspection: Upon completion of the project, the arborist shall review all work undertaken that may impact the existing trees. Special attention shall be given to cuts and fills, compacting, drainage, pruning and future remedial work. An arborist should submit a final report in writing outlining the ongoing remedial care following the final inspection. MM - Biologic Resources – 6) Riparian Tree Removal – If trees within the riparian habitat must be removed for any reason, a California Department of Fish and Wildlife Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be required. For riparian trees, a mitigation ratio of 1 replacement tree for every inch of DBH of riparian tree is required for all trees larger than 6” DBH. (Example: a 12” DBH tree removed shall be mitigated by planting a minimum of 12 individual replacement trees). Each mitigation tree shall be a minimum of 5-gallon size. MM - Biologic Resources – 7) Pre-Construction Avian Survey – If project construction-related activities take place during the nesting season (February through August), preconstruction surveys for nesting passerine birds and raptors (birds of prey) within the project site and the large trees within the 290 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 55 | Page oak woodland and riparian areas, shall be conducted by a competent biologist 14 days prior to the commencement of the tree removal or site grading activities. If any bird listed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is found to be nesting within the project site or within the area of influence, an adequate protective buffer zone shall be established by a qualified biologist to protect the nesting site. This buffer shall be a minimum of 75 feet from the project activities for passerine birds, and a minimum of 200 feet for raptors. The distance shall be determined by a competent biologist based on the site conditions (topography, if the nest is in line of sight of the construction and the sensitivity of the birds nesting). The nest site(s) shall be monitored by a competent biologist periodically to see if the birds are stressed by the construction activities and if the protective buffer needs to be increased. Once the young have fledged and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones (typically by August), the project can proceed without further regard to the nest site(s). MM - Biologic Resources – 8) Pre-construction Bat Survey – To avoid “take” of special-status bats, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to the removal of any existing trees or structures on the project site: a) A bat habitat assessment shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist during seasonal periods of bat activity (mid-February through mid-October) to determine suitability of each existing structure as bat roost habitat. b) Structures found to have no suitable openings can be considered clear for project activities as long as they are maintained so that new openings do not occur. c) Structures found to provide suitable roosting habitat, but without evidence of use by bats, may be sealed until project activities occur, as recommended by the bat biologist. Structures with openings and exhibiting evidence of use by bats shall be scheduled for humane bat exclusion and eviction, conducted during appropriate seasons, and under supervision of a qualified bat biologist. d) Bat exclusion and eviction shall only occur between February 15 and April 15, and from August 15 through October 30, in order to avoid take of non-volant (non-flying or inactive, either young, or seasonally torpid individuals. OR A qualified wildlife biologist experienced in surveying for identifying bat species shall survey the portion of the project site with large trees and abandoned structures. If tree removal is proposed, to determine if any special-status bats reside in the trees. Any special-status bats identified should be removed without harm. Bat houses sufficient to shelter the number of bats removed shall be erected in open space areas that would not be disturbed by project development. MM - Biologic Resources – 9) Pre-construction Amphibian (CRLF Protocol-FYLF VES) Surveys – A qualified Biologist shall survey the project site for CRLF (and other sensitive wildlife species including FYLF) preceding the commencement of construction activities to verify absence/presence of the species. Surveys shall be performed using USFWS protocol. Surveys Performed during the breeding season (October 1 – June 30): USFWS recommends a total of up to eight surveys to determine the absence of CRLF at or near a project site. Two- day surveys and four-night surveys would be required during the breading season. If CRLF are identified at any time during the course of surveys, no additional surveys are needed. 291 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 56 | Page Surveys Performed during the non-breeding season (July 1 – September 30): One day and one night survey would be required during the non-breeding season. At least one survey shall be completed between January 1 and August 15. If CRLF are identified at any time during the course of surveys, no additional surveys are needed. MM – Biologic Resources – 10) Pre-Construction Dusky-footed Woodrat Survey – Prior to commencing any Project activities that may result in the destruction of dusky-footed woodrat nests; surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine the occurrence of the nests. MM – Biologic Resources – 11) Erosion Control – During construction, runoff from the Property could adversely affect aquatic life within the adjacent water features. Surface water runoff could remove particles of fill or excavated soil from the site, or could erode soil down-gradient, if the flow were not controlled. Deposition of eroded material in adjacent water features could increase turbidity, thereby endangering aquatic life, and reducing wildlife habitat. Implementation of appropriate mitigation measures would ensure that impacts to aquatic organisms would be avoided or minimized. Mitigation measures shall include best management practices (BMP’s) such as hay bales, silt fencing, placement of straw mulch and hydro seeding of exposed soils after construction as identified in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). MM – Biologic Resources – 12) Tree Protection - A tree protection plan shall be developed by the project arborist and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. Adhering to this plan will become a condition of approval for the project. The project arborist shall visit the site every two weeks during grading trenching or digging activities and every six weeks thereafter. The project arborist shall supervise any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site. Roots of protected trees measuring two inches in diameter or more shall not be cut without prior approval of the Project Arborist. Should any protected tree be damaged beyond repair, new trees shall be planted as required by the City Arborist. MM – Biologic Resources – 13) Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative’s Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams, adopted as guidelines by the City shall be implemented. A 2:1 slope stability protection area as measured from the toe of the bank of the creek shall be shown on parcels 3, 4 and 10. No structures including pools shall be located within the slope stability protection area. MM – Biologic Resources – 14) Riparian Vegetation removal and disturbance shall be avoided during grading activities to prevent the degradation of existing riparian habitat and/or contribute to soil loss critical to the continued health and regeneration of riparian trees. MM – Cultural Resource – 1) If human remains are encountered within the Project Area during Project-related activities, all work shall stop within 100-feet of the discovery area, the area shall be secured to prevent further disturbance. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified immediately. The suspected human remains, and the area around them, shall be undisturbed and the proper authorities are called to the scene as soon as possible. The Corner shall determine if the remains are pre-contact period Native American remains or of modern origin and if there are any further investigation by the coroner is warranted. If the corner suspects the remains are those of a pre-contact period Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24- hours so that a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) can be designated to provide further recommendations 292 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 57 | Page regarding treatment of the remains. The MDL has 48-hours to make recommendations to the landowner for treatment or disposition of the human remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48-hours, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance. If the landowner does not accept the descendant’s recommendations, the owner or the descendant may request mediation by NAHC. According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitutes a cemetery (Section 8100), and willful disturbance of human remains is a felony (Section 7052). An archaeologist shall also be retained to evaluate the historical significance of the discovery, the potential for additional remains, and to provide further recommendations for treatment of the site in coordination with the MLD. MM – Cultural Resource – 2) Prepare an Archaeological Monitoring Plan Specific to the Proposed Development and Monitor for the Presence of Buried Historic-Period Archaeological Resources. A Secretary of Interior qualified archaeologist shall prepare an Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) and provide the appropriate level of archaeological monitoring for Project-related ground- disturbing activities. The AMP shall provide details regarding the types of archaeological resources that could potentially be found within the Project Area during construction, the locations where they would most likely occur, and procedures to follow should any archaeological material be encountered. The AMP shall provide procedures and guidelines for proper notification to agencies and stakeholders, in-field assessment of the significance of any archaeological deposits identified during monitoring, and the permanent curation of artifacts from CRHR-eligible deposits that may be discovered. The archaeological monitor shall be empowered to halt construction activities at the location of a discovery to review possible archaeological material and to protect the resource while the deposit is being assessed. Monitoring shall continue until, in the archaeologist’s judgement, archaeological resources are not likely to be encountered. A report shall also be prepared to document the findings after construction is completed. MM – Cultural Resource – 3) Stop Work if Archaeological Resources Are Discovered During Ground-Disturbing Activities. If an archaeological deposit is encountered during Project-related, ground disturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until the archaeologist assesses the find and makes recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. If avoidance of the archaeological deposit is not feasible, the archaeological deposit shall be evaluated for its eligibility for listing in the CRHR. If the deposit is found to be eligible, adverse impacts shall be mitigated. Mitigation may include excavation of the archaeological deposit in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Documentation that may include data recovery using standard archaeological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials; preparation of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; and accessioning of archaeological materials and a technical data recovery report at a curation facility. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report to document the methods and results of the assessment. The report shall be submitted to the Project applicant, City of Saratoga, and the NWIC upon completion of the resource assessment. MM – Geology and Soils – 1) The applicant’s Consultant shall coordinate with the Project Team to provide water well destruction, grading and demolition recommendations and observe site demolition for conformance with their recommendations. Any wells found on-site that will not be used shall be properly destroyed in accordance with Valley Water Ordinance 90-1, which requires the issuance of a well destruction permit. Property owners or their representative shall call the Wells and Water Measurement Unit at (408) 630-2660 for information regarding well destruction permits. 293 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 58 | Page MM – Geology and Soils – 2) The applicant’s consultant shall delineate the extent of the in-ground swimming pool backfill on final maps prior to final map recordation to assist with anticipated site development. MM – Hydrology and Water Quality – 1) Prior to beginning of construction, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with Regional Water Quality Control Board, if required, to obtain coverage under the State General Construction Activity NPDES Permit. Satisfactory evidence of the filing of the NOI shall be furnished to the City. The applicant shall comply with all provisions and conditions of the State Permit, including preparation and implementation of a Strom Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Copies of the SWPPP shall be submitted to the City prior to beginning of construction and maintained on site at all times. MM – Hydrology and Water Quality – 2) Disposition and treatment of stormwater shall comply with the applicable requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit issued to the City of Saratoga and the implementation standards established by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (collectively the "NPDES Permit Standards"). Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Demolition, Grading or Building Permit for this Project, a Stormwater Management Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval demonstrating how all storm water will be retained on-site and in compliance with the NPDES Permit Standards. If all stormwater cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, and if complete retention is not otherwise required by the NPDES Permit Standards, the Project shall be designed to retain on-site the maximum reasonably feasible amount of stormwater and to direct all excess stormwater away from adjoining property and toward stormwater drains, drainageways, streets or road right-of- ways and otherwise comply with the NPDES Permit Standards. MM – Hydrology and Water Quality – 3) In areas of special flood hazard designated as floodways as established in SMC §16-66.050(b) encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvement, and other new development is prohibited unless certifications by a registered professional engineer or architect is provided demonstrating that encroachments shall not result in any increase in the base flood elevation during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. All new construction, substantial improvement, and other proposed new development shall comply with all other applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of SMC §16-66.090 through §16-66.140. MM – Hydrology and Water Quality – 4) In all areas of special flood hazard zones new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed in accordance with SMC §16.66.090 Standards for Construction, and §16.66.100 Standards for Utilities. MM – Hydrology and Water Quality – 5) All new structures located on Parcels 3, 4 and 10 shall be located outside the 2:1 Slope Stability Protection Area as measured from the toe of the bank of the creek in accordance with the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative’s Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. MM – Tribal Cultural Resources – 1) Upon discovery of any tribal cultural resources (TCR’s), all ground-disturbing and construction activities shall cease on the Project site until the find can be assessed by a registered professional archeologist. 294 14521 Quito Road Initial Study 59 | Page MM – Tribal Cultural Resources – 2) Although unlikely, if human remains are encountered within the Project Area during Project-related ground-disturbing activities, all work must stop within 100-feet of the discovery area, the area shall be secured to prevent further disturbance, and the Santa Clara County Coroner must be notified immediately. It is very important that the suspected human remains, and the area around them, are undisturbed and the proper authorities are called to the scene as soon as possible, as it could be a crime scene. The corner will determine if the remains are precontact period Native American remains or of modern origin and if there are any further investigation by the coroner is warranted. If the remains are suspected to be those of a precontact period Native American, the coroner shall contact the NAHC by telephone within 24-hours. The NAHC will immediately notify the person it believes to be the most likely descendant (MLD) of the remains. The MLD has 48-hours to make recommendations to the landowner for treatment or disposition of the human remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48-hours, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance. If the landowner does not accept the descendant’s recommendations, the owner or the descendant may request mediation by NAHC. According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitutes a cemetery (Section 8100), and willful disturbance of human remains is a felony (Section 7052). An archaeologist shall also be retained to evaluate the historical significance of the discovery, the potential for additional remains, and to provide further recommendations for treatment of the site in coordination with the MLD. 295 301 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner Date: November 9, 2022 Subject: 14521 Quito Road - Supplemental Attachment #2 The attached project related comment from a neighboring property owner regarding the proposed ten lot subdivision at 14521 Quito Road after agenda packet publication. Attachment 1 – Public Comment 303 From:Karen Huang To:Christopher Riordan Subject:Re: 14521 Quito Road Proposed Development’s Negative Impacts to Vessing Road Residents Date:Monday, November 7, 2022 9:34:35 AM Attachments:image001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Chris, Has the city already given approval for three new driveways on Vessing? Or will that be decided after Wednesday's meeting? Are those three parcels flag lots? Our concern is delivery trucks and large landscaping trucks with their trailers parked along the north side of Vessing right at the Quito intersection. This will be a major traffic hazard. Can the city forbid parking along Vessing Road within 30 feet of the intersection with Quito, the side without the stop sign? Thanks Karen On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 12:25 PM Christopher Riordan <criordan@saratoga.ca.us> wrote: 304 criordan@saratoga.ca.us Tell us how we did! Complete the City of Saratoga Customer Service Survey From: Karen Huang <> Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 8:25 AM To: Christopher Riordan <criordan@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Re: 14521 Quito Road Proposed Development’s Negative Impacts to Vessing Road Residents CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Chris, Could you please send me the Zoom information for the Nov. 9 public hearing regarding the Pinn Brother development on Quito Rd. at Vessing? Has any decision been made regarding Pinn's request to build a driveway off of Vessing? We oppose that idea for all the safety reasons we previously emailed to you. I understand that Pinn has offered to reimburse each of the neighbors the original $4,600 that each family chipped in back in 2002.. What strings are attached to that offer? If we decline, does that mean they will not be allowed to build the driveway off of Vesisng? If the town is giving permission to build the driveway off Vessing regardless of neighbor sentiment, can we insist that Pinn reimburse neighbors the value of $4,600 in 2002 in today's dollars ($7,600)? 305 Thanks! Regards, Karen 306 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: November 9, 2022 Application: FER22-0002 Address/APN: 14920 Sobey Road / 397-04-071 Property Owner: Creston Dr LLC From: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Report Prepared By: Victoria Banfield, Associate Planner 307 Report to the Planning Commission 14920 Sobey Road– Application # FER22-002 November 9,2022 Page | 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting a fence exception for a 6-foot-tall wrought iron fence within the front and exterior side setback areas and within the required 50-foot sight distance triangle at a street intersection, where only 3-foot-tall fences are allowed per Section 15-29.010 (b),(c), and (e) of the City Code. No protected trees are proposed for removal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 22-026 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. Pursuant to City Code Section 15-29.090(a), Fence Exception approval by the Planning Commission is required to grant an exception to the regulations regarding fences. PROJECT DATA General Plan