Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-11-2001 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi, and Chair Barry ABSENT: None STAFF: Director Sullivan, Planner Livingstone, and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE M[NUTES -Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2001 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The lawgenerally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 5, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET CONSENT CALENDAR I. DR-98-046.1 (386-53-001) - AZULE CROSSING, 12378 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; - Request to change the approved siding material for the commercial portion of the Azule Crossing project. The applicant requests that the siding material be changed to match the existing siding material at the shopping center (i.e., textured rough finished plywood with two by three inch bats.) The property is in a CN (Commercial Neighborhood) zoning district. (SULLIVAN) (APPROVED 7-0) 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 Tuesday, a week before the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA JULY 11, 2001 PAGE 2 2. DR-O1-007 (397-17-034) - CHEN,17752 Versailles Way; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a new single-story 5,917 square foot home and demolish and existing 3,822 square foot home. The proposed height is 26 feet. The lot is 40,000 square feet in area and is located within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (KNAPP) (CONTINUED TO 8/8/01) 3. DR-98-052.1(397-13-057) - NAGPAL,19101 Via Tesoro Court -Request for athree-year extension for an approved Design Review application (DR-98-052). The previously approved application was for the construction of a new 5,301 square foot two-story residence on a vacant parcel (Lot 2). The project is located on a 2.46-acre parcel within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (SULLIVAN) (APPROVED 7-0) 4. DR-00-011, SD-00-001, V-00-018 and V-O1-004 (517-OS-008 Est 016) -TRAFALGAR INC., 14612 Big Basin Way &t 20717 St. Charles Street; -Reconsideration of request for Design Review, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Variance approval to allow the subdivision of a 22,582 net square foot site to allow two new two-story detached condominiums, two new two-story townhouses and a retail commercial space with a second floor commercial office. The maximum building height is 26 feet. Basements are proposed for the residential units. A 32.5 foot rear yard setback Variance has been requested for a townhouse on the CH-2 portion of the site. An eight space parking Variance has previously been approved. The Big Basin Way portion of the site is zoned CH-2 and the St. Charles Street portion is zoned R-M-3000. The existing residences with garages totaling 4,595 square feet and 1,000 square feet of retail space would be demolished. (LIVINGSTONE) (APPROVED 7-0) DIRECTOR ITEMS Story pole and neighborhood meeting policy memo COMMISSION ITEMS Committee appointment for Planning issues COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT AT 10:10 P.M. TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, July 25, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, July 10, 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, JULY 11, 2001 • ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. DR-98-046.1 - AZULE CROSSING Item 1 12378 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 2. DR-00-011, V-00-018 - TRAFALGAR Item 4 SD-00-001 &r V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way &t 20717 St. Charles 3. DR-O1-007 - CHEN Item 2 17752 Versailles Way 4. DR-98-052.1 - NAGPAL Item 3 19101 Via Tesoro Court 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 SARt~TOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, July ll, 2001 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES -Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2001 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The ImNgenerallyprohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 5, 2001. • TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR-98-046.1 (386-53-001) - AZULE CROSSING, 12378 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; - Request to change the approved siding material for the commercial portion of the Azule Crossing project. The applicant requests that the siding material be changed to match the existing siding material at the shopping center (i.e., textured rough finished plywood with two by three inch bats.) The property is in a GN (Commercial Neighborhood) zoning district. (SULLIVAN) PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appeaz and be heazd at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public heazing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public heazing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Sazatoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public heazing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. 2. DR-O1-007 (397-17-034) - CHEN,17752 Versailles Way; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a new single-story 5,917 square foot home and demolish and existing 3,822 square foot home. The proposed height is 26 feet. The lot is 40,000 square feet in area and is located within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (KNAPP) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA JULY 11, 2001 PAGE 2 • 3. DR-98-052.1(397-13-057) - NAGPAL,19101 Via Tesoro Court -Request for athree-year extension for an approved Design Review application (DR-98-052). The previously approved application was for the construction of a new 5,301 square foot two-story residence on a vacant parcel (Lot 2). The project is located on a 2.46-acre parcel within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (SULLIVAN) 4. DR-00-011, SD-00-001, V-00-018 and V-O1-004 (517-08-008 &~ 016) -TRAFALGAR INC., 14612 Big Basin Way ~St 20717 St. Charles Street; -Reconsideration of request for Design Review, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Variance approval to allow the subdivision of a 22,582 net square foot site to allow two new two-story detached condominiums, two new two-story townhouses and a retail commercial space with a second floor commercial office. The maximum building height is 26 feet. Basements are proposed for the residential units. A 32.5 foot rear yard setback Variance has been requested for a townhouse on the CH-2 pomon of the site. An eight space parking Variance has previously been approved. The Big Basin Way portion of the site is zoned CH-2 and the St. Charles Street portion is zoned R-M-3000. The existing residences with garages totaling 4,595 square feet and 1,000 square feet of retail space would be demolished. (LIVINGSTONE) DIRECTOR ITEMS • - Story pole and neighborhood meeting policy memo COMMISSION ITEMS Committee appointment for Planning issues COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, July 25, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • MINUTES ~ o SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi Absent: Commissioner Roupe Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Senior Planner Bob Schubert and Planner Allison Knapp APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of June 13, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Regular Planning Commission minutes of June 13, 2001, were approved with the following amendments: • Page 8 -Chair Barry said that she would prefer to have specific Conditions of Approval...Added that had the Planning Commission received a consensus about the wishes of the neighborhood that would have been considered very seriously. • The correction throughout the minutes for Agenda Item No. 5 of the spelling of Fire Chief Kraule's name, which had been spelled Kraw in error. (6-0-1; Commissioner Roupe was absent.) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 21, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET There were no technical corrections to the packet. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no consent calendar items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 - DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, TUP-Ol-003, LL-O1-003 (397-22-019) - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT, 14380 Saratoga Road: Request for Design Review and Use Permit approval to demolish an existing Fire Station and construct a new 12,689 square foot Fire Station. A Lot Line Adjustment is necessary for the footprint of the building to be within the property lines. The Temporary Use Permit is necessary to allow the temporary Fire Station to be located behind the subject property at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road during construction. The maximum height of the new Fire Station will be •34 feet, 6 inches tall. The project is located within a Professional Administrative (P-A) zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 6/13/01) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report: • Reminded that at the last meeting several items were identified by the Planning Commission, which staff has presented in a memo format. • Stated that per the request of the Commission, this Public Hearing was re-noticed. • Advised that one issue identified by the Commission was the provision of parking. There are no on site parking spaces. The applicants are proposing to provide 22 spaces on their adjacent property to meet the parking requirement for this project. Additionally there are City-owned parking spaces on the alley that have traditionally been used by this site, which will continue to be available for public use. • Said'that the requirement for parking is one space per employee. Atwo-engine company has eight firefighters per shift. Additionally, there are five administrative/management personnel. There is the potential for 21 people on site during shift changes. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether volunteers are counted as employees. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the volunteers are not defined as employees per the Municipal Code. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the change in parking identified in the current staff report from the last staff report. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the alley parking spaces are no longer counted. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the number reflected in the Negative Declaration is in error. Director Tom Sullivan: • Informed the Commission that he has discussed this Lot Line Adjustment with the City Manager..' • Added that the applicant installed the story poles requested by the Commissioners to demonstrate the building height. • Clarified with the Commission that variation from the Zoning Code standards requires issuance of a Use Permit. • Cautioned that it is not within the Commission's purview to discuss the use of the Contempo building for permanent Fire Department office use until an application is submitted for a Use Permit for that building. • Added that discussion of the total cost to construct the Fire Station is also not within the purview of the Commission. The Commission's role is to discuss both land use and/or design review Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 3 issues. Whether there are three or four bays is not within the purview of the Commission. The application is for a building with three bays. That is what the Commission must consider. • Pointed out that a memo has been issued by the Public Works Department advising that the issue of the intersection for this project have been resolved. • Told the Commission that it can direct staff on specific resolutions, adopt the resolutions drafted by staff either with or without modification. Commissioner Kurasch stated that form follows function. Questioned the suggestion that the Commission cannot consider uses. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the current fire station is atwo-engine station. The new station will be atwo-engine station. Both buildings will have the same staffing levels. Per the Traffic Study, there are no traffic impacts from this project. Commissioner Kurasch asked who would be responsible for oversight of the bond money raised to pay for this new Saratoga Fire Station. Director Tom Sullivan advised that there is an oversight citizens' committee. Commissioner Kurasch asked who is on this oversight committee. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the members are appointed. Commissioner Jackman said that the proposal to use the Contempo building for classes in the future would impact parking. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the classes could be held at times other than when shift changes occur. It is during shift changes that parking is scarcer. Chair Barry inquired whether the Contempo building will be used, during the Temporary Use Permit period, for the same uses that it will be used for in the future. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. Said that during the Temporary Use Permit period, this Contempo building will be the temporary Fire Station. After the new Fire Station building is completed, the Fire Department will have to come back to the City for a Use Permit for the permanent use of the Contempo Building. Commissioner Zutshi asked Director Sullivan to clarify the Lot Line Adjustment. Director Tom Sullivan advised that there are several possible options, including a straight trade, square foot for square foot. This lot line needs to be moved so that that Fire Station will no longer encroach onto the City-owned Plaza property. - Mr. Chris Ford, C3 Design Group, Applicant's Representative: • Introduced his associate, Mary McGrath, from RRM Design Group, who is present with him this evening. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 4 • Stated that his presentation would cover four areas: A comparison between a Satellite and Core Fire Station; added service and facility design; photos of the story poles; and responding to any questions of the Commission. • Clarified the differences between Satellite and Core Fire Stations, including types of responses both make, staffing and the facilities required for each type. • Said that a Satellite Fire Station typically includes one engine with three firefighters on duty. The Satellite Fire Station usually ranges from 5,000 to 7,000 square feet. • Saratoga's Fire Station is a Core Fire Station, which includes firefighters, medical response with walk in medical aid, public information, training, the Fire Marshall and Emergency Operations Center. There are two engines with eight firefighters on duty. There is an ambulance company with two paramedics. There are also two officers, three administrative staff, all to be located within their proposed 12,681 square feet. • Discussed service and facilities improvements. These include separate restroom facilities for female firefighters; going from a shared bunkroom to individual bedrooms; double deep apparatus bays; a turnout storage room (where coats, boots and such are stored); self-contained breathing apparatus refill and repair area; medical support and walk-in aid; individual firefighter workstations; and overall expansion of firefighters' common living space. • Provided photographs of the story poles and netting. Cautioned that some places are higher than the existing building while others are lower. It is difficult to depict the lowered areas with story poles on the existing building. Chair Barry extended the apologies of the Commission for not meeting the applicants on site. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that some citizens' letters suggest wood siding over stucco. Asked why stucco is proposed. Mr. Chris Ford replied that the architectural style is Mission Revival. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Ford if the proposed use of a stucco building was evident in the drawings displayed prior to the bond issue vote. Mr. Chris Ford replied that the original sketch did depict the same Mission Revival architectural style. Commissioner Garakani asked for specifics about the height of the main tower. Mr. Chris Ford replied that the main tower is 28 feet above the sidewalk and 32 feet above Plaza level. The width is 18 to 20 feet. The tower is square. Commissioner Zutshi asked for the height differences between the tower and the deck. Mr. Chris Ford replied that the difference is about 10 feet. Commissioner Zutshi asked for the length of the deck. Mr. Chris Ford replied that it is 14 by 14 feet. Commissioner Zutshi asked whether the tower would stand out. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Chris Ford replied yes. Added that it is 40 percent bigger and the most prominent architectural feature. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether the main roof of the second story peaks at 31 feet, 8 inches. Mr. Chris Ford replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the applicants had considered using a retaining wall to even out the grade change. . Mr. Chris Ford replied that they had considered doing so early in the process. Said that it was determined that by the time the four foot difference is made up, the grade would mimic the alley. Commissioner Kurasch asked how a Core Station is selected. Asked if every Core Station has one company. Mr. Chris Ford said that he would defer that question to the Chief. Said that the definitions are different in each jurisdiction. Commissioner Kurasch asked where the EMR vehicles would be parked. Mr. Chris Ford replied that they would fit within the bays. Chair Barry asked Mr. Ford whether he has ever recommended that a Fire Station not include the administration functions. Mr. Chris Ford replied that it would not make sense operationally to separate the two. Chair Barry sought clarification that the intent of the computer work stations was for administrative and training work. Mr. Chris Ford replied yes, the computer workstations would be used for prevention, testing, correction notices, etc. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing No. 1 at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Phil Boyce, 21000 Boyce Lane, Saratoga: • Said that he was along-time resident. • Reminded that the original fire station building was cut off previously when the roadway was expanded. • Said that this is a nice plan and urged support. Mr. Ed Farrell, 20877 Kittridge Road, Saratoga: • Emphasized the need for safety. • Said that he is a member of a Firefighters & Citizens' Task Force. • Wanted to clear up what he felt were misconceptions. • Stated that a Core Station is a Headquarters. This station does not need to be a Headquarters. • Cautioned that the 21 parking spaces will be exhausted pretty regularly. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 6 • Described the number of vehicles, stating that one of the three existing engines is 25 years old and will need to be retired soon, leaving two front line fire engines. In approximately one year, a truck will be added. This station will then have two engines and one truck. Said that the two ambulances would fill one bay. The truck would fill the second bay. The two engines will fill the third bay. Additionally, there is a brush patrol vehicle. Said that this new station should have four bays and remove the administration and communication functions from the building. Mr. David Ritter, 15600 Belnap Way,-Sazatoga: - • Expressed support for the new fire station as shown. • Reminded that the voters supported a new fire station by 89 percent. • Said that this is a great time to start construction and that he would like to see this project move on immediately. • Stated that the purchase of the Contempo building was good planning on the part of the Fire Department. Mr. Aaron Katz, P.O. Box 116, Saratoga (lives on Melhnan Road): • Explained his highlighted floor plan with areas he feels are not necessary in this fire station building. • Suggested asingle-story fire station be constructed. • Said that he is in favor of a seismically safe fire station. • Pointed out that typically when anon-conforming lot is rebuilt, that lot is supposed to be built in conformance with current standards. • Suggested that the reduction in standazds should not be approved. • Said that some of the administrative uses should be diverted to the Contempo building. • Clarified that the Oversight Bond Committee does not really "sit on the pursestrings." • Warned that over two million dollazs of the bond money has been spent already. • Asked the Commission to deny this application and have the applicants redesign it in a way that conforms to the neighborhood of one-story buildings. Commissioner Hunter advised that she was formerly on the Heritage Preservation Commission. The Fire Station project came before the HPC twice. While their site is not a part of the Heritage Lane, the Fire Department felt emotionally a part of it and sought out HPC input. Mr. Aaron Katz stated that this design is not compatible with the Heritage Lane. Added that he owns property on the Heritage Lane. Said that he is just asking that this project be done right. Chair Barry sought clarification from staff regazding whether a legal non-conforming structure has to become conforming in this case. ; Director Sullivan advised that when a total tear down occurs, that is usually the opportune time to consider adherence to current requirements. However, Fire needs relaxed standards to get the building they need on this site. Commissioner Kurasch told Mr. Katz that the Contempo building is not part of the design being considered this evening. Asked him what he feels is not compatible. