Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-09-2001 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, May 9, 2001 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissionr~-s Lauri Garakani, Jackman, Kurash, Roupe and Zutshi ABSENT: None STAFF: Interim Director Kaplan and Planners Schubert and Dunca PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ELECTION OF TEMPORARY CHAIR MINUTES -Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of Apri125, 2001 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA ,~ ~r. s ~„ Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 4, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Thursday before the meeting. DR-O1-014 (397-43-010) -ADLPARVAR, 13921 Loquat Court; -Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,089 square foot structure and construct a new 3,369 square foot, single-story residence with a 2,281 square foot basement. Maximum height of the proposed structure is seventeen feet eleven inches and located within a R-1- 10,000 zoning district. (APPROVED 6-0) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MAY 9, 2001 PAGE 2 2. LL-00-005 (517-23-021 and 517-22-111) - HUSAIN/KHAN, 15480 Peach Hill Road; - Requestfor Lot Line Adjustment approval for two existing parcels with slope greater than 20 percent. Currently, a residence is located on top of the existing lot line. The purpose of the rec{uest is to correct this situation and create two parcels capable of supporting a residential building site in aHillside-Conservation Residential zoning district. (MOTION FAILED TO PASS, 3-3, BARRY, GARAKANI AND KURASH OPPOSED) DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written -Saratoga City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings of March 23, 2001 and Apri118, 2001. ADJOURNMENT AT 11:45 TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, May 23, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, May 8, 2001- 3:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Land Use Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2001 • ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. UP-00-013 - HUSAIN/KHAN 15480 Peach Hill Road 2. DR-O1-014 - ADLPARVAR 13921 Loquat Court Item 2 Item 1 LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site visits are held Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site visit to answer any questions which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. Please contact staff Tuesday morning for an estimated time of the site visit. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, May 9, 2001 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ELECTION OF TEMPORARY CHAIR MINUTES - Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 25, 2001 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 4, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Thursday before the meeting. 1. DR-O1-014 (397-43-010) -ADLPARVAR, 13921 Loquat Court; -Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,089 square foot structure and construct a new 3,369 square foot, single-story residence with a 2,281 square foot basement. Maximum height of the proposed structure is seventeen feet eleven inches and located within a R-1- 10,000 zoning district. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MAY 9, 2001 PAGE 2 2. LL-00-005 (517-23-021 and 517-22-111) - HUSAIN/KHAN, 15480 Peach Hill Road; - Requestfor Lot Line Adjustment approval for two existing parcels with slope greater than 20 percent. Currently, a residence is located on top of the existing lot line. The purpose of the request is to correct this situation and create two parcels capable of supporting a residential building site in aHillside-Conservation Residential zoning district. DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS ~~ ~_~ Written -Saratoga City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings of March 23, 2001 and Apri118, 2001. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, May 23, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • MINUTES n ,` SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION C/ /~//JJ~ DATE: Wednesday, Apri125, 2001 ~`' ~`/`~ `, ~~ PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA G TYPE:' Regular Meeting Commissioner Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi Absent: Commissioners Roupe and two currently vacant seats Staff: Senior Planner Bob Schubert and Planners Mark Connolly and Kim Duncan Commissioner Jackman advised that the Commission would need to select a Temporary Chair for the Commission until a full complement of Commissioners is appointed and a permanent Chair can be selected for the year. Motion: Upon Motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, Commissioner Barry was nominated to serve as Chair for this evening's Planning Commission meeting. (4-0-1-0-2; Commissioner Roupe was absent and there are presently two vacant seats on the Commission.) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of March 28, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Regular Planning Commission minutes of March 28, 2001, were approved with the following amendments: • Page 4 -Commissioner Barry expressed concern that the size of these units suggests family use while no viable safe play area is being provided on site for children to use. • Page 7 - Commissioner Kurascl:'s third bulleted comment was revised to read: Expressed that since parking in the Village is already deficient by 250 spaces, the parking Variance would have a comparative small impact. The solution is not to decrease retail space but rather to increase available parking as recommended in -the Village Plan, No. 11, Page 17, of the General Plan. • Page 11 -Commissioner Barry said that, based on a Planners' Conference, her understanding of the Planning Commission's mandate is that some sort of summary needs to be provided. (4-0-1-0-2; Commissioner Roupe was absent and there are two vacant seats.) • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri125, 2001 ~ Page 2 . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Jan Birenbaum, Co-Chair, Teachers' Housing Coalition Committee, 20052 Sunset Drive, Saratoga: • Updated the Commission on issues raised with Council in relation to their activities to assist teachers, living and/or teaching in Saratoga, find affordable housing. • Stated that it is their goal to ask the City of Saratoga to. set aside $2 million for a Housing Assistance Program, designed to assist teachers. • Said they also hope to see modifications to the Housing Ordinance to reduce limitations on secondary living units, a means of providing affordable small units for teachers. • Added that they also seek to support including residential units above commercial uses. • Said that the City needs to require developers to set aside 10 to 15 percent of their units for BMR (Below Market Rate) units. - Commissioner Jackman reminded the Commission of comments made at the last meeting by a citizen expressing concern that BMR units would adversely impact property values. Reiterated her belief, as . well as her response to that citizen, that BMR units do not reduce property values and that the people who need the assistance of available BMR units include many professionals, with good incomes, such as teachers. • Chair Barry suggested that the Commission be kept informed of ideas generated by the Teachers' Housing Coalition Committee. Suggested that updates be provided to staff who in turn can forward the information to both the Commission and Council. Ms. Lisa Liu, Teachers' Housing Coalition Committee, 20291 Memck Drive, Saratoga: • Stated .that she is also present to show support for the Teachers' Housing Coalition Committee's Housing Assistance program. • Provided a number where she can be reached as (408) 741-4824. • Advised that this Committee is meeting monthly. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for " this meeting was properly posted on Apri120, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, provided the following technical corrections to the packet: • Agenda Item No. 2 (Lot 1) and No. 3 (Lot 2): Correct page 4 to read 45 percent maximum allowable square footage. • Agenda Item No. 1: Page 4 should read that there is an attached garage. proposed rather than a detached garage. • Agenda Item No. 4: Project number is actually UP-00-013 not UP-O1-013. The square footage of the equipment structure is 45 square feet not 50 square feet. • Order of Agenda: Suggested that the four projects under consideration for Howell & McNeil be grouped together at the end of the agenda. The revised Agenda order would be Items 1, 4, 5, 2, 3, .6and7. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri125, 2001 Page 3 CONSENT CALENDAR There are no Consent Calendar Items. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 DR-00-062 (397-28-013) - PICO RANCH, INC., 20460 Williams Road: Request for Design Review, approval to demolish an existing 1,974 square foot single-family residence and construct a new 2,663 square foot, two-story residence. Maximum height of the structure will be 23 feet. The 7,671 square foot parcel is located in the 4-1-10,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 4/11/01). Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report: • Advised that this item was continued from the April 11, 2001, Planning Commission agenda. • Said that the application is for approval to demolish a 1,974 square foot, single-story residence and detached garage and to construct a new 2,663 square foot, two-story residence with attached garage. • Informed that this is a substandard lot with just 50-foot width. The required lot width in this zoning district is 85 feet minimum. • Pointed out two concerns raised by adjacent neighbors as being privacy impacts from a rear deck and the proposed front setback for this project. • Advised that the applicant has offered to install additional landscaping to buffer the balcony. • Staff is recommending approval of this proposal. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing No. 1 at 8:05 p.m. Mr. John Ridder, Applicant: • Said that he has worked closely with Planning staff and has met all design criteria, including a 25- foot front setback. The rear yard setback is 52 feet when only 25 feet is required. The proposed height, at 23 feet, is three feet lower than the maximum allowable. The second story setback is eight feet more than required. • Advised that this home has been developed to fit in with the neighborhood. • Said that is response to the concerns outlined in the letter from the Neighborhood Watch, dated April 3, 2001, they are proposing a screening trellis. • Added that upon conducting a survey of the front setbacks in the area, only one home has a 38-foot setback. Most homes are 25 feet or less set back from the front property line. • Said that he believes they have met and exceeded the City's criteria and design guidelines. • Added that they are willing to work with staff and neighbors to solve any concerns. Commissioner Kurasch said that in order to minimize the perception of bulk, the home couldn't appear to stick out at the front of the property further than the adjacent homes. Added that it may be necessary to slightly reduce this home in size. Mr. John Ridder replied that he has met all guidelines. Commissioner Zutshi asked what size homes are in the immediate area. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri125, 2001 Page 4 Mr. John Ridder replied that a similar home is located just down the street from this site. Mr. George Elliott, 20462 Williams Road, Saratoga: • Advised that his home is located adjacent to this parcel. • Added that the home mentioned by Mr. Ridder, Jack Cook's home, is set back behind its adjacent neighboring homes. • Added that recent infill projects have been sensitive to setbacks. • Read the letter from the Williams Avenue Neighborhood Watch Committee into the record: The Williams Avenue Neighborhood Watch Committee respectfully ask the Saratoga Planning Commission to consider and act on two requests which affects our neighborhood concerning the . Proposed Site Plan for 20460 Williams Avenue. The first request is to review the "interference with privacy" of the deck shown on the left/front elevation of the proposed site plan. Please read Police 3 #1: Control view to adjacent properties on page 19 of the Residential Design Handbook, City of Saratoga. In this context, we believe the proposed design does not work. The city planner for this project and the architect have already come to that same conclusion. We would like to find a solution that is agreeable to John and Chris Pace whose home is adjacent to the Left/East elevation. Secondly, the Committee would like to "minimize the perception of bulk" on the proposed site plan by having the house use the same front setback that now exist with the present home at this location. Again referring to the Handbook Police 1 #S: Design structure to fit with existing neighborhood, page 8. Under the design Don 'ts section we quote: ' "Avoid overwhelming existing residences and do not design to attract attention or stand out. " We do not object to the building of atwo-story, 4057 square foot house set between two 1600 square foot homes. We do object to the "sticking out" 13 feet beyond the existing front setback which would not be consistent with.the adjacent neighborhood. We think the proposed setback does not minimize.the perception of bulk but in fact would maximize it and "set it apart" from the existing surroundings. We have a positive example in ,the neighborhood on how this can work where neighbors and developers both win. Jack Cook of Cook Construction Company set his new two-story house on Williams slightly behind his neighbor's front setback. If you view the house, as many of you on the Planning Commission did, clearly this works with the existing surroundings and it minimizes the bulk issue. (By the way, the same designer w_ orking on the site at 20460 Williams Avenue designed the Cook house.) Both Cook Construction and Blackwell Properties, who are working on "infill "projects on our street have been very sensitive to front setbacks and keeping the look consistent with the neighbors so not to overwhelm them. Therefore, our neighborhood committee is asking the Planning Commission not to approve the proposed design without adoption of our two requested modifications. ~ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri125, 2001 Page 5 Signed: M/M Pace, M/M Elliott, M/M Kerin, M/M Hart, M/M Rockwood, M/M Hulme, M/M S Kwan, Ms. Felcyn, Ms. Anderson and Ms. Paxton. • Added his belief that Mr. Ridder can design to better fit into the neighborhood. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that one issue is tree retention. Mr. George Elliott replied that they could either reduce the size of the 4,000 + square foot home or design around the trees. ' Commissioner Jackman advised Mr. Elliott that he should not count the 1,092 square foot basement as actual square footage. The actual home is 2,663 square feet per City code. Mr. Anthony Kerin, 20461 Williams Avenue, Saratoga: • Advised that his home is directly across the street from this property. • Added that he will be visually impacted by the bulk and mass of this proposed structure and that the wishes of 17 neighbors should be respected. Mr. Theo Hart, 20431 Williams Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that his home is also across the street and down from the proposed home. • Said that this is a great neighborhood and the real issue is having a contiguous line in the front year setbacks on the street. Chair Barry asked whether Mr. Hart and the other Neighborhood Watch members would be willing to appoint one representative to meet and work out issues with the developer and staff. Mr. Theo Hart replied absolutely. Mr. Allan Hulme, 20485 Williams Avenue, Saratoga: • Identified his home as being across the street and two house over. • Said that none of the neighbors is opposing the construction of this home just the proposed setback from the street. The proposed setback would be very different from what is there now. This is already a bigger and two-story home coming onto this lot. • Stated that it is important to take the neighborhood into consideration. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Hulme if size (bulk and mass) is issues for him. Mr. Allan Hulme reiterated that their only concern is how this home will relate to the other houses on the street. Chair Barry stated that it is always a key consideration of the City to take into consideration neighborhood compatibility. Ms. Chris Pace, 20450 Williams Avenue, Saratoga: • Advised that her home is next door to this site. • Said that the proposed balcony was her original concern as well as the potential of bulk and the home sticking out. Sazatoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri125, 2001 Page 6 • Said that the tree being retained could be removed as far as she is concerned as it has caused many sewer problems over the last 15 years. • Suggested that removing that one tree will allow the home to be moved back. Commissioner Jackman stated that she would not support the removal of this tree. Mr. John Bidder: • Clarified that he had nothing to do with the design of the Cook home. Architect Bruno Mazcelic, who shares office space with him, did that design. ' • Said that the Commission should consider the setbacks of the whole neighborhood and not just five homes. • Said that he is unable to remove the tree as it is recommended for retention in the Arborist report. • Pointed out that the setback for the Kerin Home across the street is just 16 feet. • Reminded that the second story setback is 33 feet from the front property line. Commissioner Jackman stated that she felt the design could be reworked. Chair .Barry asked Mr. Bidder if he is willing to work out issues together with a neighborhood representative and staff. Mr. John Bidder replied that he would be so willing. Commissioner Kurasch wondered if the gazage might be better detached than attached. Mr. John Bidder replied that a detached gazage would result in a vary narrow home to allow the driveway. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the 'Commission closed Public Hearing No. 1 at' 8:34 p.m. (4-0-1-0-2; Commissioner Roupe was absent and there are two vacant seats.) Commissioner Jackman suggested that the project be redesigned and returned for further review. Advised that Mr. Bidder would have to retain the redwood tree. Commissioner Kurasch said that a compromise could be struck with a balance between the applicant's and neighbors' interests. Said that the home should have a deeper front setback and reduction in size and bulk. Suggested scaling the project back by about 10 percent, with a deeper setback and retention of the redwood tree. Commissioner Zutshi concurred. Mr. John Bidder asked for further clarification. Commissioner Kurasch stated that the setback should be about 30 feet and a reduction in bulk. Chair Barry stated that the applicant can meet with staff and one representative from the neighborhood. It appeazs that five additional feet in front setback, for a total of 30 feet and the retention of the tree aze specifics offered by the Commission. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri125, 2001 Page 7 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Commission continued consideration of DR-00-062 to a date uncertain to allow the applicant time to work with staff and a neighborhood representative in order to develop an alternative design that provides a 30-foot front setback and some reduction in bulk and size as well as the retention of the redwood tree. (4-0-1-0-2; Commissioner Roupe was absent and there are two vacant seats.) *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 UP-00-013 (386-44-040 - NEXTEL, Cox Avenue and Cumberland Drive: Request for Use Permit approval to install nine, four-foot tall panel antennas mounted 84 feet high on an existing 143 foot tall utility lattice tower. A proposed 50 square foot equipment shelter surrounded by a six-foot high wood fence would be located on the northwest portion of the property north of Cumberland Drive on Cox Avenue. (CONTINUED FROM 4/11/01.) Ms. Kim Duncan, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this request is for a Use Permit to install nine antennas on an existing utility tower. • Said that an equipment shelter will be constructed and will include an air conditioning unit that will run continuously to maintain the equipment within. • Said that staff is recommending approval of this application and adoption of a Negative Declaration. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:50 p.m. Mr. Ashraf Rageh, Nextel Representative: • Said that he worked closely with the City and was able to reduce the shelter for the equipment to a seven-foot high, five by nine footprint, surrounded by a six-foot fence enclosure at 25 by 25 foot with redwood slats. • Added that there is already quite a canopy of existing landscaping in the immediate area. • Said that they are prepared to meet the Conditions of Approval. Chair Barry pointed out a letter received from a neighbor which outlines concerns about cumulative effect of radio waves on the area. Mr. Ashraf Rageh advised that they have hired a consultant to conduct a pre and aft study of the site and area for RF (Radio Frequency) exposure. Mr. Bill Hammett, RF Consultant to Nextel: • Stated that he conducts tests to calculate and measure radio frequency exposure and develop mitigation if necessary. • Said that he has visited the site and this project will comply with all FCC standards. Frequency is 100 times below the allowable standards with this installation. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the applicant could support requiring annual emissions tests as a Condition of Approval. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri125, 2001 Page 8 ~ Mr. Ashraf Rageh replied that such a condition would be no problem. Mr. Frank Marolda, 19884 Veronica Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he has resided at this location since 1975 and the proposed installation is located right behind his rear yard. • Advised that he has heard a crackling sound off of this existing utility tower for many years. • Added that the lattice tower is an eyesore already. • Informed that he only received notice of the meeting on March 21 but that many of his neighbors never did receive notice, including 19862 Veronica Drive and 12672 and 22679 Cain Drive. • Said he questioned if adequate notice has been done. • Expressed concern for health hazards and asked for a copy of the radio frequency emissions testing. • Pointed out that many people on his block have cancer and he is concerned about the safety of his family, particularly his grandchildren who often use his backyard swimming pool. • Read aloud from. portions of his letter, particularly paragraphs three and four. • Added that he is also concerned about view impacts from this installation. • Asked the Commission to deny this application. Mr. Jack Leman: • Advised that he resides two doors down from Mr. Marolda. Said that the tower is already a concern. Said that he does not know if the emissions from the tower are harmful or not but that someone should find out. Commissioner Jackman asked Mr. Jack Leman if he received a hearing notice. Mr. Jack Leman replied that he received the notice for April 11`h (note that meeting was continued due to a lack of quorum). Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Hammett if there are any potential heath hazards with this installation. Mr. Hammett replied that Nextel is willing to do any necessary testing to assure that there is no impact. Added that his report was included in the Commissioner's staff report this evening. Assured that this installation will comply with all safety standards. Chair Barry stated the City's protocol regarding the requirement to replace outdated equipment and asked Mr. Hammett if this is a common requirement in his experience. , Mr. Hammett replied that this is a common requirement. Commissioner Kurasch asked if there is a compounding effect, with this installation. Mr. Hammett replied that there is no compounding effect. Added that it is very common to place such equipment on PG&E Towers. This is happening all over. Commissioner Kurasch asked if a third party evaluates. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri125, 2001 Page 9 Mr. Hammett advised that he is a third party, in that he is not an employee of Nextel but rather a consultant. Mr. Frank Marolda asked who was responsible for the meeting notice mailing. Additionally, he wondered why this site was selected and whether any alternative sites had been considered. Finally, he wanted to know if the City has received any monetary compensation for this installation. Commissioner Jackman advised Mr. Marolda that there are already a number of other such installations throughout the City. Chair Barry asked staff to clarify the mailing procedures for hearing notices. Mr. Bob Schubert, Senior Planner, advised that for this particular agenda item 73 notices were mailed, included nine to addresses on Veronica Drive. The three addresses mentioned by Mr. Marolda were included on the affidavit provided by the mail house that prepares public hearing notices for the City. Explained that notices are sent to property owners rather than occupants of any property and one notice went to an off-site owner. No notices were returned for this mailing as undeliverable. The noticing area is 500 feet. Commissioner Barry asked if there is a financial benefit to placing the antenna on this site. Mr. Bob Schubert replied not for the City of Saratoga. This property belongs to PG&E. Chair Barry explained to those in attendance that the urview of the Commission does not include the P ability to evaluate health issues. There is an established protocol for such antenna installations and the Commission is charged with dealing with aesthetic issues. Mr. Bob Schubert added that the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 precludes a city from denying antenna installations based on emissions. Commissioner Kurasch said that the federal standards are the only criteria. Suggested noticing a wider area than 500 feet. Commissioner Jackman asked Mr. Ashraf Rageh if he is willing to test residences in the neighborhood for emissions impacts. Mr. Ashraf Rageh replied yes. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:24 p.m. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Commission approved UP-00-013 with the standard protocol requirements and requiring independent party testing be made available to adjacent residents and that annual testing of emissions be conducted and additional screening of the site from neighboring property. (4-0-1-0-2; Commissioner Roupe was absent and there are two vacant seats.) Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri125, 2001 Page 10 Chair Barry directed staff to add to the basic protocol the requirement for independent party testing and the replacement of obsolete equipment. Chair Barry advised that this approval is final in 15 days. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. S V-O1-001 (393-25-024), 13601 Saratoga Avenue, ST. ANDREWS SCHOOL: Request for Variance approval to construct a fence over three feet in height up to six foot maximum, along Saratoga Avenue and Crestbrook Drive, within the front yard and exterior side yard setback. The site is located on an 89,291 (net) square foot parcel within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 4/11/01). Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this application is for a Variance to allow asix-foot high, welded fence to replace an existing four-foot chain link fence, using the same portholes. • Additionally, new fencing will be installed on Saratoga Avenue. • Advised that this fencing represents both a security and ornamental feature. • The application was reviewed and approved by the Commission but the noticing description did not include the Crestbrook Drive portion of the' proposed fencing proposal. Therefore, this application is again before the Commission for further review following notification to the Crestbrook Drive residents. hair C Barry opened Public Heanng No. 5 at 9:35 p.m. Mr. Bill Puder, 19680 Crestbrook Drive, Saratoga: • Expressed his concern with the placement of the fencing on Crestbrook so near the street. • Questioned the purpose for asix-foot high fence. Mr. Currie Munce, 19722 Crestbrook Drive, Saratoga: • Expressed concern about noticing since the owners of~ 19747 Braemar Drive and 19704 Crestbrook. Drive did not receive notice. • Said did not like fence'as it will look institutional. • After looking at other schools in Saratoga, did not find any fencing so high. This proposal is therefore unique for Saratoga. • Said that most of the neighbors do not support this application. Mr. Jim Stallman, 19740 Braemar Drive, Saratoga: ~ Said that he has concerns about this proposal. • Added that he was unaware that the fencing was changing along Crestbrook when the original hearing notice was received. • Said that it does not appear that the corner sight lines are being met. • Advised that his kids walk to Sacred Heart School along Crestbrook and suggested that the fence be set back four feet to allow a walkway area along the street. • Added that the fence should not exceed four feet in height and that the dimensions of the bars should be changes. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri125, 2001 Page 11 Ms. Carol Munce, 19722 Crestbrook Drive, Saratoga: • Said that she feels strongly against this fence at six feet in height and its proposed green color. • Added that she is a 34 year resident of her home and that this fence would be too much, giving the appearance of a prison wall. • Said that the existing fence blends and does not stand out. This proposal does not blend. • Said that this fence installation would devalue the area and provide an unfriendly, unsightly view in the neighborhood. Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Carol Munce if she felt this fence is necessary for protection of the property. Ms. Carol Munce replied that she has often felt safety is not a big concern at the school as she sees students off site unsupervised all the time. Mr. Harry McKay, Representative of St. Andrews School: • Said that a chain link fence was viewed as very institutional so they had attempted to select something that was more decorative. • Assured that the fence height was selected for safety, for children when they are present and to secure the site from vandalism after hours. • Said that they are sensitive to the difference of opinion and had worked with the Heritage Commission in designing this fencing proposal. Commissioner Jackman asked why the fencing was so close with one-inch vertical on four-inch. Mr. Harry McKay replied that this was just the style fencing selected. Commissioner Jackman asked about the fence setback. Mr. Harry McKay replied that he had understood that the proposed setback was in compliance. Commissioner Jackman asked if there is walking space at the present time along the existing fence. Mr. Mark Connolly replied that the fencing is proposed to be installed using the existing portholes. The proposed setback is met but the Variance is required for the height over three feet. Commissioner Kurasch reiterated that Code allows the fence to be located at the curb, three feet or less in height or six feet in height if set back at least 25 feet. Asked how far the curb is from the fence. Mr. Mark Connolly replied three to four feet. Chair Barry asked if a walking path is possible. Mr. Mark Connolly replied that it would be a voluntary requirement not one the City could impose. Mr. Currie Munce stated that the existing fence is just one foot from the curb. Sazatoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri125, 2001 Page 12 Commissioner Kurasch stated her concurrence that the proposed fencing gives a heavy construction appeazance, which is a concern. Also was concerned about the proposed setback on Sazatoga Avenue. Commissioner Kurasch and Chair Barry both stated that they had looked at other schools' fencing and neither had located asix-foot fence. Mr. Jim Stallman said that he wanted to emphasize the proximity of the existing fence to the curb. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 at 10 p.m. Commissioner Jackman suggested that the fence be no higher than five feet and of a less heavy material with more distance between rails. Suggested afour-foot walkway on the street side of the fence. Chair Barry asked staff for clarification about the hearing notice to neighbors. Mr. Mazk Connolly reviewed the mail house affidavit, which states that the property owners for 19747 Braemaz Drive and 19740 Crestbrook Drive aze both included on the mailing list. Commissioner Kurasch asked why cutouts in the fencing aze included. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that they provide cleazance azound bleachers. Again stated that the fencing would be utilizing the exiting postholes. Commissioner Kurasch wondered if it is unreasonable to ask for a walkin ath. gP Mr. Mark Connolly said that the Commission could ask.. The bleachers could be relocated if necessary. Chair Barry expressed her relief that this application is being reconsidered as she feels she did not look .. at the design clearly enough. Suggested a continuance to allow for the redesign of this proposal. Added that the neighbors want to retain a nice view from their homes. Additionally, there aze concerns about safety for those exiting cazs with the fencing in its current location. Suggested that asking the school to move the fence location to accommodate safety for pedestrians is not unreasonable. Added that the City is going to have to address noticing problems. Commissioner Kurasch suggested a fence height no more than five feet on Saratoga and no more than four feet along Crestbrook. _ Mr. Mazk Connolly suggested that with the specific criteria called out by the Commissioners, this application can be approved this evening and the applicant would be allowed to build it. Commissioner Jackman stated that she supports placement four feet from the curb with a maximum of five feet in height with five inches between 3/4-inch rails. Commissioner Kurasch said that she has a problem with the five-foot height on Crestbrook Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri125, 2001 Page 13 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Commission approved V-O1-001 with afour-foot height on Crestbrook Drive, a five-foot height on Saratoga Avenue, a four foot setback on Crestbrook Drive and 3/4 inch vertical rails with larger spacing between the rails, if possible, and like landscaping along Saratoga Avenue in the street right of way. (4-0-1-0-2; Commissioner Roupe was absent and there are two vacant seats.) Chair Barry advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. Chair Barry called for a brief break at 10:15 p.m. Chair Barry reconvened the meeting at 10:22 p.m. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEMS 2, 3, 6 & 7 DR-00-057 (Portion of 397-21-022) -HOWELL &MCNEIL, Lot 1, Carnelian Glen Court (A part of 20251 Carnelian Glen Court): Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,677 square foot single-story residence on a vacant lot. Maximum height of the structure will be 20 feet. The 24,045 square foot pazcel is located within an R-1-20, 000 zoning district. (CONTINUED from 4/11/01). DR-O1-001 (Portion of 397-21-022) -HOWELL &MCNEIL, Lot 2, Carnelian Glen Court (A art of 20251 Carnelian Glen Court): Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,505 square foot single-story residence on a vacant lot. Maximum height of the structure will be 21 feet. The 36,528 squaze foot parcel is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED from 4/11 /01). DR-O1-002 (Portion of 397-21-022) -HOWELL &MCNEIL, Lot 4, Carnelian Glen Court (A part of 20251 Carnelian Glen Court): Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,549 square foot two-story residence and demolish a 600 squaze foot tea house. Maximum height of the structure will be 26 feet. The 32,384 gross squaze foot (29,010 net) parcel is located within an R-1- 20,000 zoning district. DR-O1-010 (Portion of 397-21-022) -HOWELL &MCNEIL, Lot 5, Carnelian Glen Court (A part of 20251 Carnelian Glen Court): Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,294 squaze foot single-story residence and demolish a 2,300 square foot structure. Maximum height of the structure will be 22 feet. The 21,445 square foot pazcel is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Suggested that the Commission consider all four houses as home hearing. • Advised that the applicant has worked with staff and the neighborhood, including sending a letter early in the project to the neighbors. • Said that Lot 4 has been revised in order to preserve trees and that the Arborist, Public Works and Fire staff reviewed each lot. • Informed that staff is supportive of each Design Review application and is recommending approval. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2001 Page 14 Commissioner Kurasch asked if each home is being discussed in turn or if all would be discussed as a group. Mr. Mark Connolly suggested that all four homes be discussed as a group but that the vote is taken separately on each Lot. Chair Barry noted a change in the driveway location. Mr. Mark Connolly agreed and advised that in order to save Trees No. 1 and 2, the driveway on Lot 4 was relocated on the site. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that the driveway not be more than 16 feet in width. Mr. Mark Connolly clarified that for Lot 1 (Agenda Item No. 2) the actual impervious surfaces tota132 percent of the site while 45 percent is allowed. Commissioner Jackman suggested the use of additional impervious pavers in the driveway and that the roof drainage issue for Lot 4 raised by the Arborist in his report on page 17 be reviewed. Commissioner Kurasch stated that the numbering of trees in the various Arborist reports is confusing. Mr. Greg Howell, Applicant: • Said that they have been given lots of guidance by staff and took the existing homes in the neighborhood into consideration when designing their project. • These four proposed homes range from 4,000 to 5,500 square feet. Chair Barry asked Mr. Howell about what trees would be removed and what trees preserved. Mr. Greg Howell replied that they have complied with all of the recommendations of Mr. Barrie Coates, the Arborist, and have not discounted any of his recommendations. Commissioner Kurasch suggested the removal of the existing privet near the proposed front walk for Lot 1. Added that the path may significantly impact trees 4, 5 and 6. Said that it is important to keep the integrity of the canopy on Carnelian Glen. Mr. Chris Spaulding, Architect: • Agreed with Commissioner Kurasch's recommendations and said that they could eliminate the straight portion of the walk and angle it toward the drive. ~ - Commissioner Kurasch said that she had no specific concerns regarding Lot 2. Asked if the inner courtyard would be paved at the back of this house. Mr. Chris Spaulding replied that the new homeowners would install that rear yard landscaping. They envision that space as a garden court. Commissioner Kurasch su ested a narrower drivewa f r - gg y o Lot 4, the flag lot and the only two story m the project. . Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri125, 2001 Page 15 Mr. Chris Spaulding asked if it is possible to have a narrower drive than the 16-foot proposed. If so, they could narrow the driveway to between 10 and 12 feet in width. Mr. Mark Connolly replied that it is possible. Commissioner Kurasch suggested positioning the drive to the right of a tree. Mr. Chris Spaulding replied that to do so would wipe out approximately seven trees. Commissioner Kurasch asked if it is possible to reduce the on grade walk for Lot 5. Mr. Chris Spaulding pointed out that the auto access is shared with Lot 4. Commissioner Jackman asked to see the color board. Mr. Chris Spaulding stated that staff has it. Added that the roof material is different but the body colors for the homes is similar. The stone and windows to be used will also vary between the four homes. Chair Barry mentioned that the staff report is calling for a monochromatic rust colored roof tile. Mr. Chris Spaulding corrected that by stating that the roof the has variations in color and is riot .monochromatic. Chair Barry said that the colors proposed sounds nice. Commissioner Kurasch suggested having an on-site Arborist, as has been required on similar type projects in the past. Asked if the applicants are willing to have one on their project, specifically for key times in the project such as at the time of site grading and during the early stages of construction. Mr. Mark Connolly reiterated that it is not uncommon to require an ISA Certified Project Arborist during demolition and construction at key times of the project. The project Arborist sends staff monthly updates on the site. Commissioner Kurasch stated that according to the Arborist report there are no landscape plans yet. Suggested a Condition of Approval requiring that the landscape plans be approved by the Arborist prior to construction. Mr. Greg Howell said that it is not reasonable to require a final landscape plan prior to construction. Typically, the landscape plan is required prior to final occupancy. Commissioner Kurasch disagreed and stated that the final landscape plan would have to be worked out prior to construction and that waiting until final occupancy is not appropriate. Mr. Chris Spaulding said that construction plans would depict trenching prior to issuance of permits. Commissioner Kurasch reiterated that it is both normal and reasonable to request final landscape plans. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2001 Page 16 Chair Barry asked staff for clarification. Mr. Mark Connolly said that the requirement for landscape plans is handled on a case-by-case basis. Submission of preliminary plans is not uncommon with a Condition that final landscape plans be approved prior to final occupancy upon review by the City's Arborist. It is possible to issue this project's building permits with a Condition that they applicants begin work on their final landscape plans. Mr. McNeil, Applicant, Howell & McNeil: • Said that it is premature to prepare final landscape plans. It will be one to one-and-a-half years before installation of this landscaping. • Added that they will follow all guidelines provided by the Arborist for the protection of existing landscaping. Mr. Mark Connolly added that there is also a Condition requiring the installation of front yard landscaping prior to issuance of final occupancy. Chair Barry said that the preliminary landscaping plan should fit with tree preservation. Mr. Greg Howell reminded that the plans would be approved by the Arborist prior to installation. Commissioner Jackman mentioned that neighbors have expressed concern about the impacts of dust and debris during construction and asked what Lot would be constructed first. Mr. McNeil replied that Lot 2 would be the first. Chair Barry reminded the applicants that it will be required as a Condition of Approval that they post a sign on site that lists the allowable construction hours. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that that Condition would be added to this project. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Items 2, 3, 6 and 7 at 11:04 p.m. Chair Barry clarified the additional proposed Conditions for Lot 1 (Agenda Item No. 2) to include: • An on-site Arborist, • The posting of a sign listing construction hours, • The elimination of the straight walkway to Carnelian Glen Drive with the change in angle of the remaining walkway away from retained trees, • The submittal of preliminary landscape plans upon issuance of building permits, • Approval of the final landscaping plan by the City `s Arborist and • The installation of the front yard landscaping prior to final occupancy. Commissioner Jackman stated her disagreement with the requirement for preliminary landscape plans. Commissioner Zutshi agreed that these landscape plans could be submitted at a future time. Chair Barry stated her support for the requirement to provide preliminary landscape plans. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri125, 2001 Page 17 S Commissioner Jackman proposed a compromise, which would require the submittal of the preliminary landscape plans three months after building permits have been issued. Motion: Upon motion of Chair Barry, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Commission approved DR-00-057 (Lot 1/Agenda Item No. 2) with added Conditions that an on-site Arborist be retained, that the construction hours be posted on site, that the preliminary landscape plans be submitted three months after issuance of building permits, that the final landscape plan be reviewed and approved by the City's Arborist and that the walkway be redirected. (4-0-1-0-2; Commissioner Roupe was absent and there are two vacant seats.) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Commission approved DR-O1-001 (Lot 2/Agenda Item No. 3) with added Conditions that an on-site Arborist be retained, that the construction hours be posted on site, that the preliminary landscape plans be submitted three months after issuance of building permits and that the final landscape plan be reviewed and approved by the City's Arborist. (4-0-1-0-2; Commissioner Roupe was absent and there are two vacant seats.) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Commission approved DR-O1-002 (Lot 4/Agenda Item No. 6) with added Conditions that an on-site Arborist be retained, that the construction hours be posted on site, that the preliminary landscape plans be submitted three months after issuance of building permits, that the final landscape plan be reviewed and approved by the City's Arborist and the access to the garage portion of the driveway be narrowed to 12 feet in width between Trees No. 1 and 2. (4-0-1-0-2; Commissioner Roupe was absent and there are two vacant seats.) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Commission approved DR-Ol-O10 (Lot 5/Agenda Item No. 7) with added Conditions that an on-site Arborist be retained, that the construction hours be posted on site, that the preliminary landscape plans be submitted three months after issuance of building permits and that the final landscape plan be reviewed and approved by the City's Arborist. (4-0-1-0-2; Commissioner Roupe was absent and there are two vacant seats.) Chair Barry advised that this approval is final in 15 days. Commissioner Kurasch warned staff that in the future she would be looking for more complete applications, which include landscape plans. Chair Barry suggested discussing this topic on a future agenda. *** DIRECTOR ITEMS Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri125, 2001 Page 18 Request for reconsideration of Trafalgar Proiect Mr. Bob Schubert Senior Planner r p ovided the staff report as follows: • Advised the Commission that the applicants for this project on Big Basin Way and St. Charles Street are asking the Commission to reconsider their project. They propose to merge their lots and have their project reconsidered without the need for a Variance approval for the reduced rear setback. Said that City Code allows Commissioners, who made the motion for denial, to reconsider an application in this manner. Mr. Glen Cahoon, Designer: • Said that this new proposal to merge the lots helps to resolve issues in this project. • Added that the Parking Variance was the only part of the project that was approved by the Commission. • Said that if they merge the two lots, they no longer need to ask for a Variance to the 30-foot setback requirement. • Added that the townhomes are proposed to have 15 x 30-foot rear yards. • Said that their demographics project that this project would appeal to professionals without children. • Asked the Commission to reconsider this reconfigured project so they will avoid having to appeal the denial to Council. Commissioner Barry clarified that her concern was regarding the living units on Big Basin Way. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman to deny consideration of a merging of the two properties, the motion died for lack of a second. Chair Barry advised Mr. Cahoon that the Commission believes that this is more appropriate as an appeal to Council. Added that combining the lots does not help with the design issues and the fact that there is not enough retail proposed on Big Basin. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Jackman stated that she would like to see the Commission look into a basement policy. Additionally, she proposed considering whether light wells of six feet be allowed instead of the limits of three-foot light wells that currently is the standard. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that this is a Director's Policy and not a Municipal Code standard. The purpose is to prevent the appearance of light wells as terraces. Chair Barry stated that it would be beneficial to concentrate some meetings on planning issues such as these instead of specific applications. COMMUNICATIONS • Written: Saratoga City Council Minutes from Adjourned Meeting of February 21, 2001, and April 4, 2001. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri125, 2001 Page 19 Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 11:37 p.m. to Wednesday, May 9, 2001, at the Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINCJTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • • • ~ ITEM 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: DR-O1-014;13921 Loquat Court Applicant/Owner: ADLPARVAR Staff Planner: Robert Schubert, Senior Planner~~ ~ Date: May 9, 2001 APN: 397-43-010 Department Head: • 000001 13921 Loquat Court EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4/13/01 4/13/01 4/25/01 4/16/01 4/19/01 The applicant has requested Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,089 square foot single-story residence and construct a 3,369 square foot single-story home with a 2,281 square foot basement. The maximum height of the proposed structure is 17 feet,ll inches. The 10,083 square foot parcel is located in an R-1-10,000 zoning district. A similar request was recently reviewed under Architectural Review application AR-O1-016. The Community Development Director referred the project to the Planning Commission for review and decision pursuant to Code Section 15-45.065(d). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff review concludes that the proposal does not fully conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood. If the Planning Commission concurs, staff recommends that action on Design Review application DR-O1-014be continued and that direction be provided to the applicant regarding revisions that should be made to the project to comply with the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and the findings required in Section 15-45.080 of the City Code. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR-00-014 3. Arborist Report dated January 23, 2001 4. Correspondence 5. Plans, Exhibit "A" • • • 0®0002 File No. DR-01-014;13921 Loquat Court • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 10,083 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Less than 1% GRADING REQUIRED: Approximately 760 cubic yards of cut (to a depth of nine feet) would be required to construct the proposed basement. MATERIALS. AND COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior finish will be horizontal wood siding painted Navajo White, Drystack Legerstone synthetic stone wainscot and wood frame windows and doors painted Frost. Roofing will be Duralite shake (Desert Sage). Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. Proposal Code Requirements • Lot Covera e: g First Floor &t Gara e g 3,369 s . ft. q Porch 64 sq. ft. Driveway ~ Walkway. 556 sq. ft. MaximumAllowed TOTAL 3,989 sq. ft. (39.6%) 60% Floor Area: Living Area 2,936 sq. ft. Garage 433 sq. ft. MaximumAllowed TOTAL 3,369 sq. ft. 3,370 sq. ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirement Front 25 ft., 2 in. 25 ft. Rear 25 ft., 5 in. 25 ft. Left Side 10 ft., 2 in. 10 ft. Right Side 11 ft.,1 in. 10 ft. Maximum Allowed Height: Residence 17 ft.,11 in. 26 ft. • A:\adlpacvar.pcsr.doc 00004 Pile No. DR-01-014;13921 Loquat Court PROJECT DISCUSSION • The applicant proposes to demolish an existing 2,089 square foot single-story residence and construct a 3,369 square foot single-story home with a 2,281 square foot basement. The maximum height of the proposed structure is 17 feet, 11 inches: The 10,083 square foot parcel is located in an R-1-10,000 zoning district. The new home would have horizontal wood siding painted Navajo .White, Drystack Legerstone synthetic stone wainscot and wood frame windows and doors painted Frost. Roofing will be Duralite shake (Desert Sage). `Background On December 19, 2000 the project was submitted as Architectural Review application AR- 00-045. Notices regarding AR-00-045 were mailed to the 10 closest properties and letters were received from residents of five nearby homes. The application was denied on February 16, 2001 because staff was unable to make the required design review findings. The action taken by staff was subsequently withdrawn in order to allow the applicant to file a new Architectural Review application with revised plans pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.065. On March 14, 2001, the applicant filed a new Architectural Review application (AR-O1-016) along v~ith revised plans. The plans contained two revisions from the previous proposal: 1) the siding was changed from stucco to horizontal wood; and 2) the height of the front entry was lowered by approximately one foot (to approximately 14 y~ feet). Notices regarding AR-O1-016 were mailed to the 10 closest properties and letters • were received from residents of six nearby homes. The application was not approved by staff, and the Community Development Director referred the project to the Planning Commission for review and decision pursuant to Code Section 15-45.065(d). Design Review Loquat Court is a cul-de-sac of six single-story homes with a similar California Ranch architecture design. The material palate of the surrounding neighborhood is a mix of horizontal and vertical wood siding, brick and stucco: The homes on the two corner lots of the cul-de-sac are setback a minimum of 25 feet along. Loquat Court. The homes on the four interior lots have front yard setbacks of at least 30 feet (the front yard setback of the existing home on the subject site is approximately 32 feet). The front yard landscaping along Loquat Court is mature. The proposed single-story home on the subject site would be set back 25 feet from the front property line, approximately seven feet closer to the street than the existing home. The proposed garage faces the street (i.e., east) compared to the existing garage which faces south. The existing curved driveway would be replaced with a linear driveway. The natural landscape is preserved in the design of the home, with the exception of shrubs along the front of the site that would be removed to construct the new driveway. No trees would be removed. Policy 1, Technique #5 of the City's Residential Design Handbooh is to "Design the structure to • fit with the existing neighborhood." The proposed massing and height of structure are . A:~adlparvar.pcscdoc O ®0 O File No. DR-01-014;13921 Loquat Court consistent with the neighborhood. However, other design elements do not fit with surrounding homes. The proposed entry feature on the facade extends above the eaveline, which is inconsistent with the design of other homes on the cul-de-sac. The proposed reduction of the front yard setback by approximately seven feet would result in a 25-foot front yard setback, which is less than the other interior lots on the cul-de-sac. In addition, the proposed roofing material, Duralite shake (Desert Sage), is different than the wood shake and flat red file roof materials of the homes on surrounding properties (i.e., five of the existing homes on Loquat Court have wood shake roofs and one has a flat red file roof). In conclusion, the proposal does not fully conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and is not compatible with the neighborhood and therefore does not satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15-45.080 of the City Code. Parking The Ciry Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The proposed project has atwo-car garage. Grading Approximately 760 cubic yards of cut (to a depth of nine feet) would be required to construct the proposed basement. . Geotechnical Review This application did not require review by the City Geologist. Trees There are four trees of sufficient size that may be affected by construction which are of sufficient size to be subject to the requirements of the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance (i.e., a 20-inch Hollywood Juniper located in the backyard of the site; and three Coast Live Oaks located on the adjacent property to the west). As a condition of approval, all recommendations of the City Arborist Report dated 1/23/01 should be followed, including the installation of tree protective fencing for the Hollywood Juniper and three Coast Live Oaks. Fireplaces The plans show that one wood-burning fireplace and one chimney will be constructed in the new residence. Correspondence • Five letters were received from residents of five nearby homes regarding AR-00-045 and six letters were submitted regarding AR-O1-016 (see attached letters). Below is a summary of the neighbors' comments: 0®~®Os A:~adlpaivar. pcsr. doc File No. DR-01-014;13921 Loquat Court • Floor Area --The proposed house is inconsistent with existing homes on Loquat Court and should be reduced in size (i.e., by 15% to 50%). • Setbacks, -The front yard. setback of the proposed house is more than six feet closer to the street compared to the existing home. It would block views of other homes on Loquat Court. Building from setback to setback on the site will destroy the . character of the neighborhood. • Architecture - The_ architecture does .not fit with the _Ranch style of existing homes on Loquat ,Court. The, large, tall double doors proposed at the front entry are inconsistent with nearby homes. • Other Comments -Other concerns expressed by the neighbors include the following: Number of Bedrooms -The large number of bedrooms proposed (i.e., four bedrooms) is inconsistent with a house having atwo-car garage. Living quarters In Basement -With living quarters in the basement, it essentially becomes atwo-family house. . Light Wells -The basement light wells will be an attractive nuisance for children. The proposed floor area, setbacks and architecture are discussed above. Below are staff responses to other comments from the neighbors:. • Number of Bedrooms -The project complies with the City's parking requirements. The required parking for single-family homes .is not based on the number of bedrooms. • • Living quarters In Basement -The proposed basement is not a second unit under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance since it does not include cooking facilities. • Light Wells - Urider the provisions of the Uniform Building Code, the applicant will be required to install three foot high safety railing along the lightwells: Conclusion Although the proposal satisfies zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage, it does not conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook. The residence is not compatible with the neighborhood and does not satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15-45.080 of the Ciry Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue Design Review application DR- 01-014 with direction to the applicant regarding revisions that should be made to the plans in order to comply with the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and the findings required within Section 15>45.080 of the City Code. Alternatively, the Commission could adopt the attached -resolution approving the proposed project. The application has been reviewed by the City Arborist, Public Works Department and the Santa Clara County Fire Department. All recommendations are included in the proposal or • as conditions of approval in the attached resolution. A:\adlparvar.pcsr.doc ®®O ®O V • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-O1-014 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ADLPARVAR;13921 Loquat Court WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,089 square foot single-story residence and construct a 3,369 square foot single-story home with a 2,281 square foot basement on a 10,083 square foot lot a at 13921 Loquat Court; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: ^ The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community vievti~ sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the location of the • proposed residence will be partially screened from existing residences by mature vegetation. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimising tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimised and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas. The proposed residence in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials which minimise the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the surrounding environment in that the design, as conditioned, incorporates the policies and techniques set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook to minim~e bulk and mass concerns. ^ The residence will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties; nor (i.i) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. • ~®D~Q~ File No. DR-01-014;13921 Loquat Court ^ The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and • erosion control standards used by the Ciry. ^ The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15-45.055. -Now, TxFRFFOx~; the Planning Commission of the Ciry of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Mr. Adlparvar for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PLANNING 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a • separate plan page and containing the following revisions: • The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. • The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the Ciry, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." • The plans shall indicate that no more than one wood burning fireplace will be installed. The fireplace shall be equipped with a gas starter. • All recommendations of the Ciry Arborist's Report dated January 23, 2001 shall be met: This includes, but is not limited to the following: a) Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance: • All Arborist Reports shall be included as a separate page in the plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site, grading and landscape plans. n U A:\adlpacvar.pcsr.doc ®®O Cl O8 File No. DR-01-014;13921 Loquat Court . • Five feet tall chain link protective fencing shall be shown on the plans as indicated in the report with the note "to remain in place throughout construction." • The applicant shall submit to the Ciry, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $614.30 pursuant to the report and recommendation of the Ciry Arborist to guarantee the preservation of trees during construction. b) Prior to issuance of Grading and Building Permits: • Tree protection fencing shall be installed. • All tree pruning and other applicable tree protection measures shall be completed. • Staff shall verify that tree protection fencing is in place. c) Prior to Final Inspection approval: • The Ciry Arborist shall inspect the site to verify that the tree maintenance and protection measures have been followed in order • to determine whether the tree protection security may be released. • Any outstanding Ciry Arborist fees shall be paid. 3. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 4. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. ~. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 6. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on- site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 7. Provide an approved Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, installed per City of Saratoga Standards. .• 8. An approved, automatic fire sprinkler system designed per National Fire Protection Association Standard #13DE and local ordinances shall be provided for the garage. 0©0009 Aradlparvar.pcsr.doc File No. DR-01-014;13921 Loquat Court To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, • horizontal ceiling. CITY ATTORNEY 9. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the Ciry or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 10. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the Ciry could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this Ciry per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be inet. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of • adoption. • ~~0©1,0 A:~adlparvar.pes~.doe File No. DR-01-014;13921 Loquat Court • PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 9`h day of May 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • A:~adlparvacpcsr.d« ®~00~.