Designation: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) Zoning: R-1-40,000 SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Description The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Sobey Road and a private street providing access to 5 residential lots. Surrounding uses on all sides include single-family homes on similar sized lots. On April 14, 2021 the Planning Commission approved a new two-story residence with a detached accessory dwelling unit on the property (application PDR20-0012). The building permits have been issued (21-1079 and 21-1080) and construction is underway. The approved plans show the existing non-conforming 6-foot-tall wire fence was to remain, and a condition of approval was in place requiring any new fences to comply with the regulations in Article 15-29 of the City Code. Project Description The property is a corner lot with the front property line along Sobey Road and the exterior side property line along a private street with a 20-foot right-of-way easement, which provides access to 5 residential lots. Per Article 15-29 of the City Code, fences and walls within front setbacks and exterior side setbacks are limited to a height of 3 feet. In addition, no fences located within a triangle having sides 50 feet in length from a street intersection shall exceed 3 feet in height. The applicant is requesting a fence exception for the following: 1. 6-foot-tall wrought iron fence within the front setback. 2. 6-foot-tall wrought iron fence within the exterior side setback. 3. 6-foot-tall wrought iron fence within the required 50-foot site triangle at the street intersection Staff is recommending approval of the fence exception for a 6-foot-tall wrought iron fence within the front and exterior side setback, with the condition that the fence not encroach into the required 50- foot site triangle at the street intersection. The following diagram shows the proposed location of the 308 Report to the Planning Commission 14920 Sobey Road– Application # FER22-002 November 9,2022 Page | 3 6-foot-tall wrought iron fence in blue. The fence located within the 50-foot site triangle shall not exceed 3 feet in height. The 50-foot site triangle at the street intersection is highlighted in orange. Diagram 1 In addition to the 6-foot-tall fence, two 5-foot-tall vehicular entry gates are proposed along Sobey Road, which were included in the approved plans of application PDR20-0012. Per City Code Section 15-29.010 (d)(1), wrought iron entrance gates within the front setback area, designed with openings to permit visibility through the same, may extend to a height not exceeding 5 feet, and shall be located a minimum of 20 feet from the edge of street pavement, therefore the two proposed entrance gates are compliant with the City Code. There are approximately 7 properties within the vicinity of the subject property that have a similar wrought iron fences that appear to exceed 3 feet in height within the setback areas. City records do not show any Fence Exception applications for the neighboring fences. 309 Report to the Planning Commission 14920 Sobey Road– Application # FER22-002 November 9,2022 Page | 4 The applicant has stated that the fence exception request is for safety reasons since the property is located on a street corner and is exposed on two sides to the road right-of-way. In addition, the proposed fence is consistent with the design of other fences in the neighborhood (Attachment 2). Trees The City Arborist has reviewed the plans and confirmed that no additional Arborist Review is required to add the fence, as the previous arborist approval for the construction of the new home (ARB20- 0056) requires arborist supervision when digging in the critical root zone of protected trees, which will include the installation of the fence. All protected trees to remain in the vicinity of the project will be protected throughout the duration of the project. The applicant has paid a tree security deposit of $94,500 and installed tree protection fencing on the site. FINDINGS The findings required for issuance of a Fence Exception pursuant to City Code Section 15-29.090 are set forth below. The Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: 1. The subject fence will be compatible with other similar structures in the neighborhood. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed fence is consistent with the fences in the neighborhood. 2. The entirety of the subject fence will be constructed of materials that are of high quality, exhibit superior craftsmanship, and that are durable. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the fence would be constructed of high quality materials, wrought iron, and would be able to weather the outdoor environment. 3. The modification will not impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood in which the fence is located. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed fence is consistent with the neighboring properties. The proposed fence would incorporate high-quality materials and would not detract from the character and integrity of the existing community. 4. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental or injurious to the property, adjacent neighbors, or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed fence, as conditioned, will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or adjacent properties. Per City Code Section 15-29.010 (e) a triangle having sides fifty feet in length from a street intersection shall be provided for the line of sight. 310 Report to the Planning Commission 14920 Sobey Road– Application # FER22-002 November 9,2022 Page | 5 5. The granting of the exception will not create a safety hazard for vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic and does not obstruct the safe access to and from adjacent properties. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed fence, as conditioned, would provide the required sight distances for adjacent to the subject site. The proposed fence would not interfere with visibility for pedestrian, bicyclist or vehicular traffic within the area. Neighbor Notification and Correspondence A public notice was sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site. In addition, the public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga News. The City received one (1) public comment in opposition to the fence exception request, expressing concerns with appearance and compatibility with the neighborhood (Attachment 3). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed Fence Exception Request is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. Section 15303) “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. This exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 22-026 2. Applicant Letter 3. Public Comments 4. Project Plans 311 At RESOLUTION NO: 22-026 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING FENCE EXCEPTION FER22-0002 14920 SOBEY ROAD (397-04-071) WHEREAS, on October 3, 2022 an application was submitted by Creston Dr LLC requesting a fence exception for a 6-foot-tall wrought iron fence within the front and exterior side setback areas and within a required 50-foot street intersection sight distance triangle, where only 3- foot tall fences are allowed. No protected trees are proposed for removal. The site is zoned R-1- 40,000 with a General Plan Designation of Residential Very Low Density (RVLD). WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project Categorically Exempt. WHEREAS, on November 9, 2022 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The proposed Fence Exception Request is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. Section 15303) “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. This exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures. Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use Policy 13.1 which provides that the City utilize the design review process and the California Environmental Quality Act in the review of proposed projects to promote high quality design, to ensure compliance with applicable regulations, to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties and use, and to minimize environmental impacts; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the subject fence will be compatible with other similar structures in the neighborhood; the entirety of the subject fence will be constructed of materials that are of high quality, exhibit superior craftsmanship, and that are durable; the modification will not impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood in which the fence is located; the granting of the exception will not be detrimental or injurious to the property, adjacent neighbors, or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the 312 14920 Sobey Road Application # FER22-0002 Resolution #22-026 Page | 2 property is located; and the granting of the exception will not create a safety hazard for vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic and does not obstruct the safe access to and from adjacent properties. Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves FER22-0002 located at 14920 Sobey Road (APN 397-04-071), subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 9th day of November 2022 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Herman Zheng Chair, Planning Commission 313 14920 Sobey Road Application # FER22-0002 Resolution #22-026 Page | 3 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FER22-0002 14920 SOBEY ROAD (397-04-071) GENERAL 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga City Code incorporated herein by this reference. 4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 314 14920 Sobey Road Application # FER22-0002 Resolution #22-026 Page | 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 5. No fence shall exceed three feet in height within a triangle having sides fifty feet in length from the street intersection located along the norther property line of the project site, as required by City Code Section 15-29.010 (e). 6. The owner/applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding drainage, including but not limited to complying with the city approved Stormwater management plan. The project shall retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site, that is created by the proposed construction and grading project, such that adjacent down slope properties will not be negatively impacted by any increase in flow. Design must follow the current Santa Clara County Drainage Manual method criteria, as required by the building department. Retention/detention element design must follow the Drainage Manual guidelines, as required by the building department. 7. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans. All proposed changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with City Code. 8. In order to comply with standards that minimize impacts to the neighborhood during site preparation and construction, the applicant shall comply with City Code Sections 7-30.060 and 16-75.050, with respect to noise, construction hours, maintenance of the construction site and other requirements stated in these sections. 9. Construction must commence within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or the Fence Exception Approval will expire unless extended in accordance with the City Code. 315 14920 Sobey Road Application # FER22-0002 Resolution #22-026 Page | 5 FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FER22-0002 14920 SOBEY ROAD (397-04-071) 1. The subject fence will be compatible with other similar structures in the neighborhood. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed gate, fence and wall are consistent with the fences in the neighborhood. 2. The entirety of the subject fence will be constructed of materials that are of high quality, exhibit superior craftsmanship, and that are durable. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the gate, fence and wall would be constructed of high quality materials, wrought iron, and would be able to weather the outdoor environment. 3. The modification will not impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood in which the fence is located. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed gate, fence and wall is consistent with the neighboring properties. The proposed gate, fence and wall would incorporate high-quality materials and would not detract from the character and integrity of the existing community. 4. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental or injurious to the property, adjacent neighbors, or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed fence, as conditioned, will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or adjacent properties. Per City Code Section 15-29.010 (e) a triangle having sides fifty feet in length from a street intersection shall be provided for the line of sight. 5. The granting of the exception will not create a safety hazard for vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic and does not obstruct the safe access to and from adjacent properties. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed fence, as conditioned, would provide the required sight distances for adjacent to the subject site. The proposed fence would not interfere with visibility for pedestrian, bicyclist or vehicular traffic within the area. 316 Proposed fence complies with section 15-29.090 per the provided schematic and is proposed to be 6 feet in height. Since the project is considered a corner property, and there is a 20’ easement along Sobey Rd. and 10’ easement along the left side of the property, in order to provide the neighbors and the owners of the subject property, this fence will provide a needed separation and privacy as well as safety due to the added exposure on two easement sides. 1. The subject fence is compatible with the neighboring properties as the next door property at 14880 has a 6’ tall fence installed alongside Sobey road and the easement – and we are merely proposing. 2. Materials proposed for the fence shall be of high quality metal fencing; The entirety of the subject fence will be constructed of materials that are of high quality, exhibit superior craftsmanship, and that are durable; 3. The modification will not impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood in which the fence is located; 4. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental or injurious to the property, adjacent neighbors, or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located; and 5. The granting of the exception will not create a safety hazard for vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic and does not obstruct the safe access to and from adjacent properties. - 317 o Site Plan ▪ Show all streets adjacent to the property – Show distance between fence and street (Fences located within a triangle having sides 50 feet in length from the street intersection cannot exceed 3 feet in height above the established grade of the adjoining street) - Show 50’ triangle • There are no intersections visible on this site plan – this site is located at minor easements and no other major arteries are visible from any of the driveways and access points ▪ Show neighboring driveway location – Fences located within a triangle having sides 12 feet in length from either side of a driveway where it intersects with edge of pavement cannot exceed 3 feet in height above the established grade of the adjoining street (see image below) – Show 12’ triangle with neighbor’s driveway and your two driveways • Purple triangles have been added to the site plan showing the 12’ areas from edge of pavements to the driveway note has been added for that no fence in those areas shall exceed 3’ in height 318 From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:37 AM To: Sunil Ahuja <ahujasu@yahoo.com>; Clinton Brownley <cbrownley@gmail.com>; Anjali Kausar <aakausar@outlook.com>; Razi Mohiuddin <razi@mohiuddin.com>; Herman Zheng <zheng.herman@gmail.com>; Jonathan Choi <jojo.choi@gmail.com>; Ping Li <ping.li2@comcast.net>; Debbie Pedro <dpedro@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Frances Reed <freed@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Sophie P. Giles Phone Number Address Comments Regarding the 11/9/22 hearing about a Fence Exception (6') for 14920 Sobey Rd., I hereby express my opposition as homeowner of Sobey Road. Sobey Road is a relatively quiet country road that typically has 3' fences in front of homes reinforcing a rural environment. Giving a 6' fence exception to this property owner will be an eyesore that will resemble a walled in fortress rather than an open spacious space. If the 14920 property owners need privacy, then they can install fast growing shrubs or trees along the Sobey Road exposure. To quote Robert Frost, "Good fences make good neighbors," especially when the fence height is comparable to neighbors' fences which are 3 feet. Respectfully Submitted by Sophie Giles Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 319 Scale Project number Date Drawn by Checked by Owner: Creston Dr. LLC Phone : (415) 967 -2527 E-mail : msanein@gmail.com 14920 Sobey Rd. Saratoga Designer: Safaei Design Group | Salar Safaei 127 Kelton Ave. San Carlos, CA 94070 Phone: (415) 967 -2527 E-mail: salar@safaeidesign.com PROJECT ADDRESS SIGNATURES Structural: Rahmani & Associates, Inc. 1870 Hamilton Ave., San Jose, CA 95125 Phone: (408) 377-4000 E-mail:mrahmani@rahmanidesign.com CONSULTANTS Title 24: Dave Hansel, PE Hensel Consulting Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 1442 San Marcos, CA 92079 Phone: (619) 665-3259 E-mail: dhensel@hc-engineers.com 14920 SOBEY RD. SARATOGA CA CalGreen + Title 24 Achievement Engineering Corp. 2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E San Jose, CA 95131 Phone: (408) 217-9174 email: arash@caltitle24.com The use of these plans and specifications shall be restricted to the specific site for which they were prepared and publication thereof shall be expressly limited to such use. Reuse, Reproduction or publication by any method, in whole or in part, is prohibited. title to the plans and specifications remain with Safaei Design Group / Designer without prejudice. Visual contact with these plans and specifications shall constitute prima facie evidence of the acceptance of the restrictions.APN: 397-04-071 Civil Engineer OSUNA ENGINEERING INC. 117 bernal Rd. Ste. 70-336 San Jose, CA 95119 Phone: (408) 772-4381 Landscape Architect Russell Stringham LEED AP BC+C San Jose CA, Tel: (408) 886-4089 Email: stringhamdesign@gmail.com 10/3/2022 12:26:23 AMA0.01 Coversheet 14920 14920 SOBEY CRESTON DR. LLC 06.13.2021 SDG SS SITE TRACT MAPVICINITY MAP DRAWING INDEXSCOPE OF WORK 1. INSTALL A NEW 6' TALL FENCE IN NOTED AREA AROUND THE FRONT AND SIDE OF THE PROPERTY PROJECT INFORMATION LOT AREA +/-46041 SF. NET LOT AREA +/-40048 SF. ALLOWABLE BUILT AREA : 6000 SF PLUS 1000 SF. (40048 SF = 41K -> 20X1)= 20 SF PLUS 10% BONOUS FOR DEED RESTRICTED ADU 602SF PLUS 800 SF. ADU 800 SF TOTAL ALLOWABLE BUILT AREA: 7422 SF TOTAL PROPOSED COVERAGE (IMPERVIOUS):14003 SF 34.98% MAX ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE @35% FOR 40048 LOT 14016.8 SF FIRST FLOOR BUILT AREA INC. GARAGE: 4,365.65 SF SECOND FLOOR BUILT AREA:2255.78 SF GARAGE: 596.79 SF ADU: 800.00 SF TOTAL (P) BUILT MAIN HOUSE: 6621.43 SF TOTAL (P) BUILT MAIN HOUSE + ADU: 7421.43 SF TOTAL (P) HABITABLE AREA MAIN HOUSE:6024.64 SF TOTAL (P) HABITABLE AREA INCL. ADU:6,824.64 SF EXISTING CONDITIONS: (E) MAIN HUOSE: 2389 SF (E) GARAGE: 1069 SF (E) ACCESSORY STRUCTURES 759 SF TOTAL EXISTING BUILT AREA: 4217 SF TOTAL EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA:10,140 SF EXISTING HOME YEAR BUILT:1947 LEGAL INFORMATION PARCEL NUMBER:397-04-071 ZONING CODE: R1-40K SINGLE-FAMILY OCCUPANCY: R-3/U DESCRIPTION: SINGLE FAMILY + ADU RESIDENTIAL HOME APPLICABLE CODES 2019: CBC, CFC, CPC, CMC CRC, CEC, CAL GREEN LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL CODE ALONG WITH ALL OTHER LOCAL AND STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS, AND SARATOGA MUNICIPAL CODE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VB 1 FRONT PERSPECTIVE SETBACK GUIDELINES (CORNER LOT) REQUIRED PROPOSED FRONT 30 FT.44'- 1.5" REAR: 20 FT.76'-4" 1ST FL. INT. SIDE 20 FT.21' -8" 2ND FL. INT. SIDE 25 FT.38'-8" 1ST EXT. SIDE 25 FT.47'-1.5"* 2ND EXT. SIDE 30 FT.63'-7.5"* *20' EASEMENT REDUCED FROM FRONT PROPERTY SETBACK - AND 10' FROM EXTERIOR SIDE SETBACK ** LOT SLOPE: 4.3% MAX BUILT HIGHT SHALL NOT EXCEED 26' MAIN HOUSE HEIGHT TABLE: ADU HEIGHT TABLE: 96.6 97.4 97.00 15'-6" 14003 SF IMPERVIOUS 5940 4046 1890 2127 44'-1" 20'-0" 20'-0" 100.35 126.33' (MAX HEIGHT 25'-11.5") 112.5 (MAX HEIGHT 15'-6") 14003 No. Description Date A0.01 COVERSHEET A1 SITE PLAN (E) + (P) A1.1 SITE PLAN (P) A9.0 FENCE + GATE SPECS DRAWING INDEX 320 1 4 9 0 8 S O B E Y R D F E L IX 1 6 8 -M -4 6 40.0' 70.8'29.2'126.3'91.6'89.5'53.4'56.3'13.1'102.6' 102.4'10.0'EX. 20' RIGHT OF WAY SOBEY RDFOUND CITY MONUMENT APN NO.: 397-04-071 EX. POOL 12" TREE12" TREE 10" TREE 9" TREE 10" TREE 25" TREE 25" TREE 28" TREE 32" TREE 17" TREE 36" TREE7" TREE31" TREE 36" TREE 27" TREE 31" TREE 13" TREE 5" TREE 4" TREE 10" TREE 10" TREE 12" TREE 14" TREE 12" TREE 12" TREE 12" TREE EX. AC UNIT 5" TREE EX. CNC RAMP EX. ELECTRIC METER EX. POWER POLE EX. GUYWIRE EX. POWER POLE EX. METAL GATEEX. ASPHALT DRIVEWAY EX. ROOF EX. WATER VALVE EX. WATER METERS EX.BUILDINGS EX.BUILDINGS EX. 