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 7 Mr. Aaron Katz said that the property design is like the- Argonaut Shopping Center, which is not compatible with the Heritage Lane. Said that the applicants can do a much better job. Added that not much effort seems to have been placed into this design and that something nicer looking could be designed. Mr. David Dolloff, 20685 Sigal Drive, Saratoga: • Disagreed with Director Sullivan regarding the purview of the Commission, saying that the Contempo building needs to be taken into consideration as part of this application. • Said that there is a need to look further~down the road and that there is a need to be cross-correlated at this time in design and function. - . • Said that consideration between three bays and four is an important one as is the consideration of where the administration would be located. • Mentioned that he visited the Fire Station yesterday and could not park either at the Contempo building or near the Fire Station. • Said that the story poles were installed at the very last minute and that this hearing should be postponed until the citizens have an opportunity to see these story poles. Mr. John Keenan, 22215 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga: • Said that a Core Station is a Headquarters. • Pointed out that Central Fire has a separate administration and training center so it is not without precedent to separate the functions. Chair Barry asked how many stations Central Fire operates. Mr. John Keenan: • Replied that Central Fire has 16 stations. • Added that Central dges not have administration and training within its Core Stations. These functions are not necessarily part and parcel of the building. Rather these functions take up space that is compromising the design of the new building. • Pointed out that the parking requirements clearly state that parking is based upon the number of employees. This Fire Station has 24 professional firefighters, four ambulance crewmembers, five administrative staff, three Fire Commissioners and approximately 25 volunteers. That represents more employees than the 22 available spaces can accommodate. • Cautioned that the provision of adequate parking cannot be neglected. Mr. David Moyles, P.O. Box 3525, Saratoga (lives on Hill Avenue): • Said that he can see the Fire Station from his home and seeing it change is good. • Said that the proposed design is compatible and that a design to please everyone will never be found. • Stated that he voted in support of the bond issue to fund this new station and that he feels a sense of urgency to get the new station built. • Declared that Fire has "delivered the goods" and urged that this project be moved forward. Mr. Arvin Engelson, 20381 Sea Gull Way, Saratoga: • • Identified himself as a Boardmember of the Federated Church. • Said that the Church has had a favorable relationship with the Fire Station and its staff. • Added that they welcome the proposed improvements. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 8 Said that they often share their parking with other nearby uses but must be protective of their parking to keep their vehicles off the street in order to minimize the impact of their Church on the surrounding properties. This new Fire Station plan is a positive one that will help free up some of the overflow parking onto their lot. Expressed support for this project. Mr. Charles Hackett, 15400 Suview Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he visited the Fire Station to look at the story poles and found them to be incomplete. • Added that one cannot assess what will be built. • Said that the new Fire Station must be tied into the Contempo building. • Declared that the Fire Department has not acted in good faith. • Suggested that the mass and scale of the proposed new Fire Station could be scaled down. • Said that shrinking the building down would make it nicer. Mr. Beau Rahn, 2716 Corralas, San Jose: Identified himself as a Saratoga Firefighter and a representative of the Local 3875. Provided a letter from the Loca13875. Chair Barry asked Mr. Rahn to present the main points of this letter so that those in the audience could benefit from the information. Mr. Beau Rahn said that the letter outlines the concerns of the firefighters over the proposed design and the inclusion of the administrative functions within the new Fire Station. The members feel that the administrative functions should be housed in the Contempo building so that a smaller station can be built that includes design features that the members feel are important. Commissioner Garakani opined that it appears there is an issue against administration. Mr. Beau Rahn said reiterated the belief that the size of the new building could be reduced while the fourth bay door is still added. The administrative functions could be adequately handled in the Contempo building. Commissioner Kurasch asked what safety issues the Loca13875 members have. Mr. Beau Rahn replied that the stacking of fire engines might require that vehicles parked in front might need to be moved in order to access the required vehicles behind them. Commissioner Kurasch asked if such stacking occurs in other stations. Mr. Beau Rahn said that he has not worked in other stations. Commissioner Jackman asked how many of the Saratoga Station firefighters belong to Loca13875. Mr. Beau Rahn replied that 21 of the 24 eligible firefighters belong to Loca13875. Chair Barry questioned whether the firefighter versus administrative functions can be accomplished in separate buildings. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 9 Mr. Beau Rahn said that the functions could be sepazated. It would not be difficult to go from one building to the other for things such as training. Commissioner Zutshi questioned whether there was a potential for problems responding to calls for service should firefighters be in training in the Contempo building. Mr. Beau Rahn replied no. Said that when they go anywhere away from the Fire Station, they aze ready to respond to calls. This would be no different. Commissioner Zutshi once` again asked if Mr. Rahn believes that administration and the firefighters need to be. located within the same building. Mr. Beau Rahn replied no. Commissioner Hunter pointed out to Mr. Rahn that no station, on the list provided to the Commission, had four bays. Asked where the fourth bay should be located. Mr. Beau Rahn said that he could not design the building but suggested the reduction in the administrative space in order to increase the bays to four. Commissioner Jackman pointed out that there is just one Fire Station in Saratoga, this makes it unique to other local cities. Mr. Beau Rahn said that this is an opportunity to consider that fact. Chair Barry thanked Mr. Rahn, saying that the Commission appreciates having a firefighter's comments. Commissioner Kurasch read a letter from Muriel Marr in which she recommends that it is appropriate to replace and update the Fire Station but not to make it into a huge complex. Mr. Chris Ford, C3 Design Group, Applicant's Representative:. • Said that he does not have any specific additions to the comments made this evening. • Reiterated that there is just one station within the Sazatoga Fire Protection and this new Fire Station must serve all the uses. Chair Barry said that it appears there will be a juggling act with all the proposed equipment. Asked where everything will fit. Mr. Chris Ford clarified that this is atwo-engine company with some additional reserve equipment. If a truck company joins, the truck moves to the front and the engine moves to the back. Atwo-engine company has eight firefighters. Aone-engine/one truck company has eight fire fighters. Mr. Harold Toppel, Attorney for the Saratoga Fire District: • Stated that the applicant for this new Fire Station is the Sazatoga Fire District and not Central Fire District. Added that there is an existing building and no change in use is proposed for the new building. • Said that an environmental study has identified no traffic impacts and no change in intensity. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 10 • Reminded that the Contempo building provides parking and they are willing to process an agreement/covenant to ensure the future availability of parking at the Contempo site for the Fire Station's needs. • Said that this is long-standing existing use. • Asked the Commission to make its decision tonight to approve. Chair Barry asked Mr. Toppel if his clients are satisfied with the mitigation measures regarding the intersection. Mr. Toppel replied that they are happy with the agreement, finding it fair. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:45 p.m. Commissioner Jackman: • Said that parking is her biggest concern. • Reminded that the building design is the issue for the Commission and not its uses. • Added that the design is appropriate for the area. • Admitted that she would like to see four bays but does not see how the fourth bay can be accommodated. Commissioner Hunter: • Expressed her agreement with Mr. Ritter and Mr. Moyles and the 89 percent of the voters who support the new Fire Station. • Said that she could understand the concerns some have expressed. • Disagreed with the comments that this proposed building looks like the Argonaut Shopping Center, saying that if it did, she would not support it. • Added that she will be supporting this proposal. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that the limited focus of the Commission is the physical design and its impact. • Said that she has spent time trying to understand the evolution of this project, how uses are reflected with this proposed building and what is necessary. • Stated that there appears to be an absence of a coordinated approach to reaching this design proposal and that she was disappointed with the process. Said that this new Fire Station could have served as a gateway to the City. • Stated that the simple and key focus is the exceptions to the zoning and requirements, whether the project is compatible with the site and community. Added that she has problems with both. • Said that the mass and scale is huge. • Added that it appears there are traffic, safety and parking concerns. Commissioner Garakani: • Said that Saratoga needs a modern and beautiful Fire Station. • Added that good planning today prevents problems tomorrow. • Expressed his preference for a building that is setback from Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. • Opined that the tower should be a more visible element. • Reminded that this building will serve the community for more than 50 years. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 11 Commissioner Zutshi: • Said that she understands the need for private space for the firefighters. • Added that parking is important and is of concern with this project. • Agreed with Commissioner Garakani that the tower should be more visible and prominent. Commissioner Kurasch: • Advised that the tower feature provides lighting to the lobby. • Agreed that parking is a main issue and pointed out that it doesn't appear than handicapped parking has been provided. __ • Pointed out that public safety is an important consideration and that 21 firefighters from this Fire Station do not feel that this is the best design. Chair Barry: • Reminded that the surrounding property owners were re-noticed about this evening's public hearing. . • Stated that the design is compatible with the Village and surrounding area and that she prefers it to amore modern design. Added that she prefers an authentic rather than eclectic style. • Agreed that she too would like to see the appropriate setbacks but there not enough room with this site. • Said that parking is a real issue and suggested additional parking be added as a Condition of Approval. • Said that she would be willing to consider a redesign of the tower. • Pointed out that the footprint of this new building is only 810 square feet greater than the existing building. However, the new second story adds to the bulk. This second story is necessary. • Said that the Fire District is all in one here and that it doesn't make sense to separate out administration. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that there may be other options such as increasing the front setback particularly if the two rooms at the back of the building are moved or scaled back. • Reiterated that she feels strongly that the greater front setbacks are important. • Said that she would be in favor of eliminating the front tower altogether. Commissioner Jackman: • Disagreed and stated that they are not here to design the function of the building. • Said that the setbacks cannot be provided and still have the building meet the Fire Department's needs. • Said that the building could become unbalanced if redesigned by Committee. • Suggested leaving the building design as it is. Commissioner Kurasch replied that she is not suggesting redesigning but rather asking the applicants to redesign based on a need for larger setbacks. Commissioner Hunter reminded the Commission of two points. One is that the Fire Department does not actually have to come to the Planning Commission for approval. The second is that the residents have begun to pay taxes on the bond issue for a new Fire Station. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 12 Commissioner Jackman agreed, saying that she hates to delay the Fire Station. Chair Barry said that it does not appear that there is a consensus for redesign. Commissioner Garakani said that this is the time to plan. This project is only on paper now. Chair Barry pointed out that per the City's Circulation Plan, Saratoga does not want to make its streets _ bigger. Highway 9 and Saratoga Avenue are the way they are always going to be. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that while the streets may stay the same size, the traffic using those streets will increase. Commission Jackman reminded that the visibility will be increased on Highway 9 with the moving back of the new building. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Commission recommended approval of DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, TUP-O1-003 and LL-O1-003 with the revised Condition per the Public Works Department memorandum and with the requirement to re-evaluate the provision of parking when the Temporary Use Permit expires. AYES:Barry, Hunter and Jackman NOES: Garakani, Kurasch and Zutshi ABSENT: Roupe ABSTAIN: None The motion died for lack of a majority. Commissioner Zutshi suggested that the tower and deck should be the same size. Chair Barry advised that it appears that the Commission would like for the applicant to reduce the dimensions of the tower. Chair Barry reopened Public Hearing No. 1 at 9:24 p.m. Chair Barry asked Mr. Chris Ford if the applicants would consider a reduction in the tower if doing so can meet good design sense. Mr. Chris Ford asked if this condition would require a return before the Planning Commission. Chair Barry said that this change could be submitted to the satisfaction of staff. It would be returned to the Commission only if staff feels it is necessary to do so. Mr. Chris Ford replied that they would be willing to consider such a change. Commissioner Garakani suggested that Mr. Ford look at the Federated Church for an idea of what the Commission is looking to see. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 13 Chair Barry said that the Commission is not asking for a redesign of the building but rather that the tower is made to look more like a tower. Mr. Chris Ford said that they would study the size and proportion of the Church's tower. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Commission approved a Negative Declaration, DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, TUP-Ol-003 and LL-O1-003 to allow a new Fire Station to be constructed on property located at 14380 Saratoga Road, with the following requirements: 1. Adopt the revised Condition per the Public Works Department memorandum; 2. Add a Condition of Approval requiring the re-evaluation of the provision of parking when the Temporary Use Permit expires; and 3. Requiring the project architect to consider the tower of the Federated Church to see if a similar design can be incorporated into this new Fire Station building's front tower. AYES:Barry, Hunter, Jackman and Zutshi NOES: Garakani and Kurasch ABSENT: Roupe _ ABSTAIN: None *** Chair Barry called for a break at 9:30 p.m. Chair Barry reconvened the meeting at 9:40 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 DR-00-064 (397-28-002) ~- SHAHMIRZA, 20431 Walnut Avenue: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 2,660 square foot, two-story residence and demolish the existing 1,372 square foot, single-story residence. The maximum height of the residence will be 23 feet. The site is 7,633 square feet and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that staff is recommending approval of this application as it meets all required setbacks, coverage and design guidelines. • Informed that the applicant was cooperative in reaching a Craftsman style architectural design that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. • Added that a materials board is available for the Commissioners' review. Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Knapp what the ratio is between one and two-story homes in this area. Ms. Allison Knapp replied that of the 12 homes on this street, nine are single-story homes and three are two-story homes. Mr. Shahmirza, Applicant, 20431 Walnut Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that he is the owner. • Added that the design is beautiful and compatible with the surrounding area. Sazatoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 14 Chair Barry asked whether the two structures currently located at the rear of Mr. Shahmirza's property would be demolished as part of this project. Mr. Shahmirza replied yes. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:43 p.m. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:44 p.m. Commissioner Gazakani stated that this is a nice neighborhood. Commissioner Jackman expressed appreciation for the work staff did in coordinating with the neighbors on the proposed design, working out issues ahead of time. Commissioner Zutshi agreed. Chair Barry stated that the job is easy when the neighborhood is consulted ahead of time. It makes the process a pleasure, which the Commission appreciates. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Planning Commission approved DR-00-064 to allow the construction of a new 2,660 square foot residence on property located at 20431 Walnut Avenue. (6-0-1; Commissioner Roupe was absent) Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 day appeal period before this action is final. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 DR-00-055 (397-04-060-Lotl) -JEAN, 14906 Sobey Road: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,954 square foot single-story home on a vacant lot. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site is 41,774 in azea and is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that subdivision was approved approximately 18 months ago where a single pazcel was split into two lots. • Added that grading was required as part of the geotechnical mitigation. That grading is currently underway. • Said that the azchitectural style proposed is Elizabethan Tudor. • Said that the street is one on which large lots with lazge homes aze located. • Informed that there aze no trees on the parcel. • Recommended approval of this request. • Added that a landscape plan will be required as part of the building permits application. Commissioner Jackman asked if the house would be retained. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 15 Ms. Allison Knapp clarified that this particular parcel is vacant. The house, to which Commissioner Jackman refers, is actually on the adjacent parcel. Commissioner Kurasch said that it appears that there are two wood-burning fireplaces on the plans. Ms. Allison Knapp said that per the Conditions of Approval only one wood-burning fireplace is permitted. Commissioner Zutshi asked about the landscape plan. Ms. Allison Knapp replied that there is a Condition that the applicant submits a landscaping plan for the approval of the Community Development Director at the time of building plan submittal. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the roof height. Ms. Allison Knapp advised that the maximum roof height is 26 feet. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 9:50 p.m. Mr. Robert McBain, Project Designer: • Apologized for his plans not being ready due to computer problems. • Said that the architectural style is a soft Victorian Tudor with lots of detail that blend due to the soft color scheme. These details simply create a texture. • Added that the grading includes some dirt that will go to the existing house as back fill. They will fill this acre lot with 1.5 feet to bring the house above the water plain but still within the height limits of 26 feet. • Said that they are happy to submit the complete landscape plan and assured that there will be a substantial planting of trees on this site. Commissioner Garakani asked whether the photographs distributed depict the actual proposed colors of this home. Mr. Robert McBain explained that the photographs, taken while on holiday in England, are meant to demonstrate how the pale colors help the elements to blend. These elements seem to stand out when depicted on the black and white plans and appear harsh. Commissioner Kurasch asked what is planned for the two fireplaces. Mr. Robert McBain advised that one is a wood burning and the other is a gas fireplace. Both have chimneys with a similar appearance. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that there is rather busy articulation with a very long and tall roofline. Mr. Robert McBain stated that the two front wings come out 37 feet from the roofline ridge. This is not obvious in the drawing. Chair Barry asked for clarification about a front element. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 16 Mr. Robert McBain stated that the element is a beam that supports the ridge. Reiterated that there are very soft details and soft colors to this home. Chair Barry said that the design appears awfully busy. Mr. Robert McBain reiterated that the Commission would see texture and not colors. The design looks complicated due to the details being drawn in black and white on the plans. Chair Barry pointed out the rather large pile of dirt on site. Pointed out that the house on the adjacent lot has a steep bank and wondered if that occurred after the lot was split. Mr. Robert McBain said that this bank was not created after the lot split. However, in the past it was more hidden due to foliage from the landscaping which obscured the steep bank from view from the road. Nothing was change in this grade. However, more dirt will soften that slope. Added that dirt on this site had to be moved in order to put in a retaining wall for basement footings. It will be replaced. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that it appears that there is a solid six-foot fence within the front yard setback. Warned that there is a limitation of three feet in height for front yard fencing. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 10:05 p.m. Commissioner Zutshi said that the herringbone design is nice and that she has seen it done before. Commissioner Hunter asked if the bricks are yellow. Director Tom Sullivan answered that the bricks are a light tan. Commissioner Hunter agreed that this design seems to have a lot of activity. Chair Barry asked staff if they believe it looks busy. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the applicant had submitted a more detailed design that staff had them modify by removing hips and adding steeper rooflines per the Tudor style. Chair Barry said that the Commission can accept staff's recommendation here. Commissioner Zutshi agreed and said that the details will blend in with no problem. Commissioner Kurasch said that she had a problem with the front entry, finding that it is way over the top and should be toned down. Said that so much is going on and that a little less treatment might be more pleasing. Added it is a bit much. Chair Barry agreed and said that it is unnecessarily imposing. Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing at 10:10 p.m. • Commissioner Zutshi asked about the entry door windows. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 17 Mr. Robert McBain replied that they are metal leaded glass and white. Commissioner Zutshi said that this would blend and look nice. Added that she has seen this done. Mr. Robert McBain added that the materials blend and are not in contrast. Commissioner Jackman said that she is not familiar with the Tudor style and cannot make any comments. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission approved DR-00-055 to allow the construction of a new 5,954 square foot residence on property located at 14906 Sobey Road. (6-0-1; Commissioner Roupe was absent) Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 day appeal period before this action is final. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 UP-00-017 (503-24-034) - RATRA, 14395 Bid Basin Way: Request for Use Permit approval to allow the construction of a 517 square foot car wash addition to an existing 1,615 square foot Union 76 gasoline service station and mini-market at the southwest corner of Saratoga-Sunnyvale/Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Big Basin Way/Saratoga Avenue. The 26,689 square foot property is within the CH-1 (Historic Commercial) zoning district. Mr. Bob Schubert, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval to install a car wash at the rear of an existing building. • Added that to accommodate this new car wash, the trash enclosure will be relocated to the north end of the site. • Advised that the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the proposal for a car wash at the north side of the building in January and recommended denial. The HPC reviewed the revised proposal for a car wash at the rear of the site and once again recommended denial. • Said that staff is recommending denial of this request because it does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance and is inconsistent with the Village Plan. • Added that if the Commission elects to approve this request, it will be necessary to continue the item to allow a Design Review application to be submitted to allow this new structure. • Advised that the applicant has submitted a petition of support and staff received a letter in opposition since the distribution of the staff report. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:20 p.m. Mr. Rick Ratra, Applicant and Business Owner, 14395 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Said that he is seeking approval to add a car wash at the back of his Union 76 service station. • Added that a Traffic Study was done. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 18 Chair Barry asked Mr. Ratra who owns the easement between his business and the bank. Mr. Rick Ratra replied that he does but the bank has an easement to use it for access. Mr. Patrick Stratton, Car Wash Technologies: • Told the Commission that his company has redesigned this proposal to place the car wash behind the building. • Said that the building is 32 feet by 16 feet. • Added that the Traffic Study concluded that there will be no impact from this addition. • Informed that existing customers to the site are the ones that will utilize the car wash. • Said that there are no car washes in Saratoga which means that its residents have to go outside of the City to have their cars washed instead of spending their money within their own community. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Stratton how many cars would utilize this car wash. Mr. Patrick Stratton replied that during peak hours (9 a.m. through 6 p.m.) approximately eight to ten cars would run through the car wash each hour. Commissioner Kurasch asked where these cars would park. Mr. Patrick Stratton advised that the cars do not park. The car wash is an automatic drive through process. Added that the water from this car wash is reclaimed. Chair Barry said that a Code Amendment would be required to allow the blower feature of this car wash. Mr. Patrick Stratton said that this blower is well within allowable noise levels. Commissioner Hunter advised that she was a member of the Heritage Preservation Commission that visited this site on two occasions at about 8:30 a.m. Said that a lot of bank and local business traffic uses the easement area. Commissioner Kurasch asked for the purpose of the six-inch rolled curb. Mr. Patrick Stratton replied that it delineates the drive to the car wash. Added that this curb is separate from the easement drive and does not infringe upon the easement. Commissioner Garakani asked if some sort of suction equipment might be used in lieu of the proposed blower to reclaim the water. ' Mr. Patrick Stratton replied that such equipment has not yet been developed but would be noisier than this blower will be. Commissioner Jackman asked about the increase in business as a result of this car wash. Mr. Patrick Stratton said that it is anticipated that there would beaten- percent increase in business. Added that the proposed car wash will have room to stack five to six cars and was designed in such a way that this line of cars for the car wash will not impede the access for the gasoline customers. Sazatoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 19 Ms. Kathleen King, 2880 Canyonview Drive, Saratoga: • Identified herself as a native Californian who has resided in Sazatoga for the past 12 years, raising her five children. • Said that she is proud of Sazatoga, its Village and its schools. • Stated her support of this proposed caz wash. • Said that she wants to spend her money in Sazatoga rather than traveling outside of Sazatoga to the caz wash on Prospect. • Pointed out that the car wash will recycle its water and be situated behind the building, out of sight from the roadway. • • Said that she goes to this station daily and finds access to be easy. Ms. Cazol Mauldin, 15345 Bohlman, Saratoga: • Said that she owns a historic business building, working as a realtor as well as raising her seven children in Saratoga. • Stated that Mr. Ratra keeps a neat business location enhanced with flowers. • Said that the car wash would be convenient for the town and bring in revenue. • Added that Saratoga is not as friendly to business as Los Gatos. Mr. Hugh Jacobs, 20510 Brookwood Lane, Sazatoga: • Said that his home is located below the gas station, where he has lived for 27 years. • Added that his neighbors, the Higgins, and he both sent letters in opposition. • Said that he is against the addition of a car wash due to noise concerns. • Said that he is already adversely impacted by noisy leaf blowers and receives trash that falls from cars onto his property. • Stated that there is already so much commotion from this gas station that more is unnecessary. • Finished by saying that the neighbors don't think adding a car wash with noisy blowers is a good idea at this location. Mr. Don Whetstone, 14768 Vickery Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that he owns an office building across the street from this property that has nice views. • Disagreed with the statement on the Negative Declaration that this caz wash will have no negative impacts on pedestrians. • Agreed that the station has been at this location for a long time and is well maintained. Also said that he understands the owner's desire to use the property to the maximum extent possible. However, this caz wash is not the best thing for others in the neighborhood. Mr. Patrick Stratton: • Said that this caz wash is better for the environment in that it recycles its water. ' • Said that the blower would be better called a dryer and that it operates well within accepted noise levels. Added that it is state of the art technology. • Advised that their proposal is the latest and greatest in technology while supporting the existing architecture of the area. • Reminded that a letter of support was submitted by the adjacent bank. • Suggested that the hours of operation for the car wash could be limited to reduce the potential for S any noise impacts. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 20 • Clarified that there is no impact on the number of vehicles, as the same customers who already patronize the station for the purchase of gasoline will be the ones to use the caz wash. This facility would reduce the need for these customers to drive elsewhere to buy gas or wash their car. • Reminded that two traffic studies were conducted and both resulted in no negative impacts being identified. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:45 p.m. Commissioner Kurasch reminded the Commission that signs are not mentioned. Multiple signs will be _ required including some painted on the ground as well as directional signs. The aesthetic impact of these signs would be great. Additionally, there is the potential for circulation problems on site. Finally, said that there is no need to intensify the use on this busy corner. Commissioner Hunter said that Commission Kurasch made a good point regazding signs for the caz wash. Said that she did not support this proposal while serving on the Heritage Preservation Commission and still will not support it now. Said that the traffic congestion at this corner is already bad. Added that a car wash is located just two miles away. Commissioner Zutshi agreed that this car wash would not help with traffic in the area. Commissioner Jackman said that this corner is not the right place for a caz wash even though she appreciates the service station. Commissioner Gazakani said that most caz washes at a service station only serve that station's customers and would not generate any additional people or traffic to the azea. Chair Barry said that a strong case has been made for supporting the car wash. On the other hand, staff, the Heritage Preservation Commission and the Negative Declazation mention significant impacts. Additionally, the proposal does not meet the City's General or Village Plans. While it is hard to deny this request, it does not fit the azea where there are already significant traffic flow problems. Motion: Upon motion of Chair Barry, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission denied UP-00-017 to allow a car wash be added to the rear of an existing gasoline service station on property located at 14395 Big Basin Way. (6-0- 1; Commissioner Roupe was absent) Commissioner Kurasch reiterated that the impacts on the surrounding residents aze a key reason for the denial of this request. Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 day appeal period before this action is final. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. S Commissioner Hunter recused herself from this item as she is a neighbor of the applicant. She left the dais to sit in the audience. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 21 DR-00-056 & V-00-022 (517-13-018/019) - SOBRATO, 14800 Bohlman Road: Request for Design Review and Variance approval to construct a new 7,036 square foot residence and 162 square foot pavilion on a vacant lot. The applicant is requesting Variance approval to exceed the allowable floor area permitted by code. The applicant is also requesting two exceptions. One is a grading exception to allow greater than 1000 Cubic Yards of combined cut and fill and the other is a fence exception to enclose 12,282 feet where 4,000 is allowed. The site is 6.19 acres and located within an R-1-40,000 zone district. Director Tom Sullivan, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this is a difficult project to review. - • Said that a Tentative Map was previously approved by the Commission and the applicant now seeks Design Review Approval, a Variance for floor area and Exceptions to the enclosed fence area and grading limitations. • Said that this is a six-acre site, which will require a long roadway to access the house. • Reminded that the intent of the Planning Commission was to site the road and house as sensitively as possible. • Suggested that the Commission provide the applicant the opportunity to work with staff. Commissioner Kurasch asked what the total square footage of the residence would be. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the house square footage includes the enclosed pool house and the main residence. Advised that the square footage of any area with a vaulted ceiling exceeding 15 feet in height is counted twice. Chair Ba advised that it a ears the intent this evenin is to have the Commission den the ri'Y PP g Y applications so that other necessary actions can be taken by staff in order to bring this project back at a future date. The Public Hearing should be opened and Mr. Sobrato can speak to the Commission and decide whether to withdraw his applications. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 at 11:00 p.m. Mr. John Sobrato, 14420 Evans Lane, Saratoga: • Stated that despite his strong appeal not to do so, the Commission imposed specific requirements for the house design at the time of Map approval. • Said that he has tried to design appropriately for the size of this lot. • Pointed out the model of his proposed residence, which he had produced to demonstrate the architecture. • Said that this will be a traditional shingle style house on a stone base with shingle roof. It is a big house but has lots of character and was designed to look old and established. • Informed that he has obtained the support of his adjacent neighbors, having met with them, walked the site, showed the plans and had story poles erected to demonstrate the impact on the area. All his neighbors are in support of his application as submitted. • Said that the home will be nestled within a grove of trees. • Said that the proposed home is larger than the permissible 7,200 square feet allowed within the R- 1-40,000 zoning district. Said that some of the features he wants to include are an enclosed pool house and the peaked roof in the great room. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 22 • Reminded that this is a 6.5-acre lot and that it would not be inappropriate to have different " standards for larger lots, as is the case in other local cities such as Cupertino and Los Gatos. • Asked the Commission to look at his house design and consider it on its merits. • Said that the home will be 200 feet from its nearest neighbor. • Agreed that rules are in place to protect the community from harm and that this home will not harm the neighbors. Additionally, he has worked with Barrie Coates on the siting of his home and drive so that it is as environmentally friendly as possible. • Stated that despite the amount of fencing he is asking for in order to close in his pool and surrounding area, this site will remain 93 percent unfenced and open. • Asked the Commission to give staff the direction to work with him to find a way to develop this residence. Chair Barry wondered how large the pool will be Mr. John Sobrato said that the Hillside District allows 4,000 square feet of fenced area and he is proposing twice that for the pool and patio areas. Commissioner Kurasch noted that the plans depict both a 20-foot by 60-foot lap pool as well as a 20- foot by 20-foot smaller pool. Mr. John Sobrato said that there will be a terraced yard and that one pool will actually spill into the other. Commissioner Kurasch asked why the driveway is 20 feet wide. Mr. John Sobrato said that the 20-foot width is required by Fire. Commissioner Kurasch asked what Fire's specific requirements are for this project. Mr. John Sobrato replied that they are required to have the 20-foot wide driveway with a circular radius turnaround as depicted on the plans, which are the minimum standards that they will accept. Commissioner Kurasch questioned the location and length of the driveway. Mr. John Sobrato advised that there is no better way to access the site. Added that he has been working on this house for the three years since the Subdivision Map was approved. Said that he is being respectful of the neighbors and area and that of the 1,000 trees on site, only 40 will be removed. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that part of this lot is not buildable due to the slopes. Mr. John Sobrato agreed but stated that there are still two to three equivalent to flat acres. Added that the Sisters of Notre Dame owned the land prior to him for 125 years. Commissioner Jackman asked whether fire safety issues will allow shingles. Mr. John Sobrato advised that the shingles used would be fire safety treated and rated for Hillside use. Said that he may use composite roof shingles. Additionally, the house will have fire sprinklers throughout. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 23 Commissioner Kurasch asked whether the turnaround could be situated lower on the lot. Mr. John Sobrato said that he sited the home in order to take advantage of the view from the rear yard. Commissioner Kurasch asked what would be done with excess soil. Mr. John Sobrato replied that there is a market for dirt and that he will sell it to someone who needs fill. Commissioner Jackman remarked that there is not all that much cut. Chair Barry asked how much cut and fill is related to the driveway. Director Tom Sullivan advised that that detail will be called out separately in future submittals. Commissioner Garakani remarked that the room over the garage is not matched to the garage. Mr. John Sobrato said that this is deliberate in order to make it look like an old house adopted with additions made over the years. Added that this room over the garage is the only two-story element and is within the 26-foot height limitation. Commissioner Kurasch stated that there is twice the allowable limit for the basement excavation alone. Added that she is not willing to consider a larger than maximum square footage for the home. Said that there is over 2,000 cubic yards of cut. Mr. John Sobrato: • Reminded that this property is not on a ridgeline. • Added that it is not a Hillside lot but rather within an R-1-40,000 zoning district, where there are no grading and fencing limitations. Once again stated that they are not taking out trees and not impacting their neighbors. • Added that grading, in and of itself, is not wrong but how it's done is important. • Stated that a 7,000 square foot home on a six-acre lot is not unreasonable. Chair Barry warned Mr. Sobrato that it was the Commission's intent to impose the Hillside requirements on this property at the time that the map was processed. Mr. Tom Sullivan asked Mr. Sobrato to withdraw his applications for the record. Mr. John Sobrato said that he was so withdrawing his applications. Mr. Tom Sullivan announced that he would be meeting with Mr. Sobrato in the near future. Mr. John Constantine: • Said that he owns two lots in this area and is glad to see this project. Commissioner Jackman asked if there is sewer hooku available. P Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 24 Mr. John Sobrato replied yes. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 at 11:30 p.m. Commissioner Jackman stated that there are not too many 6.5-acre lots in Saratoga and that it is important that the house fit the site. Said that with only 40 trees removed, she would like to see this project go forward. Commissioner Zutshi asked how large a house could be constructed on a 2.5=acre site. Mr. Tom Sullivan replied that a 7,200 square foot home is the largest allowed in the R-1-40,000 zoning district without an Exception. The applicant wants direction from the Commission so that staff can work with him on his proposal. Chair Barry said that the Commission understands that the driveway is needed but the intent is to limit the grading necessary on this property. Mr. Tom Sullivan said that he is not asking the Commission to pick a number this evening. It is important that quality is left on this prestigious property when the new home is finished. Commissioner Kurasch stressed the importance of protecting the remaining undeveloped area in a native and existing condition with minimal grading and clearing. Mr. Tom Sullivan said that the building envelope will be established and the remainder could become a scenic easement. Commissioner Kurasch asked staff to be careful with any Variance. Mr. Tom Sullivan said that any Variance would have to come back to the Commission. Commissioner Zutshi said that it was good that only 40 trees of the 1,000 would have to be removed. Commissioner Kurasch said that the Commission will have to define what the special circumstances are in order to make the necessary findings. Commissioner Jackman said that the Commission should leave a lot of this up to staff. Asked Director Sullivan what staff wants from the Commission at this point. Director Tom Sullivan stated that he believed he had enough input to work with the applicant. Chair Barry stated that she likes the proposed house even though it is big. Still takes issue with the basement and the removal of 2,500 cubic yards. Asked how necessary this large a basement is to the project. Mr. Tom Sullivan said that he will work with the applicant and a Civil Engineer and work toward balancing the grading within the subdivision. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 25 Commissioner Kurasch suggested that a compromise in the height of the basement be considered, lowering it from 11 feet to 9 feet. Chair Barry asked if staff now has enough direction. Director Tom Sullivan said yes. Commissioner Kurasch asked about impervious coverage. Director Tom Sullivan said on the total site, the use of impervious coverage is very small. Chair Barry said it seems the fence is just to enclose the pool and patio area. Commissioner Kurasch stated that such fencing is quantified and reasonable. Added the fencing to enclose a pool area is exempt. Commissioner Hunter returned to the dais following the conclusion of Agenda Item No. 5 (from which she recused herself). _ DIRECTOR ITEMS *** Memo to Planning Commissioners re~ardin~ items to be studied Director Tom Sullivan asked the Commissioners to individually go over the list provided in his memo and rank the items. This matter can then be agendized for the next meeting. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Garakani advised staff that the speakers in this theater are still inadequate as he cannot hear all the Commissioners and speakers from his side of the dais. Chair Barry thanked Director Sullivan for his excellent response to the La Paloma residents with a tree problem. Director Sullivan took care of the matter quickly and nicely. Commissioner Kurasch asked staff for a status on the house on Quito Road that remains on stilts. Director Tom Sullivan advised that he has received one legal opinion and plans to craft something with the City Manager and City Attorney for a final solution. Said that he would copy the Commission with the letter that is sent to Mr. Costa. Commissioner Hunter mentioned that orange woodwork is used on a new building under construction on Big Basin Way, which is not the approved color. Director Tom Sullivan assured that staff would investigate this matter. COMMUNICATIONS Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 26 Written: Saratoga City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings of May 2, 2001, and May 16, 2001. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 11:47 p.m. to Wednesday, July 11, 2001, at the Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • C 4 ~ ~ ~~ a ITEM 1 C~B~~Z o4 ~~~ aOC~G~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT PLANNING COMMISSION Robert Schubert, AICP, Senior Planners July 6, 2001 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehaftey Nick Streit Ann Waltonsmith DR-98-046.1; Azule Crossing, Inc.; 12378 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road DESCRIPTION The applicant requests a change from the approved siding material for the commercial portion of the Azule Crossing project (see attached letter from The Griffin Company dated May 15, 2001). The commercial property occupies a 1.28 acre portion of the 3.9 acre parcel. The project involves the remodeling and expansion of the existing retail building located at Xhe front of the property. The building is being expanded from its current 11,931 square feet to 14,233 square feet. The property is in a CN (Commercial Neighborhood) zoning district. BACKGROUND On November 10, 1999, the Planning. Commission approved Design Review application No. DR-99-037 for the proposed project. Review of that decision was initiated by the City Council. On February 16, 2000 the City Council approved the design review application. The design review approval required horizontal wood siding on the entire commercial building. The applicant requests that the siding material be changed to match the exiting siding material at the shopping center (i.e., textured rough finished plywood with 2 inch by 3 inch bats four feet on center). DISCUSSION The attached letter from the architect states that "the Saratoga low-key look is better achieved" with the proposed exterior siding material (i.e., textured rough finished plywood with 2 inch by 3 inch bats) compared to the approved material (i.e., horizontal ~. wood). Printed on recycled paper. O®O~O~ Staff does not support the requested change in exterior siding material for several reasons. In approving the proposed project, it was intended that the existing commercial buildings were to be renovated with new elements that would bring the shopping center up to a more contemporary standard (see the attached minutes from the October 27, 1999 Planning Commission meeting). The staff report for the original project was supportive of the architecture of the expanded commercial building with a recommendation that the colors and materials be amended to reflect the colors and materials of the proposed residential units. In addition, the approved exterior material is of a higher quality compared to the proposed material.. ~ . Elevations showing the proposed change is exterior material are included in the packet. Photographs of the project will be presented at the meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the applicant's request to change the approved siding material. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from applicant dated 5/15/01 2. Minutes of 10/27/99 Planning Commission meeting 3. Elevations, Exhibit "A" • • 000002 T'HE GRIFFIN COMPANY Attachment 1 C~ May 15, 2001 City of Saratoga Planning Department RE: Azule Crossing Shopping Center Dear Sirs, We are requesting a change from the approved condition relating to the Azule Shopping Center. This change relates to the finish siding. This request is to maintain the architectural design and integrity of the existing building as it is today. The approval was originally given with horizontal siding. It is in our opinion that this would change the aesthetic value of the building. The existing siding is a textured rough finished plywood with 2" x 3" bats 4' on center or wherever the edge of the plywood occurs. The azchitect has drawn a conceptional drawing changing from diagonal siding to existing siding. Accompanying these drawings are pictures of the existing building. We believe that the Saratoga low-key look is better achieved with the existing concept. Please consider this request and if there aze any questions, please contact Kurt Hereld, architect, at 925/600-1166 or Dennis Griffin at 408/252-8027. Thank you very much, ------r . ~~t-~ Dennis E. Griffin, CCIlV~ cc: Azule Crossing, Inc. C. 12302 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road • Saratoga, CA 95070 • Tel: (408) 252-8124 • Fax: (408) 252-7465 www.thegriffincompany.com ~~~®~3 • TrIIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • ~~0®Q4 Planning Commission Mir,__:s October 27, 1999 Attachment 2 • Commissioner Kurasch had no problem with the proposal, liked the use, and stated it would serve a good purpose. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with other Commissioners.. She said the project conforms to the development standazds and occupancy requirements. She agreed that the oleanders should be kept or other planting should be installed along the fence line. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMANMQVED TO APPROVE SUP-99-001 WITH ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS, SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL, THAT A PLANTING STRIP AREA BE INSTALLED IN THE RIGHT SIDE, AND THAT A DRIVEWAY TREATMENT BE INCLUDED TO BREAK UP THE VISUAL EXPANSE. PASSED 40 (COMMISSIONERS PAGE AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KURASCH MOVED TO APPROVE DR-99-030. PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS PAGE AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT). 4. SD-99-005, UP-99-018 & DR-99-037 (386-53-001 & -029) - AZi7LE CROSSING INC., 12312 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; Request for Subdivision, Use Permit and Design Review approval to construct 27 new residential units of approximately 1,815 to 2,345 sq. ft. and remodel the existing commercial building located at the front of the property. The commercial building will be expanded from its cun^ent 11,931 sq. ft. to 14,233 sq. ft. The property is located in a Commercial Neighborhood zoning district. The residential component of the project would occupy 2.62 acres while the commercial component would occupy 1.28 acres. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared by the City of Saratoga and aze on file in the Community Development Department. Director Walgren presented the staffreport, noting this was a request for a mixed use development approval fora 3.9 acre pazcel within a commercially zoned district located at the southeast corner of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way. He noted the property is currently developed with four commercial buildings, and one of the buildings is retail. He said the other three buildings are primarily office uses, and one is a restaurant. The application is being presented to the Commission tonight as the first of two public hearings. The project is subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. He said staff has done an environmental initial study on the project comprised of a traffic analysis, and staff is in the middle of the public review period for the initial study; however, given the several land use issues that the Commission needs to consider for this type of project, staff felt it was useful to present the project tonight to generate public input as well as Commissioners' input so that changes could be incorporated as the project develops. Director Walgren reported that specifically the project requires tentative subdivision map approval to subdivide the rear 2.6 acres into 27 residential sites consisting of 12 small lot single-family sites and 15 single-family, owner-occupied, attached units. The 28th parcel would be the commercial use of the front of the property. He said the application requires conditional use permit. He conveyed that this is a commercially designated and zoned property within commercial districts; multiple-family and mixed-use projects of this type are permitted. He noted that to do a mixed-use project and not something that is entirely commercial requires discretionary approval by the Planning Commission. -~00~~5 Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1999 Page 6 of 1-i Director Walgren added that the residential buildings and commercial buildings require desiLen revie~~~ approval. A mitigated negative declaration has been circulated for public review which is also part of what the Commission needs to consider. When the public review period expires, the Commission will need to either adopt or reject the mitigated negative declaration. The site is under 4 acres and is currently developed with commercial structures of which the majority would be removed. The site abuts the Southern Pacific Railroadright-of--way to the south and residences beyond that, single=family homes to the east and northeast. commercial development to the northwest and to the west of the property across, from Saratoga-Surrnwale ." Road. . Director Walgren outlined the three primary land use issues identified by staff . He said numerous discussions have been held regazding the loss of development activity in the City as the little bit of land designated for commercial development is being pressured to be developed with residential projects. These projects have been approved when at appropriate locations, and they have been denied when they were deemed to be inappropriate locations where commercial activity should be preserved and retained. He said in this particular site staff has worked with the applicants for a relatively long period of time, noting the previous application submitted over a yeaz ago for this property had a lazger commercial component with a two-story building which the Zoning Ordinance does not permit, and it had approximately 35 residential units which is one-third denser than tonight's proposed project. That project had Zoning Ordinance development regulation problems and staff expressed concern about the configuration in density of the project. That plan was ultimately withdrawn and the plan presented this evening has also gone through significant revisions and is now submitted with 27 units, which is significantly less dense. Director Walgren conveyed that staff review concludes that the overall mixed=use proposal is fairly appropriate for this site. He referred to the property maps, color rendering elevations of the residential units, commercial elevations, building footprint and streets, etc. mounted on the wall. He said though the site is almost four acres of commercial property, very little of the land has commercial frontage that would result in a truly commercial, viably successful retail project, and this is one of the factors staff took into consideration. Director Walgren continued reporting that to augment its review, staff required an economic analysis be prepared and submitted by the applicants, and the analysis is attached to the staff report. He explained that the analysis contains four scenarios outlined by staff: The first scenario includes the buildings as they currently exist but at full occupancy with a limited commercial frontage, and the conclusion was that the buildings would remain to be lazgely office uses and would not meet the City's objective of trying to expand and encourage retail activity at this particular property, The second scenario is the proposal being considered tonight. The third scenario was where the property was entirely redeveloped at approximately 60,000 squaze feet of new commercial construction, and the findings were that that would be largely dedicated to office type uses. The fourth scenario was a proposal that would result in a lot line shift and a reduction in residential units with an increase in the commercial component. The applicant's study has cited anecdotal or mazket reasons why the fourth scenario tnight not work, noting proximity to existing shopping centers, the current real estate market for retail space. Their conclusion was that the site could not successfully support doubling of retail squaze footage at approximately 30,000 square feet. Director Walgren referred to the primary issue as land use, asking whether this would be an appropriate mix for this type of project within a commercially zoned piece of land. He said another issue is the environmental initial study, noting that the focus is on the trafl"ic analysis which concludes that the project would result in an anticipated net traffic increase of 72 daily trips and should not affect the level of service on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road as measured at north- and southbound intersections on Saratoga-Sunnyvale • • • X00046 Planning Commission Minu-,.