~ T~iIS PAGE HAS BEEN -INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000012 •I •i •i • ~ ~. ~ ~. BARRIE D. C:.~ATE - - ' and ASSOCIATES ; ~ ~ •. Horticultural Consultants .' D . 408-353-1052 _ _ JAN ~ 1 2~0~ Fax 408-353-1238 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95033 CITY OF SARATOGA - _ COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT AN ANALYSIS OF THE TREES AT THE ADLPAR_VAR PROPERTY LOQUAT COURT SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of:._ ;- ... -, . Mark Connolly - City of Saratoga . 1377? Fruitvale Ave. 'Saratoga, CA 95070 ' Site Visit by: Barre D.-Coate - Certified Consulting Arborist January 23, 2001 Job #01-01-007 , Plan Received: 12/27/00 Plan Due: l /23/01 • 0®0013 AN ANALYSIS OF THE TREFa _ _ i THE ADLPARVAR PROPERTY LOQUAT COURT SARATOGA Assignment I was asked by Mark Connolly Planner, City of Saratoga, to inspect the trees on the Adlparvar property as relates to the affects of demolition and construction on their health and structure. Summary _ There is only one tree on the property large enough to be controlled by City Ordinance, a Hollywood juniper in the frontyard. The other~trees which could be affected by demolition and which are large enough to be controlled by City Ordinance are on the adjacent property to the west and are three coast live oaks. - None of these trees have excellent structure due to their crowded condition. Since their trunks are directly adjacent to and west of the property line fence, approximately 10 feet of their canopy could be affected by construction activity in the backyard. With reasonably careful compliance with the tree preservation fencing the planned demolition and construction should cause very little or no detrimental effect to these trees. There are five significant Japanese maple trees on the property but none of them are nearly large enough to be controlled by ordinance. • Tree #1 the Hollywood juniper is valued at $1,777, which is approximately equivalent to one 36-inch box and one 24-inch box California native trees. If the applicant-prefers to remove that tree rather than retain it in the new landscape, I suggest allowing that to happen as long as equivalent value of new trees are replaced. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak -Quercus lobata Big leaf maple - Acer macroplryllum California buckeye - Aesculus californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens Recommendations 5-foot tall chainlink fences must be installed precisely as shown in the enclosed map before demolition begins and remain intact until construction has been completed. Trees #2, 3 and 4 are valued at $4,366. I recommend a 10% bond to ensure the installation and retention of fencing. Tree #1 is valued at $1,777, if it is retained I suggest a ] 0% bond to ensure the installation and preservation offences around it as well. - • PREPARED BY: BARRni D. COATE, CERTIFIED CONSULTING ARBORIST JANUARY 23, 2001 ®00014 AN ANALYSIS OF THE TREES n i THE ADLPARVAR PROPERTY LOQUAT COURT SARATOGA 7 Respectfully submitted,/~~ -4. , (,-P'~> Barrie D. Coate • Enclosures: Map Tree Data Chart Protective Fencing BDC/sl PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATE, CERTIFIED CONSULTING ARBORIST JANUARY 23, 2001 000015 n ~ O c 1 0 ` ~ e o' O --~ V ++ eC C" O -.a e-~ N M H ou m d 'LY '~ .~ O ~1 ._ay V `~ C~' .~ O ~f (E-L) ulaolaa,frnowaa ,~ J E 1VAOW3214N31NW00321 ~ ~ ~ ,N ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ N ~ E ~- ~ > N 1 213211112133 S033N ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o (S-L) 2131VM S033N n n u x (S-L) 3St/3SI0 2M10010021 ~ d m ~ o ~ ° a o m m m (S-l) 03213n00 2M110010021 ~ ~ ~ ~ a X x X X o a (S-4)J1V034 HNflill m w m a (S-4) OOOM OV30 °o a -- N M °° a (S-l) 3S1/3S10 NM0210 33211 o . vi v- w uq (S-L) S103SNI x ~~ n n (S-L) A1RiORid JNIN(121d rn° °rn °rn m° a # 03033N S319V0 v Z ---_ _.___--~ - ~ ----- ~ 8 _ ~ __ 1H°J13M-dN3 3nOW321 $ ~ X X X X ~ m JNISM21 NM0210 v _~_ _~__ a 5 N0111RIO1S321 NM0210 ~ ` "--~ ,~-W--W~ ~ ~ 0 0 a `JNINNIHl NM0210 ~ N ~ nj ty r R m _ w ~a v- ds ~JNINV3l0 NM0210 ~~ ~~ x ~~ (6-E) `JNI1V21 021~Lt/H ~ ° ° ° o o o (01.-Z) `JNl1tR1 NOILdN00 M ~ ---- ~"'~ ~ ~ ~ o 9 ----------------------___-_ _~ c~ ~ ZS ~ c V (S-t) 321f110f1211S N a N a N a -- c. m X X X X (S-L) H1lV3H ON321dS _~~__ N ~ - '~' ~ o n v ~ N N f0 1HJI3H N to N ~ N w ~ coo ~ 1333 L~ 21313WM0 0~ o ~" m n n n n E ~ - H9a ~ c c c c °m c 1O _ ___----- ---------- _ ~' ~ Hed ° o w ~ « of ~ . X X X ~ X W31SAS-I1lf1W ~~----- x x H8O c .. ao ° c ~ m ~ - of ~ m o v 0 N c c c C ~ a ui W ~ W ~ N d I - ~ V tJ ~ ~a ~ a ~ E ~ Z ` C 0 m ~ 8 C . :~ _ a a~ v a ~ C V fn YN Y ti ~ DC -v ~ Z o y o ~ m !O C J 0 J J ' {{xx 7 ~ O S O U O. U O U m .~ N M Q Y F ~ N.., O 3 u a H W 00 ti r, LJ W C M O a~~~ ~ 11 II tl a x px W `Olp ~ .zG F~`~i~ 0 . {~ CJ ~ II ~l ,u, O O O ny p ,S] .!] .G Qi to N ~ n ®00016 TREE N OT_S CALIFORNIA DEPA RTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION George Deukmejian Jerry Pertain, Director ~ Gordon K. Van Vleck Governor Secretary for Resources State of California •:~== ~~ The Resources Agency •; o: ~ O'.. ;. JANUARY 1989 Protecting Trees From Construction Impacts Sherburn R Sanborn Staff Forester, Dutch pm Disease Project, P.O. Box 820, Santa Rosa, CA 95402.0820 Why Should We Protect Trees An important benefit of trees to society is their aesthetic value. Our parks, streets, homes and businesses would seem sterile without them. Trees also have ~ monetary value. Residential and commercial properties with established trees have a greater market value than those without them. Trees provide other benefits which include: shade, noise abatement, wind . breaks, erasion contrd and pollution reduction. Like all green plants, trees vent carbon dioxide into oxygen during photosynthesis. This process contributes significantly to the recycling of the atmospheric gases we breath. Unfortunately trees are often irreversibly damaged or killed during co~nstructio~n and/or landscaping. grows well bey and the trunk. Depending on soil conditions they may extend two to three times the radius of the crown. The roots of mast tree species are associated with beneficial fungi called mycorrhizae. These fungi increase the roots ability to absorb water and minerals. Soil disturbance during construction can permanently disrupt this association. How Construction Affects Roots By understanding where roots grow and how they function, we can begin to see how construction activities such as trenching, slope cuts, soil compaction, soil grade changes and paving can affect roots. Understanding a Tree's Root System The primary impact of construction around a tree is to the unseen portion, ROOTCROjPN the root system. Activities which disturb or alter the soil in which roots grow can injure or kill a tree. To reduce or prevent adverse impacts, we must understand how roots function and how they develop in the sal. The greatest proportion (90°I"o) of tree roots is found within the first three feet of sdl. Roots function to -support and anchor the tree. In addition, specialized sorbing) roots function to exchange gases and to orb water and minerals. Most absorbing roots are found in the first 8-12 inches of soil where water and oxygen can readily penetrate. Roots require both water and oxygen to grow and function. ~ A network of supporting roots and absorbing roots When trenching for utilities and foundations of where grade 1 levering is done close to a tree, there is a likelihood that roots will be cut. The closer DRIPLINE the trench is to the trunk the greater the damage. Each root that is cut reduces the tree's capacity to supply water and nutrients to the leaves. ~~ Trenching within just a fe~v feet of a trunk can reduce the functional root system by as much as 50%a Shc is compacted during construction by heavy equipment which squeezes out the air spaces making it mare dense and stable. Unfortunately, this process greatly reduces the infiltration of water and oxygen into the sdl. As a result rocs cease to function and eventually die. In addition, root penetration is decreased. Shc grade changes alter the natural soil level around a tree. The addition of ~D~~.~n particular, can have an effect s~~ 'lar to soil compaction. The depth and porosity the fill sdl are. the most important factors affecting the tree. IE the depth is significant a [he porosity is law, root death -can occur. For some tree species, a grade change of two inches can be significant. Sofl fill that is compacted or has lower porosity than the native soil will restrict root activity. ]f roots cannot develop or grave into the ~ fill, recovery by the tree after construction may be impaired or prevented. Fill soil around the .root collar (the flared part of the trunk at or just above sdl grade) and trunk will .result in death and decay of the bark tissue. This can cause the death of all or part of the root system including the supporting roots. Often this results in a "Hazardous" tree. Grade changes that require the removal of sdl often remove absorbing roots and expose and injure other roots. Concrete or asphalt paved over soil where roots are present will seal the surface, reducing water availability and gas exchange to the roots: beneath. Usually soils are compacted prior to 'installing pavement which compounds these problems. i Symptoms Of Construction Impacts An injured tree may take several months to many years to exhibit symptoms of construction impacts. These can include: slow decline, insect or disease attack, sparse foliage, significant branch dieback and wilting or yellowing of leaves. ' Reducing Construction Impacts The following techniques can be used to prevent or reduce the impacts of construction on trees: ~~ Fence around the area within the dripline to protect it from construction .activities. Because roots often grow. beyond the dripline, enclosing. a larger area is, desirable. » Dig trenches by hand or tunnel under the tree if underground utilities must be installed within the tree's drip line. >. Prune roots that must be removed, do not rip them out with a trencher or .back hce. N Bridge over roots when trenches for new foundations will damage them. .Construct wells around trunks. and root collars ' to keep soil away and install aeration systems when the soil grade must be raised. Use a coarser fill soil than the soil being covered and do not compact. Add fill in the late fall or winter when roots are less active. Avoid w orking on wet soils. What To Do Ai :The Damage Is Done u Soil aeration (vertical or hydrojet mulching) can be effective where soils have been compacted. Only remove dead, hazardous or obstructive branches. Never remove more than 2090 of the fdiage during a single year. Leaves produce carbohydrates and buds produce hormones - both are necessary for root growth. Where appropriate, apply pesticides to reduce attacks by insects or other pests until the tree's vigor is restored. Place organic mulch over bare soil. » Restore soil grade by removing fill. u Restore irrigation regime that existed before construction took place. -Summary. Construction around trees can b e done successfully. However, this requires planning before construction or landscaping. Not all trees oa a site are worth saving. 'Each tree should be evaluated by a consulting arborist to determine its condition and value in the landscape. It may be more desirable in the. long run to plant new trees after -construction is completed. The value of a tr~~ should be used as a -guide to determining the • measures used to save it from construction impacts. Where trees of high value are present the effort and expense to save them is worthwhile. Mature trees take years to grow and their beauty anti aesthetics are irreplaceable. Further Reading 'Caprile, Janet L. Guidlines For Development Around Old Oaks. Cooperative Extension, University Of California, San Joaquin County. Harris, Richard W. 1983. Arboriculture. Prentice-Hall,.. Inc. Tree Protection Manual Fa Guiders And Developers. 1980. Florida Department Of Agriculture And Consumer Services, Division Of Forestry . Protecting Shade Trees During Home Construction. 1965. U.S. Department Of Agriculture, Home And Garden Bulletin No. 104. SUPPLIED EY COURTESY rr; BAltllll_ l~. LUA 1 E: Ilurtuultuul ~ umulunl Con~ulung Arbun~t a08 ]53 t052 295.15 S~~mmd Ruau ^ Lus Gatus: Ca 95JJU ll 1 O~~L7 ~~~ • ~ R ~i~ 1 ~ BAR IE D. .DATE a -~? is ,A and~ASSOCIATES ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~- Horticultural Consultants 408-353-1052 T3535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030 TREE.PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION These are general recommendations And may be superseded by site-specif c instructions BEFORE Plan location of trenching to avoid all possible cuts beneath tree canopies. This includes trenches for utilities, irrigation lines, cable TV and roof drains. , . Plan construction period fence locations which will prevent equipment travel or material storage r beneath tree canopies. - ~ - ., . Install fences before any construction related equipment is allowed on site. This includes pickup trucks. Inform subcontractors in writing that they must read this document. Require return of signed copies to demonstrate that they have read the document. Prune any tree parts, which conflict with construction between August and January. Except for Pines which may be pruned between October-January. Only an ISA certified arborist, using ISA pruning instructions maybe used for his work. If limbs are in conflict with the construction equipment before the certified arborist is on-site, carpenters may cut off offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18" long stub, which should be recut later by the arborist. Under no circumstances may any party remove more than 30% of a trees foliage, or prune so that an unbalanced canopy is created. DURING Avoid use of any wheeled equipment beneath-tree canopies. Maintain fences at original location in vertical, undamaged condition until all contractors and subcontractors, including painters are gone. Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave 5-6 buttress roots bases.visible at 12" from the trunk. Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June-October). Apply 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 %s') once per 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, or adjacent to construction not around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any organic material which is. non toxic may be used. AFTER Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just inside the dripline. Continue until 8" of rain has fallen. Avoid cutting irrigation trenches beneath tree canopies. Avoid rototilling beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which absorb water. ~ ; ~ ~. - Avoid installation of turf or other frequently irrigated plants beneath tree canopies. i 000019 31 ,: - . . ~ n a0 c ~ ~ O O ru~ai v `n 1~ ` ~ o .. o °o ~ N w }~ (1 O ~ C a if~_'Iy z ~` ~ N N N •~"~ .. U ~ O I O O N ~ ~ - C~' ~ ~~ _ ~ LL ° • ~~ 03/23/2001 13:19 4085549917 PCI CONSTRUCTION PAGE 01 . Mr. & Mrs. Adlparvar 13921 Loquat Court Saratoga, CA 95070 March 12, 2001 Kim Duncan, Assistant Planr~E:r Comznuni.ty Developnrtent Department 13777 Pruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 (Reference AR-00-045) cc: Mr. Chuck Page, Plannin;; Commission Dear Kim Duncan, We are writing to' address the; neighbors' concerns regarding the proposed new house at 13921 Loquat Court. in Saratoga, We appreciate all of their concerns. We would like to take this oppon:unity to thank all the neighbors for taking the time and giving the attention to make this house fit into the neighborhood. We feel like we are going to be moving ir~t.o a warm, caring, conscientious community, which most neighborhoods now 1ac:k: By all means, we will appreciate any other concerns our project may bri:ag up, One of the main reasons we purchased this house on this court was the ai:~pealing characteristic the neighborhood presented to us. We are sure with the assi:y~ance of the neighbors and the planning department, using combined efforts~we ef~:a enhance the neighborhood. Reading over the concerns, tl:~ere were five different subjects and they are as follows: Subject ,l. "Our cul-de-sac c:~msists of six homes -all constructed about 40 years ago by the same builder fron, Palo Alta. Although each house is unique, all bear a common California Ranch stele that was popular at the time. " (Deborah and Terence Schack) When these houses wE:re built, 40 years ago, they were built on a Sacre apricot orchard. The develol~~~r subdivided the 5 acres into 10,000-12,000 sq. ft. lots and built luxury houses treat were about twice as big as the average home, at the time. Building their subcu:vision of houses did not preserve the integrity of the existing ranch/orchard comnru.tniry. Houses that are being built today in Saratoga are at least twice as big as they were forty years ago. People's needs now are not . what they were when this ne:i;~hborhood was first developed, just as the homes built in 1958 were meeting tIi~e changing life style of the comm~uniry at the tune. oooozs 03/23/2001 13:19 4085549?~_7 PCI CONSTRUCTION- PAGE 02 • Subject 2. "The monster house ... (with the Residential Design Handbook being .referenced). (James and Helen Riley) The size of the proposE.~l house is within the guidelines of the City of Saratoga's .planning departrr~.~:tt The house will be 3369-sq. ft., which is only 12U0-sq. ft. larger than the existing one. Accord~zng to Policy #1 in the Residential Design Handbook, the policy :is to `minimize the perception of bulk' not limit tie size of the house. Since one .floor of the home is a basen~nt, the perception from the street is ~of a one-story house, which follows Technique #5 (design structure to fit with existing neighborhoodl.) Subject 3. "...the character ~~ f the proposed development is not in keeping with the existing ranch style homes ort the court. " (Julia Zambetti) We have changed the e:Rterior from stucco to wood siding to give it the . `ranch style' 1oo1c that was rec:onnumended by the neighbors. In addition, we are using paint colors that are ne~u.tral and con~aaaon in the neighborhood. (Kelly Moore Navajo white and Frost) This will preserve the character of the court as well as add value to the neighborhood. Subject 4. "Z'he setbacks frofrc the street and side fences are signifccantly different from the neighboring homes. " "The higher plate will create a noticeable visual • impact... " (Glenn and Susn<z Zucca) The front and side sett~:~cks will be according to the guidelines provided by the city. Most houses on thi;> cul-de-sac have 10' side setbacks and 25' front setbacks from the property li~ie, which is what the proposed house will have. Taking the neighbor's advice, we have gone ahead and lowered the plate line by one foot at the garage and at the entryway. We are under the 18' height requirement per the guidelin{~s. Subject S. "Comparable ho~~ces in neighboring communities have 3-car garages to accommodate the vehicles e~t~~ected from occupants of a house that size. " (Glenn and Susan Zucca) The majority of new biomes built now have extra roozx~s (bedrooms), even for a family of three or four. They use the bedrooms for a study, a hobby roozan, a game room, a guestroom, an ~~f6ice, etc. Sori~eone who can afford a home in the Saratoga area wants a nice h~o me, not a small rental type house. Having a 2-car garage will increase the area ~;o landscape and minimize the amount of concrete, which will improve the inte~~ity of Saratoga. The new, revised plans are taking into consideration the advice and comments received from the planning cErpartment and the neighbors. 0®0022 03/23/2001 13:19 4085549917 PCI CONSTRUCTION PAGE 03 ,All the plans and the drawings for the new custom home at 13921 Loquat Court are according to the Planning Department's guidelines. We are not doing anything spectacular in the design of this house. The size of the house and all set backs aze well within the city's guideli,a~~~s. These guidelines were created by professionals who knew that new construction would be going on around existing homes and have taken that into account ~~~hen the guidelines were made. We feel there is no reason for the Planning Department to reject the new set of plans. This house will be built acc~o~rding to all the city and county building safety codes. In conclusion, we are asking the Planning Department, the Commissioner, and all concerned neighbors to pleas.; accept our revised plans due to the fact that a brand new home in the area will only make the neighborhood more desirable. We are going through extensive exp~.nse to make this new project work for the neighborhood. If you have airy further concerns, please call me at 408-813-8402. Kim, we want to thank you au~d your staff at the City of Saratoga for all your help in getting these plans accept~~ d. We appreciate all your cooperation in welcoming anew family to the neighboll~ood. Thank you.. Sincerely your , ~i Hamid Adlparvar's family 000023 • April 11, 2001 Planning Director City of Saratoga Regarding demolition and development of 13921 Loquat Court: Dear Planning Director, This new plan is same as the old proposed plan It is an over size home for the lot and not in keeping with the neighborhood. The proposed home should be reduced in size by a least 15%. The building from setback to setback of this hole will destroy the character of our Court. I request that the Planning Staff and you as the Director put this proposed development on the agenda of the Planning Commission so that we as citizens and homeowners have our time in front of appointed Commissioners to voice our concerns. Please advise my son, Gene Zambetti or myself at 408-307-0065 or 408-741-0332. By mail at address of 13930 Loquat Court Saratoga, Ca. 95070. I request the staff denied this development until the neighborhood, the developer, the staff and the Commissioner discuss our concerns. Thank you very for your time and I understand how difficult it is to strike the balance between the old and new; but we must remember the reason why we incorporated this city. That was to have asemi-rural community, where the open space was around the homes in the front yard, side yards and rear yards. Sincerely Yours ~~ ul' Zambetti 13.20 Loquat Court Sa toga; Ca. 95070 D L~C~L~~d[~ APR 1 1 2001 ~Al'Y OF SAItATOGA ~'O~NINIUNITY DEVELOPMENT ®®0024 Apri110, 2001 13940 Loquat Ct. Sazatoga, CA 95070 Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Sazatoga, CA 95070 (Reference AR-01-016) Ms. Kim Duncan, Assistant Planner cc: Mr. Chuck Page, Planning Commission We aze writing to express our objection to the currently proposed plan for 13921 Loquat Court. Basically, we must restate our objection, since the plan scarcely differs from the previous one. All Loquat Court residents submitted letters stating their objections to the previous plan (AR-00-045); however, it does not appeaz that any of the residents' suggestions were incorporated into the redesign, although a letter from the owners made it sound as if our concerns were important to them and were being addressed. In a development of new homes, all sized the same and with similaz setbacks as defined by the city, the proposed house would look fine. The problem we have is that the new setbacks do not fit with any house on the street, so that any house built to maximize the footprint to the "legal" limit would appeaz a "monster" in comparison with others. Judging from the latest plans, our issues were not considered, since the proposed house is the same size and looks basically the same as the previous plan. These are the main points we were trying to make: the proposed house does not "fit" with the other houses on the court either in style or in size. Further, the house would block the view of other homes. I think these are real concerns. We have been residents of Saratoga for six yeazs. We bought this house because of the way it and adjacent houses looked. There is always the potential for change, but complete destruction of a house on the court and redesign to a monster house was something unexpected. We thought Sazatoga had safeguards in place to prevent this. This isn't Cupertino, after all. The proposed house must be considered a monster house since it would dwarf all surrounding houses. The proposed house is about twice as large in footprint as any house on the court, and actually will have over 5,000 sq. ft. of living space. It has a different style. It has large, tall, double doors, which no one in the entire azea has. In short, it is not compatible in size or azchitectural style and would radically alter the chazacter of the neighborhood. It would also draw attention to itself and would detract fro e~t~r~ D APR 1 1 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEI~~J~VV~ia~ homes, making them appeaz even smaller. It would also protrude on the lot; thereby blocking the view of neighboring homes. Although the setbacks on the planned house meet the "approved" numbers, this house would simply not fit in our neighborhood. We recommend that the proposed drawing not be approved. If the existing house must be destroyed, we -would like to see a house built that has a more homogeneous look compared with the neighborhood: a house with a similar setback and a much smaller size on the first floor that is more in keeping with its. neighbors, such as 2,500 sq. ft. The number of planned bedrooms, and other rooms that could become bedrooms, suggests a large number of people in the house and does not jive with the concept of a two-caz gazage. This court has very limited pazking areas. If a large number of people occupied the house, with a corresponding lazge number of cars, it would be a nuisance for the neighbors, unsightly, and uncharacteristic of Saratoga. Other issues for us aze construction mess and noise, which we would incur. If the basement were approved, tons of dirt would be removed. Destruction and then construction of a new house aze very noisy indeed. The owners would not have such inconveniences, since they do not live here and would not have to maneuver azound trucks, dumpsters, and debris that would effectively eliminate any street parking. Again, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission review and revise the construction proposal for 13921 Loquat Court (AR-O1-016) so that it aligns with local residences in bulk, footprint, elevation, and style. We would be happy to meet with the Commission to further explain our position since we want to maintain the current look of our neighborhood/court. Sincerely, Deborah & Terence Schack (owners/residents of 13940 Loquat Court) • 000026 ~k.~. • 13939 Q~iit4 Road Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Aprii 7, 2001 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Subject: Administrative Design Request-13921 LOQUAT COURT File AR-O1-016 Gentlemen: Although 7:I was not informed of the previous submittal, File AR-00-045 (even though my property has frontage on Loquat Court), I was able to review the plans after receiving Ms. Duncan's letter of March 27, 2001. To me, the proposed house is too much house not only for the lot, but also for the neighborhood. It will stick out like a sore thumb. With living quarters in the basement it essentially becomes a two-family home which is certainly not compatible with the neighborhood. If used for such, there is likely to be additional vehicle (s) which would have to be parked on the court, which only has limited parking space. The City of Campbell has allowed relatively massive houses to be built among more modest homes in the Hacienda Avenue area which results in a hodgepodge neighborhood which is neither harmonious nor attractive. I'd like to think that Saratoga has higher standards to preserve the integrity of- our neighborhoods. I feel the proposed dwelling will not enhance Loquat Court but its incongruity with the other homes on Loquat Court will markedly detract from the existing neighborhood. I urge the planning commission to deny this application. Sincerely Martin E. Schibler ~~~~o~~~ APR 1 0 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~QQ02'7 James & Helen Riley 13910 Loquat Ct Saratoga,.CA 95070- Apri16, 2001 Ms Kim Duncan, Assistant Planner, City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: AR-01-016 (Proposed lv ew Construction at 13921 Loquat Ct) Dear Ms Duncan: • p [~(~[~~d C~ APR 0 6 2001 . CITY OF SARA~I~O~A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT In response to your letter of notice dated March 27, 2001, I am responding for my wife and myself with my concerns for the proposed construction. The neighborhood began with the subdivision of an apricot orchard in 1958. The eight houses that were subsequently built on the lots are the homes that exist today. Since the eight houses were built by the same contractor at the same time (one after another), they all were of a similar architectural style (Western Semi-Ranch) and blend very well with their sites and with each other. The result is a small well-integrated neighborhood that shows pride of ownership. The Zambetties (my next. door neighbors) have lived here since 1960 (41 years). My family and I have lived here since 1965 (36 years) and others now in the neighborhood have lived here 15, 10 and 6 years. We have always paid our taxes without complaint and have enjoyed the peaceful living and protection that the City of Saratoga has provided since incorporation. All the neighbors own their homes (no absentee landlords) and have continually improved their properties. We have a real pride of ownership of our homes and neighborhood. The existing house at 13921 Loquat Ct -was placed on the real estate market in 2000 and subsequently sold to Mr & Mrs Adlparvar. At the time of sale • ®®0028 we had no concerns because the house was in immaculate condition. We naturally ,~ assumed that the Adlparvars would move into the house and become part of the neighborhood tradition. Our peace of mind was shattered when we learned that Mr Adlparvar had not only made no attempt to contact any of the neighbors but that he was a building contractor who planned to demolish the beautiful existing residence and shoehorn a "Monster House with full basement" onto the empty lot. Upon completion the house would be sold, Mr Adlparvar would be gone and the neighbors would be left with the oversized monstrosity of a monster house in the middle of their neighborhood. It is my contention that the neighborhood would be severely damaged by this proposed monster house. Whereas the existing home at 13921 Loquat Court has a long curved driveway from curb to the garage face (this extra length reduces the slope of the driveway), the proposed monster house has a short direct driveway from the curb line to the proposed garage face. The submitted plans show a garage finish floor elevation of 102.5 and a top of curb elevation of 99.7. The distance from curb to garage face scales 30 feet. The result is a rise of 2.8 feet and a run of 30 feet for a '~ slope of 9.0%. This slope is excessive -especially when the documents submitted by Mr. Adlparvar gives a slope of less than 1 % for the lot slope. The finish floor elevation of the proposed house is shown as 103.5 and the top of curb elevation opposite the entrance is 99.98. These figures makes the floor level of the house more than three and one half feet higher than the curb. This height is excessive. None of the homes in the neighborhood have this much height above curb. The distance from the property line to the existing garage scales 31 feet on • the submitted topographic map. The proposed plan shows a distance of 25'-2" from the property line to the face of the new garage. This means that the proposed monster house will be almost 6 feet closer to the street than the existing home. Looking at the first floor plan, it is seen that the house almost completely fills the lot area behind the legal set back lines (I have estimated 90% coverage). Since the roof rises at a slope of 4:12 for this longer distance and will make the proposed roof higher than the existing roof. The combination of these factors will make the house .appear to loom out toward the street and upward into the sky. 2 000029 In addition to these examples of poor planning, the architectural design of the monster house does not even begin to be in harmony with the existing neighborhood homes. The existing homes are of Western, Semi-Ranch style, and have been well placed on their lots. The architectural style of the proposed building defies description. Apossible -name for this architectural style could be "L.O.B:E." standing for "Left Over Building Elements removed from proposed monster houses by intelligent Planning Commissioners of surrounding cities". In my opinion the wide double doors at the main entrance and the awkward roof construction over the entry definitely do not blend with the neighborhood. The architecture of the remainder of the building conflicts in every way with the architecture of the existing neighborhood. The huge bulk of the proposed structure only compounds the differences. In the City of Saratoga publication "Residential Design Handbook" there are published "do and don't" guidelines for new structures. The included "Policy 1" states: "... A structure is perceived to be bulky when these elements (total floor area, height, design and relationship to its surroundings) are combined...to create a residence that .is out of scale, visually and structurally with the neighboring residences and its own natural setting. The residence then appears massive, bulky and overwhelming to the eye...". ~ The "don't" guidelines in Policy 1, when applied to the proposed structure, indicate that the proposed structure will be massive, bulky and overwhelming to the eye and therefore should not be permitted. In addition to the massiveness and bulk of the proposed structure, there are several instances of incompleteness in the plans. My first concern centers on the light wells. It is proposed to install two light wells, one on each side of the house. These wells will extend from ground level to basement floor level (a distance of at least eight feet) and are 36" in width. While there is some indication of a railing around two or three sides of the light wells, there are no construction details shown. If typical pipe railings were installed, .there would be created a very dangerous "Attractive Nuisance". Living. next door to the proposed monster house are two children ages 8 & 5, across Allendale live two children ages 10 & 7 while my grandson, age 9, visits occasionally and plays with the neighborhood children. • 3 000030 The attraction of a hole 8 feet deep is irresistible to kids who want to look down into the hole, to play drop a toy into the hole or other children's games. Thee danger of a child falling 8 feet onto a concrete floor will be ever present and is too horrible to contemplate. If the open pipe railings were replaced with chain link fencing (as per the swimming pool ordinance) the danger (and the attractive nuisance) would still exist. In addition the railing or fencing and the concrete retaining wall of the light well would be encroaching into the side yazd setback area. This is another example of the proposed structure being too massive. My next area of concern is that while the basement retaining walls of reinforced concrete are properly shown with a rock backfill and sloped.