20' RIGHT OF WAY EX. WOOD FENCE EX. METAL FENCE EX. CNC. EX. CNC. WALKWAY 103.0102.5101.8101.3101.0100.5100.099.599.299.199.098.7 102.4101.4101.2100.8100.399.999.499.198.998.598.2 102.1101.5100.9100.8100.199.799.498.998.498.298.0 102.0101.4101.2100.9100.7100.399.899.298.698.197.897.8 101.9 100.7100.299.899.298.698.197.697.7 101.8101.4101.0100.3100.099.799.498.897.997.597.5 101.6101.3100.9100.4 99.498.397.897.397.2 101.3101.3 100.8100.4100.499.399.297.797.297.0 101.3101.3 100.4100.499.099.098.297.597.096.8 101.5101.2100.9100.4 99.098.598.097.496.896.6 101.7100.7100.3100.199.698.898.498.097.596.996.4 102.1100.9100.099.899.398.598.397.997.496.896.2 102.5101.1100.199.699.499.298.298.197.797.296.796.0 102.9101.5100.299.799.698.798.297.897.496.996.595.7 103.3101.9100.699.999.298.597.997.897.496.896.195.4 97.697.096.495.895.1 N88°50'49"W 248.03' N88°50'49"W 248.03' R2 20.00'N88°50'49"W 248.03' R1N0°53'00"E 185.63'R1S0°53'00"W 185.63' R1 &R 2 S88°50'49"E 248.03' R1 & R2 EM CO W W W W 105 98.73 LIP 106 98.65 LIP 107 98.55 FL 108 98.72 FL 109 99.06 LIP 110 98.74 LIP 111 99.34 LIP 112 98.86 LIP 113 99.38 LIP 114 99.46 LIP 115 100.24 LIP 116 99.91 LIP 117 100.48 LIP 118 100.36 LIP 119 99.80 FL 120 99.57 FL 121 99.16 FL 151 98.50 TC 152 98.58 TC 153 98.62 TC 154 98.13 PVT ST EOP 155 98.10 PVT ST EOP 156 98.46 PVT ST EOP 161 95.32 TC 180 101.46 LIP 181 101.34 LIP 182 99.89 FL 266 100.00 CNC BRICK STEP267 99.99 CNC BRICK STEP270 100.44 CNC STEP 271 100.43 CNC STEP 322 100.53 CNC RAMP323 100.54 CNC RAMP 324 101.21 CNC RAMP 325 101.22 CNC RAMP 2' - 0" 0' 2' 4' 8' 16' 32' N (D) SHED (D) SHED (D) SHED (D) EXISTING MAIN HOUSE (D) SHED (D) SHED 44' - 1 1/2" 64' - 1 1/2" 116' - 3 1/8"21' - 2"60' - 7 1/2"19' - 0"38' - 8"2ND FLOOR EXTERIOR SIDE SETBACK62' - 2 1/2"X X X X 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 28 27 26 29 X X X X 6' - 0"X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X XX X XX X X X 12 X X X X X X X X X X7' - 6 5/8"4' - 1 5/8" X 76' - 4 1/4"10' - 0"MIN. REQUIRED EXTERIOR FIRST FLOOR SIDE SETBACK25' - 0"MIN FRONT REQUIRED SETBACK 30' - 0"MIN REQUIRED INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK20' - 0"MIN. REQUIRED REAR SETBACK 20' - 0"(P) FIRST FLOOR EXTERIOR SIDE SETBACK47' - 1 1/2"MIN REQUIRED 2ND STROY EXTERIOR SETBACK 30' - 0"MIN. SECOND STORY INTERIOR SETBACK25' - 0"(E) NON-CONFORMING WROGHT IRON GATE TO BE REMOVED AFTER CONSTRUCITON AND PRIOR TO PLANNING FINAL -NEW GATE TO BE INSTALLED PER SARATOGA CODE 15-29 AND NOT TO EXCEED 5' IN HEIGHT 7' - 1 3/8" NEW 24 GALLON TREE 16' - 4 7/8"8' - 2 5/8" 24' - 9 1/2" Scale Project number Date Drawn by Checked by Owner: Creston Dr. LLC Phone : (415) 967 -2527 E-mail : msanein@gmail.com 14920 Sobey Rd. Saratoga Designer: Safaei Design Group | Salar Safaei 127 Kelton Ave. San Carlos, CA 94070 Phone: (415) 967 -2527 E-mail: salar@safaeidesign.com PROJECT ADDRESS SIGNATURES Structural: Rahmani & Associates, Inc. 1870 Hamilton Ave., San Jose, CA 95125 Phone: (408) 377-4000 E-mail:mrahmani@rahmanidesign.com CONSULTANTS Title 24: Dave Hansel, PE Hensel Consulting Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 1442 San Marcos, CA 92079 Phone: (619) 665-3259 E-mail: dhensel@hc-engineers.com 14920 SOBEY RD. SARATOGA CA CalGreen + Title 24 Achievement Engineering Corp. 2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E San Jose, CA 95131 Phone: (408) 217-9174 email: arash@caltitle24.com The use of these plans and specifications shall be restricted to the specific site for which they were prepared and publication thereof shall be expressly limited to such use. Reuse, Reproduction or publication by any method, in whole or in part, is prohibited. title to the plans and specifications remain with Safaei Design Group / Designer without prejudice. Visual contact with these plans and specifications shall constitute prima facie evidence of the acceptance of the restrictions.APN: 397-04-071 Civil Engineer OSUNA ENGINEERING INC. 117 bernal Rd. Ste. 70-336 San Jose, CA 95119 Phone: (408) 772-4381 Landscape Architect Russell Stringham LEED AP BC+C San Jose CA, Tel: (408) 886-4089 Email: stringhamdesign@gmail.com 3/32" = 1'-0"10/3/2022 12:26:24 AMA1 Site Plan (E) + (P) 14920 14920 SOBEY CRESTON DR. LLC 06.13.2021 S D G S.S. 3/32" = 1'-0"1 Site (P) 800 SF ADU No. Description Date 321 800 SF DETACHED ADU13' - 0"FIRE PIT20' - 0"XXXXOUTDOOR KITCHEN12345678910111314151617181920212223242528272629TREES # 5-8,10 PROTECTED BY EXISTING FENCE.XXXXBARKBARKBARKBARK TYP. BARK0'2'4'8'16'32'NBARK6' - 0"UNPROTECTED -5" TREE EXCLUDED FROM ARBORIST REPORT FOR BEING UNDER 6"-TO BE REMOVEDX110' - 6"78' - 8 3/8"PROPOSED FRONT SETBACK44' - 2 3/8"64' - 1 3/8"(P) ADU SIDE SETBACK 10' - 0"PROPOSED ADU REAR SETBACK25' - 0"20' - 0"PROPOSED INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK21' - 2"PROPOSED SECOND STORY INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK41' - 8"1' - 6"1' - 6"1' - 10"10' - 0"26' - 6"PROPOSED POOLSITE AREA CALCULATIONSFRONT YARD TOTAL AREA:11309 SFSQUARE FOOTAGE4292 SF5,654.5 SF7017SF8005.65 SF585.75 SF7.3% SF(P) HARDSCAPE AREAMAX ALLOWED HARDSCAPETOTAL CORNER SIDE YARD(P) SIDE YARD HARDSCAPE@50%(P) FRONT BARK AREA (P) HARDSCAPE AREA 38%62% (P) FRONT BARK AREA 4,002.9SFMAX ALLOWED HARDSCAPE(P) SIDE YARD HARDSCAPE@50%(P) SIDE YARD BARK7419.9 SF*PROPOSED ADU HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FROM 50 HARDSCAPE COVERAGE PER CODE. HOWEVER, WE HAVE REDUCED 800 SF FROM BARK AREA FROM LANDSCAPED BARKED AREA TOTAL(N) 6' TALL METAL FENCEMIN. REQUIRED EXT. SIDE SETBACK25' - 0"MIN REQUIRED REAR SETBACK (CORNER LOT)20' - 0"MIN REQUIRED INT. SIDE SETBACK20' - 0"PROPOSED EXTERIOR SIDE SETBACK47' - 1 1/2"PROPOSED REAR SETBACK76' - 5 7/8"GARBAGE & RECYCLEPOOL EQUIPMENTNEW 400 AMP ELECTRICALSERVICE PANELNEW GAS METER39' - 0"MIN REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK30' - 0"TREE #REMOVE/REMAINTREE PROTECTION CHAIN-LINK FENCEXX123456789X1011X12X13X14X15X16X17181920X21X22232425REMOVE26272829XDEAD TREE REMOVEDREMOVEREMOVEREMOVEREMOVEREMOVEREMAIN TO BE PROTECTEDREMOVEREMOVEFOR DETAILS PLEASE REFER TO ARBORIST REPORTOUTSIDE OF PROPERTY TO BE PROTECTEDREMAINREMAIN REMAIN REMAIN REMAIN REMAINREMAINREMAIN TO BE PROTECTEDREMAIN TO BE PROTECTED REMAIN REMAIN REMAIN REMAIN REMAIN REMAIN REMAIN REMAINREMAINREMAIN REMAIN REMAINREMAINREMAIN REMAINREMAINREMAINREMAINTREES 22-28 SHALL NOT NEED ANY TREE PROTECTION FENCING DUE TO BEING A SUFFICIENT DISTANCY AWAY FROM ANY CONSTRUCTION, GRANDING AND/OR DRAINAGE THAT IS BEING PROPOSED AS A PART THIS PROJECT131' - 5 7/8"124' - 10 7/8"91' - 3 7/8"4' - 0"XXXXXXXXXXXXXX1' - 2"15' - 3 5/8"OUTSIDE OF PROPERTY TO BE PROTECTEDOUTSIDE OF PROPERTY TO BE PROTECTED2' - 0"WWWWWWW2" WATER LINE MAIN HOUSE1.5" WATER LINE FOR ADU 20' - 0"10' - 6"XXXXGGGGG(E) 6' GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE TO REMAINEEEEEEEE125 AMP ADUELECTRICAL SUBPANELEEE1 3/4" GAS LINEPOOL EQUIPMENT TRENCH COSSSSSSSSCO4" SEWER LINE(E) 6' GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE TO REMAIN12' - 4 7/8"13' - 7 1/8"NON STRUCTURAL @ PORCH SLABCONCRETE STEPPING STONES6' - 2 1/8"13' - 6"4" ADU SS.SSSSSSSSSSSSW3' - 3"1" ADU GAS LINEGGGGGGEXSITING ROADWAY ASPHALT