~ Page 7 of 14 October 27, 1999 a Road at Prospect, Seagull, and Cox Avenue. He noted that the applicant's report notes that a signal is warranted at Seagull and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and that this project will significantly impact pamcularl~• westbound egress traffic in the morning and late afternoon peak hours through that intersection. He said that as a mitigation effort, staff s report concluded that this project should pay towards a proportionate share of a traffic signal at Seagull and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. In detetirtining what the proportionate share should be, staff referred back to a similar project approved many years ago for the old Hubbard 8. Johnson site. and based on a City Council decision, staff is proposing that the developers contribute a 50 percent cost-share. Director Walgren added that another land use issue is the design review aspect. He said the commercial buildings are proposed to be renovated with new elements that would bring the building up to a more contemporary standard. The staff report is supportive of the architecture of the building with a recommendation that the colors and materials be amended to reflect the colors and materials of the residential units which are deeper earth-tone colors versus the pastels proposed for the commercial building. One amendment staff would further recommend is the actual roof pitch element that covers the internal walkway connecting the buildings. Staff would recommend that the roof pitch be brought down to reflect the roof pitch of the existing building which would bring it closer to the 20' height limit imposed on the Zoning District. Lastly, Director Walgren commented that by combining a large residential component to a commercially zoned property, and by its design, it achieves a buffer that does not exist currently between the residences to the east, which currently back up to a parking lot, and the new commercial component. He commented that by design, the residential piece will provide significant protection to the existing homes to the east. Chairwoman Bernald commented that members of the community probably have a question why Measure G does not apply to this project. Director Walgren responded that Measure G does not apply to this property because it is a commercially designated property and this is acommercial-residential mixed-use development which is consistent with the General Plan designation. He explained that Measure G primarily protects residential properties from being re-designated to commercial, and that is not happening here. Chairwoman Bernald re-affirmed that the Commission tonight should first address whether this project is generally suitable to the site, then address the commercial aspect, and lastly address the residential aspect. Chairwoman Betztald opened the Public Hearing at 8:55 P.M. Mr. Scott Ward, Classic Communities, 1068 East Meadow Circle, Palo Alto, addressed the Commission as the co-applicants for the proposal which they believe promises to redevelop and re-use an obsolete commercial property into a high quality, mixed-use development that is integrated into the fabric of the existing neighborhood and the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road retail corridor. He urged the Commission to support the proposal to revitalize the property in a responsible way. He said the applicants have been able to find a considerable amount of common ground on this property as they have been working on it over the course of the past several months. There is, in their opinion, broad base agreement that something needs to be done to the property to avert continued decline and that this property presents an opporturtity to create a high- quality, new community of homes and businesses. The proposal retains the amount of floor area on the property that is actually devoted to retail uses and locates the floor area appropriately in close proximity to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, thereby achieving the important ci commercially zoned tax-revenue oducth ty-wide goal of retaining limited areas of Pr g properties. He commented that there are no negative fiscal ©~~~~ Planning Commission Minutt~ Page 8 of 14 October 27, 1999 impacts from this proposal, noting it re-uses the balance of the property to create awell-designed, ne~~ home community, and effectively down-zones the property from more intense commercial uses to less intense residential uses. He said this project establishes a buffer between existing R-1 uses and commercial uses. • Mr. Wazd went on to describe the project, noting that the landscape plan and architecture have been designed to assure privacy between the new homes and existing homes. He said the existing tree buffer is to be retained•and enhanced, in-filled with new trees where it is sparse, and second stories have fev. if an}', significant openings to the reaz. All of the main bedroom windows are to the front or to the side so the impact of the second story is borne by the new homes, not the adjacent properties. He stated that these features have been carefully designed to address neighbors' concerns, and that the residential element is designed to reflect the traditional residential experience of Saratoga at a somewhat more modest scale. In describing the project, he said that all of the homes front on a private drive; front doors and living room windows address the street; each home has atwo-car garage and atwo-car driveway apron; and each home has a conventional rear yard. He said there is a continuous sidewalk network designed to create a positive pedestrian experience on site. The site plan is open to the rail corridor. He said while the proposal increases the total number of trips it actually reduces the total number of peak hour volumes. Mr. Wazd described the common ground of the project. He said this week it was learned that a neighbor to the north had some concenzs about retaining the existing masonry, wall whereas the applicants had proposed a new masonry wall, and he conveyed that the applicants are prepared to amend the plan to assure that the masonry wall is retained to address grading conditions and to enhance privacy. He said the applicants intend to consider the Commission's recommendations very carefully and do their best to respond to them before the next hearing. Chairwoman Bernald stated she was concerned with safety and getting emergency vehicles in and out of the area and asked about the area designated as an open play area or tot lot. Mr. Ward responded that the dimensions of the right-of--way support emergency access requirements, and they still need to test the requirements to make sure they conform to the standards. He said that they are open to incorporation of some form of common gathering place or recreation area which would serve the need within the community. He respectfully requested that the Commission consider such an area in light of the "pazk in lieu" fees that the developer is obligated to pay and that there be an appropriate offset regazding the inclusion of an on-site common green area, Mr. Kirk Hereld, Hereld & Ayres Architects, 39560 Stevenson Place, Suite 117, Fremont, CA addressed the Commission regarding the commercial retail portion of the project. He said their concept is to take the existing structure, add additional square footage, and renovate the building with new materials, new colors, different elements to break up the exteriors, make it a little friendlier, and turn it into a true retail center, eliminating some of the office-type uses in this part of the city. He said the building has a walking mall to the side of the center which they plan to skylight and extend all the way through the building, encouraging entry into those areas by addressing an entry, feature in each point. They also plan to pave the entire lot, install new gutters, and put in new landscaping. Commissioner Patrick asked if the applicants seriously contemplated using pink and lavender colors. _ Mr. Hereld responded they would work with staff with whatever color s and hues would be appropriate. ~®~~~8 Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1999 Page 9 of 14 ~~ ----- Commissioner Patrick asked what kind of look would be established with pink and lavender colors. and Mr. Hereld replied that the intention was that those colors would be more friendlier and more livelier, and ~t would get away from the building's current extremely dark look. Mr. Dennis Griffin, 12302 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, addressed the Commission representing the commercial section of the project. He said the intent is to increase the parking size of the commercial site and increase-purchasing power which would increase the sales tax base. Chairwoman Bernald asked if there were any assurances that the commercial site would remain a retail place or that it would be dedicated to 75 percent retail over a course of time. Mr. Griffin replied that it would be difficult to say whether the applicants would maintain that; however, they are committed to only leasing to retail patrons, and the building is being designed and marketed to retail space. Commissioner Jackman asked if the applicants had any idea of what type of retail they would like to have behind the lighting business, and Mr. Griffin replied that the Front Window business is moving from their location next door to the lighting business. Director Walgren read into the record lettefs from Zoe Alameda, Alameda Family Funeral Home, and from Carl Orr, Color Shop Interiors, businesses on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, expressing their support for the project. Mr. Leon Mendelson, 20408 Seagull Way, Saratoga, conveyed that his major concern was partially addressed by the presentation. He said the existing cement wall serves as a buffer between the properties and as a retaining wall. The Azule parking lot is approximately two feet above his land level. Removal or alteration of that wall would impact his landscaping, drainage, and possibly cause land subsidence into his property. He said he finds it difficult to believe that the existing wall can be removed without removing most of the trees currently lining the wall. He noted that the trees provide a buffer between the proposed properties and his property. Ms. Joan F. Green, 12350 Goleta Avenue, Saratoga, said that she could not understand how traffic would be lower at peak hours. She asked what the reaz yazds of the houses would be. She said her objection is the same as it was 25 years ago and that would be the amount of cars coming in and going out of the area. She asked to see the traffic ingress and egress on the map. Director Walgren responded, noting that the commercial project would access Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way, and the residential portion would access only at Seagull. Responding to Ms. Green's further questions regazding traffic, Chairwoman Bernald suggested that Ms. Green review the staff s traffic study. Director Walgren clarified that the traffic analysis addresses net increase and traffic trips, comparing the net increase with what currently exists. Ms. Abby Krimotat, Executive Director of the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce 20460 S Road, conveyed that the Chamber Board of Directors has unanimously agreed~to approve~and support the project, noting it is in the best interest of Saratoga. 000009 Planning Commission Minute October 27, 1999 Page 10 of 14 Ms. Kristin Davis, owner of the Front Window, 12378 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, stated she would be moving her store from its location to the new building, noting this was an important step for her and her business. She said Azule Crossing has been a retail spot since 1939, and she hopes this project will help everybody. Mr. John Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga, stated he is a 30-year Saratoga resident, and expressed concern that this would be the fourth high-density development in this area since he has lived there. He urged the Commission to study this project which deserves a good intensive look. He expressed concern over the emphasis on sales tax. He sees the town as it has been developed as a town of houses. not a town of commercial development. He said if the city needs money, it should not be focused on sales tax, it should be focused on coming to the citizens through property tax or utility tax. He commented because there is very little to be developed in the town, the Commission needs to take a strong look at providing the services that the residences need in town, and it should be done with minimum traffic in mind so people do not have to go too far for services. He expressed concerned with trees, asking that more Oak trees as opposed to Monterey pines be considered. He reiterated that the Commission study this project cazefully so it meets the standards expected in Saratoga. Finally, he asked for a community room because of the shortage of community rooms in the city. Chairwoman Bernald asked Mr. Mallory sbout the density and what he would specifically recommend. Mr. Mallory responded that he was more concerned with the mistakes that have been made (such as the old Hubbard & Johnson site), and noted that when one goes to the development it should feel like Saratoga with more freedom and landscaping. He said he is concerned about the long-run appearance and feeling. Mr. William Guthrie, 20422 Seagull Way, Saratoga, quoted from Article 1555 of the Zoning Ordinance and stated that the application was incomplete because it failed to address the language and intent of Article 1555. He asked the Commission not to accept the application, especially at the current density. He quoted from Measure G language and expressed that this proposal was placed in the Zoning Ordinance by voters of Saratoga and, therefore, deserves special attention. He said he would submit in writing several reasons why this proposal is inappropriate and inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood. He said the application should be denied based on Measure G. Mr. Jeffrey Walker, 20451 Seagull Way, Saratoga, stated he lives directly across from the subject property. He expressed that the density is too great due to traffic. He said he was not allowed to do a room addition due to the restrictions imposed because he is in an R-I-10,000 zone, yet, this project proposes 4500 squaze foot lots with 60 percent structure. He said this did not seem like a good fit. He stated that Seagull could not bear the traffic load of 27 more residences, and if a signal were installed, right turn traffic would back up past his residence, making it impossible for him to back out of his driveway. If the access was available for the residences off Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, some of these issues would be alleviated. Mr. Wazd stated that Mr. Mendelson's comment regarding the retaining wall and landscaping would'be addressed. Referring to Ms: Green's question, he said the rear yazds on the perimeter aze generally 25 feet minimum, which is fairly consistent, and that the reaz yards of the internal lots aze in the 20- foot range. He said he appreciated Mr. Mallory's comments and conveyed that the applicants share some of his concerns and critiques regazding the Hubbazd & Johnson property which have been considered. He said he would defer to Director Walgren regarding Mr. Guthrie's comments. He noted that the applicants met with Mr. Walker previously and discussed concerns with singular access to the residential element from Sazatoga- 000010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 of 14 October 27, 1999 Sunnyvale Road. He said it is important for the residential aspect to have its separate identity from Seagull and it may be necessary to coordinate with Mr. Griffm the potential for other points of connection in addition to Seagull. Mr. Hereld noted he would be working with staff to develop a palette that would be more workable. He said he would also work with staff on alternatives regarding the traffic issue. Mr. Ward reiterated that the previous application was for 35 homes on the site, and the current proposal is 75 .percent of the earlier submission. Commissioner Kurasch asked the applicant for clarification as to why it was important for the applicants or the community to have separate identities for the project, and why the proposal is two parcels, two separate applications, yet it is a mixed-use project. Mr. Ward responded that they may have over-reacted in terms of establishing separate identities, and perhaps it is anover-reaction to the other site along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road where in order to access the homes, one has to go through a retail strip. He said this has negative impacts on both the retailers and residences, and it is important for the residences to be able to identify their own community in a readable, trackable way. Commissioner Kurasch stated that for her, logically, the project does not necessarily have to be completely separated and walled off to have separate identities. She asked about vehicular or pedestrian access between commercial and residential. A discussion ensued. Mr. Ward stated that there is a continuous sidewalk from Seagull extending in front of the perimeter homes, then connecting to a point of connection at the interface between the townhomes and the single-family homes. He said there is an established pedestrian network that leads to Seagull that takes one to retail and it is accessible from every home in the development. He said a masonry wall is proposed and at the boundary between the two uses it does not, in its current configuration, penetrate that wall. Commissioner Jackman referred to security issues and said she would like to see a common open area and not necessarily play equipment. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KURASCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:30 P.M.). PASSED 40 (COMMISSIONERS PAGE AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT). Commissioner Jackman stated she liked the general concept, noting the density of the condominiums and houses concerns her in that there is no open space, and this is very important. Commissioner Kurasch commcnted that having a connection between the uses would solve the traffic intensity problem from Seagull Way whether it were a driving or walking opening from the Saratoga- SunnYvaleRoad side by the railroad tracks. She said traffic needs to be addressed in both uses and not just peak hours. She noted that her experience in commercial development is limited and she could not comment on this aspect of the proposal. She said she was still uncertain about what would be the most successful • scenario. 000011 Planning Corrirnission Min_...:s October 27, 1999 Page 12 of 14 Commissioner Patrick commented that the commercial development is a great idea and it does not look like the retail use is being intensified for the commercial use. She said her concerns echo some of Mr. Mallory's concerns. She referred to the on/offaccess Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and noted the same problem exists at Argonaut retail center. She stated she was uncomfortable with an exit or access out of the commercial onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road turning towards The Village. She said it is a difficult situation nov~~ and it would not be made better by the traffic configuration or ingress/egress pattern proposed. From her perspective, the applicanu need to work on that aspect of the commercial portion. She conveyed that it is necessary for access between the commercial and residential in some way to eliminate the residential traffic problems which will be discussed later, and to prevent athree-step process to get into the residential itself. She commented that if the residential is going to be part of the neighborhood, there are too many steps in the process. It needs to be more gradual and more natural development into the residential from the commercial. She said she is concerned about the traffic onto Seagull but not from the commercial. She said she would like to see the roof line pursuant to staff change as it pertains to the commercial design. She noted the description of the colors is apparently visually different than the color samples she has seen. She said she had concern about the commercial, noting that the concept of a whole commercial development would work rather than having it all be on the front. She said she understood the difficulty with the existing commercial. She expressed that the parking configuration for retail should help, and that more landscaping is always better. ~. Chairwoman Bernald conveyed that this proposal in general was an appropriate use of the property and shared the concerns heard earlier regarding the ingress/egress off Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and off Seagull. She suggested perhaps looking at left turn lanes outside of the area to access it. She agreed with Commissioner Patrick regarding the more gradual and natural development into the residential from the commercial and the tight parking situation in the residential area. She lauded Mr. Mallory for saying that the services needed in Saratoga should be heeded, however, she feels that the services already in existence at Azule have been there for quite sometime will be able to stay. She expressed concerns that assurances are kept that the project will be maintained as commercial retail. She said that contrary to Mr. Mallory's comments, Saratoga should maintain every tax base that it can. The cirizens have not voted in favor of raising their taxes and it is important to maintain what is currently in the tax base. She expressed that Mr. Guthrie's concerns are very legitimate and a discussion with Director Walgren would answer his concerns. She said that most of the citizens of Saratoga would have thought when they voted for Measure G that they were voting for something that would cover such a development; however, unfortunately, she said, it was not worded as such. She stated that the project could get to where it is compatible with the neighborhood and through perhaps less density, less buildings, asingle-story building here and there, and definitely some open common ground. Chairwoman Bernald noted it is difficult to separate the project, and moved the focus to address the, commercial segment. Commissioner Kurasch stated her main concern was the commercial connection. She said it is important to have a little continuity physically and visually and have a face on the street. She noted the project is an improvement over what is currently in place. Commissioner Patrick conveyed that she would encourage as much of a retail component as possible. She said if the commercial is going to be retail use, she would be much more favorably