•drainage pipe, there are no details of the disposal of the ground water collected by the drain lines. Yard drains are shown on the floor of the light wells and it is possible (though not shown) that the wall drain lines would be connected. to the floor inlets. The plans indicate that the yazd drains aze piped under the basement floor (very difficult to locate and repair if clogged) to a point near the pump used to pump the sanitary sewage and bath water as well as from the sink and refrigerator azea to the sanitary sewer in the street. My concern is that the groundwater from the yard inlets in the light wells and the retaining wall drains will be connected to Pump # 1 and then pumped into the sanitary sewer. No other means of disposal is shown for the ground water collected more than eight feet below the surface. My concern with this method of disposal is that not only it is illegal to pump ground water into a sanitary sewer but that continued pumping of silty ground water (such as during the winter rainy seasons) can very easily cause the sanitary sewer to become clogged with silt settled out on the flatter slope of the sanitary sewer in the street. A clogged sanitary sewer can backup into residences located upstream from the blockage and can create a very expensive and disgusting cleanup problem. Another azea of concern centers on the possible misuse of the spirit of the zoning ordinance. The subject property, as you know, is zoned for single-family residential use. The intent of the ordinance is that a single family will live in a single house. Exceptions are made to allow in-laws and other to shaze the same house but these are the exceptions and not the rule. Duplex zoning, on the other 4 ~~0~~~ hand, allows two unrelated families to live in' one structure on one lot with adequate physical separation (a wall) between the two families. That said, my concern is that the proposed basement, with a few eraser strokes of the names of the rooms in the basement can change as follows: Bedroom #4 becomes Bedroom #1. Library becomes Bedroom #2 T.V. Room becomes Bedroom #3 =Bath remains Bath Bar (with sink and refrigerator) becomes kitchen Utility room remains utility room Multipurpose room becomes living room/family room Sliding glass doors are shown exiting into the light well areas on both sides for ingress, egress and and street access as well as satisfying the future U.B.C. requirement for window glass area in a separate residence. Suddenly, without any structural changes - only a few strokes of an eraser- the structure has been changed from a single family residence to a two family residence (i.e. duplex zoning) in a single family residential zone. I do not believe that the planning department nor the Planning Commission nor the City Council would approve the concept of giving approval to this project only to find that two unrelated families living there have, in effect, changed the single family residential zoning to duplex zoning without benefit of application to the city and without following the prescribed steps necessary for changing single family residential zoning to duplex zoning. The number of automobile parking spaces would probably be four (two for each. of the two families). The existing length of Loquat Court does not have the extra space to absorb the extra automobiles. Mr Steve Prosser, Public .Safety Officer at the City of Saratoga, told me that there is no limit to the number of families that can live in a single residence in asingle-family residential zone. He further indicated that the only requirement is that there can be only one kitchen for the preparation of food per residence. The proposed plans shows only one kitchen on the ground floor but as described above ALL of the other elements necessary for a second independent family living unit are included on the plans for the basement floor and a stove and/or 5 000032 microwave can be added very easily. The public safety officer can only investigate, after the fact, to see if the bar with sink and refrigerator has been converted to a kitchen. If a kitchen were found to exist, the public safety officer could only request the owner to convert it back to its previous condition (bar, refrigerator and sink). Mr Prosser also explained what constitutes acceptable evidence of the existence of two kitchens in one house. I believe that the Planning Commission and the City Council do not want this situation to arise in the future. I know that the homeowners in the neighborhood do not want to see this happen. I feel that the neighbors (including myself) will be on the alert for any ordinance violation in order to protect neighborhood serenity and property values. In summary, I list the following areas of incompatibility of the proposed construction with the neighborhood. 1. The neighborhood has existed since the early 1960s and all of the homes are in architectural harmony. Pride of ownership is evident. 2. The monster house proposed will not be in harmony with the neighborhood homes. It will be much too large and bulky for the lot. It will fill almost all of the area behind the B.S.L. on all sides. 3: The location of the monster house on the site is very poor in that there will be a 9.0% slope from the street to the garage and the finish floor will be 3:5 feet above the curb. The house will be almost 6 feet closer to the street than the existing home. .. 4. The architectural features of the monster house clash and conflict with the architecture of the existing neighborhood homes. 5. The City of Saratoga Residential Design Handbook, Policy 1, warns against placing a "massive, bulky, overwhelming to the eye" structure in an existing neighborhood. The planned monster house is a massive, bulky, overwhelming to the eye structure proposed to be placed in an existing neighborhood. 6. The submitted plans are incomplete or reveal dangerous conditions in several important areas, namely: 6 000033 a. The light wells will create a legal "attractive nuisance" that will be potentially dangerous to children in the neighborhood. This attractive nuisance will be in existence for the life of the monster house and the future owners will be saddled with this attractive nuisance. The potential liability to the future owner and the City (for approving the project after having this "constructive notice" called to their attention) should be considered. b. The light wells railing/fencing and structural retaining wall will encroach into the side yard building setback line. c. The lack of details related to the disposal of groundwater from the wall drains and yard inlets makes it easy to pump silty ground water into the sanitary sewer in the street. d. The possibility would exist of a clogged sanitary sewer line backing up and flooding a neighbor's home. e. The rather transparent attempt to disguise a potential two family residence as asingle-family residence is easily seen. ~' 7. The ro osed ro'ect is architectural) P P p ~ y incompatible with and would create an adverse effect on the neighborhood. In closing, I urge you to deny the application on the basis that the proposed monster house is too large, too bulky and overwhelming to the eye for the neighborhood. The architectural style is not compatible with the existing neighborhood; there will not be enough parking places on Loquat Court and a dangerous "attractive nuisance" will be created. S' rely yours, ames F. Riley Cc: Mr Chuck Page, Chairman Planning Commission, City of Saratoga. 7 0®0034 • April 1, 2001 ~. Kim Duncan Planning Commission 13777.Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: AR-01-016 Dear Kim, ~~~~o~~~ APR 0 6 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT• Recently we were notified that Mr. Adlparver proposed to level the home next to ours and construct a new home that was much larger then the existing home. We were very much opposed to the proposal due to the size and style, which we feel is not compatible with the very similar existing homes in our court. We wrote a letter to you and the city planning commission expressing our concerns over the proposed structure and were relieved and very pleased to find out that the proposal had been rejected. After proposal AR-00-045 had been rejected Mr. Adlparvar contacted us to meet with him about the construction. of this new home and the concerns we have for our neighborhood. Mr. Adlparvar cancelled the first meeting scheduled for March 3rd and rescheduled a meeting for the following Saturday. That meeting was ultimately cancelled as well, according to Mr. Adlparvar the revised plans had not been completed. It seemed strange to me the he was going forward with a redesign without soliciting our concerns first. On March 12th I received a letter from Mr. Adlparvar in which he attempted to defend the design of proposal AR-00-45. Within this letter I did not feel that Mr. Adlparvar addressed our concerns and he took many of our statements out of context. Mr. Adlparvar's belief is that he can build whatever he wants providing that it falls within the legal setback lines. This is of great concern to me for-there are many more aspects ®®0®35 which determine a home's compatibility. A few days later I learned that Mr. Adlparvar submitted a new proposal AR-O1-016 for .construction of a home on 13921. Loquat Ct. once again without _ meeting with any of the residents to discuss concerns. I also .learned that the plan for this house was identical to the first plan with the exception of a few minor modifications to the "look" of the house. In my opinion the look of the house does not complement our homes and in fact it .conflicts with them. Mr. Adlparvar mentioned in his letter to us that he was concerned about our neighborhood, he stated "We feel like we are going to be moving into a warm,_caring, conscientious community, which most neighborhoods now lack". Mr. Adlparver has yet to meet with any of us on Loquat Ct. about this project and actually appears to be fast tracking the project through hoping to undermine our efforts to stop this. I feel that the element of trust has been violated. Mr. Adlparver is not demonstrating true concern for our neighborhood. Mr Adlparvar is attempting to exploit the appealing characteristic of our neighborhood by building a monster house that he will sell and benefit from financially.. Mr. Adlparvar: stated in his letter that all of the homes in the' court are built up to the legal setback lines (l.s.l) -This statement is not correct, although some of the walls of our homes approach the legal setback lines, none of our homes are-built to where all of the walls approach the legal setback lines. Mr. Adlparvar's proposed home is designed with all of the walls being built to the l.s.l. Is the city's intentions of the legal setback lines to allow construction of block homes that-; mimic inch per inch the property line, (refer to exhibit A) or is the .intention of the cities guidelines to give ahe architect some flexibility when placing a home in a lot? (refer to_ exhibit b) I fear what would happen if all of the homes in the city were constructed up to the legal setback lines. The designer of the homes on Loquat Ct . w~a,s obviously -rote-rested in these concerns.- The homes are all carefully placed ©O~n~6 ~-- , i within the lots leaving plenty of air space between the homes. Pushing the entire home to the legal setback lines would make the homes appear like they are right on top of each other. What happens at 13921 Loquat Ct. will ultimately set precedence for future construction within our community. Please review this issue very carefully. Mr. Adlparvar mentions in his letter that the homes on Loquat Ct. did not fit in with the surrounding homes at the time of construction. This is not a correct statement. The homes on Loquat ct. are very similar to the surrounding homes of the community in size and style. (Please refer to exhibit c.) Furthermore the homes on Loquat Ct. are not sporadically integrated into the existing development. These home were built as a group, all of the home were constructed the same and grouped together minimizing any impact brought about by minor design variations. Mr. Adlparvars proposal is a major change, one that would have a very serious negative effect to our court, one that could not be undone. I am in disagreement with Mr. Adlparvars statements that the needs of people have changed and he needs to build this home is to accommodate their needs. People do not need five thousand feet homes, especially in a court where the homes average eighteen hundred square feet. I am very concerned about the construction of basements and what this will mean as developers move forward with basement additions as part of home remodeling. Although a basement is an effective way to add square footage to a home the city planning commission .really needs to look at the implications of adding basements to an existing homes. Refer to exhibit d to h. This is a perfect example of a home in Saratoga and what can be expected if we allow the unregulated construction of basements. This is not a safe environment and I do not want it happening in my neighborhood. As you can see in the photo of a Saratoga house on Quito Road. The excavation of the soil, which is much closer to the property 0(~0®3'7 line then the .setback of the structure, has caused the soil from the neighbors property to collapse into the hole. In proposal AR-01-016 the excavation for the walkway and light wells to the basement would bring the digging to within 2 feet of my property line. This could. result in the undermining of our foundation., pool, retaining walls and fence. As the building practices change the city planning commission has to be able to address these concerns. This has and will continue to create hazardous situations for the neighbors, workers and especially our children of Saratoga. In addition this is an incredible nuisance to the neighbors. Because proposal AR-01-016 is so similar to proposal AR-00-045 I am attaching our original letter with a few revisions as it applies in all respects to the new proposal. This letter is being sent to express our concerns with AR-00-045 of the proposed plans for 13921 Loquat Court. We feel strongly that the planning commission should review the plans and the concerns sent by people living in the neighborhood before construction begins. we live in a unique neighborhood because the same builder built all 6 homes in the court and compliment one another with their California Ranch style. For the past 37 years the neighbors have been dedicated to the neighborhood in keeping within the original design parameters. We are at risk of losing a very important aspect of our community. The existing home is in excellent condition. The previous homeowners lived there for over 20 years- f and took impeccable care of the interior and ~ exterior: It is a shame to demolish such a beautiful home that is appealing, structurally sound, and compliments the neighboring homes. A 0®~®38 house in this condition is typically remodeled and modernized, not leveled. It is also our understanding that the owner is strictly doing this for financial reasons and not to accommodate his own personal housing needs. His potential financial gain would come at a grave cost to us who are dedicated to maintaining compatibility and consistency within our community. 1. We live next door on the north side to13921 Loquat Court. Our main concerns with the design plans are the size of the house, the placement of the house, the style of the house, safety during construction, structural integrity of my house and possible nuisance. House size a. The immense size of the proposed home is a great concern. A house that size would fit well on a % acre lot, not a lot this size (as indicated in Technique #5 in the Residential Design Handbook). b. Comparable homes in neighboring communities have 3 car garages to accommodate the vehicles expected from occupants of a house that size. Building a house this massive with a 2 car garage is not consistent with other homes in the area and makes it appear the builder is trying to squeeze an oversized home into a modest lot. c. The higher plate (to accommodate interior 10-foot ceilings) will create a noticeable visual impact along our property line. Not only is the house bigger, but it is closer to the property line and taller. In addition, that property is already graded several feet higher than ours. We are concerned about lack of sunlight to our home since we are north of the property. 2. House placement a. The setbacks from the street and side fences are significantly different from the neighboring homes. The house will be much closer to the street than any of the 000039 other homes in the court. This will create an ominous look to the home and be incompatible with the. neighboring homes. b. Because of-the placement of the home, our view of the other homes in the court will be either obstructed or eliminated. From the street, the Kimoto's house (next door on the south side) will be obstructed by 500. c. Maintain the current placement of the driveway. The original builder arched the driveway because of the slope from the house to the street. The house would look completely out of place with a steep driveway running from the street straight up to the house. I also believe that this would create a safety hazard. House style The aesthetics of the design (AR-01-016) are not in keeping with the other California Ranch Style homes which have low pitch rooftops, brick and horizontal wood siding (as indicated in Technique #5 • in the Residential Design Handbook). d. The front door/entryway with double- doors appears ostentatious and overwhelming, nothing like the neighboring homes. 3. Safety during Construction a. The demolition and construction process (which could last 1 to 2 years) will . create a potential safety hazard for the small children in the neighborhood. Our children play in the court and ride their bikes daily and are 3 and 5 years old. . They play with children on Allendale who are 6 and 9 years old. The trucks, heavy equipment and inevitable traffic cause us to worry about their safety. 4. Possible nuisance a. If the builder does demolition and construction between the hours of 7:30am and 6:OOpm daily it will create noise, dust and s~t.reet traffic that will be a nuisance:Excessive noise will impact my son's ability to complete his homework. The street traffic and parked ®0040 construction vehicles will prevent my children from being able to ride their bikes and play in our once serene court. b. Building a basement is fine if they do not encounter an underground well or stream. If they do encounter underground water they will need to pump it into the street, possibly year-round. The water would flow down Loquat and then down Allendale since there are no storm drains in the court. This is a safety, aesthetic and nuisance concern. we are providing some suggestions for the builder to consider which would help to accommodate our concerns. House size: • Change the size of the 1st floor from 3300 square feet to no more than 2500 square feet including the garage. • Restrict the basement to 50~ of the first floor square footage. It is our feeling that the basement should include a recreational room, utility room and wine cellar but not bedrooms. This will also minimize the possibility of damage to our house due to basement construction and reduce the risk of this turning into a multi family home. • Lower the roofline/plate from 10 feet to 8 feet to match the neighboring homes and to minimize the visual impact to our house. • Provide a mock-up so we can accurately assess the size and style of the home. House placement: Create a setback consistent with the neighborhood (approximately 35 feet from the street and 12-20 feet on the side yards). House Style: • Modify the compliment • Re-design not be so doors). style and building materials the neighboring homes. the front door/entryway so it overwhelming (i.e. Single vs. so they would Double ®0®~~ Safety during construction: • Remodel rather than demolish the existing home to minimize the number of truckloads and street traffic. • Require workers to park their vehicles on the .property during construction. • Pint up a `` Slow-Children at Plays sign in the court to discourage speeding and create awareness that children may be present. Possible nuisance: • Limit the hours of construction and demolition to 8:OOam to 4:OOpm, weekdays only. Please take our concerns seriously. We are not opposed to the house being remodeled and modernized. There are several examples of homes in the area, which have been remodeled in a compatible manner to the neighboring homes. The proposed design for this home however clearly does not fall within that category. We strongly urge that you carefully consider our concerns and encourage the owner to design a more aesthetically compatible home sized consistent with a home on a .23 acre lot. We hope to hear from you regarding changes to the design. Please contact us with any questions regarding the comments listed above at 408-374- 3143. Best regards, C Susan Zucca Cc: Chuck Page, P' fining Commission i 000042 • u v 3 s -a s~ 0 s ~ s `' :i 3 S 'jC r "~ ~ S ~ -O ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ J d ~ ~ ~ ~ r'~ 6 b ,..,- t .sJ r~ ~J 0®0®43 •I J d .~ .~ y S / ~ i O ' -~ a u f ~' j . ~, a ~ .~' ~ ~ ~ ~ . 7 i 3 ,, ~ j. a 9 i ti . ~ 4 ~ ~ u~ ~ y ~ ~ o. 4 ~ . w ~ ~~~ X > > s ~ Q > r~ ~, ~ Lu - ~ si •i O~U~~4 • • UUUU45 C-Z ~. 060046 • • • ~-3 0®OO4'7 C-y • • ®®0048 • ~_~ f .r 000049 L~~~b ~~ p ~ aye,n~ewE ~nS~yvc.~~o~ ~SSve,S~ d~~ ASS ; 12 (o ~ 3 ~ QJ ~ ~o ~ c . '; . r~ 000050 • C .. 4®0®5~ 1 % ._.. • O®0~5~: ~ G N e~~ qy, ~,,5 y A,, d r5 Gold a~s,nc~ n ®®O~S3 H ~ • ®®o~s~ • James & Helen Riley 13910 Loquat Ct Saratoga, CA 95070 March 28, 2001 Ms Kim Duncan, Assistant Planner, City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave Sazatoga, CA 95070 Dear Kim: This is to confirm the salient points of our conversation on March 26, 2001, in your office regarding the application of Mr Hamid Adlpazvaz for the demolition of an existing residence and the construction of a new monster house at 13921 Loquat Ct in Saratoga. The following are my understanding of our conversation. Please let me know if I have misinterpreted your answers to my questions. 1. Your project file folder included a copy of a letter dated Feb 16, 2001, addressed to Mr Adlparvaz, said letter being a denial of Mr Adlparvaz's application to demolish an existing home and build a new monster house on subject property. The letter also indicated that any appeal of this decision to the Planning Commission must have been received by March 2, 2001. • 2. In our conversation, you indicated that this denial of Mr Adlparvaz's application was being rescinded by the Planning Department and that a new application for the same project had been received from Mr Adlparvaz. The new plans did not have a date of submission and the new application was not available for examination and therefore the date of the new application is unknown at this time. ~~~~om~~ APR 0 6 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DF,VELOPMEN T~~[ln~~ .- 3. You indicated that the original application project folder (including the letters of comment from all the neighbors) is to be abandoned and the new application is to "start from ground zero". I interpreted this to mean that the new application will supersede the original application and that the original project folder with all its contents will be destroyed. 4. The question that I raised i.e., "Would the letters of comment from the neighbors included in the original project folder be transferred to the new project folder or will they remain in the original project folder and be destroyed?" was to be determined by you and the answer was to be sent to me. To date I have not received a reply by phone or by mail. Will you please inform me as soon as possible regarding the transfer of the letters of comment by the neighbors to the new project folder? S. Will you also please give me the reasons for the cancellation of the planning department' denial of the original application. Will you also inform me if Mr Aldparvar has paid new application fees of more than $3,000? Sincerely yours, ~ %' , - James F Riley Cc: Mr Chuck Page, Chairman Planning Commission, City of Saratoga. Cc: Neighbors. of Loquat Court. 2 ~®~®56 13940 Loquat Ct. Saratoga, CA 95070 Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Sazatoga, CA 95070 . . (Reference AR-00-045) , . ' Ms. Kim Duncan, Assistant Planner ~"'• cc: Mr. Chuck Page, Planning Commission It appeazs that a "monster" is headed towazd Loquat Court. As residents of Sazatoga, we are not happy about this. Our cul-de-sac consists of six homes -all constructed about 40 years ago by the same builder from Palo Alto. Although each house is unique, all bear a common California Ranch style that was populaz at the time. All have similar setbacks on their lots and are one story. They are less than 2,000 sq. ft., 3-bedroom homes, designed for a small family. Over the years, two homes of six have been remodeled and slightly increased in size; these remodels have been very tastefully, conservatively accomplished and have not altered the chazacter of the street. We have been informed that one house, 13921 Loquat Court, is destined for total destruction to make way for a completely different type of house. The proposed house is about twice as lazge in footprint as any house on the court, and actually will have over 5,000 sq. ft. of living space. It has a different style, which might be chazacterized as Mediterranean. It has large, tall, double doors, which no one in the entire area has. In short, it is not compatible in size or architectural style and would radically alter the character of the neighborhood. It would also draw attention to itself and would detract from the other homes, making them appeaz small. It would also protrude on the lot; thereby blocking the view of neighboring homes. Although the setbacks on the planned house meet the "approved" numbers, this house would simply NOT fit in our neighborhood. We recommend that the proposed drawing NOT be approved. If the existing house must be destroyed, we would like to see a house built that has a more homogeneous look compared with the neighborhood: a house with a similaz setback and a much smaller size on the first floor that is more in keeping with its neighbors, such as 2,500 sq. ft. The number of planned bedrooms, and other rooms that could become bedrooms, suggests a large number of people in the house and does not jive with the concept of a two-caz gazage. This court has very limited pazking azeas. If a large number of people occupied the house, with a corresponding large number of cars, it would be a nuisance for • the neighbors, unsightly, and uncharacteristic of Saratoga. ~~ D ._ `~ ~_ c,..1 CITY OF SAHA'rOGA COMMUNITY' ENVIRONMENT Other issues for us are construction mess and noise, which we would incur. If the basement were approved, tons of dirt would be removed. Destruction and then construction of a new house are very noisy indeed. The owners would not have such inconveniences, since they do not live here and are not planning to live here. -_ We understand that the property is being buih by someone-who owns a construction company with a plan to sell the completed house. It is very unfortunate that the current house was not purchased by someone who really wants the house, instead of someone who wants to demolish it. It is in very good condition. - We respectfully request that the Planning Commission review and revise the construction proposal for 13921 Loquat Court (AR-00-045) so that it aligns with local residences in bulk, footprint, elevation, and style. We would be happy to meet with the Commission to further explain our position since we want to maintain the current look of our neighborhood/court, which is h7ce a small community. Sincerely, Deborah & Terence Schack (owners/residents of 13940 Loquat Court) ~ _ - • ~®~~$~ ' } ~ _.-^~ February 11th, 2001 Kim Duncan Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Kim, This letter is being sent to express our concerns with draft 1 of the proposed plans for 13921 Loquat Court. We feel strongly that the planning commission should review the plans and the concerns sent by people living in the neighborhood before construction begins. We live in a unique neighborhood because the same builder built all 6 homes in the court and compliment one another with their California Ranch style. For the past 37 years the neighbors have been dedicated to the neighborhood in keeping within the original design parameters. We are at risk of losing a very important aspect of our community. The existing home is' in excellent condition. The previous homeowners lived there for over 20 years and took impeccable care of the interior and exterior. It is a shame to demolish such a beautiful home that is appealing, structurally sound, and compliments • the neighboring homes. A house in this condition is typically remodeled and modernized, not leveled. It is also our understanding that the owner is strictly doing this for financial reasons and not to accommodate his own personal housing needs. His potential financial gain would come at a grave cost to us who are dedicated to maintaining compatibility and consistency within our community. We live next door on the north side to13921 Loquat Court. Our main concerns with the design plans are the size of the house, the placement of the house, the style of the house, safety during construction and possible nuisance. 