AND GUTTER PROVIDE TREE PROTECTION IF POSSIBLE.EXSITING ROADWAY ASPHALT AND GUTTER PROVIDE TREE PROTECTION IF POSSIBLE.XXXXXX6' - 0"6' - 0"6' - 0"XXEXISTING WATER METER LOCATION TO REMAINMETER TO BE UPGRADEDPER FIRE DEPERTMENT REQUIREMENT AND WATER PRESSURE TESTINGW12TOTAL NORTH SIDE YARD AREA EXCLUDING 10' EASEMENT REGION: 8005.65 SF LANDSCAPE AREA AT EXTERIOR SIDE YARD (BARK/SOFTSCAPE): 7419.90 SF92.7% SOFTSCAPING/LANDSCAPE/BARK585.75 SF OF HARDSCAPING = 7.3% TOTAL FRONT YARD AREA = 11309 SFEXCLUDING 20' WIDE SOBEY RD EASEMENTLANDSCAPE AREA AT FRONT YARD (BARK/SOFTSCAPE): 7017 SF 62.0% LAND SCAPING (SOFTSCAPING)11309-7017 = 4292 SF HARDSCAPING = 38%76' - 4 1/4"PROPOSED FRONT SETBACK44' - 1 3/8"COXXXXXXXXXXXLOT SLOPE 4.3% 10' - 0"MIN REQUIRED SECOND FLOOR EXTERIOR SETBACK30' - 0"MIN. REQUIRED 2ND FLOOR INTERIOR SETBACK25' - 0"10' - 0"MIN DISTANCE FOR NEW GATE20' - 0"EDGE OF STREET PAVEMENTMAX GATE HEIGHT 5' MIN GATE (P) GATE DISTANCE FROM EDGE OF PAVEMENT20' - 0"MAX GATE HEIGHT -5'13' - 1 1/2"TYP. NEW 24 GALLON TREES FOR SCREENING THROUGH OUT MIN 23 REQUIRED PER ARBORIST VALUE, PROPOSED 25 TREES TO BE PLANTED 1' - 6"1' - 6"1' - 6"1' - 6"HEATPUMP AC43' - 6"10' - 6 1/8"GATEHUMAN ACCESS GATEVEHICULAR ACCESS GATEVEHICULAR ACCESS GATEEXISTING EASEMENTSOBEY RD.EXISTING EASEMENT10' - 0"12' - 0"12' - 0"12' - 0"NO FENCE SHALL BE TALLER THAN 3' IN PURPLE HIGHLIGHTED AREAS12' - 6"4' - 6"27' - 0"4' - 6"15' - 0"PLANTS5 ' - 6 "30' - 6 9/16"17' - 0"17' - 0"31' - 0"2' - 0"8' - 0 7/32"7' - 6"49' - 0"15' - 6 5/32"23' - 2 29/32"9' - 0"12' - 5 1/8"13' - 0 1/8"24' - 7 1/2"13' - 6"14' - 10 7/8"16' - 6 7/8"20' - 0"14' - 0"4' - 6"1' - 6"1' - 6"1' - 6"8' - 0"8' - 0"14' - 5 5/8"29' - 8 1/4"27' - 1 1/4"30' - 6"13' - 0"40' - 4"22' - 0"52' - 6"38' - 6"8' - 10 1/2"16' - 6 7/8"20' - 0 1/4"18' - 9 3/8"9' - 11 5/8"20' - 0"9' - 0"14' - 0"46' - 6"10' - 0"10' - 0"50' - 0"50' - 0"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked byOwner: Creston Dr. LLCPhone : (415) 967 -2527E-mail : msanein@gmail.com14920 Sobey Rd. SaratogaDesigner:Safaei Design Group | Salar Safaei 127 Kelton Ave. San Carlos, CA 94070Phone: (415) 967 -2527E-mail: salar@safaeidesign.comPROJECT ADDRESSSIGNATURESStructural:Rahmani & Associates, Inc.1870 Hamilton Ave.,San Jose, CA 95125Phone: (408) 377-4000E-mail:mrahmani@rahmanidesign.comCONSULTANTSTitle 24:Dave Hansel, PEHensel Consulting Engineers, Inc.P.O. Box 1442San Marcos, CA 92079Phone: (619) 665-3259 E-mail: dhensel@hc-engineers.com14920 SOBEY RD.SARATOGA CACalGreen + Title 24 Achievement Engineering Corp.2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit ESan Jose, CA 95131Phone: (408) 217-9174email: arash@caltitle24.comThe use of these plans and specifications shall be restricted to the specific site for which they were prepared and publication thereof shall be expressly limited to such use. Reuse, Reproduction or publication by any method, in whole or in part, is prohibited. title to the plans and specifications remain with Safaei Design Group / Designer without prejudice. Visual contact with these plans and specifications shall constitute prima facie evidence of the acceptance of the restrictions.APN: 397-04-071 Civil EngineerOSUNA ENGINEERING INC.117 bernal Rd. Ste. 70-336San Jose, CA 95119Phone: (408) 772-4381Landscape ArchitectRussell Stringham LEED AP BC+CSan Jose CA, Tel: (408) 886-4089 Email: stringhamdesign@gmail.com3/32" = 1'-0"10/19/2022 4:43:28 PMA1.1Site Plan (P)1492014920 SOBEYCRESTON DR. LLC06.13.2021SDGSS3/32" = 1'-0"1Site (E) & (P) TREE PROTECTION ANDREMOVAL FIRST FLOOR SITE PLANVALLEY OAK DBH: 18VALLEY OAK DBH: 22VALLEY OAK DBH: 20.2LIQUIDAMBAR 10.1LIQUIDAMBARDBH: 12.4LIQUIDAMBARDBH: 9.6LIQUIDAMBARDBH: 8.2LIQUIDAMBARDBH: 8.1,6.4LIQUIDAMBARDBH: 11.2 X TO BE REMOVEDLIQUIDAMBARDBH: 10.2BEEFWOODDBH: 21.4XTO BE REMOVEDBEEFWOODDBH: 31.5 XTO BE REMOVEDWEEPING WILLOWDBH: 27.4 XTO BE REMOVEDPEARDBH: 11.5 XTO BE REMOVEDPEARDBH: 9.2 XTO BE REMOVEDENGLISH HAWTHORNDBH: 14.9 XTO BE REMOVEDDEODAR CEDARDBH: 26.9 TO BE PROTECTEDAND PRUNED/TRIMMED TREE PROTECTION METHOD TO BE CONFIRMED BY ARBORISTWEEPING WILLOWDBH: 42.7TO BE PROTECTEDBIRCHDBH: 6.9TO BE PROTECTEDBIRCHDBH: 6.3XTO BE REMOVEDCOLORADO BLUE SPRUCEDBH: 18.1TO BE REMOVEDOLIVEDBH: 15.4DEODAR CEDARDBH: 9.1DEODAR CEDARDBH: 10.2LONDON PLANEDBH: 24.9SILVER DOLLAR EUCALYPTUSDBH: 32.4SILVER DOLLAR EUCALYPTUSDBH: 21.2SILVER DOLLAR EUCALYPTUSDBH: 32.8PLUMDBH: 23.4DEAD TREE TO BE REMOVEDEXISTING GATE TO BE REMOVED AFTER CONSTRUCTION HEATPUMP ACNo. Description DateFENCE NOTES: 1. MATERIALS PROPOSED FOR THE FENCE SHALL BE OF HIGH QUALITY METAL FENCING; THE ENTIRETY OF THE SUBJECT FENCE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIALS THAT ARE OF HIGH QUALITY, EXHIBIT SUPERIOR CRAFTSMANSHIP, AND THAT ARE DURABLE; 2. THE MODIFICATION WILL NOT IMPAIR THE INTEGRITY AND CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH THE FENCE IS LOCATED; 3. THE GRANTING OF THE EXCEPTION WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL OR INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY, ADJACENT NEIGHBORS, OR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE GENERAL VICINITY AND DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED; AND 4. THE GRANTING OF THE EXCEPTION WILL NOT CREATE A SAFETY HAZARD FOR VEHICULAR, PEDESTRIAN OR BICYCLE TRAFFIC AND DOES NOT OBSTRUCT THE SAFE ACCESS TO AND FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES.322 Scale Project number Date Drawn by Checked by Owner: Creston Dr. LLC Phone : (415) 967 -2527 E-mail : msanein@gmail.com 14920 Sobey Rd. Saratoga Designer: Safaei Design Group | Salar Safaei 127 Kelton Ave. San Carlos, CA 94070 Phone: (415) 967 -2527 E-mail: salar@safaeidesign.com PROJECT ADDRESS SIGNATURES Structural: Rahmani & Associates, Inc. 1870 Hamilton Ave., San Jose, CA 95125 Phone: (408) 377-4000 E-mail:mrahmani@rahmanidesign.com CONSULTANTS Title 24: Dave Hansel, PE Hensel Consulting Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 1442 San Marcos, CA 92079 Phone: (619) 665-3259 E-mail: dhensel@hc-engineers.com 14920 SOBEY RD. SARATOGA CA CalGreen + Title 24 Achievement Engineering Corp. 2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E San Jose, CA 95131 Phone: (408) 217-9174 email: arash@caltitle24.com The use of these plans and specifications shall be restricted to the specific site for which they were prepared and publication thereof shall be expressly limited to such use. Reuse, Reproduction or publication by any method, in whole or in part, is prohibited. title to the plans and specifications remain with Safaei Design Group / Designer without prejudice. Visual contact with these plans and specifications shall constitute prima facie evidence of the acceptance of the restrictions.APN: 397-04-071 Civil Engineer OSUNA ENGINEERING INC. 117 bernal Rd. Ste. 70-336 San Jose, CA 95119 Phone: (408) 772-4381 Landscape Architect Russell Stringham LEED AP BC+C San Jose CA, Tel: (408) 886-4089 Email: stringhamdesign@gmail.com 10/3/2022 12:26:27 AMA9.0 SPECS 14920 14920 SOBEY CRESTON DR. LLC 06.13.2021 Author Checker No. Description Date EXAMPLE OF INSTALLED FENCE EXAMPLE OF INSTALLED FENCE INSTALLATION OF METAL FENCE AROUND THE PROPERTY 323