inclined to support it. _ She expressed concern that residents in Saratoga have to drive miles to make purchases and likes the idea of having the services close to home. ~®®0~2. Planning Commission Minures Page 13 of 14 October 27, 1999 ` • Commissioner Jackman referred to the traffic and the need for the signal at the corner of Seagull. She commented that left-turn lanes could be installed to lighten the issue of the traffic and improve the current situation. She stated that the entrance and exit from the commercial area on the side of the railroad tracks will have to be a right-tum only. She noted that the traffic could be controlled. Chairwoman Bernald lauded that there is wood siding on the building and suggested less stucco. She said she agrees with staff in changing the slope of the roof, and she would like to see more detail on the plans. She said she was having trouble with depth, noted that the lighter color=s would be an attractive draw on the commercial buildings,'and she would recommend that the colors coordinate with the homes. She would also like to see retail services appropriate to the community and assurance that the retail would be built with that in mind. Chairwoman Bernald declazed a recess. Upon reconvening, the same Commissioners and staff were present. Chairwoman Bernald turned the focus of discussion to the residential aspect of the proposal. Commissioner Patrick referred to the issue of compatibility with the existing neighborhood, including traffic, and said that the neighbor's questions and concerns need to be addressed. She expressed concern with the transition, specifically, the perimeter housing and the second-story versus single-story configurations, and noted that perhaps it is not as compatible ~o the neighborhood as it could be with the first few houses being two-story houses versus single-story which is more compatible with the neighborhood. She said she • understood that the project would downsize a commercial area into a residential area, which is difficult for everyone. Her concern is that the homes, although very well designed, may not be compatible with the neighborhood. She said she was uncomfortable with the one-lane access to the residential, which seems too restrictive. She noted that rather than looking out to the neighborhood, the development looks inward, and she would prefer that this be more of an outward looking development. She would like to see a plan with every lot mazked to try to vary some of the heights to make it more of a mix. The colors seem to be appropriate. She would want open space somewhere, not restricted to the 27 residential units, and available for the neighborhood to use, with walking paths or access to the other neighbors. Commissioner Kurasch stated she would look at the configuration of the streetscape in the internal loop in terms of community versus how it relates to the lazger neighborhood. She commented she has seen similar projects with lazge density units and described how the units were structured and how they relate to each other. She noted that the architecture and quality of design is outstanding. She described other similar projects she has seen where townhomes were connected by pedestrian driveways with sidewalks in between them, with alleys connecting the back of the buildings, and azeas used as common ground for recreation. She said the open space is very important to the project. She suggested that perhaps the townhomes not have large, or any, yards, and that those areas could be accumulated as a public space to be used by everyone. Commissioner Jackman stated she was very pleased to see a project with 1400-1800 square feet homes in the area. She complimented the applicants for considering building homes for people who only need or can only afford homes this size. She said many homes being built in Saratoga aze 4000-6000 squaze feet with corresponding prices, which many people cannot afford or have no need for a big house. Director Walgren remarked that this is amultiple-family project and it is important to keep in mind when considering whether the homes should be single-story buildings, whether the lots should be larger, and whether there should be greater open space incorporated into the project. He said the more one incorporates design amenities into the project, the more removed it becomes from amultiple-family project. 000013 Planning Commission Minutes Pase 14 of 14 October 27, 1999 Following discussion, consensus was to continue thc public hearing to the November 10, 1999 agenda. DIRECTOR ITEMS Planning Commission holiday schedule Director Walgren reported that the Planning Commission mcetings for the upcoming holidays are November 23 (instead of November 24), with land use site visits on November 22. He said the second meeting in December is traditionally canceled and will be canceled this year. Director Walgren noted that two hours should be allocated to the telecommunications meeting scheduled for November 10, 1999, and Commissioners agreed. A discussion ensued and Director Walgren responded to questions from Commissioners. COMMISSION ITEMS None. COMMUNICATIONS S Written City Council minutes for special mceting of September 23 and regulaz meeting of October 6, 1999 - Noted. Notice for regulaz Planning Commission meeting of November 10, 1999 -Noted. Deer control materials provided by Commissioner Kurasch -Noted. ADJOURNII~NT TO NEXT MEETING Chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. to the next meeting on Wednesday, November 10, 1999, at the Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California. MINUTES PREPARED BY AND SUBMITTED BY: Lynda Ramirez Jones 00001,4 ~ ~ ~ a ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9en-oo9lsze) 991f-009 (S28) sW~^n^~.1HV~~ 99918 YIaaOA~lv~ 'NOINYSYB'Id 't/~ 'd`JOlba`dS Z -`v'rJ01`d!~` 8 L £ L db'Od ~1`d N ~N N f1 S dS ~~ ~ u~ ~~ ~ ~ 888 ~ ~~ G ~~ ~b ~4 avoa vua vyavs o-ie9i \ S~ Li.ia~ V ~ / O ~% ~\ //1J j~ ~) /~/ \ I~ J ~ ;f ~~/~~~~0~1~/ ~~ll 11L~ V ~ R ~ 7 iF 0 w ~ ~ Q Ol 1SdOW~~! dN`d NOWaa`d 11t1.1.3H a ~ ~ ~ # ~ ~ ~ ~' a.®• I~Ct 2 J 4 O S~ ~ N a r d d ~ 0 ~~ ~3 2 N d r z d ~ ~ a ~ o~ o ~o ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~o ~. ~ ~ ~J C 1tlf1E :002 92 ~60 ~5~ of Feq uo;~ 5pa3\er066\ -~ .~ - ITEM 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: DR-O1-007/BSE-O1-011;19752 Versailles Way • Applicant/Owner: LEE CHEN/PAUL DOBEL Staff Planner: Allison Knapp, Contract P r Date: July 11, 2001 APN: 397-17-034 Department Hea ' i '~. J i~ '~ ~ J ' ~-- ~~ North j T r~l~ ' ( ~ ' ~ -; j ,\ i ~~ i I I i SAM YAT ~ i - \ UR Y •:' _~ C~ s d i I ~~ ~r ~ `^ ~ SUNC f ~' ~ ~' ~- ~ ~ ' _. o - _~ ~ r __ `-1 \ 19752 Versailles Way 000001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 02/23/01 06/07/01 06/27/01 06/28/01 06/21/01 The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 3,822 square foot, single-story residence and has requested Design Review approval to construct a new 5,986 square foot, one-story residence. The maximum heigrit of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is 40,000 square feet and is located within an R-1-40, 000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-Ol- 007/BSE-O1-011. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Draft Resolution DR-O1-007BSE-O1-011. 3. Arborist Report dated 04/23/01 4. Plans, Exhibit "A" • • • 000002 • • File No. DR-01-007/BSE-01-011;19752 Versailles Way STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40, 000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Very Low Density MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 40,000 sq. ft. Attachment 1 AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average Slope of Site 5.3%. Slope at Building Site 2.5% GRADING REQUIRED: Total cubic yards of cut would be 1,630 to a maximum depth of 14.4 feet. Of the total, 1,080 cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of 14.4' would be necessary to construct the basement;lSO cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of eight feet would be necessary to construct the pool. Total cubic yards of fill would be 70 to a maximum depth of 1.2 feet. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of construction of a new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists of constructing one single-family residence and associated out buildings. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The exterior finish proposed is Ivory stucco; window trim in a tan-white (Cambridge White) and gutter, fascia and eave molding is proposed to be taupe. Cast stone in a sage color is proposed as trim and a clay rust colored roof the is proposed as the roofing material. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. (This Area Intentionally Left Blank) • P:~Planning~Design Review~2001~DR-O1.007.doc ®00®03 File No. DR-01-007/BSE-01-011;19752 [~ersailles Way Proposal Lot Coverage: 26% e Building Footprint Driveway Walkway Covered Patio/Carport TOTAL (Impervious Surface) Floor Area: First Floor Second Floor Garage (Basement) TOTAL Setbacks: Front Rear Left Side Right Side Height: Residence Detached Garage 5,986 sq. ft. 1,611 sq. ft. 1,644 sq. ft. 1,184 sq. ft. 10,425 sq. ft. 5,264 sq. ft. 0 722 sq. ft. (3,340 sq. ft.) 5, 986 sq. ft. 50 ft. 76 ft. 20 ft. 26 ft. 26 ft. N/A Code Requirements Maximum Allowable 35% Maximum Allowable 6,0001 Minimum Requirement 30 ft. 50 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Maximum Allowable 26 ft. 12 ft. 2 • • ' There is no height penalty with respect to floor area in the R-1-40, 000 Zoning District. '- The Planning Commission may grant up to 15 feet if the appropriate findings can be made. P:~Planning~Design Review~2001~DR-O1-007.doc ®~~®Q'~ File No. DR-01-007/BSE-01-011;19752 [/ersailles Way PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 3,822 square foot, single-story residence and has requested Design Review approval to construct a new 5,986 square foot, one-story residence. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is 40,000 square feet and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoningdistrict. - The neighborhood was at one time predominately single-story large ranch style homes on large lots. Over the past several years, the neighborhood has and is continuing to witness a change in architectural style. The large rambling ranch style houses are being replaced with one- and two-story structures that are more `palatial" in style. The architecture is palatial in terms of the detailing, mass of the roof lines, use of auto courts that are based upon the porte-cochere style, the "statement" that the entry-ways announce along the front elevations, and very large basements (3,000 sq. ft.) with living quarters that could easily be converted to secondary dwelling units. The predominate building materials of the ranch homes, wood and brick with some use of stucco is being lending way to stucco and file with the construction of the newer homes. Ten lots along Versailles Way were surveyed in order to evaluate this application. The lots include the two lots at the corner of Versailles Way and Wild Oak Way, the lot at the corner of Versailles Way and F1 Puente Way and all the lots that directly front Versailles Way. The site location map on the cover of this staff report shows the block. Three lots have larger style homes constructed on them (19737 and 19753 Versailles Way and 14551 El Puente Way). Currently there is a Design Review application under review (for completeness and referral to the Planning Commission) at the Planning Department for 19805 Versailles Way. The house is across the street diagonally from the subject property. Similar to the project before th.e Commission, it is proposing to demolish the existing dwelling and reconstruct a new, larger dwelling. The proposed architecture is nearly identical in all respects including style, colors and materials, to that being proposed by DR- 01-007. The house at 19800 Versailles Way (adjacent to the subject site) is undergoing a remodel that is in-keeping with the architecture and materials of the original ranch-style homes in the neighborhood. Therefore, out of the ten lots surveyed, five have been or are under review to be constructed with larger "landmark" homes. A few questions arise when evaluating this application for compatibility with the neighborhood. We must evaluate the architecture in terms of its compatibility with the ranch style architecture that was originally constructed in the neighborhood as well as the other newer and larger homes in the area. Clearly there are some older well-maintained and remodeled homes within the area that are likely to remain for some years to come. The newer homes on the block all seem to have their own architectural style that lends an eclectic feel to the area. We must evaluate this proposal (and the forthcoming one at 19805 Versailles) in light of both styles of architecture in the neighborhood, acknowledging the eclectic nature of the area while still attempting to preserve a sense of the history of the neighborhood. P:\Planning\Design Review\2001\UR-O1.007.doc ®~O ®o File No. DR-01-007/BSE-01-011;19752 i~ersailles Way The proposed architecture is more in keeping with the architecture of the three newer dwellings in the neighborhood, although there is no common thread in terms of style or materials between the project and the other three newer dwellings. The proposed architecture is a departure from the ranch style of the area and is no less compatible with the ranch style architecture than the other three residences. It could be required of this project, and it should be at a minimum required of the forthcoming 19805 Versailles Way, to include some brick and /or wood in the trim or details of the building. The proposed project does implement applicable Residential,Design Guidelines as discussed below. Policy 1 "Minimize the Perception of Bulh", Technique #1, "Minimi.Ze Changes to Natural Topography". The lot is nearly flat with an average slope of 5.3 percent. The proposed grading is to construct the basement and swi>runing pool, not to alter the topography in order to construct the residence. Policy 1, Technique #3, "Usr Materials and Color to Reduce Bulh", which suggests softening elevations by using different materials on different levels, the use of natural color and materials on the lower portions and foundations of a house and the use of mate~lals that create horizontal propomons. The project proposes stone pedimentation (vertical element) and window trim and an eave line with stone corbels (horizontal detail). The use of stone and stucco, arched and rectangular fenestration and soft colors that include taupe and white break up the mass of the building. • Policy 1 "Minimize the Perception of Bulh", Technique #4 "Minimize Building Height", suggests varying the roof element of a structure to reduce bulk. The roofline is varied as the building setbacks are increased from the front property line. Polity 1, Technique #6 "Use of Architectural Features to Breah Up Massing". The front entry porch is SO feet from the front setback. Other elements of the front elevation increase in setback from 62, 64 and to 83 feet from the front property line. As a point of reference the existing residence that would be demolished is 32 to 43 feet from the front setback, with the majority of the building line at 43 feet. The proposed entry porch (at the 50 ft. setback) is identified by the use of arched windows and columns. The setback portions of the building diminish in mass or "importance" from the street as they continue to be setback from the street. The "dimitushing effect" of the setback portions of the building is achieved by the increase in setback coupled with an alteration of the architectural detail to a simpler facade with rectangular windows. • Policy 1, Technique #5, "Design Structure to Fit with Existing Neighborhood". The proposed project fits with the eclectic nature of the neighborhood. It does however depart from the ranch style architecture. P:~Planning~DesignRevie~2001~DR-O1-007.doc (~ (` ~~O®®V File No. DR-01-007/BSE-01-011;19752 [~ersailles Way • Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment," Technique #3, "Else Landscaping to Blend Structure with the Environment", suggests preserving the existing vegetation as much as possible. Eighteen trees are on the site and three would be removed in order to construct the project. Four 36-inch box and two 24-inch box trees are the suggested replacement trees by the City Arborist, which are included as conditions of approval. The replacement trees shall be Coast Live Oak, Valley Oak, Big Leaf Maple, California Buckeye or Coast Redwood or any combination thereof. The applicant proposes four. Coast Redwoods and two Coast Live Oaks as shown on Sheet C-1 of the drawings as the replacement trees. • Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privary", Technique #3 "Use Landscaping to Enhance Privary", which suggests the use of evergreen trees and shrubs to provide year-round privacy. Four replacement trees, Coast Redwood, are evergreen and placed along the side property lines. Existing evergreen trees that would remain which would continue to provide privacy screening are a Deodar Cedar (#1), Coast Redwoods (#'s 2,5,6,13, 16 and 17) and Coast Live Oaks (#'s 8,12 and 14). The existing and proposed trees would provide privacy screening. The two Coast Live Oaks shown in the front setback area are also evergreen. • Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy", Technique #4 "Reduce Noise Impacts on Adjacent Dwellings" suggests screening and controlling outdoor noise activities. The pool (and pump) is proposed to be placed in the center of the lot, which would reduce noise impacts to adjacent properties. The building on the left side screens the outdoor activities even more to the property owners on the left of the site. The carport is proposed to be 20 feet from the side (right) property line. The separation from the adjacent property appears adequate to protect the neighbors from excessive noise impacts for two reasons. One, it is a carport which by its nature does not have a door associated with it that would make more noise to open and close. Two, it is a single car carport therefore not a standard two-car garage which also by the nature of the increased use would be noisier. The proposed 3,340 sq. ft. basement is shown to have direct access to the outside. The size of the basement and the direct access to the outside lends itself to being used as a second unit. The applicant, through this entitlement review, should be put on notice that no conversion of the basement to a second dwelling unit shall occur in absence of abiding by the City's secondary dwelling unit process. A condition of approval is also included that addresses this issue. The City Arborist, the Public Works Department and the Saratoga Fire District have reviewed the application. The Public Works Department had no additional conditions and approved the Building Site Exemption on May 11, 2001. Comments from the City Arborist and the Saratoga Fire District are included as conditions of approval. t P:\Plannin~Design Review\2001\DR-O1-007.doc ®~ (1©~/~y File No. DR-01-007/BSE-01-011;19752 Versailles Way Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The residence will have an attached 722 sq. ft. three-car garage plus a one-car carport. Grading Total cubic yards of cut would be 1,630 to a maximum depth of 14.4 feet. Of the tota1,1,080 cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of 14.4' would be necessary to construct the 3,340 sq. ft. basement; 150 cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of eight feet would be necessary to construct the pool. Total cubic yards of fill would be 70 to a maximum depth of 1.2 feet. The project does not require Planning Commission action on a grading plan. The information is provided as background for the Commission. Geotechnical Review Bach r Soil is classified by its stability. Saratoga's soils are mapped on the "Ground Movement Potential and Potential Geologic Stability" map which in broad terms identifies soils that are stable and soils that require additional geologic study prior to issuance of entitlement permits, and/or building permits. A rule of thumb, soils with either a "P" or an "M" in the classification will require additional geotechnical review. "P" identifies soils that have a potential for failure while "M" identifies soils that have a moving landslide. Planning staff consults with the City's Geologist in making the determination if additional geotechnical investigation is required. The soil classifications are, "Areas of Relatively Stable Ground" consisting of soil types Sbr, Sls, Sun, Sff, Sex; "Area of Potentially Unstable Ground" consisting of Pmw, Pfs, Ps, Pd and Pclf; "Areas of Unstable Ground" consisting of soil types Ms, Md and Mrf; and the final classification, "Areas of Potential Surface Faulting" consisting of Psf soils. The "Areas of Relatively Stable