1. House size a. The immense size of the proposed home is a great concern. A house that size- would fit well on a'/2 acre lot, not a lot this size (as indicated in Technique #5 in the Residential Design Handbook). b. Comparable homes in neighboring communities have 3 car garages to accommodate the vehicles expected from occupants of a house that size. Building a house this massive with a 2 car garage is not consistent with other homes in the area and makes it appear the builder is trying to squeeze an oversized home into a modest lot. c. The higher plate (to accommodate interior 10-foot ceilings) will create a noticeable visual impact along our property line. Not only is the house bigger, but it is closer to the property line and taller. In addition, that property is already graded several feet higher than ours. We ~ ~ 2 p p~ I~ !I U D F' ~' t`~ 1 !~ v v CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT OOOOS9 concerned about lack of sunlight to our home since we are north of the property. 2. House placement a. The setbacks from the street and side fences are significantly different from the neighboring homes. The house will be much closer to the street than any of the other homes in the court. This will create an ominous look to.the home and be incompatible with the neighboring homes. b. Because of the placement of the home, our view of the other homes in the court will be either obstructed or eliminated. From the street, the Kimoto's house (next door on the south side) will be obstructed by 50%. 3. House style a. The aesthetics of the design (from draft #1) are not in keeping with the other California Ranch Style homes which have low pitch rooftops, brick and horizontal wood siding (as indicated in Technique #5 in the Residential Design Handbook). b. The front door/entry. way with double-doors appears ostentatious and overwhelming, nothing like the neighboring homes. 4. ,Safety during Construction a. The demolition and construction process (which could last 1 to 2 years) will create a potential safety hazard for the small children in the neighborhood. Our children play in the court and ride their bikes daily and are 3 and 5 years old. They play with children on Allendale who are 6 and 9 years old. The trucks, heavy equipment and inevitable traffic cause us to worry about their safety. 5. Possible nuisance a. If the builder does demolition and construction between the hours of 7:30am and 6:OOpm daily it will create noise, dust and street traffic that will be a nuisance. Excessive noise will impact my son's ability to complete his homework. The street traffic and parked construction -- vehicles will prevent my children from being able to ride their bikes and play in our once serene court. b. Building a basement is fine if they do not encounter an underground well or stream. If they do encounter underground water they will need to pump it into the street, possibly year-round. The water would flow down Loquat and then down Allendale since there are no storm drains in the court. This is a safety, aesthetic and nuisance concern. We are providing some suggestions for the builder to consider which would help to accommodate our concerns. House size: • Change the size of the 1~` floor from 3300 square feet to no more than 2500 square feet including the garage. • Restrict the basement to 50% of the first floor square footage. It is our feeling that the basement should include a recreational room, utility room and wine cellar but not bedrooms. ~©060 • Lower the roofline/plate from 10 feet to 8 feet to match the neighboring homes and to minimize the visual impact to our house. • Provide amock-up so we can accurately assess the size and style of the home. House placement: • Create a setback consistent with the neighborhood (approximately 35 feet from the street and 12-15 feet on the side yards). House Style: • Modify the style and building materials so they compliment the neighboring homes. • Re-design the front door/entryway so it would not be so overwhelming (i.e. Single vs. Double doors). Safety during construction: • Remodel rather than demolish the existing home to minimize the number of truckloads and street traffic. • Require workers to park their vehicles on the property during construction. • Put up a "Slow-Children at Play" sign in the court to discourage speeding and create awareness that children may be present. Possible nuisance: • Limit the hours of construction and demolition to 8:OOam - 4:OOpm, weekdays only. Please take our concerns seriously. We are not opposed to the house being remodeled and modernized. There are several examples of homes in the area, which have been remodeled in a compatible manner to the neighboring homes. The proposed design for this home however clearly does not fall within that category. We strongly urge that you carefully consider our concerns and encourage the owner to design a more aesthetically compatible home sized consistent with a home on a .23 acre lot. We hope to hear from you regarding changes to the design. Please contact us with any questions regarding the comments listed above at 408-374-3143. Best regards, Glenn and Susan Zucca Cc: Chuck Page, Planning Commission • 000061 Ms.Kim Duncan Feb.12.2001 Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 cc:Mr.Chuck Page(Chairman, Planning Commission) Dear Ms.Duncan, I regret to inform you that I have strong objection .for the current plan to demolish existing home and rebuilt new home of 13921 Loquat Ct, for the reasons as follows: 11: New home plan: too big and especially home front line is moved forward too much (18ft moved forward compared with existing home ) This is entirely destroyed total comparability and well balanced current environmental conditions of all other Loquat Ct,. homes as well as our security among us because all other home owners can watch out each other home easily among all other home owners but if new home should be built as a plan, new home will make several blind spots for neighbors 13911 and 13931 which will be caused security problems among all other home owners . I strongly wish that new home front line have to be moved max.5ft forward only. 22:New home construction problems: This new home plan is not only simply build new home but also demolishing existing Home and excavating for basement. It must be long and long time Dusty, Noisy and Risky disturbance for all our Surrounded home owners. I really wish to know how t o minimize these disturbance and safety for us especially About NOISE, because I have Home-Office and am working at my home all day long. And to know the time schedule of each construction which could be made big Noise. Further more, the working time for construction should be 8:OOam to S:OOpm I do hope you understand our serious concern for new home construction and take Best arrangement for all our good neighborhood. Best Regards ~. ~ Tak"~ ~ imoto 13931 Loquat Ct, Saratoga, CA 95070 ~'~~ i'i' L f~l CITY car or~:;.~s, i1(zA COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT • ®0®c ~ r-,-, • 10 February 2001 To: Kim Duncan Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Susan and Glenn Zucca's letter Dear Kim: Like the Zuccas, we would like to preserve the integrity of the community and to construct a home that will not blend with the neighborhood structure no matter how structurally sound it may seem may compromise the aesthetic value of the Saratoga landscape. We express our resentment and opposition to this impending pro}ect. We hope this will not materialize. . After all, the existing residential building is in perfect condition, so the need foraa new construction is .definitely preposterous. Sincerely, i Cynthia ~S Altamira Corinthian Care Centre 18460 Allendale Avenue Saratoga, CA • ^rw D ' ~ E' ~ ~'' ~'. u U CITY 0~ SAKA'1`OGA COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT ®~0~6a~ ~ ^' l.. James & Helen Riley 13910 Loquat Ct Saratoga, CA 95070 February 14, 2001 Ms Kim Duncan, Assistant Planner, . City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: AR-00-045 (Proposed New Construction at 13921 Loquat Ct) Dear Ms Duncan: In response to your letter of notice dated Jan 31, 2001, I am responding for my wife and myself with my concerns for the proposed construction. The neighborhood began with the subdivision of an apricot orchard in 1958. The eight houses that were subsequently built on the lots are the homes that exist today. Since the eight houses were built by the same contractor at the same time (one after another), they all were of a similar architectural style (Western Semi-Ranch) and blend very well. with their sites and with .each other. The result is a small well-integrated neighborhood that shows pride of ownership. The Zambetties (my next door neighbors) have lived here since 1960 (41 years). My family and I have lived here since 1965 (36 years) and others now in the neighborhood have lived here 15, 10 and 6 years. We have always paid our taxes without complaint and have enjoyed .the peaceful living and protection that the City of Saratoga has provided since incorporation. All the neighbors own their homes (no absentee landlords) and have.. continually improved their properties. We have a real pride of ownership of our homes and neighborhood. The existing house at- 13921 Loquat Ct .was placed on the real estate market in 2000 and subsequently sold to Mr & Mrs Adlparvar. At the ti o a • o~ [~~~1~ D FEB 1 ~ 2001 CITY OF S COMMUNITY Er~~~~ we had no concerns because the house was in immaculate condition. We naturally • assumed that the Adlparvazs would move into the house and become part of the neighborhood tradition. Our peace of mind was shattered when we learned that Mr Adlparvaz had not only made no attempt to contact any of the neighbors but that he was a building contractor who planned to demolish the beautiful existing residence and shoehorn a "Monster House with full basement" onto the empty lot. Upon completion the house would be sold, Mr Adlparvaz would be gone and the neighbors would be left with the oversized monstrosity of a monster house in the middle of their neighborhood. It is my contention that the neighborhood would be severely damaged by this proposed monster house. Whereas the existing home at 13921 Loquat Court has a long curved driveway from curb to the garage face (this extra length reduces the slope of the driveway), the proposed monster house has a short direct driveway from the curb line to the proposed garage face. The submitted plans show a gazage finish floor elevation of 102.5 and a top of curb elevation of 99.7. The distance from curb to gazage face scales 30 feet. The result is a rise of 2.8 feet and a run of 30 feet for a • slope of 9.0%. This slope is excessive -especially when the documents submitted by Mr. Adlparvaz gives a slope of less than 1 % for the lot slope. The finish floor elevation of the proposed house is shown as 103.5 and the top of curb elevation opposite the entrance is 99.98. These figures makes the floor level of the house more than three and one half feet higher than the curb. This height is excessive. None of the homes in the neighborhood have this much height above curb. The distance from the property line to the existing gazage scales 31 feet on the submitted topographic map. The proposed plan shows a distance of 25'-2" from the property line to the face of the new gazage. This means that the proposed monster house will be almost 6 feet closer to the street than the existing home. Looking at the first floor plan, it is seen that the house almost completely fills the lot azea behind the legal set back lines (I have estimated 90% coverage). Since the roof rises at a slope of 4:12 for this longer distance and will make the proposed roof higher than the existing roof. The combination of these factors will make the house appear to loom out towazd the street and upward into the sky. 2 0®~~ss In addition to these examples of poor planning, the architectural design of the monster house does not even -begin to be in harmony with the existing neighborhood homes. The existing homes are of Western, Semi-Ranch style, and have been. well placed on their lots. The architectural style of the proposed building defies description. A possible name for this architectural style could be "L.O.B.E." standing for "Left Over Building Elements removed from proposed monster houses by intelligent Planning Commissioners of~surrounding cities". In my opinion the wide double doors at the main entrance and the awkward roof construction over the entry definitely do not blend with the neighborhood. The architecture of the remainder of the' building conflicts in every way with the architecture.oftbe existing neighborhood. The huge bulk of the proposed structure only compounds the differences.. In the .City of Saratoga publication "Residential Design Handbook" there are published "do and don't" guidelines for new structures. The included "Policy 1" states: "... A structure is perceived to be bulky when these elements (total floor area, .height, design and relationship to its- surroundings) are combined...to create a residence that is out of scale, visually and structurally with the neighboring • residences and its own natural setting.. The residence then appears massive, bulky and overwhelming to the eye.:.". The. "don't" guidelines in Policy 1, when applied to the proposed structure, indicate that the proposed structure will be massive; bulky and overwhelming to the eye and. therefore should not be permitted. In addition to the massiveness and bulk of the proposed structure, there are several instances of incompleteness in the plans. My first concern centers on the light wells. It is proposed to install two light wells, one on each side of the house. These wells will extend from ground level to basement floor level (a distance of at least eight feet) and are 36" in width. While there is some indication of a railing around two or three sides of the light wells, there are no construction details shown. If typical pipe railings were installed, there would be created a very dangerous "Attractive Nuisance". Living next door to the proposed monster house are two children ages 8 & 5, across Allendale live two children ages 10 & 7 while my grandson, age 9, visits occasionally and plays with the neighborhood children. 3 0~0®66 The attraction of a hole 8 feet deep is irresistible to kids who want to look down . into the hole, to play drop a toy into the hole or other children's games. The danger of a child falling 8 feet onto a concrete floor will be ever present and is too horrible to contemplate. If the open pipe railings were replaced with chain link fencing (as per the swimming pool ordinance) the danger (and the attractive nuisance) would still exist. In addition the railing or fencing would be encroaching into the side yard setback area. This is another example of the proposed structure being too massive. My next area of concern is that while the basement retaining walls of reinforced concrete are properly shown with a rock backfill and sloped drainage pipe, there are no details of the disposal of the ground water collected by the drain lines. Yard drains are shown on the floor of the light wells and it is possible (though not shown) that the wall drain lines would be connected to the floor inlets. The plans indicate that the yard drains are piped under the basement floor (very difficult to locate and repair if clogged) to a point near the pump used to pump the sanitary sewage and bath water as well as from the sink and refrigerator area to the sanitary .sewer in the street. My concern is that the groundwater from the yard inlets in the light wells and the retaining wall drains will be connected to Pump # 1 and then pumped into the sanitary sewer. No other means of disposal is shown for the ground water collected more than eight feet below the surface. My concern with this method of disposal is that not only it is illegal to pump ground water into a sanitary sewer but that continued pumping of silty ground water (such as during the winter rainy seasons) can very easily cause the sanitary sewer to become clogged with silt settled out on the flatter slope of the sanitary sewer in the street. A clogged sanitary sewer can backup into residences located upstream from the blockage and can create a very expensive and disgusting cleanup problem. Another area of concern centers on the possible misuse of the spirit of the zoning ordinance. The subject property, as you know, is zoned for single-family residential use. The intent of the ordinance is that a single family will live in a single house. Exceptions are made to allow in-laws and other to share the same house but these are the exceptions and not the rule. Duplex zoning, on the other 4 00006'7 hand, allows two unrelated families to live in one structure on one lot with adequate physical sepazation (a wall) between the two families. That said, my . concern is that the proposed basement, with a few eraser strokes of the names of the rooms in the basement can change as follows: Bedroom #4 becomes Bedroom #1. Library becomes Bedroom #2 T.V. Room becomes Bedroom #3 -Bath remains Bath Bar (with sink and refrigerator) becomes kitchen Utility room remains utility room Multipurpose room becomes living room/family room Sliding glass doors are shown- exiting into the light well areas on both sides for ingress, egress and and street access as well as satisfying the U.B.C. requirement for window glass. Suddenly, without any structural changes -only a few strokes of an eraser- the structure has been changed from a single family residence to a two family residence (i.e. duplex zoning) in a single family residential zone. I do not believe that the planning department nor the Planning Commission nor the City Council would approve the concept of giving approval to this project only to find that two unrelated families living there have, in effect, changed the single family residential zoning to duplex zoning without benefit of application to the city and without following the prescribed steps necessary for changing single family residential zoning to duplex zoning. I talked to Mr Steve Prosser, Public Safety Officer at the City of Saratoga, who told me that there is no limit to the number of families that can live in a single residence in a single family residential zone. He further indicated that the only requirement is that there can be only one kitchen for the preparation of food per residence. The proposed plans shows only one kitchen but as described above ALL of the other elements necessazy for a second independent family living unit are included on the plans. The public safety officer can only investigate, after the fact, to see if the baz with sink and refrigerator has been converted to a kitchen. If a kitchen were found to exist, the public safety officer could only request the owner to convert it back to its previous condition (bar, refrigerator and sink). Mr 5 0®0068 Prosser also explained what constitutes acceptable evidence of the existence of two kitchens in one house. I believe that the Planning Commission and the City Council do not want this situation to arise in the future. I know that the homeowners in the neighborhood do not want to see this happen. I feel that the neighbors (including myself) will be on the alert for any ordinance violation in order to protect neighborhood serenity and property values. , In -summary, I list the following areas of incompatibility of the proposed construction with the neighborhood. 1. The neighborhood has existed since the early 1960s and all of the homes are in architectural harmony. Pride of ownership is evident. 2. The monster house proposed will not be in harmony with the neighborhood homes. It will be much too large and bulky for the lot. It will fill almost all of the area behind the B.S.L. on all sides. 3. The location of the monster house on the site is very poor in that there will be a 9.0% slope from the street to the garage and the finish floor will be 3.5 feet above the curb. The house will be almost 6 feet closer to the street than the existing home. 4. The architectural features of the monster house clash and conflict with the architecture of the existing neighborhood homes. 5. The City of Saratoga Residential Design Handbook, Policy 1, warns against placing a "massive, bulky, overwhelming to the eye" structure in an existing neighborhood. The planned monster house is a massive, bulky, overwhelming to the eye structure proposed to be placed in an existing neighborhood. 6. The submitted plans are incomplete or reveal dangerous conditions in several important areas, namely: a. The light wells will create a legal attractive nuisance that potentially will be dangerous to children in the neighborhood. This attractive nuisance will be in existence for the life of the • monster house. 6 000069 b. The light wells railing/fencing will encroach into the side yard building setback line. . c. The lack of details related to the disposal of groundwater from the wall drains and yard inlets makes it easy to pump silty ground water into the sanitary sewer in the street. d. The possibility would exist of a clogged sanitary sewer line backing up and flooding a neighbor's home. e. The rather transparent attempt to disguise a potential two family residence as asingle-family residence is easily seen. 7. The proposed project is architecturally incompatible with and would create an adverse effect on the neighborhood. In closing, I urge you to deny the application on the basis that the proposed monster house is too large, too bulky and overwhelming to the eye for the neighborhood. The architectural style is not compatible with the existing neighborhood and a dangerous attractive nuisance will be created. • n ~' .., Sincerely yours, James F Riley elen M. Riley ~/" Cc: Mr Chuck Page, Chairman Planning Commission, City of Saratoga. • 7 ~®0~~~ Ms. Kim Duncan Assistant Planner City of Saratoga Planning Department 1377 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 JULIA ZAMBETTI 13920 LOQUAT COURT SARATOGA, CA 95070 February 15, 2001 Re: Proposed demolition and development of 13921 Loquat Court Dear Kim: I have been a resident of Saratoga since 1953. I have made 13920 Loquat Court my home since 1960. My house is directly across from the proposed development. I was very active in the efforts to incorporate our city in 1956. Like many residents who worked with me on the campaign, I wanted to preserve this community's semi-rural character while planning for growth with a strong general plan rather than the e.Ktensive zoning rules that plague the City of San Jose and the County of Santa Clara. I must add that I believe the reason Saratoga has been so successful in land use planning and creating community neighborhoods is because of its dedicated staff like your self and individuals before you, Kim. Concerning the proposed development on Loquat Court, it is my strong opinion (and that of several of the neighbors) that the character of the proposed development is not in keeping with the existing ranch style homes in the court. Although the proposed house is within the setback, those setbacks were never intended to be constructed to the maximum. The proposed house is so far forward in the front yard that all of the other homes on the court will be dwarfed by it. The bulk must be minim;~ed in order to preserve the sense of community that exists on Loquat Court. The resulting scale of the neighborhood would appear unplanned and displeasing to the eye. Policy 1 of the Saratoga Residential Design Handbook clearly states to ensure the maximum integration of structures with their natural and built environments. Some thoughts that I have to specifically reduce the bulk aze reduce the size to 2700 square feet and a front yard setback equal to the adjoining homes on that side of the court. Change the entryway roof structure to more of a human scale in relationship to the street; and then introduce siding and fmishes that aze in keeping with present surrounding styles. Lower the front building wall to nine feet from ten feet as equal the other homes on the Court/Subdivision. Lower the roof height to 16 feet or change the roof pitch more in keeping the surrounding homes. Have the finish floor at the exact same level as the existing house or drop it by one foot. I'm concerned about the finished floor and it's relationship to the existing natural grade and couple with the introduction of the basement the house will appeaz to be 19 feet in height. Some thoughts about livable of the house: the gazage is smaller then the existing garage, yet more bedrooms more people in turn creating more cars on the driveway and the increase of day and night vehicle parking on to the City court. This starts the downscaling of a neighborhood when vehicles aze ever present on the city streets and driveway approaches. Problem that other city's our presently facing with no solution. D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~n v D FEB 16 2001 CITY OF $ARATOGA Gt11YIMUNITY ENVI$0 ~~~ ~~ This proposed house needs a I5,000 to 20,000 square foot parcel in order to make it appear in keeping with Saratoga standards and traditions. If the staff approves this house as drawn and submitted, please advised me by mail at the above address as what my options are. in rely Yours -~~~ 7ulia Zambetti ~ / f / i/ V .I •i •i ~~o~~~ February 16, 2001 Kim Duncan City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Application No. AR 00 045 13921 Loquat Court, Saratoga In response to the Application for New Residential Constnxtion at the above address, I would like to voice my disapproval of the project. I live on Allendale Avenue, directly accross the street from the confer house (13911 Zucca), and have for over 20 years. This neighborhood has homes which arse semi-ranch style, and appro~amately 1500 to 1750 square feet. roposed plan for a home that is twice that size on the main level with an additional 2281 sq. ft. meat, vuould do nothing more than create a monster home on a postage stamp lot. The design does not flow with the rest of the homes in the neighborhood, it would sit too close to the street and it's style in no way reflects that which the neighborhood consists of. This large a home will bring more vehicles to which there is limited parking in the cul de sac, and the fact that the plans call for a smaller garage than the one that is currently there. I think all the neighbors were shocked to find out that the new owner who has no intention of living there, wants to tear down a perfectly good home, which is in impeccable condition and replace it with a structure that. is so monsterous and architecturally incompatible with the other homes. I feel this will create an adverse effect on our neighborhood. Please advise of further updates or meeting with regards to this application. Respectful~yl -Submitted, :- _~ ~ ~ c Lesley Parks 18515 Allendale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 n U ®®0®'73 s May 3, 2001 Planning Commission; Regarding 13921 Laquat Court Dear Commissioner; Thank you for your time and dedication to our community of Saratoga This home is too large for the lot and destroys the scale and placement of structures along the Court. I request that the real estate investor developer ---decrease the size of the house and increase the size of the garage. This.city needs a policy statement to put a stop to the super-sizing of structures. Please review my other letters in regards to this project. Sin rely Yours ~t~ Julii4 Zambetti ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~o~~ ~ ~~1' 0 3 2001 CITY OF SARAI'UGA COMMUNITY DI:VGL~I'MI:N~I~ • • ~~~0~~ • April 11, 2001 Planning Director City of Saratoga Regarding demolition and development of 13921 Loquat Court: Dear Planning Director, This new plan is same as the old proposed plan. It is an over size home for the lot and not in keeping with the neighborhood The proposed home should be reduced in size by a least 15%. The building from setback to setback of this home will destroy the character of our Court. I request that the Planning Staff and you as the Director put this proposed development on the agenda of the Planning Commission so that we as citizens and homeowners have our time in front of appointed Commissioners to voice our concerns. Please advise my son, Gene Zambetti or myself at 408-307-0065 or 408-741-0332. By mail at address of 13930 Loquat Court Saratoga, Ca. 95070. I request the staff denied this development until the neighborhood, the developer, the staff and the Commissioner discuss our concerns. Thank you very for your time and I understand how difficult it is to strike the balance between the old and pg~w; but we must remember the reason why we incorporated this city.. That was to have asemi-rural ~pnununity, where the open space was around the homes in the front yard, side yards and rear yards. Sincerel~Yours ,, ~vI.Z~C,cr CCiC~C.~--'~ - Julie Zambetti 13920 Loquat Court S~ratoga, Ca. 95070 D ~~~~d~ ~~ Mi~Y U 3 2001 CITY OP SARA I OGA C0,ti1~bfUNl'fY Df:VELOP,11GN1' ®®0®'75 JULIA ZAMBETTI • •13920 LOQUAT COURT SARATOGA, CA 95070 ' February 15, 2001 .Planning Commission City of Saratoga Planning Department 13 77 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Proposed demolition and development of 13921 Loquat Court Dear Planning Commissioners: I have been a resident of Saratoga since 1953. I have made 13920 Loquat Couri my home since 1960. My house is directly across from the proposed development. I was very active in the efforts to incorporate our city in 1956. Like many residents who worked with me on the campaign, I wanted to preserve this community's semi-rural character while planning for • growth with a strong general plan rather than the extensive zoning rules that plague the City of San Jose and the County of Santa Clara. I must add that I believe the reason Saratoga has been so successful in land use planning and creating community neighborhoods is because of its dedicated staff like your self and individuals before you, Kim Concerning the proposed development on Loquat Court, it is my strong opinion (and that of several of the neighbors) that the character of the proposed development is not in keeping with the existing ranch style homes in the court. Although the proposed house is within the setback, those setbacks were never intended to be constructed to the maximum The proposed house is so far forward in the front yard that all of the other homes on the court will be dwarfed by it. The bulk must be minimized in order to preserve the sense of community that exists on Loquat Court. The resulting scale of the neighborhood would appear unplanned and displeasing to the eye. Policy 1 of the Saratoga Residential Design Handbook clearly states to ensure the maximum integration of structures with their natural and built environments. Some thoughts that I have to specifically reduce the bulk are reduce the size to 2700 square feet and a front yard setback equal to the adjoining homes on that side of the court. Change the entryway roof structure to more of a human scale in relationship to the street; and then introduce siding and finishes that are in keeping with present surrounding styles. Lower the front building wall to nine feet from ten feet as equal the other homes on the CouNSubdivision. Lower the roof height to 16 feet or change the roof pitch more in keeping the surrounding homes. Have the fmish floor at the exact same level as the existing house or drop it by one foot. I'm concerned about the fuushed floor and it's relationship to the existing natural grade and couple with the introduction of the basement the house will appear to be 19 feet in height. Some thoughts about livable of the house: the garage is smaller then the existing garage, yet more bedrooms more people in turn creating more cars on the driveway and the increase of day and night vehicle parking on to the City court. This starts the downscaling of a neighborhood when vehicles are ever present on the city streets and driveway approaches. Problem that other city's our presently facing with no solution. n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~p 2 MAY 0 3 2001 CITY OF Sr1RA I~OGA COMD~1liti{TY OLVF1(ll:1~ • This proposed house needs a 15,000 to 20,000 square foot parcel in order to make it appear in keeping with Saratoga standards and traditions. If the staff approves this house as drawn and submitted, please advised me by mail at the above address as what my options are. S' r y Yours L~.`,c~c~ ~,u- J a Zambetti r] • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ~~ ~~~~~ • • F m -- ---- .-. ~( ~/V ~! ~ O 'd~ ~O~ '6n101101b163b 3M1 i0 30NVid300v 3n1 d0 371+3aN3 310vd v41bd 31fl1 6N07 1 1 ~ a wno~u<w.ijaurwaw :peurv3 _ i}-:lynx ~ullt•I :a~.i tC! I-4tiA lyllhl ~I?: ULOin b'J-c~~lo~eti ~ q - - V 0 7 OL Sb V 1~J(10'~ 1'dflt~O~1 I Zb~C I ,v ~ v4r3L1 1t1M 6 7066V 31bv4131.I 371OfY3Ld 1Ml~llf~ 7NI 6NOI1v71fIJ3d6 OM 6NOld 3n1 Ol 31111 'a31161FIOLd 61 lbvd M 210 310rm ~I 00M13u xr+v xe r+ouv~llera bo I+ou~noobd3b'36n-3b p aunt ~pb alc..tmins-e3ol¢,cs IIK; I xmuun~d p u~:,san :i1n11~,nF~ c q j ~ J g Q n r 1 ~ 4 4 4 a 4 a ~dn~~dd~ad ~s~w ~ ~~w ~a~a~;°d32~ ~~z~,~,~~ 31~~~I ~ ~"°3 i,~o 0310Ib163`J 39 llaMS NOI1v71i173d6 Ot+v 61+v 1d 363n1 ~O 36n 3n1 :~,v~ :~oss~ ~rur~~~v~~v o W u ~ ~ ~ ~° ~ • u ~~~ __ I a~ew• .t ~.4 ~ - _ ~ ~+~ . ~b ! ~.; ~~ ~d~~a _~ - ' w = - ~ • Y~'-~ ~~~{- ~ - ~ w 9 O° O° ~v W l~ e 1 . . ~ y _ _ ~~ F' ~ mo / ~ ~ _ ~ _ ~ lL ~~ _. 1~-*a _ `~y~ ~ 9 ~\F4-'~:. .sl.- "` ~~ . ~'r" ~ ~1 ~i ~i ~S ~S ~ ~i 4f. .~. .4f ~i ~S ~S .1}i' i1S - ~i 5 J 1-- _ ~ ` 1 41} ~ \ ~,! ~'+! .~...!- ~~_ 1.-_I . Y -p ~ ` i~~ ~ - n ~- `\ ~: `1 ~.~ ~ a ir.~ ' _ ~ ~ -` ~ i~ ~ n ~ dl d1 ,~ ~ ,p ~ i ,y u v ~ q o m 'n 7 m J 1 ~ S! x~ _- ~'~ ^~. _ , ~ ~ ~ Y N a 0 n v_ ~ m ry ~ z - O V W 9 v a m n v ~ U LL M a X x x x x X x a0 ~ 9 9 Y Y ~ m x x ~ !r x x Q i0 x x Q 9 O O U ~ ID !L _ ~ ~ d ~ .0 1- m ~ Q _ m i ~+ ~ d ~ ~ d a I ~ _~~ ~a _ ~ a e a e _- ~` 2 ~ - - ' rr w 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 - ~ _ ti a r1 i ~4 I 1i . 9 0 °~ m m .~ ~ ~ ,. J~ I ~ ~ / I L ~ ~, II ~ ~ ~I1~..1t .1~, 3 'l ~ ~ (~ 1--1 `~ ~ ~ .d.^~~(~~ ~~~ ~ ~ `~i 1 ~i~i `~i ~i ~ C ~ ~ ~ UQ III II III O ~' ! ~ f..F r - ! i I ; ~ ,~ 1 ~ - ~ ~ ~ - ~-- O ~ ~ Q O LL ^C ~`1 N (!~ N ~y~ Q1 v ~ V 0111 0 ~ ~ ~ 1 - . ~ N II) _ N F U 0 ~ ~ ~ a Q -' II' II III I+HM--Nw--I~x _ . ~~. 7 f,1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ;{ ~ ' ~ ~ _ ILIu111/~/1~uu_~J7~1 ~ 9 Q ~ to rn In ~Q 0 0 ~ ~9 ~ m ~ m O ~ _ rr O ~ ~ 1• ~ ~ ~., ~~I~~ W ~ ~ 0 _ee ~ NwQ O~QZ ~~~ ly ~ ^~ m ' ~+ ' ~ a ~ xQ LLa 'l ~ ,. ~ ~ ff nn L ...J I ~ + Il- ~ ~ LL m lh 1- l~ Q ~ LL ~'7~ JI ;~1= ~ ~- n; 0 3 w X - C ~ w i 11_I_[I_l Lf. tom - . a N ° c w - o o w ~ w ~ c a z u1 0 ~ ~ w 0 Q - -~ -i I LL 3 ~ ~ ~ p V p w r ~ '~ ~ Q= N ~ ° C. IY O ~ ? r w F- Q I 1- ;.I ~ ~~ ~~ ~rv ~ _ ~ _ ~ ~I I' ~ ~~ _ 1 ~1~ ~~ J ^ yJ~X 1~~X FLL ~~ FIQL FCLL .YY _ I j U, ~ ~ ;; - z ~ ~ ~_a y St _ a - , i a, n -l_-. I ~ ~ ~ ~ J Q ~ ~~ ~~~ 1 1 1~ 1 F Qu "~ _ - 1 ~ -~7. _ ~ ~ 1~ _ _ rc w ~11--11~-~-111 ~ _ _ - tl ~~~ ti ~i ~ ~~'1 ,~~1"1 ~ ~ 1 ' ~ ~ .~ ~ ~i z (n ~ -- -= it 1I ~ ~,~ ' I f~', ~1; ~ ~ ~ S _ s _- ~'.~Pl _ ~ _, . ~~ ~ . ; i' '~.1 I ~ m D 1A"~ ~ s•~ t7``Z,y ~R'-° "~ i'I wy~~e' • `~ I I zu a' Z ~ , I ~ ~~ ~ r I M ~ s1 ' Gl~ 1 y 1 1 f ~ G] k~ rc. aa ~u F t] O J J ~~ ~ c ["' 0 ~ s~ m~ ~a C~ ~ z i ~~ C„) ~ ~ O__ n M1 Y m ~D r Q a~addeQadd O • • • i } Z Z ~ a ~ ?~~ ~ I i ~ w g ~R~Y~~~w ~ ^1 2F o ~ a F ~ / Z ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ < ~ o a r~i v~i i. j w O~ ~~~ Oi0-£b-L6£ ~hd~' t~IN~103I7t~0 `t'OO.Ld21dS .L~If10~ 1.dIIa0'I iZ6£i ?103 d~I^i ~IHd~'2I~dO.L N ~~ b ' w m ;, n ~' * w °~ O a y o 8 ~^~ ~N C+ • • • Tj OLOSb 'd~ ~'d901'd~~d5 '6NOIL'~IL163M 3n1 i0 30NO1d370V 3n1 i0 3~N3GN3 317Ci vLLMd 31fl1116N00 iTSns 6NOI1WJIil03ds aNV 6N0'ld 363n1 n1M lOV1N00 '7w 'OOC6V 3Rdv'N31a n1171 6NIVLL3Ll Z6LI966180b1 :xej MLI-966180D1 ~I~1 OLOS6 tlJ ~' wares 8 < ' g L 9 ~ Gy 12dno~ 1'dnoo~ i Lb~ i TY(16N 37107Y3L1d lronlm 6NOI1V71i173dS GN7 9NV ld 3n1 Ol 31111 'G31191nCYJd 61 J?JVd NI 2!O 3,OM1 NI'OOn13Ml APN A0 NOI1v711faRi ayo N0117f1OCR~d3li'36n-3a•1 uunS-a QatmS PN wry.+ olctvS IOZZI 8uiuuvld ~g u8~sad 8utp~rnA a ~ qq Y $ 0 a S /~ ~l ~1 v ~!V'_I v ~~/ ~p~p~Q V 70Y~ ~ O~ '36n 11^Jf16 Ol m114tl1 1166321d)C3 30 l10'MC i03tl3n1 NDI1701 ~6f1d OM 03TJVd3tld 3113T A3N1 n71F111 LO! 3116 71i173d6 3n1 Ol V 6N0'~d 363n1 i0 36fl 3n1 O ' [+(+v ^~ y~~~!~ ~~1 ~~JJ / .7~Y /C3~r Q V ~ ~ ~ y I N ~RLL63TJ 38 IIVMB NOI1V71i173d6 031 O a ~ V M ~ M ~ ~ T rn ~ 1 - - - a , 0 _ mmaaaaa+ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ --Q Gcw (3aIM 00'05) 1 J(10~ 1`d~t~01 ~~u rn a ai 0 ~ ~ ~ N N N O C O O $ ~ ~) N a O' ~ ~ ~ ° o N O N ~ Ii'61~ _ ~ o I e 1 O O ~ m O N rN b i i u I \\ \. g l~ ~o \ ;\~~ i i ~~~ ' ~\ N I I I ~ I ~ ~_ .\: ~~ \~~ ~) ~ ' I I \\ ~. ~-7 ~ I \\'. ~. ~ ~\~ „ M \~~\ \ `\ \\~'~ A W ` S q \ ~\ ~. ~\ ~ 0 o E ~ ~ N o U~ ~ m N n n Q V ~ ~ ~ d ~ 16 p ~ V O O ~ o Itl~ m r `O ~ o ~ O ~ ~~ q ~^ o, o N r ~ O O ~ m N O O O ~ 00 i(1 _ N C _ ___ ~ ~ p ~ .\ ~\ \ ~ ~ \ \ \ ,\\\ \ ~ ~~ O \\ \\\' \\ ~ 1 t~p\ \ N \ ~\ \ \' \\~~ ~ \\. \~\\\\~\`\\\ \\' \\\\ '~\\~~\ \`\\\' \\\\\, J I \ \\\ \ ~\ N ty~ty (~~ \\~\\\ \\ \\\\ ~ O O O1 O \ ~--1I 10 ~ P(~I ~ \ ~ -~ . \.\`\ I ~~ ~~ ~. \ \~ .\ I "~ b -------- -------------- -er3~l-- N _ d . ~ m rn O O O N N ~ O m O O N O ~7 b O N ~ O O N N O N O 6 a N O 0 '-•/ Z Z .J ll.l ~I • • • } ' '6NOIL7RLL63tl 3N1 d0 30Na'1d300v' 3M1 i0 37N3CIn3 317v'd VWild OIlYOMJ173d6 dN7 6NVZd 363M1 Mllfll lA1NOJ ' ~ 6 wo~~uswfn}~uuuum :In!w-3 Z4L!-Y661809) ~'~~ 9VL 1'966180t1 ~I~l OLOS6 dJ'~~~$ ~ 0 ~ A~ ~ d O ~//~ V ~! V %0~~0~7 OL05b 'dam 1 6 N 31NI16N00 1~tl ?df16N 371Wf3ild 1fIO111M '7N1 "J0667 31LVLA34 N1YI1 6NIV4@1 N 210 ' QwmS Pll aryn~Cwng-o8mva$ IOtZI C ~ ~ V ~ 1~noo i~dnno-t izb~i I 431101FIp21d 61 1?J4d 6NOI1V71i103d6 QN4 9N71d 3M1 Ol 31111 3wrmw'a01,13uu+vAaNOUO~narldaoNOU~racal.~3a'acn-3e1 6324~t3 30 ~lOTl6 d032/3M1 NOI1701'IAfld 0n6 01 m11W n AY 11 8utuvvld'AuB~sapBu~pjrng 1~ J - YI i y~ ~~II /~ ~I'_I V ~~' ^~ V p~Vi~ SSW ~ OW e N 36 GN7 O3a1Vd37Jd 321311 A3M1 N^J117II 210j 3116 7ldl'J3d6 31U of ~O 30n 3rI1 3M 'O~]I 'OOSSb'31?I~~{Y ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 031012116321 30 llvn6 N011071d103d6 OIN 6T1Vld 36 U g v . f/E f•.99 V ~ ~ B ,,., ,,,, \, ,, \ Z1-I-~rT~1'~I- I I l i l I I I I a j°~ ~C 0 } I 1 1! 1 1 1 _ ~--- i ^ 1 ! 1 L11J I z - ~ _ 1J_ ____ __-_ ~ ~~~ i 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ I i ~ J J L' ' ; . J . , O I ~__ r-~ 1 I 1 I ' r o ~ I , , I I ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ 1 b ~ 1 ~ ~. I I ~` ~ ~ 1 t O / I I 1 I I I I - ~ I ~ \ I. 1 I I I I 1 I I i ~~ ~ ~ 1 ~ I i \_.. ---O--WO2b MPOI! a .n z \'~ ~ ~ \ _ v~ .f/E f-.99 • • • ~ b d~ Ib~~1b~bS ~C ~1 'SNOII7RIL6321 3111 i7 37NV1d37A' 3N1 d7 3~N3GIn3 317Vd VLL2{d 3LILLUSND7 TvtK 6NOUPJId173dS anv Gt+o'id 3G3n1 nLm t7v1n07 um '7NI '7OCSV 31MS, °„ Hlm 6NIV413l1 ro ' ZOL!'9661809I:>,a,L 6bL I'9661BOt1 :1~1 OL056 VJ t9maz'eg ri 8 ' ~ 6 _ (g~ ~1.A LL (y i 3 . 1Zjn0'~ 1'd~290"1 ~ Z{o~c ~ r 371Oflf3ild i lOf1GN SNOI1VJId173d$ ONV 9N7'id 3M1 OL 31111 'O311BIFKRId SI 12Nd b 210 3~OK11 w'ao.li3u ulv le rnous~l~ ao rrolaaKV~m3a'3m-3a pa ilvn vun$'Y Q a7mS 018R$ IOZZ 1~ 8uruunld'P trBlsap 8ulpltng , M 11 f5 7] i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2J'd/~2d'dd'1a'd •SZIW $ •2iW ~ ONV Q321vd33yd 32'1311 13~M1XM71M1 LO! 3i03M3S'3d61 I'I~j O3L7121~s321 3e „vns I+o,.o~l~o3u+s Q.lo srrob 3S3f+L io 3Cn 3n1 ~~IJI '~OSSb'3RINlV~l1~ u GI ~ ~ $ ~ ~ U-- Y- i O ~ [ • N \~ .L/I •-.99 .LI f•.99 .UI 9-.f .L-.8 ,f- .ml .O•.fE .11-.mL J m q ~ g 1 I I 9 ~ r- o O O a I W __J p o o l -_-"1 I ~ ^ { ~ __.___.- _. __ i I a 1 I c. 1 1 I I I I O ®® ~ p ~ j ~~, I C G ~~ ~ , I 3 I f _J I I ~ I I I _ _____ I I I I I I ,.__________. _.__~ I I I ~~~ I I I I I I I I Amy 1 I I 6 ~ Q L I I t{ ! I I VV II ~a n 4 ~ ~ I I 1 CC JJ ~ I I I I i ~ I I I I I I I I I i 1 I I 1 I I __J `------------ I I ------------ ---'---._--- d 1 I I -- F I I I,~ 1 ~ I I I I I ~\ i I I I I I I i I I i I I ~ \ I I I i I ~ p I I i I I I i i I I I o an a ~ I v~ ----------'---~ ~' Sti _ - _ r---- O --- a r---- 1 I ~~ I ~~11 ~ Y b ~ I I I I - c ~ O 1/ O V n II ~ ~ y _ ~ I I r-----~ I I I ~ I I I I I 1 I I 1 I < £ 4 Y - Vr ~ - .UI II•.f .L•.f .O-.fl .L-.0E .L-.9 .11-.9 • • • L - '6NO117(a1163a 3M1 do 3~NVlda7~v 3n1 do a7113C1n3 317vd vwxld N07 ' ' waivsw~njatteunw :Irew-3 Z4G1~661804) ~~d 44L 1-966 (8041 :1~1 '~ 9 ~ ~ ~ 3 OLOSb `d ~ ~'ef ~Olb~?J`d5 JVi ,d 363M1 Mllm 1 31n1116ND> „b'M6 sNDI1l71d193e1G QN7 6N0 m 6wsu3a MII •xscv 3f2104131J Mr '3010nf32fd 1noMllm ^ 0[056 tlJ w~S ,~ colrn o e . -clma~e 1 ~ ~ , . ,onB~ 5NOI1tr71d103d5 ONO 9NO,d 3M1 Ol 31111"'031191MG?Jd 61 12lOd NI 210 a ~ r , , 5 va s 10« s n = ~ 1~Jno~ 1'v'nt~o~ i Zb~C i a,orm w OoMlau uro l.a N0uv01,6>nd ao NOU7M021d3M •36n-aa & u i ptm g 8u~uuvld ~g u8ua p /~ ~/~I /~y~ ~1'_I ~I ~~' / ~~~/ p~V.iv ~OYI ~ O~ 36f1 M0n0 Ol Q311W1 A,663th1X3 3e ,TOM9 d03a3M1 NOI1001,9M ONO Q3lJOd321d 3213T 1.3M1 F171MT 210 3116 '~Id193d6 31'LL Ol l73d6 ONO 6Mld 3B3M1 iD 3Bn 3rLL Ol ', i ~ ~~ r /~ / '~~l -~OSS~~[O /1Y~YY ~ Q ~ y Q ~ p d 0310RY16321 39 „OMB NOIlO I V ~ ~ ~~~~ o~o~~ ~ Z ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ?~~~~g~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~a~O<Y~a~~~~~n~~~~ W .:sireor6d~~sigY®ycs~a^Rnnf„ I 1 I I j I I 1 I I .u-, , I ~ n I ~~ - ~ ~ I --- ~I ~ & I ~~ s ~IJ--_-1..il~l -- - ! ~ I I I ~ ~ i - - - - r _ ° i I 'jl ii ~1, it I ~a I r _ ~ rr I 'l i~ ill I ~L~~ _ ~a ~r~ -~ __- * ~~ a ~ I ..t-~ ~ _ _ -- -~'-~ T i - - - - - po® I - ~-- _ --- - I I == I - - ~ ----- I 111 - ---_-~ ~ t ~, - --- -~ I _- - ~ 111 ~~ ~ I I ~ - - I -~ - I l.l_I - I - - ~ _ - ~ I ~ -_-- --~- I - - _ i j ~~ ~ ~ I .-_--- _-----il ~__--_ ~ll~'~I1~1 ~------~ - -_ I - _ i I - _ - - - - - - ~- _--'_; j I ~ i I _ L i ~ I ~ I ~ I i I - - _ ~+ o I , i I ~ I I I l ~ ~ I I I;i i I - _~I~.~_ - - - - - ~ n i I i ; I I - ;~-_, y~l i I I I ~ ~= i ~ I ~ 11 1I j ~' i I ~~~ I _ ----- ~ _ I >~ I' -- - J iT~~ I I -----~ ~~~~~ & ~ ~ i ~I .6- .m-.G - - - - - .~-, \ a I ~ I l .0-.61 , A'~B I a~ ~ ~ ;~ k I A • • • •Z 0 IU J W H I 1 morusw ~unuam :1!x-3 C ~ '6N011712LL6321 3n1 d0 37NVid3777 3n1 d0 37N3CN3 317vi v1.a21d n1uvrm ~ivns w+7uv71d173dC anv ir+sZd 3C3n1 num 17v1ND7 3 Z4L1.9661R06) ~1Ti bbLl96ti (ROb) ~Nl OLOib dJ'e8ot>rse$ '~9D1'd?~'C~S OL05b b~ 1 ~vnsN '371arc3aa lronlm '7r+i -7ocCV 3wsst3u nlm SiNIVL1~l1 a almg p>) alan.Cmm$•a8otesnS IOZZI -- i Z b~ i o dn o l ~noo i r SNDI1P71d173d9 41'1V 9n71d 3n1 Ol 31111 '~31101F101Jd 61 121vd W 210 U1V AB r+o117711e~i ao n7117f100s1d32i 3sn-3a 3lOrs'n HI 'a7n13N Su~uvnld'8 uSlrao 8utp/mg _ ~! y /~ ~ ~ 1 ~1 ~/ /~ p V / ~p~O~~.i V 70/, ~ ~~ . ~GN7 03JVd3ald 3tJ311g3~M71H02iP! 311673 73d6 3 ' o; l '~NI '.~OSSb'3RIFtlY3W 3n1 O317Ry19321 3a ~T7FIG NOI1v71d173d5 OM+ SMId 393n1 d0 3Bf 3] > a p ~ ~~ ~ ~ z ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~, ~~~a~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~ Q~~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~- ~~ >'In ~ ~l~bt~a_~o~Qx Qx W zi 8 ~~~~ o a Y~~~~~~~ a o J 3 3 0 W ~a~~r,'~rdd~~ciDYm9~g@9>r }3n~~'n ~ m OX_ W f ~~ ~~ q e a 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ti ~ O ~ ~ o ~ ~ $ ! z O d w J W ILl J 1 • • • i ~ - O Td OLOSb 'd0 ''d901~d?~'d5 '6NOIlOIL163M 3x11 i0 37NO1d37iV 3n1 i0 3~113GN3 3iOVi suad 31fLL116ND71hM66NOIlOOlil03d6 aav61w1d3631'11M1M~lalrm 3R10413N M1NI1 6NIOL13lJ ~ ' 6 ' ' wae~usw~au¢ulaw :I!cw-3 Z4L196618061 :><ti 66L[-9661AUt1 ~Ni OLO56tlJR801enr8 8 C R $ ~ a 7 pA o i ~ 1ZIno~ ldnno-~ i Zb~ i V OW ?06 3Nld inOHl NiI 37IGfY T1f1CN 6NDI1V71i173d6 Qr17 5N71d 3M1 Ol 31111 '031191rKRJd 61 'iLVd M MO 3,a.e NI '00/113W AN7 1B 1JOI1V91,9nd 7!O MOI17t100Md321'36n-321 wmB-B Q alm8 py alen. were8 IOZZI 8uruun~~ ~ ub5sa08urpling C , ~ J i I 1 (y ~ ~ w ~ w w ^ ~1 /~ V ~,/ ~!V t_' V'_I p~/~p~~~QV 70I\ ~ OI~\ ~3sn nine of a3uwi •1663Mdx3 3e iiv'n6 i03a31L Ia~u nl~and GM 03'J7d3lId 3Li3'11 A3M1 F171Hil alOd 3118 71i173d6 3M1 Ol G317RLL53a 3B 'I-ivM6 NOI1v71i173d6 QNV 6Mlld 363x11 i7 36n 3M1 ~IY/ /OJJY .7IQYIY3I'Y ~ a 0 m ~ ~ ~ U l V V I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I ~ ~ I `m ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~' ~ J `~ ' ~ i~ ----- ~ ' I~ it iii ___ _ ~~ --~.1=-- ------ ~-_- 1 ~ II~j ~~~ ! ~ , ~ ~ i ' ~ N '~ '° ~ i ~ a w _ 'l~~~'/ -------il Y ~~ ' I// ~-----~~ ~ ---- ------- '`V - --- t - ~ I ----aE --- _ i - - - -- --- ~ i I ~ ---1 I F ~ ~~ ~ --- I i ~ i -- u. I j `~ -- ; ~ Q ~ ~ _ Z __ ~ ' ----- ~ m~ L-- ' ~ --- ~ Z Z ~ ~-- p ,, --~ i _ ~~~ ~ o ~ I~ oC ll_I f I I~I~I I ~ ~ \\ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ 1~1 1 1 .. I I z ~ ~ ~I~~~~ I~ \ - ; ~--- ~ ~-n 11 1 i - ~ L-- - $ i ~ I---~--- ~-- l ~ _ *' ~- ~,`.` ~ , .6_.91 1 - -- } I i-- n -- x I ~-~ _ ~ ~ I ~ `ll ~ (-- 4 1 r-- -- ' Q O ~ TW II . -'°-~ -- W ~ --- ([1 {_ m i_-- _ ~ ~~ ~_~_ _ ,~ t, ~ - -- ~ - ~ I~ fT I 1 1~ -- I - -- ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 1~--~ ~ I ~ ~'4^~1. I ~I L ll I 1 .O-~dl .m-~6 I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I • • • woo'exm~uJa~nunw :I16w'3 y ~ U OLOSb d7 1'd901'v~Z{'d5 '6N011~It63M 3n1 dD 3~NV'1d3YJ0 3n1 d0 3~I+3GN3 317Vd owMd 31M1LI16N'~7 „vnG SNOILV'JIiI73e~G QNV 6NV,d 363M1 nllm 1'JV1ND7 ,V~CN '3'JIQfY321d 1110n16i1 '^JNI'aoscv 31avLl3N n1611 SNIVU3a ZbL 1-9661804):sz:l bbLl-966181M1 ~fal ocosev~'~ol~ Q x11115 'Py alaV.0065-680161@$ IOi i 1 ~ c ~ fl ~ n!-1 ~j LL 1 yE! 1?~no~ ldnno~ i Lb~c i 6NOIll71dl73dS 4M 9M,d 3n1 Ol 31111 G31191nOPid 51 121vd NI LIO 3,Or111 M'oa,13L1 ANV AD NOI1v71,eM LO 1~IDI17f1O02{d3'tl 36f1.3M . p~rng u r 8uiuua1d ~ uBrs a p 8 ~ j F J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ /~ ~7v ~/ ~!~1I _I I/~I V / ~O V ~~Q V 701' ~ ~• 3Sf1 n7f16 Ol G3114tl, A,C83LrDC3 3a „s11s dD3a3n1 NOIITJI,CM a317~1s~ Bd0 ,~ n~6 ~LLV71~'J~3d19 ~ 6N7,ed 3913'111 ~ 38f1 3ni ~ ~ ) ^^~~~ / T V '//~~ '~OSS~3[O Y /Y3~ ~ o ~ ~ Q 51 ~ LL V ` VV V`IV I I I 1 I\ 1 I I I I I ~ I I I I' I ~ I .o-.a 4 I I 1 '=,1,.'~'~~ ' Q ----- ~ I T°= _-_ _ ~ ~ I I -- II'i ~~ ,I ,, ', i~ ~l~ I ,. - --- -- - ,.~-1 r =r---r-.1 , I _. r=_~ o ; T" ~_l~l I I IL._lj~.. ------- Z -- ~ F_=-.~i~T~-_I- r7-I-i i-I- il ~ ~ I~ W _ ~ !I i i I ~ i I I _ I - ~ ~ r Ilili I! ~Illli .u-,r1~ ~ - ICI i !ill II~ ~~ '~~ I' -_ --~ -- ~ - - 'I it I i ~ I I ~ l 1 ~~ Iil ~I I III ' ud- I ~-{ ~_- I l._.__.__._.______J _ _ _ _ i ~ I ~- 1 ~ ~ O .~ i _ i z .m-.01 I 1 -~~ Q I Q I ~ i I I I .~•.a I Q l~ I ~/ .m-~1 I Z ------------ I ---------- o -- - -- - - --- I O ------- ----- - -- ------- ~ .u i---------- ~- I ~ _ I ~\ _ I v _ _ i v _-_ - i ---~-----W(~ ----- - I W i ~ --- I l I ~ l I i I __r__ ' .m-.1 ~ j / I -~ I ~ 111 ! I ~ 1 ~._ -i _ I - I ----- --- I I W I --- L._ I 1 ~ I I _ l I I - --- -- I Q I I ----- -. I _ ~ I I ~. ~ I i i --- `_~ ~-_~-~. I -- I ~ -----~h-- I -' -----' j ~ ----- L' - I I ---- --- - I ,~ I k ~ I I .w,u I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 ~ ~ 1 ~-~ I I I - I I I I 1 I I I • • • ~~ } '6N0110RJ1632i 3n1 d0 30NV1d300v 3n1 d0 30N301.~3 317Vi VW2Yd ZbL!-966180DI :>Bj V6LI-90618Ub1 ~I~l ' ~ e 8 AA j dd O OLO~b d0 ~'d~01'd~d5 31n111GN00 „sn6 5~1011v01~103d6 alw sNV,d 383n1 nlm lOV1N00 ,vnsln a~larc3ad lronlm '~nl •~occv 3wsu3u nlm swvu3rl 010$6 b J %w$ a anus yaara~.Coung-vemueS lozzl ~ 7 1~1 a 11POIdl03dS OMY 9nP,d 3n1 Ol 3,111 '031191FI02'/d sl '1MOd NI 210 ' l' a Y _ R ~ 1?Jno~ lbnoo~ i Zb~ i 10 s a,am w'aonl3u AM Ae nouv~nard 210 rouOf10021d321'3sn-321 u r YI)n B trBisa p B 8uiuunld ~p V~/A vJ ~!V 1_1 VI_' O V / \~ V O~Q~' SSW ~ OI'~ 36n n0fq 01 C311W1A,s83LIdX3 39 TVMB l03213n1 NOI1P0I,AM GM 03tJVd3Lid 3J3~ A3n1 F101/Sn 2104 311Q 71d1'J'3d~ 31'LL Ol T ' ~ ~ T ~~ T v •~A'~'~OSSY ~(Q YYY ~/Y ~ / V ~ ~ p ~ LL ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ 0310R11S3M 39 „O'r16 NOI1V01~73d6 QM 6NV,d 363n1 i0 36n 3n1 Q x O - vvvv~ ~ Q ~~~~ '~ a f O J ~ a ~~~ ~ ~o~ ~ Y ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ m - U ~~ ~~~~ ~..~~ ~ ~o ~~ _ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~3~~ }- ~ n e ^~ ~ 6 s~6d4d V r _ __ __ _ m _ d I ' ! t L~ I L-1-J--t--~-i -- --- -----~~-__-~___-~i t I ~ --~ 11, ~_~ !.`-- II i I i a~ ' ~ i ~~ ~~ ~~ -~~ I --- ~ / {i~ j _ _ ~ ~~~J e '~ k I ~ I! ! ~~ I I'• 3~ t7~ 1 ~ ~ 1 -- ~ l i ~~ ~ ~I ~ - -------' 1-j=- - _ ~ i i~ j ~`~ . - I ' i f --r -;--~ ~-~ 6 ~i I 1 I ~! I ._ > i I! di -^-- - ~-- I ~ ---- -----~I---- ~ i ' ~J J_ ----- --------------------- ---~ L----- ---- --...- ---- - - J ~ i -1 ~` ~li t - ! -- -'- ---- j O II 1 I 1 1 r ~ ,----'i a~ l i ~ I i t I I ~~ I~ I f' r I I -' Q Q d -~ ! I 39CR1 . ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~ _-~i v~y ~ _ ! I~ I f / ;i I i _ ~-~ ~ ----~ ~ ~ ; _, Jr--- - - I -J -~ ~ ~------------- - ~ '. I ' I / _L i Z I 1 I ~ I ~ ! I iI I ! °y1 ~ ~ I i II ~` ~ ~! ~ J- ~r t _ _ -- '~- --- -~r-~n J I - -- ! ~ I 1 -- ~ ---11 "1 ~---/i ---' I I II ; _ II - ~~ I iIIII 11 J r- ~ I IW o j ~ // (~ a I -_ ; J 1I ~ ~R ~-! ' I Ijl ' Vin; ~ t-- I ti ,,y~` ', I i /. ~! ~q I' ~ i !I I ~ -~~ -_ _- l~ i - - - -- - - ~ - -_- --------- _ _ ~ ---J - - - - _ ~ _ _- ---... ----- -.--- --- ---- m ` ~'4 _ r V< • • • MINUTES SAR4TOGA CITY COUNCIL . APRIL 18, 2001 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in open session in the Administrative Conference Room at 4:30 p.m. to interview applicants for the Public Safety Commission and Planning Commission. The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 6:10 p.m. Initiation of litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(c): (1 potential case). Conference With Labor Negotiator: Agency designated representative: Dave Anderson, City Manager Employee organization: Saratoga Employees Association MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:05 p.m. Mayor Mehaffey reported there was Council discussion but no reportable action was taken. Mayor Mehaffey called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. and requested Chief Ernie Kraule to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councihnembers Evan Baker, Stan Bogosian, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Nick Streit, Mayor John Mehaffey ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Mary Jo Walker, Director of Administrative Services Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Heather Bradley, Assistant Planner REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 7.2001. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of April 18, 2001 was properly posted on April 13, 2001. City Council Minutes 1 April 18, 2001 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC None COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following person spoke at tonight's meeting: Beverly Phipps, 15270 Norton Road, expressed his concerns in regards to the safety on Bohlman Road. Mr. Phipps suggested that a second access road be built on Bohlman Road. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Mayor Mehaffey suggested that Mr. Phipp's comments and suggestion be discussed at the Joint Meeting on Apri124, 2001. CEREMONIAL ITEMS lA. PROCLAMATION -DECLARING THE WEEK OF APRIL 22-28, 2001 "NATIONAL VOLUNTEER APPRECIATION WEEK" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Read proclamation. Mayor Mehaffey read the proclamation. 1B. COMMENDATION - LOU DE GIVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Read commendation. Mayor Mehaffey read the proclamation and presented it to Mr. Lou de Give. 1 C. COMMENDATION -ANNE CAMPBELL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Read commendation. Mayor Mehaffey read the proclamation. • • • City Council Minutes 2 ~ April 18, 2001 CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF: REGULAR MEETING- APRIL 4, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve submitted minutes. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF APRIL 4, 2001 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES. ~ MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2B. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the check register. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. OLD BUSINESS None Mayor Mehaffey noted that it was not the appropriate time to begin the Public Hearing and requested that the City Council move to Item #6. S Consensus of the City Council to move to Item #6. NEW BUSINESS 6. RESOLUTION ENDORSING AB 613 INTRODUCED BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER COHN STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. Attorney Taylor explained that Assembly Member Cohn introduced Assembly Bill 613 that would require community college districts to abide by use permit conditions that were originally proposed by those districts. Attorney Taylor noted that Government Code §53094 authorizes community college districts to exempt themselves from local zoning ordinances under certain circumstances. A district board of director may exempt a proposed use from local zoning if two-thirds or more of the district board votes in favor of the exemption. Attorney Taylor explained that AB613 would correct this situation. The bill would provide that a community college district may not exempt a proposed use if that use would conflict with a use permit condition proposed by the district and adopted by the local government. The bill would apply City Council Minutes 3 April 18, 2001 retroactively and would also make various technical corrections to sections 53094. Dave Anderson, City Manager, noted that the League of California Cities sent a letter supporting this bill. BOGOSIAN/BAKER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AB 613. NOTION PASSED 5-0. Councilmember Bogosian noted that although he has to recuse himself from any discussions over the years regarding West Valley College, he fully supports the resolution. Consensus of the City Council to move to Item #7. NEW BUSINESS 7. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDED CONTRACT WITH GREG ING & ASSOCIATES FOR AZULE PARK CONCEPTUAL PLAN STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of agreement. ' John Cherbone, Director of Public Works, presented staff report. Director Cherbone noted that at the Ci Council and Parks and Recreati n ty o Commission Joint meeting on March 27, 2001, Council directed staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission to move forward with the preparation of a conceptual plan for improving the undeveloped Azule site into a neighborhood park. Director Cherbone noted that in order to move ahead on the project as expeditiously as possible; staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended that Greg Ing & Associates, who are currently the City's landscape architects for the Congress Springs Park Improvement Project, prepareda conceptual plan for Azule Park in the amount of $19,800.00. This will save approximately two months in the process, and allow plenty of time to develop a project scope and a cost estimate so the Azule Park Improvement Project can be considered in the upcoming Capital Improvement Plan. Councilmember Baker asked if the neighbors have been included in this proposal. Director Cherbone noted that he has been in personal contact with the neighbors of Azule Park. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he fully supports moving forward with the • proposal from Greg Ing & Associates. City Council Minutes 4 April 18, 2001 Mayor Mehaffey asked what account would the $19,800.00 be allocated from. Director Cherbone responded that the $19,800.00 would be adopted in the budget under Capital Improvement Plan/Park Development. STREITBOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE PROPOSAL FROM GREG ING & ASSOCIATES IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,800.00 FOR PREPARATION OF A CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR AZULE PARK. MOTION PASSED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS PETITION OF ANNEXATION: 19770 GLEN UNA DRIVE, LANDS OF ESCHEN/ESCHENROEDER. APN: 510-26-047 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve petition of annexation and adopt resolution. Heather Bradley, Assistant Planner, presented staff report. Assistant Planner Bradley explained that by agreement with the County of Santa Clara and the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) an annexation to the City is generally required when development is proposed on parcels that are contiguous to the City boundary and that are located within the City's Urban Service Area (iJSA). Owners of these contiguous parcels may request a waiver from annexation if they desire to develop under County regulations. Assistant Planner Bradley reported that the requested petition relates to a lot with an existing residence that is situated on Glen Una Drive across from the City boundary to the north and adjacent to the boundary on the east. This adjacent parcel was annexed to the City in 1984. The parcel located at 19770 Glen Una Drive meets all. requirements of the Hillside Residential zoning district. Assistant Planner Bradley reported that the Planning Commission reviewed the annexation request, along with the Design Review application, on November 21, 2000. Assistant Planner Bradley explained that the project involves demolition of an existing 3,101 square foot residence, 1,068 square foot detached garage and 940 square foot barn, totaling 5,109 square feet. The applicants propose to construct a new two-story residence with a first floor of 5,052 square feet and a second floor of 519 square feet with a 760 square foot detached guesthouse for a total square footage of 6,331 square feet. Attorney Taylor noted that the laws regarding annexations changed this year, so the resolution tonight would have to be amended, clearly stating that the application was submitted prior to the date the new laws took effect. Attorney Taylor noted that the effective date on the annexation would be when the City of Saratoga executes a property tax exchange agreement with the County of Santa Clara. City Council Minutes 5 April 18, 2001 Mayor Mehaffey opened the Public Hearing at 7:36 p.m. and invited any public comments. Mary Eschnen/property owner, 19770 Glen Una Drive, noted that she looks forward to being a Saratoga resident. Scott Eschenroeder/ property owner, 19770 Glen Una Drive, questioned if the property tax exchange agreement that the City Attorney mentioned would delay his project. - Attorney Taylor responded that he would direct staff to contact the County Assessors Office immediately. - Mayor Mehaffey closed the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m. Councilmember Bogosian question who would maintain the road in front of the house if the annexation were approved by the City Council. Assistant Planner Bradley responded that the City would have to maintain the road in front of 19770 Glen Una Drive. Mayor Mehaffey asked about the current condition of Glen Una Drive. John. Cherbone, Director of Public Works, responded that Glen Una Drive does not have curbs or gutters and is currently up to the County's road condition standards. Director Cherbone noted that the property taxes from the parcel, if annexed, would more than suffice to maintain the road. WALTONSMITH/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PETITION OF ANNEXATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19770 GLEN UNA DRIVE. MOTION PASSED 5-0. NEW BUSINESS 4. PRESENTATION ON GASB 34 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Mary Jo Walker, Director of Administrative Services, noted that the City is in the process of implementing Governmental Accounting Standards Board Pronouncement No. 34 (GASB34). Director Walker noted that Nazzi Raissian, a partner with the City's audit firm of Caporicci, Cropper, and Larson, would make a brief presentation. Nazzi Raissian briefly provided the City Council a broad perspective of the requirements of GASB34 and an overview of the implementation process. - , City Council Minutes 6 April 18, 2001 Ms. Raissian noted the first step, count and valuation the City's infrastructure assets, has already been completed. A discussion took place regarding the implementation process to comply with GASB 34 and what it would cost the City of Saratoga to be in compliance. Mayor Mehaffey thanked Ms Raissina for the report. CITY REGULATION OF FIRE DISTRICT OPERATING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. Attorney Taylor explained that at the Apri14, 2001 City Council meeting staff was directed to prepare a report concerning the City's ability to regulate or control the provision of the fire protection services within the City. Attorney Taylor noted that his office concluded that the City may not regulate the Fire Protection Districts which serve the City of Saratoga. The City may adopt fire protection policies and urge the Districts to operate in a manner that is consistent with those policies. In lieu of regulating or seeking to influence the Districts, the City may seek to assume responsibility for providing fire protection services within the City by petitioning the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission to reorganize the two districts in a manner that would allow the City to assume responsibility for providing fire protection services. Attorney Taylor noted that in response to requests from the community, the City through its Public Safety Commission, has been investigating the provision of fire protection services in the City. In connection with this inquiry, the City Council requested a report on the City's authority to regulate the provision of fire protection services in the City. Attorney Taylor briefly described the three ways the City could regulate the fire districts: Re u~ry Authority -The City derives its regulatory authority from Article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution, which gives each city the power to "make and enforce within its limits all such local, police, sanitary, and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws. This does not imply to the State of California or its agents. The City has the right to make sure local building and zoning codes are followed. This local regulation only extends to land use matters not to issues such as standards of service for fire protection. 2. Policy Guidance -The City may seek to influence the manner in which service is provided in a number of ways. For example, the City may adopt policy statements, direct City staff to consult with District officials regarding issues affecting the City, or offer financial assistance to assist in the acquisition of equipment to enhance services provided in the City. If City Council Minutes 7 April 18, 2001 the City Council determines that certain fire protection practices and , procedures are warranted in the City, it could adopt a resolution establishing a City policy to that effect. Although the resolution would not be binding on the fire Districts the Council could direct staff to pursue a cooperative planning process with the Districts to identify any additional measures that maybe needed to implement the policy. If the City wished to make the policy binding on the Districts, it could request that the Districts adopt the policy, perhaps through a memorandum of agreement with the City. A variant of this approach would involve a formal contract between the City and a fire District whereby the City provides specified funds or services in exchange for the District's agreement to abide by specified performance standards. The specific manner in which any such cooperative program would be implemented would depend on the City's particular policy objectives and the willingness of each District to cooperate with the City. In addition, it is important to note that the City is free to use its land use and other governmental powers to adopt policies and ordinances to enhance fire prevention and control in the City. The City has already taken steps in this direction such as requiring all roofing materials to be fire retardant, administering the fire hazard nuisance abatement program, and requiring early warning fire alarm systems in new construction. The City can also promote fire protection through the manner in which designs of street improvements and other public works and require the installation of fire hydrants. These measures do not involve regulation or control of the fire districts but have been developed cooperatively with the districts over the years to enhance fire protection in the City. There maybe additional such measures that could be explored f together with the Districts. 3. Assumption Control - A third approach to regulating or controlling the provision of fire services within the City would be for the City to assume responsibility for providing fire protection services within the City. This would involve filing a resolution with the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) requesting a reorganization of the two existing fire protection districts in a manner that leaves the City with responsibility for and control of fire protection within the City. This approach requires the approval of LAFCO. In order to proceed with reorganization, the City would file an application for the reorganization with the LAFCO. That application would include a "Plan for Services" demonstrating how the City would provide the fire protection services currently provided by the two districts. LAFCO would evaluate that plan and any alternative plans submitted by the Districts or the public through a formal hearing process. The specific manner in which the application would be reviewed would depend on the specific form of the reorganization requested and the position of the Districts with respect to the application. A discussion took place in regards to LAFCO's process in reorganizing the City's boundaries if the current fire services were changed. City Council Minutes 8 April 18, 2001 Councilmember Baker clearly stated that he has not seen enough information supporting either side, which would allow him to form an educated opinion on the current situation. Councilmember Baker requested that both, the Saratoga Fire District and the Santa Clara County Fire District prepare a report on the pros and cons of the service provided. Councilmember Bogosian noted that whatever the City decides to do, the citizens of Saratoga must be included in all discussions. David Dolloff, 20685 Sigal Drive, concurred with Councilmember Baker and rioted that he had the Santa Clara County Fire's report and would be submitting it to the City Council. Mr. Dolloff reported that on April 11, 2001, FACT presented the same packet of information to LAFCO. Mr. Dolloff requested that the City put the Saratoga Fire District's permits for the new fire station on hold until the citizens know which District will be running it. Mr. Dolloff noted that the design of the proposed station has not been designed for future growth of people or equipment. For example, Mr. Dolloff noted that the bay doors were not big enough for some specialty fire equipment that the Santa Clara County Fire Department uses. Chief Ernie Kraule/Saratoga Fire District briefly explained the design of the proposed fire station and noted that the proposed bay doors are even bigger than the current ones, which has never been a problem. K.B. Walter, 20281 Blauer Drive, noted that she agreed with Councilmember Baker that it is critical that the City Council have all the information from both sides. Ms. Walter noted that the proposed fire station is not being built up to par and that the bond money is being misused. Art MarshalUSanta Clara County Fire Department, noted that several surrounding cities that contract with the Santa Clara County Fire have submitted letters of recommendation and support. Mayor Mehaffey reminded everyone present that a Joint Meeting with the Public Safety Commission, SCC Sheriff's Department, Saratoga Fire District, and Santa Clara County Fire Department would be on Apri124, 2001. LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF INTENTION FOR FY 2001/02 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. John Cherbone, Director of Public Works, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained that the two resolutions before the City Council tonight are to continue the process for renewing the Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA-1 for FY 01-02. City Council Minutes 9 April 18, 2001 Director Cherbone noted that the first resolution would adopt preliminary approval of the Engineer's Report for FY 01-02. The second resolution sets the date and time for the Public Hearing on June 6, 2001, of the intention to order the levy and collection of assessments. 9. Director Cherbone noted that all the costs associated with the District are recovered via the assessments except for indirect costs.. Councilmember Baker requested that a notice be sent to all the affected property owners informing them of the public hearing on June 6, 2001. Councihnember Bogosian concurred with Councihnember Baker. Director Cherbone responded that staff will prepare a notice to be mailed to all property owners in the LLA-1 District. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR FY,Ol-02. MOTION PASSED 5-0. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION OF INTENTION FOR FY 01-02. MOTION PASSED 5-0. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA FOR FY 2000-2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of agreement. Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Reeve reported that the contract before the City Council tonight will designate the Santa Clara County Housing and Rehabilitation Program as administrators of the Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program (SHARP) and transfer the lump sum of revolving housing rehabilitation loan funds to the Santa Clara Housing Rehabilitation Program. Analyst Reeve noted the City of Saratoga would pay the County $20,000.00 to administrate its housing Rehabilitation Program and complete four projects per year. This is a $5,000.00 increase from previous years for housing rehabilitation services. Councilmember Baker stated that he did not support the County's effort to take control over local government funds. Analyst Reeve noted that the County did not initiate this contract; in fact, it was requested by the various cities throughout the area. Analyst Reeve noted that the City's primary function would be to market and refer residents to the County for the application process. City Council Minutes 10 April 18, 2001 • BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT FOR THE FY 00-O1 CDBG/SHARP PROGRAM. MOTION PASSED 5-0. AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Mehaffey reported the following information:. . • ABAG -General Assembly meeting took place on April 12, 2001. Discussions took place in regards to the HCD numbers. Due to the rising cost of living the Board passed an increase in dues. Vice Mayor Streit reported the following information: • Legislative Task Force - at the next meeting the Task Force would go over the new energy bills. • Santa Clara County Water -meeting next week. Councilmember Baker reported the following information: • HCD -discussed the recommendations to be sent to the County Board of Supervisors for allocations of grant funds. • KSAR -reported that the acting general manager's term would expire on May 1, 2001. Also, efforts are still underway to develop a comprehensive inventory and replacement program. • West Valley Sanitation District - in the process of redoing and identifying the offenders on 4`" Street in the Village. Councilmember Bogosian reported the following information: • Libre -noted that the Saratoga Library should be receiving $4,000.00 from the County to buy furniture. • Santa Clara County Animal Control JPA -noted that interviews took place for the position of General Manager and the panel has narrowed the applicants down to two candidates. Also, the JPA recently purchased two trucks. Field operation must be up and running by July 1, 2001. Councilmember Waltonsmith reported the following information: • SASCC -reported that Mary Goulart, Executive Director, has resigned to take a position at the Odd Fellows Home. • Va11e.YTransportation Authority -briefly explained four agenda items that were discussed at the last meeting in regards to Measure B, TDA, TFCA, and an increase in agency fees (which did not pass). City Council Minutes 11 April 18, 2001 CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Baker requested a status report on Prides Crossing. Referring to a letter he received, Councilmember Baker urged Sazatoga to prepaze a similaz letter to the City of Campbell opposing SB 901. - Councilmember Waltonsmith requested a status report on the proposed FAA Over Flight Plan. - Mayor Mehaffey responded that he received the report from the FAA, looked it over and forwazded it to the City Manager. - - City Manager Anderson noted that Director Cherbone has the report and is reviewing it. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the League of California Cities has invited cities Youth Commissions to participate in the League's annual conference in September. Councilmember Waltonsmith suggested that a few members of the Saratoga Youth Commission attend this conference. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she took a tour of Rodeo Creek with Don Whetstone and noticed an out fill problem, which is causing a cesspool to form. City Manager Anderson responded that he would direct staff to contact Cupertino Sanitary District. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that due to the recent fee increases, PG&E is now offering to do an analysis of rates on any household if you call the 1-800 number located at the bottom of your PG&E bill. Councilmember Waltonsmith suggested putting this phone number in the next Sazatogan. OTHER Vice Mayor Streit requested that staff contact KSAR and have them repair the broken camera in the Adult Day Caze Center. Mayor Mehaffey requested that staff consider including property owners who experience lateral problems to be included in the septic ordinance. Attorney Taylor responded that staff would be bringing a status report to Council on May 16, 2001. Included in that report will be several options and suggested the next steps that the City Council may want to consider. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Anderson noted that he would be participating in the interview process for the new General Manager at KSAR. City Council Minutes 12 April 18, 2001 • • • City Manager Anderson reported that the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce would like to hold a mixer in the Civic Center courtyard sometime this summer to welcome the new Executive Director and Economic Development Director. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Mayor Mehaffey adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m. R spectfu su fitted, a e r, C ~` City Clerk C7 • City Council Minutes 13 April 18, 2001 ~,. ITEM 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: LL-00-005;15480 Peach Hill Road Applicant/Owner: HUSAIN/KHAN Staff Planner: Kim Duncan, Assistant Planner Date: May 9, 2001 APN: 517-22-111; 517-23-021 Department Head: ~~ 000001 15480 Peach Hill Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 10/17/00 Application complete: 1/8/01 Notice published: 4/25/01 Mailing completed: 4/26/01 Posting completed: 4/19/01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant has requested a Lot Line Adjustment approval to move the existing lot line approximately 295 feet northerly between two existing parcels with a slope greater than 20%. Currently, a residence is located across the existing lot line located at 15480 Peach Hill Road. The purpose of the request is to relocate the property line so that the existing residence is located on a single parcel, thereby creating a separate parcel capable of supporting a residential building site in a Hillside Residential zoning district. The number of parcels would remain the same. Staff originally reviewed and approved this application pursuant to Section 14-50.040. Since the action on the original application had not considered the CEQA requirements for lots in excess of 20%, the Community Development Director referred the application to the Planning Commission as the advisory agency for review and decision pursuant to Government Code Section 66412 (d) concerning Lot Line Adjustments and CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, for Lot Line Adjustments with slope in excess of 20%.. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Negative Declaration and Lot Line Adjustment application by adopting Resolution LL-00-005. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution LL-00-005 3. Correspondence 4. Tentative Map for proposed Lot Line Adjustment, Exhibit "A" 0®D~~E: - File No. LL -00-005,• 1580 Peach Hill Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: Hillside Residential District GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Hillside Residential-Conservation District (517-22- 111); Residential Very Low Density (517-23-021) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: Parcel A-1.85 ac (existing) Parcel B- 5.7 ac (existing) GRADING REQUIRED: No grading is proposed. Existing Proposal Code Requirement/ Minimum Requirement Lot Size: Parcel A: 1.85 ac (gross) 4.6 ac (net) 3.73 ac (net) Parcel B: 5.7 ac (net) 2.45 ac (net) 3.85 ac (net) Width: Parcel A: 160 ft. 471 ft. 100 ft. Parcel B: 378 ft. 244 ft. 100 ft. Depth: Parcel A: 448 ft. S00 ft. 150 ft. Parcel B: 592 ft. 462 ft. 150 ft. Frontage: Parcel A: 551 ft. 711 ft. 80 ft. Parcel B: n/al n/al n/al ' "Frontage" means the property line of a site abutting on a street per Section 15-06.290. A:UL-00-005 Peach Hill.doc O ~ 0 O O File No. LL-00-DOS,• 15480 Peach Hill Road PROJECT DISCUSSION Background The applicant has requested Lot Line Adjustment approval for two existing parcels ~a~ith slope greater than 20%. Currently, a residence straddles the existing lot line and has been the subject of previous Lot Line Adjustment applications. The purpose of the request is to relocate the lot line so that the existing residence is located within one parcel, thereby creating a separate parcel capable of supporting a residential building site in a Hillside Residential zoning district. The Subdivision Map Act provides for "...lot line adjustments between two or more existing adjacent parcels where the land taken from one parcel is added to an adjacent parcel, and where a greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created, provided the lot line adjustment is approved by the local advisory agency." (Section 66412) Typically, Lot Line Adjustment approvals are granted on an administrative level by the Community Development Director (Section 14-50.040). Since the request is a matter of concern to neighbors, the application has been forwarded to the Planning Commission, as the advisory agency, for consideration. The proposed lots fall into tow General Plan categories, Residential Very Low Density which restricts development to a maximum of 1.09 density units (DU) per net acre and Residential Hillside Conservation with a maximum density of .S DU/net acres. Both proposed lots will conform to either category. Access Current access to Parcel A is from Peach Hill Road and access to Parcel B is provided by an existing 22 foot road and utility easement that crosses Parcel A. After the adjustment, proposed access to Parcel B would continue to be from Peach Hill by extending the existing utility easement with a 20 foot ingress and egress easement through Parcel A. No other access is proposed for Parcel A and Parcel B. There is an existing 40 foot right-of-way easement for Sunset Drive on the eastern edge of the Peach Hill property. Proposed access to Parcel B will continue to be from Peach Hill Road by extending the existing utility easement with an ingress and egress easement, and therefore will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the subject properties. There is an existing 40 foot right-of-way easement for Sunset Drive on the eastern edge of the Peach Hill property. The applicant has indicated there will be no access directly to Sunset Drive. As such, aone-foot non-access strip on the Peach Hill property should be recorded with the Lot Line Adjustment to prevent any access from Sunset Drive. P:~Planning~ICim D~PC Staff Repotts~L.L-00.005 Peach Hill.doc ~ ~ O ~ O File No. LL-00-005,• 15480 Peach 1Yi11 Road Lot Conformance According to the Hillside Residential zoning ordinance, each parcel in Hillside Residential zoning districts shall contain a minimum net site area based upon the average slope of the lot (Section 15-13.030 a). The existing slope of Parcel A is 49% and the net site area is 1.85 acres. Code requires a parcel with a slope of 49% to be a minimum of 9.25 acres, therefore Parcel A is currently not in conformance with Ciry Ordinance requirements. By virtue of the proposed lot line adjustment, the existing slope would be decreased from 49% to 29% and the net site area would be increased from 1.85 acres to 4.6 acres, which is well within Ciry Code requirements. The existing slope of Parcel B is 29% and the net site area is 5.7 acres. The proposed lot line adjustment would increase the slope from 29% to 30% and decrease the net site area from 5.7 acres to 2.45 acres. The minimum net site area for a Hillside Residential zoned parcel with 30% slope is 3.85 acres. The proposed Lot Line Adjustment will create two parcels with a 29% slope and 30% slope. According to City requirements, a parcel with 29% slope requires a minimum of 3.73 acres and a parcel with 30% slope requires a minimum of 3.85 acres. The combined acreage required by Ciry Code for the two parcels to conform with the requirements is 7.58 acres. However, the combined acreage of the existing parcels is 7.55 acres, therefore it is not possible to create two conforming parcels from the existing lots. Both the current lot configuration and the proposed lot configuration contain one conforming lot and one non- conforminglot. The proposed Lot Line Adjustment will create conforming setbacks for the existing residence which currently straddles two lots. The site of the proposed lot which is vacant can adequately accommodate a residence that meets required setbacks. En vironmental Review Typically, Lot Line Adjustment applications are Categorically Exempt from environmental review for parcels with an average slope of less than 20%. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15305) Since the average slope of the subject parcels is greater than 20%, an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this application. As explained below, Initial Study concludes that the proposed Lot Line Adjustment will have no significant impact to the environment and staff is recommending the Negative Declaration be approved. Traffic and Circulation The proposed Lot Line Adjustment would create a parcel suitable for an additional building site in the area. According to the City Traffic Consultant, Peach Hill Road is not at or near traffic capacity and as long as the existing driveway remains at the present location, it is not anticipated an additional house would create a significant impact on traffic or circulation. P:U'IanningUCim D~PC Staff ReportsU..L-00.005 Peach Hill.doc ~ ©0 File No. LL-00-005,• 15480 Peach Hill Road Creeks/Watercourses There are two watercourses that flow through the subject parcels identified on the Santa Clara County Assessors Parcel maps as the Arroyo San Tomas Aquino and Willow Creeks. Neither of these watercourses are classified as `protected" by the Santa Clara Valley Water District maps. Any new residence must be approved through a Design Review application and demonstrate that the lot will not exceed the 25% maximum impervious coverage permitted in the Hillside Residential zoning district. In addition to impervious coverage limitations, any development plans will be required to provide a storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will beretained on-site, and incorporate the New Development and Construction Best Management Practices. Geotechnical Review This application does not require review by the Ciry Geologist, however any future development application will be subject to geotechnical review due to the slope of the site. According to a feasibility study by Kern Consulting, Inc., submitted by the applicant, there are no known faults, unusual geologic or geotechnical hazards, or landslides on this property, and Kern Consulting recommends approval of the Lot Line Adjustment. Correspondence Staff received correspondence from two neighbors in opposition to the proposed Lot Line Adjustment. Neighbor concerns include increased traffic congestion caused by an additional residence on Peach Hill Road, access to the parcels, environmental consideration of watercourses, and technical questions regarding the proposed Lot Line Adjustment application. The environmental, traffic and access questions have been addressed in this report. Approval of this Lot Line Adjustment in no way approves a site plan for the vacant parcel. Conclusion The proposed Lot Line Adjustment satisfies all of the findings required within Section 14- 50.040 of the City Code, the General Plan, and regulations contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The Lot Line Adjustment will not create any new violations nor will it conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Negative Declaration and Lot Line Adjustment application by adopting Resolution LL-00-005. ~®D~Q~ P:~Planning~Kim D~PC Staff Reports~LL-00.005 Peach Hill.doc APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. LL-OO-OOS CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA HUSAIN/KHAN;15480 Peach Hill Road WHEREAS, the application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for Lot Line Adjustment approval for two parcels, all as more particularly set forth in File No. LL-00-005 of this City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) it has been determined that with the following condition, the proposed lot line adjustment will result in no significant impact to the environment, and a Negative Declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Lot Line Adjustment approval, and the following findings have been determined: The proposed Lot Line Adjustment will create conforming setbacks for the existing residence which currently straddles two lots. The site of the proposed lot which is vacant can adequately accommodate a residence that meets required setbacks. Accordingly, the use and overall density will conform to Hillside Residential Conservation District of the Land Use element of the General Plan. The proposed Lot Line Adjustment will create conforming setbacks for the existing residence which currently straddles two lots. The site of the proposed lot which is vacant can adequately accommodate a residence that meets required setbacks. Therefore the proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the regulations contained in the Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 14 of the City Code. • Proposed access to Parcel B will continue to be from Peach Hill Road by extending the existing utility easement with an ingress and egress easement, and therefore will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the subject properties. ®®~~~~ File No. LL -00-005,• 15480 Peach Hill Road Now, Therefore, the Planning Commission of the Ciry of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Husain/Khan for Lot Line Adjustment approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The applicant will submit plans to Planning detailing the proposed setbacks for the existing structure. The proposed setbacks will conform to Ciry Ordinance requirements for the Hillside Residential zoning district. Proposed access to Parcel B will continue to be from Peach Hill Road by extending the existing utility easement with an ingress and egress easement. A one-foot non-access strip on the Peach Hill property shall be recorded with the Lot Line Adjustment to prevent any access from Sunset Drive. CITY ATTORNEY 2. Applicant agrees to hold Ciry harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the Ciry or held to be the liability of Ciry in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the Ciry could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this Ciry per each day of the violation. 4. Nothing in this approval of the lot line adjustment application shall assure that the lots resulting therefrom are developable or further developable. Pursuant to the requirement of Ciry Code Section 14-15.020, no building or structure shall be constructed on any parcel resulting from this lot line adjustment unless and until tentative and final building site approval have been granted by the advisory agency pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Ciry Code. Prior to such building site approvals, the Community Development Director may exercise all of the authority granted to the Planning Director under Chapter 14, including but not limited to preliminary geologic and soils investigation pursuant to Ciry Code Section 14-20.020. Any building, structure or other development constructed on any parcel whose boundary. was adjusted by this lot line adjustment must comply with all applicable zoning regulations set forth in Chapter 15 of the Ciry Code and with all applicable building regulations set forth in Chapter 16 of the Ciry Code (including but not limited to the ground movement regulations set forth in Article 16-65). If no building, structure or other development may be constructed on one or more parcels whose boundary was adjusted by this lot line adjustment so as to comply with this condition, then such parcel shall be undevelopable unless another lot line P:~Planning~Kim D~PC Scala Aeports~C.L.-00-005 Peach Hill.doc nn O~oOL~~ - File No. LL -00-005,• IS~dO Peach Hill Road adjustment or a resubdivision is processed and approved so as to create a developable parcel." Section 2. The Lot Line Adjustment must be recorded within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga Ciry Code,'this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 9`h day of May 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission A:~LL-00-005 Peach Hill.doc 0 ®OO~~ THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 00000 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Prepared For Iqbal Husain and Sharmin Khan Proposed Lot Line Adjustment 15480 Peach Hill Road Apri12001 Project Description: Request for Lot Line Adjustment approval for two existing parcels with a slope greater than 20%. Currently, a residence is located on top of the existing lot line. The purpose of the request is to correct this situation and create two parcels capable of supporting a residential building site in aHillside-Conservation Residential zoning district. The proposed lot line adjustment will modify Parcel A (517-23-021) from an existing 1.85 acres with a slope of 49% to 5.1 acres with a slope of 29% and Parcel B (517-22-111) from the existing 5.7 acres with a slope of 29% to 2.45 acres with a slope of 30%. Project Location: 15480 Peach Hill Road (APN: 517-23-021 and 517-22-111) Applicant: Iqbal Husain and Sharmin Khan 15480 Peach Hill Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Lead Agency: City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 City of Saratoga Husain/Kahn April 18, 2001 p. t ~~~0~~ CONTENTS Environmental Evaluation/Checklist Negative Declaration Attachment A: Tentative Map dated December 2000 City of Saratoga Husain/Kahn April 18, 2001 p. 2 000012 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (see attachments forinformation sources) Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated L'LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ^ ^ ^ ^ b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies ^ ^ ^ ^ adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ^ ^ ^ ^ d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to ^ ^ ^ ^ soils or farmlands, or unpacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ^ ^ ^ ^ established community (including aloes-income or minority community)? IT:~pPOFULATION AND HOUSING \\'ould the proposal:- a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population ^ ^ ^ ^ projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or ^ ^ ^ ^ indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? The proposed lot line adjustment will modify an existing parcel to allow the potential for one additional building site, which does not induce substantial growth in the area. c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ^ ^ ^ ^ ~II'I.~GL®L(~;G[C PR~?BLEMS. \~'ould.tlit proposal result in or expose people to potential unpacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? O ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Although the site is not located in an identified hazard zone, the site is within the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area and severe ground shaking is probable during the life of the project. Any proposed , residences on an approved building site will be designed and constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code guidelines for to avoid or i~nimi7e potential damage from seismic shaking on the site. Potential seismic impacts would be reduced by the use of standard engineering techniques mandated by the Uniform Building Code. City of Saratoga Husain/Kahn April 18, 2001 p. 3 ~~0~~3 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No (seeattachmentsforinformationsources) Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ^ ^ ^ ^ d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ^ ^ ^ ^ e) Landslides or mudflows? ^ ^ ^ ^ f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions ^ ^ ^ ^ from excavation, grading, or fill? Changes in topography will be limited to the future building site and access to Parcel B. Erosion will be minimized by the use of Best Management Practices during construction and a stormwater drainage system required as a condition of approval. Municipal Code Section 15-13.050 (b) requires a preliminary combined geologic and soils investigation and report prepared by a certified engineering geologist licensed by the State and by a registered civil engineer qualified in soils mechanics by the State, shall be filed in conjunction with the site development plans. The recommendations of the geologic and soils report will be required to be implemented as conditions of approval to ensure that soils impacts will be less than significant. g) Subsidence of the land? ^ ^ ^ ^ h) Expansive soils? ^ ^ ^ ^ i) Unique geologic or physical features? ^ ^ ^ ^ °IV. W"ArTER~•UV©uldahe•praposal~re"sult m°' a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate ^ ^ ^ ^ and amount of surface runoff? A new residence must be approved with a Design Review application and demonstrate that the lot will not exceed the 25 percent maximum impervious coverage permitted in the HR zoning district. Development plans will be required to demonstrate that any increase in surface runoff or changes in drainage patterns will not adversely impact surrounding properties or alter the character of the existing creek on the subject property. b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards ^ ^ ^ ^ such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alterations of ^ ^ ^ ^ surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water ^ ^ ^ ^ body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water ^ ^ ^ ^ movements? City of Saratoga Husain/Kahn April 18, 2001 p. a 00001.4 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No (seeattachmentsforinformadonsources) Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ^ ^ ^ ^ d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ^ O ^ ^ e) Landslides or mudflows? ^ ^ ^ ^ f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions ^ ^ ^ ^ from excavation, grading, or fill? Changes in topography will be limited to the future building site and access to Parcel B. Erosion will be minimized by the use of Best Management Practices during construction and a stormwater drainage system required as a condition of approval. Municipal Code Section 15-13.050 (b) requires a preliminary combined geologic and soils investigation and report prepared by a certified engineering geologist, licensed by the State and by a registered civil engineer qualified in soils mechanics by the State, shall be filed in conjunction with the site development plans. The recommendations of the geologic and soils report will be required to be implemented as conditions of approval to ensure that soils impacts will be less than significant. g) Subsidence of the land? ^ ^ ^ ^ h) Expansive soils? ^ ^ ^ ^ i) Unique geologic or physical features? ^ ^ ^ ^ I~V~~xW~A~TLIZ~ ~«'oulcl~the~proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate ^ ^ ^ ^ and amount of surface runoff? A new residence must be approved with a Design Review application and demonstrate that the lot will not exceed the 25 percent maximum impervious coverage permitted in the HC-RD zoning district. Development plans will be required to demonstrate that any increase in surface runoff or changes in drainage patterns will not adversely impact surrounding properties or alter the character of the existing creek on the subject property. b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards ^ ^ ^ ^ such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alterations of ^ ^ ^ ^ surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water ^ ^ ^ ^ body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water ^ ^ ^ ^ movements? City of Saratoga Husain/ICahn April 18, 2001 p. a ~~DO~s ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No (seeattachtnentsforinformationsources) Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated f) Change in the quantity of groundwater, either through ^ ^ ^ ^ direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ^ ^ ^ ^ h) Impacts to groundwater qualiry? ^ ^ ^ ^ i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater ^ ^ ^ ^ otherwise available for public water supplies? V'=AhR%QUALITY. Would the pro~~~al. a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ^ ^ ^ ^ existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? O ^ O ^ c) Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any ^ ^ ^ ^ change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? ^ O ^ ^ :VI~wTRANSPORTATION%CIRCiJI:ATION. Would the`.proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ^ ^ ^ ^ According to the City Traffic Consultant, one single-family dwelling generates approximately 10 vehicle trips per day. The addition of one new single-family dwelling will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips on Peach Hill Road and is not expected to have a significant effect on traffic congestion. b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves ^ ^ ^ ^ or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ^ ^ O ^ d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ^ ^ ^ ^ Any proposed single-family dwelling will be subject to the City Parking Ordinance, which requires two covered parking spaces within a garage, so that sufficient parking capacity will be provided. e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ^ ^ ^ ^ City of Saratoga Husain/Kahn April 18, 2001 p. s ~00~1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No (see attachmentsforinformationsources) Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative ^ ^ ^ ^ transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts? ^ ^ ^ ^ VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:'Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats ^ ^ ^ ^ (including, but not limited to, plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? ^ ^ ^ ^ Any new residential development proposal will be considered with Design Review applications and required to comply with the City Tree Regulations, therefore the impact on any locally designated tree species is expected to be considered less than significant. c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, ^ ^ ^ ^ coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ^ O ^ ^ e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ^ ^ ^ ^ VIII: ENERGY A1VD''IVIIIVERAL~RESOURCES: Would.the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ^ ^ ^ ^ b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient ^ ^ O ^ manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ^ ^ ^ ^ resource that would be of future value to the region and state residents? ~< ~IX~. ~I-I'AZARiDS. Would the proposal.involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous ^ ^ ^ ^ substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or ^ ^ ^ ^ emergency evacuation plan? City of Saratoga Husain/Kahn Apri118,2001 p. 6 00~~1.~ emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health ^ ^ ^ ^ hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health ^ ^ ^ ^ hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, ^ ^ ^ ^ or trees? X. NOISE. Would the proposahrestalt in a) Increases in existing noise levels? ^ ^ ^ ^ b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ^ ^ ^ ^ XI: P.L:TBL'IC SERVICES. Would the proposal hay c an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government ~ser~ices,~:iii,an}'~of`thefollo~~,in~aicas~. a) Fire Protection? ^ ^ ^ ^ b) Police Protection? ^ ^ ^ ^ c) Schools? ^ ^ ^ ^ d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ^ ^ ^ ^ e) Other governmental services? ^ ^ ^ ^ XI~I: LTTILITIES.AND SERVICE S'1'STEMS: Would the proposal resultin a need for new systems or supplies, or ,substantial.al`terations to•the'follo~~~ng utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer, septic systems, or wastewater treatment and disposal facilities? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste materials recovery or disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ '~~~III' AFSTHET~ICS. Would';the prb~osal: City of Saratoga Husain/Kahn April 18, 2001 p. ~ ~~~~~8 a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ^ ^ ^ ^ b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ^ ^ ^ ^ Any new residence will be subject to the City's Design Review process for review to ensure aesthetic impacts will be minimized to a level of less than significant. c) Create adverse light or glare effects? ^ ^ ^ ^ ~1IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ^ ^ ^ ^ b) Disturb archaeological resources? ^ ^ ^ ^ c) Affect historical resources? ^ ^ ^ ^ d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which ^ ^ ^ ^ would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the ^ ^ ^ ^ potential impact area? , ~V.~aRECREATION. Would~the proposal:. a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or ^ ^ ^ ^ other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ^ ^ ^ ^ X~:I. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) 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 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ City of Saratoga Husain/Kahn Apri118,2001 p. a 0000,3 with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will ^ ^ ^ cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? City of Saratoga Husain/Kahn Apri118,2001 p. 9 000020 XVII. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: _`~_ I find 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ATE SIGNATURE For: ROBERT SHUBERT, AICP SENIOR PLANNER City of Saratoga Husain/Kahn April 18, 2001 p. to NEGATIVE DECLARATION Declaration That Environmental Impact Report Not Required For Lot Line Adjustment #LL-00-005 15480 Peach Hill Road The undersigned, Director of Community Development and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation, has determined and does hereby determine pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Qualiry Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolurion 653 of the City of Saratoga, and based on the Ciry's independent judgment, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. Project Description Request for Lot Line Adjustment approval for two existing parcels with a slope greater than 20%. Currently, a residence is located on top of the existing lot line. The purpose of the request is to correct this situation and create two parcels capable of supporting a residential building site in aHillside-Conservation Residential zoning district. The proposed lot line adjustment will modify Parcel A (517-23-021) from an existing 1.85 acres with a slope of 49% to 5.1 acres with a slope of 29% and Parcel B (517-22-111) from the existing 5.7 acres with a slope of 29% to 2.45 acres with a slope of 30%. Project Location 15480 Peach Hill Road (APN: 517-23-021 and 517-22-111) Name and Address of Proponent Iqbal Husain and Sharmin Kahn 15480 Peach Hill Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Reason for Negative Declaration The proposed lot line adjustment is not anticipated to cause any substantial adverse impacts on the environment. Although the proposed lot line adjustment will modify the existing site, it is a minor modification, and that the project will not cause significant environmental impacts pursuant to the terms of the Environmental Quality Act. Executed at Saratoga, California this1~day of - i', , 2001. ~~~ ~ ~ ROBERT SHUBERT, AICP SENIOR PLANNER City of Saratoga Husain/Kahn April 18, 2001 p. tt 000022 ATTACHMENT A Tentative Map of Peach Hill Road, dated December, 2000 City of Saratoga HusairJKahn April 18, 2001 p. 12 000023 ~/ APR 2 3 2001 "T l 7 ~ ~w ~ CITY OF SARATOGA /1' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~,~ V ~. U ~~ ~ 7z~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~~ ,~ . ~ ~ ~ 6~. .~~-c.~ ..C~-e,c~~ ~~cu~-c~~~ ,rev 4~=~-I.c~ ./h-e.~ ~.u~-~--~/~-i-~,~~C. ~ ~~ -.~~--~-'i~~ G~-rzz---cc~e~ ~~u.~~ ~~.~--a~ ;?~-ti.~t~c C~~.C'tiL~~c:n-t . ~~rti-J~--l) Qom. J L~~-vr~.e~ 5 c.~,~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ r ~~ 00 024 Rpr 18 O1 09:SOa via facsimile (408) 867-8555 p.l C.~~"I ~J l ;t'1 - 1' ~~~- ~ i ~~:1~-C1 15561 Glen Una Drive Los Gatos, CA 95030 April 18, 2001 Interim Community Development Director, Irwin Kaplan City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Lot line adjustment at 15480 Peach Hill Road Dear Mr. Kaplan: It has been a week since we wrote to thank you for phoning on April 6 to tell us that you had decided to rescind staff s approval of the proposed lot line adjustment at 15480 Peach Hill Road. We have not yet received the appeal fee we paid, which you said you would have returned to us. Please let us know if there is any change from the May 9 date for the evening meeting of the Planning Commission at which the lot line adjustment will be head. Again, we request timely notice of any other proposed or current action by Saratoga, or its agents, which may affect our property or the proposed lot line decision in question. Thank you again for your consideration of the matter. Kindly fax the requested notic~s}to us at 408.395.4628. Very truly ours, ~~ Alan and Meg Giberson D ~~C~~~~ APR 1 8 2001 CITY OF SnknTOGn . COMMUNI-fY F p ~-I .. ~~ ~P~ ~ V ~.~.~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ a~ a l ~~ec'h'Ue (vla ~ ~~ ~ 1 ~ San~~~a ~~~~~~~-~c^oo~ ~ ~(~~ ~-~-~ ~' ~ ~ J ~ ~~ G,,,` ~~` ~.~-~. o ma ~ ~~s ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ re~~ ~S ~~ti~ J 5~~~ J . ~ ~~ ~~ S ~' ~ ~ s~ O1,0 ~j'1,Z~ ~ ~' ~ ,,~ ,, ~.~' Seen ~/`~ .~_ I,,s. ~`~'`~..~v~ u- rna~,,,~ ~ ~ ~~S --I~U~C G~ Q i V QG~ ~'~l I~n ~0~ I~ ~ ~ v~~~i ~1 ~ /~ ~ ~: ~~~ ~ ~~ ~,~~ s °~ ~' ~ l ~ c ~ ~~ ~ ~q~ ~ ~ ,~ l~~ ~,~~ ~ U V ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~. u d-~,`~ ~ ~ 2C~, 2-~ f ~ b~~ ~ ~f'~- .~( i v~:~ ~~ Z~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ 3~2 3/20026 Mar 30 O1 12:28p Via facsimile (408) 867-8555 15561 Glen Una Drive Los Gatos, CA 9503C March 30, 2001 T.nterim Community Development Director, Irwin Kaplan City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Appeal of lot line adjustment at 15480 Peach Hill; request for notice Dear Mr. Kaplar. Thank you for your call this morning advising us that you were reviewing the lot line adjustment (LLA) file for 15480 Peach Hill and were thinking of rescinding the approval. We appreciate your reviewing it. we will await your call next Tuesday or Wednesday as to your decision on the approval's status. Please provide us timely notice, by facsimile, if this will interfere at all with our appeal of the LLA's approval, should you decide against rescinding the approval. Very truly you/r~si,. Alan and Meg Giberson (408) 395-4628 (FAX) p. 00002'x' Mar 28 O1 04:43p Via facsimile (408) 867-8555 15561 Glen Una Drive Los Gatos, CA 95030 March 28, 2001 City Manager, Dave Anderson Interim Community Development Director, Irwin Kaplan City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Appeal of lot line adjustment at 15980 Peach Hill; request for notice Dear. Messrs. Anderson and Kaplan: we have not yet heard from the City of Saratoga concerning the appeal of the :Lot Line Adjustment approval for 15480 Peach Hill Road that we filed last Friday, March 23, 2001. Please fax us notice timely of the status of that appeal, so that we may take appropriate subsequent action. We seek to avoid the kind of miscommunication represented by your staffer, Kim Duncan~s failure to alert us timely of her having previously approved the Lot Line Adjustment on January 29, 2001, which left us unapprised of that action until last Friday, the 23`° We further request timely notice of any current or proposed action or project-including, but not limited to any approval, any development proposal, any building permit-for any lot at 15480 Peach Hill Road, including the lots created by that certain lot line adjustment mentioned above. For purposes of this request: "Any" means each and every. p.2 Ver yours, `-'/~~ Alan and Meg Giberson (408) 395-4628 (FAX) ®©0~2~ Mar 20 O1 10:33a Via facsimile: (408) 867-8555 15561 Glen Una Drive Los Gatos, CA 95030 March 20, 2001 Kim Duncan, Assistant Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: 15480 Peach Hill proposed lot line adjustment; request for noticed public hearing Dear Ms_ Duncan: i am writing to request an update on the proposed lot line adjustment at 15480 Peach Hill Road (LLA). You were going to keep me informed of the status of the project, but I haven't heard from you in over two weeks or more. I have also not had a response to many of the points raised in my March 1, 2001, letter delivered to you. Would you let me know, by fax: 1. Where the application is in the city review process; 2. When the LLA will come before the Planning Commission; 3. If new items/documents have been put into the 15480 Peach Hill LLA file; 4. If new items/documents have been created which relate to the proposed LLA; 5. What environmental review will accompany the LLA; 6. When a decision will be made on the LLA? Please provide me timely notice of any meeting regarding the LLA, as i wish to attend any such gathering. Very tru y yours, Meg Gib rso Tel. ( 8) 54-2726 FAX (40 395-9628 p. i 000029 Via hand delivery 15561 Glen Una Drive Los Gatos, CA 95030 March 1, 2001 Kim Duncan Assistant Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: 15480 Peach Hill proposed lot line adjustment; request for noticed public hearing Dear Ms. Duncan: Thank you for providing me, yesterday, with some documents from the lot line adjustment file for 15480 Peach Hill Road, Saratoga. The lot line adjustment (LLA) purports to be an adjustment between two parcels with the total parcel number to remain at two. Unfortunately, the documents provided raised as many questions as they were supposed to answer. 1) PARCELS: Three (3) clearly-delineated parcels appear on the "Tentative Map for Lot Line Adjustment" dated December 2000, stamped "Received" "FEB 27 2001" by Saratoga (hand corrected to "FEB 26") (hereinafter "Tentative Map"). The Tentative Map does not clearly show any lot line to be deleted; there are only existing boundaries and proposed boundaries. Only two of those delineated parcels have been assigned numbers on the Tentative Map: the most southerly ("south parcel") is labeled "Parcel 1" (this would appear to represent the current APN 517-23-21) and the most northerly ("north parcel") is labeled "Parcel 2." The parcel between them (the "middle" parcel) is unnumbered. A 322' "proposed boundary" divides the "middle parcel" from the north parcel." (Henceforth, the parcels will be referred to as: "south parcel", "middle parcel" and "north parcel.") 2) NO APNS: No APNS were shown on the above-mentioned Tentative LLA Map. 3) THREE BUILDING SITES: Building sites for the unnumbered middle parcel and "north parcel" are clearly shown. The orange-webbed story poles are, however, entirely on south parcel and appear to signal a building site contained within south parcel alone. Three building sites thus appear to be created by the Tentative Map. 4) NO CORRELATION BETWEEN LLA MAP AND FACT SHEET: The accompanying "Lot Line Adjustment Fact Sheet" (stamped "received" on JAN 08 2001) (hereinafter "Fact Sheet") refers only to: changes to "Parcel A".and "Parcel B;" and to parcels. by APNS. It does not refer to "Parcel 1" or "Parcel 2," as does the Tentative Map. 5) LIMITS OF PROPOSED CHANGES IMPOSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY: It is therefore impossible to correlate or completely identify any proposed changes using the Tentative Map and the Fact Sheet, since there is no common designation for the parcels. ~~c~~w~gD CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY ENVIRO oco 6) EASEMENTS SHOWN ON TENTATIVE MAP PROVIDE INADEQUATE ACCESS FOR ALL POTENTIALLY-AFFFECTED PARCELS: • ~: An easement proceeding northeasterly, then northerly from Peach Hill Road to the southerly boundary of "north parcel" (which easement is colored yellow on the copy you gave me) is double- labeled: "22' Road and Utility Easement" as well as "ingres [sic] and egress easement". It is hereinafter called "E-1." The building site for middle parcel (which covers areas of the middle parcel and south parcel) blocks the access that E-1 would otherwise provide for north parcel. The story poles currently erected on south parcel, in fact, block access by way of E-1 to north parcel. • R/U/E: Another "22' Road and Utility Easement" (hereinafter "R/U/E") is inadequately delineated on the Tentative Map. This R/U/E appears in the northeasterly portion of south parcel, but its label appears within the aforementioned E-1 (northeast/northerly-trending double-labeled) easement. This R/U/E easement ends at the township section line on the Tentative Map. Its parameters and potential for use need clarification 7) PUBLIC ROAD ACCESS FOR ALL POTENTIALLY-AFFECTED PARCELS IS INADEQUATE SUNSET DRIVE: There is currently no built-out access for either middle or north parcels from Sunset Drive, nor does the Tentative Map show any access from Sunset Drive. Since neither parcel may take access from the private driveway which currently accesses 20052 Sunset Drive (because of original grant restrictions dating from the early 1900's--see our 2/21/01 letter), legally-adequate access from Sunset Drive for middle and north parcels would need to be constructed in the public right-of-way from Sunset Drive. This public right-of-way proceeds directly west from the currently-paved section of Sunset Drive, and is centered on the township section line (12/13), which section line currently also forms the northern boundary line of APN 517 -2 3-21. This Sunset Drive public right-of-way is shown in the upper left corner of Assessor's Parcel Book 517, page 23 (effective year 1999-2000), as touching parcels 517-23-20, 517-23-21 and 517-22-111. (It is incorrectly labeled "Sunset Ave." on your APN map, which mislabeling was due, you said, to a volunteer worker's mistake). The Tentative Map does not show access for the middle or north parcels from the Sunset Drive public right-of-way. PEACH HILL ROAD: Access must, therefore, be provided from Peach Hill Road for both middle and north parcels. Yet, as discussed above (in section 6), the Tentative Map "E-1" access from Peach Hill Road to north parcel may be blocked by construction on either south or middle parcels. CAREY PARCEL: Further, the proposed LLA could "landlock" another parcel potentially resulting from a division of property at APN 517-22-112 (Carey). APN 517-22-112's easterly section (which, unlike the rest of the parcel, is still zoned HC-RD) was formerly part of the 15480 Peach Hill Road property. 8) CREEK IMPACT NOT RECOGNIZED: The "Letter of Transmittal" from Westfall Engineers (dated January 4, 2001) incorrectly states: "2. There are only localized drainage swales within the site. No creeks/streams exist within the site boundaries." On the contrary, reference to Assessor's Parcel Map Book 517, page 22, clearly shows a creek, which runs across the northeasterly portion of APN 517-22-111. This is a named creek: Willow Creek. Further, the Tentative Map ®~~c3~ .~ . itself reveals that this creek flows through the designated building site on north parcel, although the Map fails to name the creek. Promotion of development in the Willow Creek canyon by former owner of the 15480 Peach Hill Road property (Kennedy) previously resulted in devastation of a large part of Willow Creek. Saratoga City Council members publicly decried the creek's devastation in 1991. Further development in this sensitive area will likely cause substantial environmental damage, as in the past. For this reason, .adequate review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) should occur timely. TENTATIVE MAP INADEQUACIES WOULD IMPROPERLY PLACE BURDEN OF ACCESS ON PUBLIC and/or NEIGHBORS: It is clear that those who wish to develop land must provide adequate access to the parcels to be created. Here, the Tentative Map demonstrates the developers' failure to do so. Further, it is clear that the land developer who creates the need for such access should bear the cost and the burden of providing the access. The record, to date, does not show that the developer of the 15480 Peach Hill land has been required to bear that burden. ~ Rather, it appears that build-out on the building sites shown on the Tentative Map would foreseeably result in one or more "landlocked" parcels, whose owners might then look to the public or to neighbors to supply access. As neighbors whose property rights have already been infringed upon by developers of those certain properties mentioned herein, we have a high stake in assurance that these developers will timely and adequately provide the necessary improvements from within their own lands for access for which their development projects create the need. PUBLIC HEARING REQUESTED: As a matter of due process, we believe that notice and an opportunity for a hearing are required because of the likelihood of a substantial or significant deprivation of our property rights, since access across our property could be demanded, if the Tentative Map were to be approved as proposed. We therefore request that the proposed lot line adjustment be set for an adequately-noticed public hearing, and that we receive timely and adequate notice of it. Additionally, we hereby request timely notice of any further proposed action on this project. CEQA: CEQA requires early consideration of the potential significant environmental effects of providing access and build-out for the lots proposed. As one court noted recently, "The environmental review process should be undertaken early enough in the planning process to impact planning decisions...." (City of Vernon v. Board of Harbor Comrs., 63 Ca1.App.4th 677, 690 (1998).) The history of development in this canyon, involving these properties, shows that a decision-making process, which is uninformed by adequate public review and lacking full disclosure of all likely deleterious effects on the environment, has the potential for serious adverse effects on the sensitive Willow Creek riparian area. Adequate environmental review should thus occur, with full review of possible effects on Willow Creek from the LLA. FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE ACCESS NOW IMPLIES FUTURE CONFLICTS Failure to provide for adequate access from public roads at this time may result in a lengthy process of disputes, or in time-consuming and expensive litigation, as the history of land-use in this canyon over several decades has shown. 3 00002 Please do not hesitate to call me if I can answer any question, or facilitate the response to this request in any way. Very~uly yours, ~C Meg ib rson (408) 4-2726 cc: City Manager City Council City Surveyor 0®0033 reb '21 O1 10: 06a Via facsimile: (408) 867-8555 15561 Glen Una Drive Los Gatos, CA 95030 February 21, 2001 Kim Duncan Assistant Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: 15480 Peach Hill proposed lot line adjustment; request for hearing; California Public Records Act request Dear Ms. Duncan: Thank you for taking the time to discuss a proposed action at 15480 Peach Hill Road, Saratoga, with me yesterday. As you explained, the sizeable story poles, which my husband and I have just recently noted, at that address appear to have been occasioned by a proposed lot line adjustment. NO MAP: Unfortunately, you did not have a current map showing the proposed lot line adjustment (LLA), as your only current copy had been sent to the city surveyor, Mike McDowell, for his approval. I was therefore unable to review tY~e proposed change. NO CURRENT CONSTRUCTED ACCESS FROM SUNSET DRIVE: The major concern regarding LLAS affecting the 15480 Peach Hill Road property is that any parcel(s) created from this property need to retain adequate access from public roads. Because of original deed language, parcels lying northerly of that certain township section line (12/13, which divides APN 517-23-21 from APN 517-22-111, among others) do not have access from the built-out driveway at the end of the paved part of Sunset Drive. This latter driveway accesses only 20052 Sunset Drive. It does so from the end of pavement in the Sunset Drive right-of-way by looping southerly across two neighbors' properties, then westerly across Willow Creek, then northerly, then northwesterly to the 20052 Sunset residence. NEED FOR ADEQUATE ACCESS: Any parcel created from the 15480 Peach Hill property/properties would thus need to retain adequate access from Peach Hill or would need to arrange for access to be constructed across the Willow Creek ravine, in the 40-foot-wide Sunset Drive public right-of-way which proceeds almost directly W.S. from the paved section of Sunset Drive, and which is centered on the 12/13 township section line. (Someone apparently mislabeled this as Sunset "Ave." on the APN map you showed me.) p.l POTENTIALLY ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM FAILURE TO RETAIN ADEQUATE ACCESS; PUBLIC HEARING REQUESTED: A failure to provide for adequate access from public roads at this time may result in a lengthy process of disputes, or in time-consuming and expensive litigation, as the history of land-use in this canyon has shown. Because of these potentially serious and adverse effects, we request that the proposed lot line adjustment be set for a public hearing. A public hearing is further appropriate under CEQA, as an uninformed decision has the potential for serious adverse effects on the sensitive Willow Creek riparian area, as the history of development in this canyon, involving these properties, also ShOwS. ~ ~~~~~~ D r. r. -•. CITY OF' SAR,ATOGA COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT ~~nn ~Q `reb 21 O1 10:06a DOCUMENTS RE4UEST: Additionally, I submit by this letter a California Public Records Act (Act) request for information, pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code § 6250 et seq. I request the following: All documents owned, used or retained by the City of Saratoga, relating to the proposed lot line adjustment between APN 517-22-111 and APN 517- 23-21. The subject properties are located on, or in the vicinity of Peach Hill Road, and Sunset Drive, in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. Definitions applicable to this request include: (a) "City of Saratoga" includes anyone acting on the City of Saratoga's behalf, including, but not limited to, natural persons, firms, associations, organizations, partnerships, businesses, trusts, corporations; Saratoga's agents; Saratoga's employees; or Saratoga's attorneys; and each of them. (b) "Any" means each and every. (c) "Document" includes any writing, as defined in Cal. Gov. Code § 6252. (d) "All" means each and every. I would appreciate a response to this request as soon as practicable, especially because of the time-sensitive nature of the proposed decision. T anticipate no problem in receiving a timely response to my request'particularly in light of the purely factual nature of the information sought, its public record status (see definition Govt. Code ~ 6252(d)), the apparent non-applicability of exemptions from the Act, and the Legislature's finding that public "access to information Concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this State." See Gov. Code § 6250. xowever, if any requested document or portion h h document or each portion p.2 of a document is withheld, please identify eac suc 1 of document so withheld and the basis for any such withholding. T` Please do not hesitate to call me if I can answer any question, or facilitate r~e the response to this request in any way. ,~ \y~~ Very t my ~s, `fir \ n~~{~ ~. Meg Gi erson ~~ (4 ) 54-2726 '1` cc: City Manager n S U~ City Council - ~~ ~" 'L City Surveyor ~''~~~~ ~ ~~ J~ ~, , n , 1 ~~~C-.,.~ ~ 'lam ,~ ~ n C .~~ .~ ~~ ~~ n ~~v"~"~_ ~ ~ tit: ~ ~.~ ~ti~ , ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ^~\ a ~\ „~ b ' ~~ , V y . ^tiv~~~ ~~~ ~ ;~~~ ~c, ~~ KERN CONSULTING, INC. Geotechnical-Geologic-Forensic 681 Parkdale Drive Campbell, CA 95008 Phone (408) 371-5485 FAX (408) 371-5677 April 20, 2001 Project 1-16 Mr. Iqbal Husain 20140 Mendelsohn Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Geologic and Geotechnical Feasibility Proposed Lot Line Adjustment 15480 Peach Hill Road Saratoga, California Deaz Mr. Husain: As requested by Westfall Engineers I have performed a geologic and geotechnical feasibility study on the subject property. At present, the subject property consists of two parcels totaling 7.55 acres. The existing house is situated on the existing property line separating the two parcels. It is proposed to move this property line to the north so that the existing house lies entirely within the new Parcel 1, leaving Parcel 2 with a proposed building site to the north. The subject property lies along anorth-trending ridge. Slopes on the ridge itself, where the proposed house is to be sited, are flat to gentle. The sides of the ridge are steeper. A well developed drainage Swale lies along each of the west and east property lines. Figure 1 shows the location of the property and the geology of the azea. It can be seen that the site is shown to be underlain by Older Alluvial deposits ("Qoal" on the map). At some depth the Santa Clara Formation ("QTsc") underlies the alluvial deposits. In this area, the Qoal generally consists of gravels, sands and silts. Figure 2 shows a portion of the Movement Potential Map. It places the site in an azea designated as "Sun", or unconsolidated granular soils with gentle to flat slopes. There is some potential for shallow slumping or landsliding on steeper slopes of this material. No faults are known to pass through the property. The neazest fault mapped to the property is the Berrocal Fault, which passes the site about 800 feet southwest of the existing house. This fault is 1,200 feet southwest of the proposed new homesite. There are no landslides mapped on the property. Soil creep is occurring on the lower portions of the steeper slopes neaz the drainage swales. D APR 2 3 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPM~N'I' nnnn ~~ April 20, 2001 Project 1-16 page 2 I have the following comments on this property: 1. There are no unusual geologic or geotechnical hazards on this property. 2. There are no known faults on or through the property. 3. Landsliding is not a potential hazard to the existing or proposed homesites. 4. The soils at both homesites are of sufficient strength to provide support for the existing and proposed houses. 5. Normal design values and construction procedures are appropriate for any development proposed for this property. 6. Control of water runoff and erosion will not be difficult. 7. Surface water runoff will not be significantly greater after construction than at present. 8. Prior to any construction, a detailed geotechnical investigation should be performed at the proposed construction site. Briefly, I recommend that the lot line adjustment be approved. Should you have any questions in this matter, please contact me at (408) 371-5485. Very truly yours, oQROFESSlpN9~ v~NEERiNGGF Kern Consulting, Inc. ~~~\`,~AEL A. ,~~.~ Fyy ~~~ o~oc ~ ~ o ~ ~ GE 458 ~ ~~ M1C~ p. KERN * Exp. 1 / 02 * ~ CEG ~ 2 ~ ~P• Michael A. Kern sI~F~TECHN~~ ~ ~P * s oQ~\P GE 458 CEG 996 FOF CAUF~ r'~TF OF CP~-~~ ~~~~~~ J ~" ~~ "Geologic Map of the ~'-~er Saratoga Hillside Area, FIGURE 1 Saratoga, California", X985, by Terratech, Inc., ' Sheet 17 15480 Peach Hill Road Saratoga, California 1" = 200' '. i ++ . Vr _ i,l' i , Y .. . (~ .. \.~_ 1 fir.. ~ •1 ,''`rti i• ' ~ OP ... ..._. _ - .._ ... rr \\ :. * r , ,~, ~ ~ ~~- e.. i ~' ,, ,~ ~`~ ',• `,i~ Q `V1 •:• ~ ' __.. __.. .._... 111 ",', .... `,\ , , , i `, O~ +.~~ y.~~ ` I ~ • ~` • • ti, Y • • ~ iC .• ~ +~ _ ,. `. f/ `~ ' ~...r--•.• \ 1 ~ ~-f V 1 ,~ it ~` 1 ~1~` r~ ... ~„ • .. f • '• •~ . ....., i .c •.. - .. • ~, `• ', `: , ~ ~ ~ , ` ;t H pose ~ .; : ,•, • ~~- ~ •~•. '" ! ( 1 ` f~ d~'usted~-.Lot L!i ~ ~~ ~ ~ 1~ • .•1 ~, i C ~ , ~ ~ ';• ~'~ i1 ~ ~ f~ / ~ it it '~ • ` ~ ~ ~ ; ~ • ~ • ~ \ `, ,, y ' •L..., `, '' ' \\ 1~• MATCH LINE T( .: ,., ~ :~ ., ,~~:...~~'.. ~ ~ ';~ '' ~`z Existing House • t \ I \. • : •~ •~ .... :~ 1• 1 'p' "Ground Movement Potential Maps~f the Lower Saratoga Hills :Area, Saratoga, • California", 1985, by Terratech, Inc. S6.eet 17 - 15480 Peach Hill Road Saratoga, California 1" = 200' FIGURE 2 :_ ~ _ I' ;. ++ , , .~ ., ~ t - .. , ;_ ~;; 1 ~; rl _ 1 1 ' 1.... i ~.• ,, , ~• t f / ' , +i 1 Ir 1~! ~ 1, + ~1 ; I~ i y 1~, ! t1 1 ~L~ i ... , y(..f' . yA • \\ ` \.S •\ ~. ~ '~(Y t~~ Ili } ,`~, 11 ti\ 1 1 .~i~ t, \~ ~ ~ '~ . /' ~ '~~ _ ~` 1 } \tt \ • _ .~I ,~,` ); 1 /~ ~ - 1.1 ~.., ~`\ fir' ~ 1 1~' \ ``1 ` \ ~~. ~ 1 / - 1 ,\\ _ r _ , _. ._, . ; a ~ + a ., ~ \ \ 1 I \ ~ 1 + !+ -'~.\ • 1 ~ • r• 11 ''/ ,, .. ) /rJ Y. ' ~ \\ l / + / , ' . '~ ~.~. ~ 111 l \ 1 + ~ ,' .- ~. ~.• ` ~ ~ •. .. • ~ L `. : I .% t 1,. ~ `` ` .~ ... • .. ~ \\ C~C i" ~ , ! ~~'. ` t t'. ~ I. ~ I r 1 ~ Y 652 : 1: ~, ~~ ~ I : ;' ti+ ,:-, . \ \\' ..~:' ';` '~ r ;'i'~ 'I ' ~ ~ ~U-sted-•l~ot ~L~a ~~ 1;' ; I 1`'i ,r ;.,.r ,` 1 ` i I i 1. I •., i~ ~\ \t ~+ ~ ~ // .t j ~ ~ ' 1. ,I '1 .\ `W 1 ~ ... +}; 11 .~ - ~ ~ .;~t ! ~ \~., '`•~ \ } \, t; ,'++,li f ~ ~ I I \ ,~ ~ !, .t t\\~`\ ~// I i~ ~ \\ ~ •~~\ ~\,, i i j S i i t tt `'VII' It 1 1 r \`.\~• \~ ~' ~ - ~ / /", ~ j \\ \ 1}4 "t~"-~1 i-+ ~ 1 j i 1, ~-`.._a ~ /' ~'~ MA7 ,f 1,,1. ;: s ,\. !'~ ~ ~ ~~ 000039 ,. J ~ ~: ,~ a~~y .~. T~iIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK nnnn~n