Ground" are and predominately level areas with moderately steep slopes underlain with bedrock. Some areas are subject to soil creep, expansive clay rich soils and may be on fill. These soils are considered stable and usually do not require a geologic report provided that the slopes are not excessive. The City Engineer is consulted on these matters. The remaining soil classifications typically require additional geotechnical investigation, review and mitigation. These soils typically have steep slopes, are subject to mass wasting, slumping, rockfall, shallow and deep landsliding, debris flow and surface faulting. Depending on the potential for geologic instability, the percent slope and the expertise of the City Engineer and the City's geologic consultant geologic review is conducted prior to review of the project by the Planning Commission. The results of the review are summarized for the Planning Commission, as appropriate, and the recommendations of the report become conditions of project approval. P:~Planning~Design Review~2001~DR•O1-007.doc QQ ~~0®oV File No. DR-01-007/BSE-01-011;19752 [~ersailles Way Additionally, any grading in the City's HR District requires City Geologist review and approval. Grading on stable sites with minor slopes, under 10%, typically does not require City Geologist review. Grading associated with unstable sites identified above is typically forwazded to the Planning Commission for review when they aze associated with discretionary permit review. Proposed Project Soil The subject site contains Sbr soil, which is classified as an "Area of Relatively Stable Ground". The average slope of the site is 5.3 percent. Therefore additional geotechnical review was not required. The City Engineer has determined that the standard conditions of approval are sufficient. Trees There are eighteen trees on site that would be exposed to some risk due to project construction. Three trees, as discussed above, would be removed in order to construct the site improvements. The three trees aze an 11-inch Sweet Gum in `fine" condition, a 19-inch Coast Redwood in "fine" condition and aseven-inch Hollywood Juniper in "fair" condition. Four 36-inch box Coast Redwoods and two 24-inch box Coast Live Oaks are the proposed replacement trees. The project driveway was redesigned pursuant to the Arborist's recommendation in order to save the 17-inch Coast Live Oak (tree #14), which is in "exceptional" condition. Tree #'s 3, 5 and 8 (a 25-inch Canary Island Pine, a 12-inch Coast Redwood and a 13-inch Coast Live Oak) would require pruning and the pruning shall be conducted by an International Society of Arboricultural certified arborist. A platform buffer shall be placed between the construction of the house and the protective fence for root protection of tree #'s 3,5,6 and 8. The Arborist's Report contains other tree preservation recommendations, which shall become conditions of approval and aze included on Sheet AB of Exhibit A (the architectural drawing packet). Fireplaces The plans indicate that two fireplaces and one chimney are proposed in the new residence without stating wood or gas burning. The plans omit the chimney on the left (east) elevation of the building. The proposed conditions of approval require the plans to be revised for zone cleazance to show both chimneys and to indicate that only one fireplace may be wood burning and the other shall be gas burning and identify the fireplaces as such. Correspondence No written correspondence was received on this application at the date that the staff report was distributed to the Planning Commission. The neighbors at 19800 Versailles Way spoke to the project planner at the counter and expressed two concerns. One concern is the departure from the ranch style architecture (in particular the type of building materials P:~Planning~Design Rcview~200MR-O1-007.doc ®Q~DO®9 File No. DR-01-007/BSE-01-011;19752 [~ersailles Way proposed) and other is the location of the outdoor shower for the pool. The Planning Commission could condition the project to eliminate the outdoor pool shower and /or relocate it to the interior of the building. Staff has discussed the issues with the eclectic nature of the architecture in this report. At a minimum, should the Commission find merit in this concern, the applicant and architect for the forthcoming 19805 Versailles Way (which are the same for this project), could be given direction from the Planning Commission as well as staff, to include brick and wood in the details of the building and less stucco on the 19805 Versailles Way plans. The Commission could also direct the applicant to work with staff to incorporate some brick and wood into this project. Conclusion The proposed residence is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbooh and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15-45.080 of the City Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minimize the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowa;~le floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-Ol- 007/BSE-O1-001. • P:~Planning~Desi~ Review~2001~DR-O1-007.doc ®©~~lO Attachment 2 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-O1-007/BSE-O1-001 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA LEE CHEN; Versailles Way WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 5,986 square~foot residence on a 40,000 square foot parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and Whereas the project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves the construction of one single fami~y home and associated out buildings; 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 view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that eighteen trees are on the site and three would be removed in order to construct the project. Four 36- inch box Coast Redwood and two 24-inch box Coast Live Oak trees are the suggested replacement trees by the City Arborist which are included as conditions of approval and shown on Sheet C-1 of the drawings. The trees continue to provide screening and privacy to the site and adjacent properties. Additionally, the pool (and pump) is proposed to be placed in the center of the lot, which would reduce noise impacts to adjacent properties. The building on the left side screens the outdoor activities even more to the property owners on the left of the site. The carport is proposed to be 20 feet from the right side property line. The separation from the adjacent property appears adequate to protect from excessive noise impacts for two reasons. One, it is a carport which by its nature does not have a door associated with it which would make more noise to raise and lower. Two, it is a single car carport and not a standard two-car garage which by the nature of the increased use would create more noise exposure to adjacent residential uses. 000011 File No. DR-01-007/BSE-OI-011;19752 Versailles Way The proposed entry porch (at the 50 ft. setback) is identified by the use of arched windows and columns. The setback portions of the building diminish in mass or "importance" from the street as they continue to be setback from the street. The "diminishing effect" of the setback portions of the building is achieved by the increase in setback coupled with an alteration of the architectural detail to a simpler facade with rectangular windows. 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 minim~ed and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas in that the lot is nearly flat with an average slope of 5.3 percent. The proposed grading is to construct the basement and swimming pool, not to alter the topography in order to construct the residence. Additionally, eighteen trees are on the site and three would be removed in order to construct the project. Four 36-inch four Coast Redwoods and two 24-inch Coast Live Oaks as shown on Sheet C-1 of the drawings are the replacement tree as recommended by the City's arborist. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minim~e the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the roof line is varied as the building setbacks are increased from the front property line. The project proposes stone pedimentation (vertical element) and window trim and an eave line with stone corbels (horizontal detail). The use of stone and stucco, arched and rectangular fenestration and soft colors that include taupe and white break up the mass of the building. The front entry porch is SO feet from the front setback. Other elements of the front elevation increase in setback from 62, 64 and to 83 feet from the front property line. As a point of reference the existing residence that would be demolished is 32 to 43 feet from the front setback, with the majority of the building line at 43 feet. The proposed main or accessory structure 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 (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials which minim~e the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the surrounding environment. The neighborhood is an eclectic mix of "statement" architecture and ranch style homes. The proposed project fits with the eclectic nature of the neighborhood. It does however depart from the ranch style architecture. The project setbacks provide sunlight and air corridors. P:\Planning\Design Review\2001\DR-O1-007.doc ®©O ®~ ^ File No. DR-DI-007/BSE-01-011;19752 [~ersailles Way ^ The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City in the construction requires a Ciry- issued building permit. Appropriate grading and erosion control methods will be required as a part of that permit. The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Guidelines and as required by Section 15- 45.055. In particular the project conforms to Policy 1 "Minimize the Perception of Bulk", Technique #1, "Minimize Changes to Natural Topography"; Policy 1, Technique #3, "Use Materials and Color to Reduce Bulk"; Policy 1 Technique #4 "Minim~e Building Height"; Policy 1, Technique #6 "Use of Architectural Features to Break Up Massing"; Policy 1, Technique #S, "Design Structure to Fit with Existing Neighborhood"; Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment," Technique #3, "Use Landscaping to Blend Structure with the Environment", Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy", Technique #3 "Use Landscaping to Enhance Privacy" and Policy 3, Technique #4 "Reduce Noise Impacts on Adjacent Dwellings". Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of LEE CHEN for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. 2. The basement shall not be converted to a~ secondary dwelling unit as defined by the City's Municipal Code in absence of abiding by the City's Secondary Dwelling Unit process and obtaining the requisite building permits. The deed to the property shall include a statement to such. The deed restriction shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development and shown on the Title Report prior to issuance of building permits. 3. 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: i. Two fireplaces are included on the plans and only one may be wood burning. The other fireplace shall be gas as burning. One wood burning P:~I'lanningiDesign Review~2001~DR-O1-007.doc 0~0®13 File No. DR-01-007/BSE-01-011;19752 [~ersailles Way fireplace with a gas starter and one gas-burning fireplace shall be noted on the drawings. Both chimneys shall be indicated on the plans. ii. All the recommendations of the City Arborist shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. iii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. iv. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language° "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 4. No Ordinance-size tree, with the exception of tree #'s 4,7 and 18, shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 5. 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. 6. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 7. 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. CITY ARBORIST 8. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report dated 04/23/01 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. The Arborist Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. b. Five (S) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit. c. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. d. A platform buffer shall be placed between the construction of the house and the protective fence for root protection of tree #'s 3,5,6 and 8. P:~Planning~DesignReview~2001~DR-O1-007.doc o~o®q /~ File No. DR-01-007/BSE-01-011;19752 Versailles Way e. Tree #'s 3, 5 and 8 (a 25-inch Canary Island Pine, a 12-inch Coast Redwood and a 13-inch Coast Live Oak) shall only be pruned by an International Society of Arboricultural certified arborist. f. Four 36- inch box Coast Redwood and two 24-inch box Coast Live Oak trees shall be planted as shown on Sheet C-1 of Exhibit A. The plantings are also required to provide year-round privacy screening. 9. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form . acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $22,353pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 10. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 11. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's recommendations. 12. A project arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture shall be retained to (1) provide on site supervision during key aspects of construction of the residence and driveway for the purpose of preventing or minim~ing damage to tree # l; and (2) provide regular written progress reports to the City of these supervision functions as they occur. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 13. The roof covering shall bP fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class "A" prepared or built-up roofing. (Reference Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Saratoga Code 16-20:210). 14. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garage (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas, which are not, constructed as habitable space. To insure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.090[I]). 15. All driveways shall have a 14-foot minimum width plus one-foot shoulders. 16. Plans shall be checked for weed/brush abatement accessibility. 17. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of City of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems 16-60-E). P:~Planning~Design Revicw~2001~DR-O1.007.doc C)©0®1.5 File No. DR-01-007/BSE-01-011;19752 [~ersailles Way 18. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the - proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 19. Automatic sprinklers are required for the residential dwelling (including the square footage of the basement). Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall. be submitted to the fire district for approval. A four head calculated sprinkler system is required. The sprinkler system shall be installed by a licensed contractor. CITY ATTORNEY 20. Applicant agrees to hold Ciry harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City 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. 21. 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 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. • P:\Planning\Design Review\2001\DR-O1-007.doc (` ®©O®~V File No. DR-01-007/BSE-01-011;19752 [~ersailles Way PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 11th day of July 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: • • Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission P:\Planning\Design Review\2001\DR-O]-007.doc -~'y 0®0®~ C • T~-IIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • ~~~©~.8 • BARRIE D. CvATE .. ~ -• - . _ and ASSOCIATES ~ . - -. - ~ Attachment 3 Horticultural Consultants _ _ 408-353-1052 - - ` . ... . Fax 408-353-1238 - - 23535 Summit Road; Los Gatos, CA 95033 .. ~ - ~ . TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT . THE CHEN PROPERTY ~ . .17752 VERSAILLES WAY SARATOGA Prepared at the.Request of Community Planning Department • ..City of Saratoga ~ . 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: _ Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist March 8, 2001 -.Job # 03-O1-056 Plan Received: 3/1/01 Plan Due: 4/3/01 • TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT 3 THE CHEN PROPERTY,17752 VERSAILLES WAY 2. The dumping of construction materials, especially waste materials, such as painting products, mortar, concrete, etc.) under the canopies. 3. The construction traffic, including foot traffic across the root systems, and the pazking of vehicles or construction equipment under the canopies. 4. Demolition of the existing buildings, driveway, and pathways adjacent to trees resulting in bazk injuries, broken branches, or root loss. 5. The trenching across root zones for new utilities or for landscape irrigation. 6. The grading of the surface soil resulting in the removal of quantities of absorbing root tips. 7. Broken branches or bark injuries as a result of construction equipment passing too close. 8. Landscaping, including incompatible plant species, trenching across tree root zones for irrigation, excessive soil disturbance of tree root zones, grading to create contours, etc. Virtually any landscape feature inside a tree's root zone results in a percentage of root damage. If the percentage is significant the affected trees will decline or die. Recommendations The following mitigation suggestions are intended to reduce the extent of construction damage to acceptable levels, so that retained trees can reasonably be assured of survival without decline. If any changes io these plans occur during construction, the following may require alteration. 1. I suggest that construction period fencing' be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 18-inches into the ground. Fencing must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 2. A platform buffer2'must be placed between construction of the house and the protective fence for root protection of trees #3, 5, 6, and 8. A platform buffer, which consists of 4 full inches of coarse bark chips (shredded redwood is not acceptable for this propose due to its compressibility) be spread over the existing grade, which must immediately be covered by 1-inch plywood (full sheets), tied together, and secured to prevent slippage. This platform is sufficient for workers on foot using hand carried tools. This platform must cover the entire exposed root zone azea adjacent to construction. 3. I suggest that grading on the west side of the proposed addition be revised as noted on the attached map concerning contour 470, or eliminated. ~ o~struction period fencing S 2 platform buffer PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH S, 2001 000020 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RF.COMMENDATIONS AT THE CHEN PROPERTY, 17752 VERSAILLES WAY 4. In order to retain tree #14, the proposed driveway turnaround must be revised so that the west edge of the new driveway is no closer than 10 feet from the trunk of tree #14. 5. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping beneath the driplines of retained trees, (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements our office must be consuhed. 4 6. Trenches for any utilities (gas, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees unless specifically indicated on the enclosed plan. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest a project azborist be retained to determine acceptable locations. A 2-foot section of each trench adjacent to any tree must be left exposed for inspections by our office. 7. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to retained trees #3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1-inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every two weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by installation of a simple soaker hose in a circle at least 3 feet from the trunk for each tree. 8. Spread a full 3-inch layer of coarse wood chips over the entire root. zone exposed to construction activity to trees #3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, (on this property) and trees #14, 15, 16, and 17. Spreading must be done by hand. 9. Excavated soil may not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. 10. Trenches for a drainage system must be located within 1 foot of the proposed foundation footing. Where this cannot be achieved our office must be consulted. 11. Any pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboricultural certified azborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards. 12. Landscape pathways and other amenities that are constructed under the canopies of trees must be constructed completely on-grade without excavation. 13. Landscape irrigation trenches, which cross a root zone, and/or excavations for any other landscape features must be no closer to a trunk than 15 times the trunk diameter from tree trunks. However, radial trenches3 may be made if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to any tree's trunk, and if the spokes of such a design aze no closer than 10 feet apart at the perimeter of the canopy. 14. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed so that it does not strl3ce the trunks of trees. Only drip or soaker hose irrigation is allowed beneath the canopies of oak trees. s radial trenches PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 8, 2001 ®~®~~ TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT 5 THE CHEN PROPERTY, 17752 VERSAILLES WAY 15. Lawn or other plants that require frequent irrigation must be limited to a maximum of 20% of the entire root zone and a minimum distance of seven times the trunk diameter from the trunk of oak trees. 16. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used beneath the canopies of existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may result in significant root damage. 17. If landscape plants are to be installed within the root zone of an oak tree it should be planted only with compatible plants. A publication about compatible plants can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. 18. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be directly in contact with the bark of a tree due to the risk of disease. 19. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped under the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The value of the trees are addressed according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition, 1988. The following 3 trees are expected to be removed by implementation of this plan. Their values are as follows: Tree #4 - $716 Tree #7 - $4,478 Tree #18 - $1,035 This total value ($6,230) is equivalent to four 36-inch boxed and two 24-inch boxed native specimens. Replacements are suggested. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak - Quercus lobata Big leaf maple -Ater macrophyllum California buckeye - Aesculus californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens However, 36-inch boxed specimens and sometimes 24-inch boxed specimens may not be available at the end of the project unless the trees are secured with a grower at the onset of construction. I recommend that it be required that replacement trees be secured within 60 days of the issuance of permits. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORISr MARCH 8, 2001 O®0®22 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT TAE CHEN PROPERTY, 17752 VERSAILLES WAY 6 The combined value of all of the other retained trees is $89,411. I suggest a bond equal to 25% ($22,353) of the total value of the trees that will be retained to assure protection. Respectfully su -.~--~ Michael L. Bench, Associate Barr' oate, -Princip MLB/sl Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing (1) Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies (3) Platform Buffer (2) Map . • • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTWG ARBORIST MARCH 8, 2001 0~0®23 0 M O .~ O 3 .r i~ v N n 01 '~ "~ 0 ~~ .~ r+ O ~"~ ~ It`~> ulaolad lvnowaa ) e IVAOW3a ON3WW003a m ~ ~ ao ~ rn ~ m_ > j ~ ~ E > m , ~ > n > ~ > ~ > - - - m or _--_ a3Zlllla33 S033N --- - --- ,A S - ~ S - ~ S ~ S ~ S ~ (S-L) a31VM S033N n n n n n -- n (s-~) 3sv3Sla atrtloo loos 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 m (s-~) a3a3noo aviloo loos ~ ~ ~ ~ _____ ~ ~ o ----------------------------- " ----- x ~- x x x " ` ----- a (S-~~)~vo3a ~Nnal m a -----------------------------_ ______ ___ m 01 m (S-t) QOOM OV30 N o v o --- ` rn v c ~ N ap e= N ~ tl0 (S-t) 3St/3SI0 NMOaO 33x1 a _---~ww__ _ vs vi v~ w w rn _ __~___________ (S-l) S103SN1 a n n n n u (S-L),W2lOlad JNINnad ~ ° n ~ rn '~ ~ # 03033N S318V0 m -- ----------- -~ c c c c m o - c ------ c Z 1H`JI3M-ON3 3/~OW3a " 0 " 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ c ---__-__--~~_-______-______ - X X x x X X --- ----- ----- ~NISIVM NMOaO v _____________M --------- ------- a NOI1!/aOlS3a NMOaO - N - - -----~~~- ~_ _ v o - - m - v a `JNINNIHl NMOaO a0o r rn ~ e " A -- ~ °' ------- vs en - ss is ~ ~ `JNIN!/3l0 NMOaO n u u u n u (6-£)'JNIlH2! aaVZHH 0 0 0 0 0 ---------------------------------- (Ol-Z) `JNIltJa NOILONOO --- '° ~ - - N m - -- v m - v m - ------- ~"~ ~ ------ v ~ ----------------------------- ----- ----- " -- " ------ o ------ - o ------- c~ ° v (S-l) 3an10na1S `* f° '- '~ ~ w ~"~ m N y r~ m ------------------------------------- ------- x ---- x ----- x ----- x ------ x ------ x (S-L) H1ld3H av3ads w___~-_____~____- _ ~ O N ~ O b N ~- v N c°y N r ~ ~ O N ~ O 1H`J13H m N ~ w° R N ~ °m ~ vs __- ~ N ~ ___-- °~ m ~ _______ ,°° ~ ~ 1333 Z~ i1313WM0 N n cr+~ u N u ~ u --- ~ u ~--- ' u ------------------- -- --- c -- c - ~ c o ~! E • ----- c • _ ~ - H80 ~ m - - w - m - m ~ ~ ----------------------------- H90 -~ ~ N "`' _-~ N '~' -- N ~ O N ~ ___ - N ~ _ _ O- ad N d+ ------------------°----- X ---- X -- X v -- X ---- X ---- X W31SASylInW _-__-_ x ~ x 1333 Z/L 41V a313WM O N N v O M n °~ O N ~ O ° O- ~i fh O- °i ~ ~ c c c c c c ... ~ ~ m m m w 4 ~ o Q 4 ~., ~ 8 y ~ ~ c E ~ . E~ Z Q O ~ m C C ... v`~i `~' ~ ~ ~ a C~ m c ~ E y v ~ ` a 25 pC r g _ ~ p 1 3 D m W j c _W N a ~ ~ b m b ~ C' v ~ - h ~ a ~ S ~ ~ -'E _'-_ ~ ~ o U ~ U v' ~ U ~ cn =~ 8 v 8 U `_ „~li~~ ~ ~ N C7 ~ ~ t° Y M ~ O 3 II F W • ~ocNn~5 ~ ~ ~ ~ u u n w b o 0 ~~~N PI In F U ~ n n x x x ,~ O O O W ~ ~ ~ .=O ~i t~f N ~ n 1.Y®O®~~ ~D rl O M O .i1 O 1--, ~'+ 3 OJ ~--i .-~ y ~I La 01 e-1 y d "CS d ~~ s~ ~~~rr ~+I V ~~ O 1~~ It~N ,W210RId l1lAOM132i v Cm IVAOW3210N3WW00321 aD j aD ' 7 m ~ 7 N ~ ~ (° o 7 O ~ ~ E ~ > ~- N > > > > E 213ZI1112133 S033N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ S ~ ~ ~ -- -- __________- -- (S-L) 2131VM S033N ° ~~ ° n ~~ ~~ (S-L) 3SV3SI0 21tl110010021 ~ °o o o ~ m m ~ n n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m (S-L) U3213/~00 21V110010021 ~ ~ _ - X x X X X x 0 -_______-- _ _ a` (S-L)Ad030 ~iN112f1 m ---------______-_____----- _____ -- _ --- m m °' S-L) UOOM Ot130 ~ ~ m o v _ N m C7 N N C7 CO _ O ---_ fC c~i N a (S_L) 3SV3SIO NM0210 33211 ~, ~, ~, ~ ~, ~, --- (S-l) S103SNI ~~ n n u u n (S-L) JW210RId °JNINfl21d ~- 0 ° 0 o u i n o m m 0 c° n n 0 v # 03033N S3181f0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ----------------------------- 1HJ13M-ON3 3/~OW321 c c c c - c -- c X X X X X X c --_--__-_---------- - - ---- a m ~JNISIV21 NM0210 - a ~ NOI1V2101S321 NM0210 - -- c ------------ ° ° a `JNINNIHl NM02i0 ~ co ov in ^ v ~ c.i ~ N c ~ N vs bi tq ess v~ to JNINH3l0 NM0210 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ (8-£)'JNIIVN 02MZVH ~ 00 a 0 a° 0 o 0 °o -; (OL-Z) `JNIlV21 NOILONOO '~ ~ 1O W - '~' ~ - iO m - ~ m - ~' m - •- ~ --------------------_-__-_---__ --- ~ --- c~ -_- c~ c~ _-__ ~ --_ c~ ° U (S-l) 321f110f1211S ~'' m c m v m ~ m c+> m m X X X X X X (S-L) H1lV3H OV321dS N ~ roi ~ r~ ~ ~' o N ~ N N _ 1H°J13H ~ _ y~ r~i _ yi r~i - ~ ~ ~ "' ry n ~ m ~ 1333 Z~ 21313WMO ~ o n `' a - `r° n ~ n ~ n - ~ u --- N c c ~ c c ~ E ---- --------- c - -- m ~ H80 o ~ ~ O ,~ _ 1 ` m m ~ ---------------- ---- H9O - O ~ `r N ~ ---- O ~ n N eA --- ~ N ea -- A ~ ~ N en ----- O ~ n N en ---- n N vs X X X X X X w31s~s-Il~nw - - x x x x -- _ 1333 an v 1M a313WM o ~ ~ 0 m 0 N 0 ~ ~ ~ o ~; ~ o- o ~' o o in c c c c c c W H m m Q 1~ O ° ~ `r ~ s E V V >s a Z E3 O er. '~ 'G O .m ~ ~ a <~~ C $ O y O m m m y 'mZ' Y O 8 C ~ m ~ i ~ C ~ Ir > J e ~ .~ U j y J m ~ m ~ y ° C m C 2 y 7 B B () ffi ~ Q ~ a C a B ~ m r O W O N Y F M ~ O O ~'' 3 b II p,~ [-H W CO rr ao~25 Q ~ ~ ~ II 11 II ~~~N ~"~ ~ W O U ~ ~ ~u a u x x x .~ 0 0 0 w ~ ~ a ~a ~i ~ N 0®4®25 ~ ~ O M O .~ O I--, 8J rl rn CJ N n Q1 Pi in GJ 'C 'C ~f v V a.. H .~ 0 11 lt`L) AIRIORId IVAOW321 v m lt/AOW321 dN3WW0032! v ~ ~ o ~ u> > o ~ co m c ~ E j c ~ m ~ ~ j ~ j E ro 213ZI1112133 S033N ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ S ~w ~_ w ~ -- ------- --- --- -- _ (S-L) 2131t/M S033N ~ ~~ u u n v 0 0 0 0 0 0 (S-L) 3SV3S10 2lV110010021 ~ ~ m m m n a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m (S-L) 03213/00 21`d110010021 _ a - _ X X X X X -_W X 0 ------- -----w~~_ _ ---- --- a` (S-L)AV030 ~INf1211 w w ~ --------_--- --------- (S-L) BOOM 0V30 ----- o ~ u~ N m m o N o c m - ---- - - ~ - m _o m co (S L) 3SV3SIO NM0210 33211 a - ~- - ~, ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ --- (S-L) S103SNI ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ (S-L).W210121d JNINf1Md 0 ° 0 0 ° ~ ° ~ ° o 0 o o n n i n n o m rn ~ # 03O33N S318t10 --------------------------- --- ~ ---- v - ~ ~ ~ v m -------- c v - c ~ c ~ c ~ - c ~ --- c ~ Z 1HJI3M-0N3 3/~OW321 -' a - X X --~ X X x x c --------------------------- ----- '-_ --_- ____ ---- _ a JNISIV21 NM0210 v - a 5 C -------------------------------- NOI1b2101S321 NM0210 - O --- O N --- - ~ ____---__-~_--_---__~-~- O N R m __ 0 __ ~ d JNINNIHl NM0210 cm-~ m ~ aoo ~ m ess e~ vs ~ ~» in JNINf/3l0 NM0210 n '~ ° ° ~~ ~~ (e-£) ~JNIlb21 02itf1VH o ~ Oo o o a ~ o ~ e o rn (OL-Z) JNIl`d21 NOIIJON00 N m N m - ~ m - ~* m - '° m - ~"~ m - ~- v ----------------------------- ------- ° ----- ~' --- ° ------- ° ------ ° --- ° ° v (S-L) 32ff110f1211S t° `A ~"' `" ~" "' ~ "' N f° x X X x x x (S-L) H1lV3H OFf321dS ~ ~ v N N M N m N m "' c O O m ~ ~ -_------__-______________--_--__ __,- ~ Y w~ ~ -~_ m ____ ~ ---_ m_ ---- N 1H~J13H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n m ~ m m yi - - ~ 1333 Z~ 21313WM0 v u ~ n N n ~ ~ n $ n ~ , N N n ` ----_ --------'- C C C O C -- C -- x c ° H8O ~ = ~ \ '° ------------------------------- H80 ------ r tH ------- n rA ------ , n di ---- N r vs ----- ~ r vi ----- ~ ~' n vi ~ X X ~ X X X v X W31SilSyllflW x x x x ------------------------- 1333 Z/L 41V 21313WM - 0 ~ 0 ~ ---- o ~ n cN.i o N c m --- o n N co ----- o N 0 m ---- o r r m c c c c c_ c w w w ~ w ... F~ ~ N Q I--~ Y o OQN~s m h ~, s Z O O ~^ E ~ m C ~_ Q ~ ~~ a ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ c v N J 3 ~ ; ' y ~ ' J ' ' m Q lY d d O C B `$ `$ B B T U U U U U x "~I~~II~ >, t+) ~ O m f~ CO Y M ~ O ~i ~ 3 II F W GG j o ~ O ~ ~ ~ II 11 II W p O O W~~~N F p g U ~ p Q t1 x x x w ~~aa L~i uti N ~ n 000026 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE CIIEN PROPERTY, 17752 VERSAILLES WAY Assignment At the request of the Community Planning Department, City of Saratoga this report reviews the proposal to demolish aone-story residence and to construct a new one-story residence in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report further provides information about the health and structure of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to the restricted trees can be controlled to prevent significant decline. Comments and suggestions contained in this report presume that the locations of trees. in relation to proposed construction aze accurately presented on the plans provided. • • Summary This proposal exposes eighteen trees to some level of risk by proposed construction. Two trees (#4 and #18) would be removed by implementation of this design In addition, tree #7 would be severely damaged and will not likely survive. Replacements, which equal their values are suggested. Procedures aze suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected. A bond equal to 25% the value of the retained trees is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. Observations There aze eighteen trees on this site that are at risk of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree has been tagged with a metallic label with an assigned number. The eighteen trees aze classified as follows: Tree # 1 Trees # 2, 5, 6, 7, 13, 15, 16, 17 Tree #3 Tree #4 Tree #8, 12, 14 Tree #10 Tree # 11 Tree # 18 Deodar cedaz (Cedrus deodara) Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) canary island pine (Pinus canariensis) sweet gum (Liquidamber styraciflua) coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) sazgent cherry (Prunus sargentir~ Prunus species Hollywood juniper (Juniperus chinensis 'Kaizuka~ The health and structure of Bch specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. This information is converted to a single descriptive rating indicating overall condition This is intended to aid with planning. Exceptional Fine Fair Marginal Poor S ecimens S imens S ecimens S ecimens S ecimens 2,13,14 3-7,11,12,15, 1,8,9,10,17 16, 18 PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH. CONSULTIIVG ARBORIST MARCH 8, 2001 ~~~®~ I TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT 2 THE CHEN PROPERTY, 17752 VERSAILLES WAY Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures aze needed to retain them in their current condition must be used. Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens aze worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. __ Trees #2 and 13 are located on adjacent properties in addition to being in Exceptional condition. Impacts of Construction Trees #1, 2, 9, 10, and 11 would suffer minor root damage if protected by construction period fencing. Trees #3, 5, 6, and 8 would suffer significant root damage by trenching for the foundation footing and by soil compaction from construction activity on the east side of the proposed new addition. As a result of the same construction, tree #7 would suffer more severe root darnage than the other four and would not be expected to survive. Trees #3, 5, 6, and 8 would likely survive in good condition if recommended mitigation procedures are implemented as suggested. Trees #3, 5 and 8 will require pruning to provide access for construction of the new addition. This pruning appears feasible. Trees #4 and #18 aze in conflict with the proposed location of the house and with the proposed driveway respectively. These trees would be removed by the implementation of this design. Trees #12 and #13 would suffer at least moderate root damage by proposed grading to establish proposed contour 470 on the west side of the property. This proposed grading combined with the proposed driveway turnaround adjacent to tree #14 would result in such severe root damage that tree #14 would not be .expected to survive. However, tree #14 is an Exceptional 17-inch diameter coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). It will be essential to mitigate the grading and the driveway plan as proposed in order to retain tree #14, which in my opinion must be done. Trees #15, lb and 17 would suffer significant root damage by construction of the driveway at the location proposed. However, these trees would survive in good condition if recommended mitigation procedures aze done as suggested. In addition to the specific risks noted, the retained trees may be subjected to one or more of the following damaging events that aze common to construction sites: 1. The stockpiling of materials or the storage of equipment under the canopies. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORISr MARCH 8, 2001 ®0®nL7 r i ~ • - .~ . BARRIE D COATS AND ASSOCIATES z ;~.~;'; " liotticulturat Consultants .: `~~ = (408) 353-105.2 ~ , :: ,., ~_.~~ q~i~~,} Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd:-Los Gatos, CA 95033Y'' ~` ~ ~ - - - -.. ~ _ GLOSSARY _. Co-dominant (stems, branches) equal in size:and relative importance,,usually associated with ------- either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the crown:' Crown -The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage. Cultivar - A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be produced, usually bywegetative propagation or cloning;, ~,~„R .. Decurreot - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed. of branches lacking a central leader resulting in around-headed tree: `' `~''~•-~ - = ~: ' - Ezcurrent - A term used to describe a tree clown m which a strong~central leader is present to the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively decrease in length upward from the base. ,. ~ ~ ,,. - .~ a .~..,. Girdling root - A root that partially or entu'ely~encircles the-trunk and/or large bumess roots, which could restrict .growth and downward movement of photosynthates.. - - Included bark -Bark which is entrapped in narrow-angled attachments of two or more stems, branches, or a stem and branch(es).. Such attachments are weakly attached and subject to splitting out. Kinked root - A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply bent and can cause plant instability and reduction of movement of water, nutrients,- and photosynthates. Root collar -The flared, lower portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also referred to as the "root crown". Leader -The main stem or trunk that forms the apex of the tree.. Stem -The axis (trunk of a central leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached. Temporary branches - A small branch on the trunk or between scaffold branches retained to shade, nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. These branches are kept small and gradually removed as the trunk develops. Definition of Woody Parts - Trunk -The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch. Scaffold branches - In decurrent trees, the branches that form the main structure of the crown. Limb - A major structural part. -.. Branch - A smaller part, 'attached to a limb or scaffold branch. _ Branchlet - A small part, attached to a branch. ~ - - - . - Twig -Avery small part attached to a branchlet. - Leaf -The main photosynthetic organ of most plants. ~~~;~~ - ~, 1 BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES~,„~~:,-:: " Horticultural Consultants ~. ~` "~" . ~.,~ . (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 ~ ~ ~ `` - " 23535 Summit R~. Lis Gags, CA ~5~33 TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION These are general recommendations And may be superseded by site-specific 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 beneath tree canopies.:~;w #.L .- ~~-_r ,r. - Install fences before any constriction related equipment ~s 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 ''/z') 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 Irrigateirionthly 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 i • 000030~~* ~ 31 s • ~~ .k. •~ ~ ~. s. '... !' O 'N !f ~~i~: ~ 1 ~ t ~.'~ fir' l:•' 1:': :.~ ~fl ,~ N it: • j, 1,1 to ca L ~ f , ~ r" ~}~ i ~ ' s ' ~ `1 ~,. , .i i y ryf4f ~~ i I 1 ~1 l l.'~} ~ i C ~1 .1 O ~ ~.~'. ~~ _. \ .11,;1 ,~~~~ ~ " ~~. i ~` ~~~ ~ ~ ; ~ .•'r.`J \`~ ~ ~ "'l` ~ .' ;~~ •, >` o °i 'a ~__ U s o F o o b ~ '~° o0 0 O u d = ~ ~ c9 M ~ N ~a + ~ ~- ~~ o U ~ m ~ Q D O M 3 y V~ _ Z b0 ~ ~U L Q ~ ~ ~ sC ~t5` ~ M U' l qJ vii m u ~ ut Ns OC = ~~ u~ ~f O U as °' .5 N ~ ~A1 ~N~ a °' i ~..~ •~ °o ~ •.. tx r-• A • ~,~ ~ a°' ~.~ ~~ .~~ ~~~ ~ ti~ d 3 ~ .: i ~ o~ ~ ~ -~_ cd ~ ' i s ~ +~ i o a Y ~° -~ ~, ° ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N d ~ ~~ ~ +`~ o ° ~ o ~ _ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ of ~ ~ ~ 'C cv O ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ +' u obi '~ ~ N ca ~ b0 ~ .0 ~ y . c = 3 ~ ~ u f^ O ~ Y odi s `° O oo C.s ~ .-.. o s •~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ of a,.~ ~ .L ~ = L d. ~ S ca bON ~ +' - ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 000031 r A 1-inch Plywood and Wood Chips Platform Buffer for Areas Beneath A Tree Canopy which Bvtust Be Used for Foot Traffic • Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate F,r Associates Horticultural Consultants '$. (408) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 ~®032 k~ Tree Survey and Preservation Recommendations at the BARRIE D. COATE Chen Property, 17752 Versailles way and ASSOCIATES waet3s3iosz Prepazed for: nssss~.A+~md lm Cis, CA 93x10 City of Sazatoga, Planning Department HORTICiJL7-URAL CONSULTANT Date: ' CONSULTING ARBORIST Job # Tree numbers correspond to evaluation chazts. All dimensions and tree locations are approximate. BARRIE D. COATE AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 ~1.._ ~---~ I I I I I __J Legend Drip Line of Tree Canopy _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ protective Fencing • ~~ O s\ i. I~ ~ I 'moo ___._~.. 's I a ~.. ' 1 .. I s~ ~~ / ~ ~ ~ ,, q`"~ Bo I REMOVE EXIST ~ - ~~. ,tiDUSE Protective Fencing : ' . During Demolition of Shed ~\ ~ ~ -` ~~ ~~ ,, ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ i - .~ ~N~~ °~~ ~ ~ "",~ .I pal ~~\ 896 -'_ ~~. - _~_ ~~ , ~~ ~i X13 2 ~ l7 z>: Relocate Fence To Here Immediately ~~;' 9 ~ After Demolition ~' of Shed ~.~• ?~ f:': !~ V R OVE EXIST ~ . , ~ T r ,' ~ SHED ~~ .., , .~ J L \ .X-__._ I6 ~ l5 ~ 17 ~ ._- . T ~. ~J-- ~T~ ~~ .~ ~~ ~~ _`\ \ ,~~. ~.., ^ ` - -` -- ~ -- `_ 1 Platform Buffer °~ \ ~ ~ ~' 4 r _ : ~ . l .~ - i < g- .. I ~~ I 4 e~aa)E o. Conrc ENO ~ssocuTu Noror~la.n cn~.~n,~~ 4wa) 353~,os: (wa) 3s3ane 3]535 Summn Rd. In, W rm. C9 95033 Leeend Drip Line of Tree C~nop) - --- - - - - - - - - - • Proactive i'encinR ~-~~~ / - 11 1 ~ '. / - , ~'...~ ~- / `~ /I• /: - i •~: .. _ ~i -- ~_TT11 BARPIE D. COATf •- 's ~ _ 8 ~ 1YA aid a350tlATF5 __ 1°nivmor,,..lns-se,.n~,r ~ I I - 4/ ~ : fuydSUUapPW,Ayp,aw~ ~ i 'I I ;.~ I Noancv~n,w.coNSU~-Ttivr :u.~ s+:nai,ul -- ---- IIA ~ ".a _ fON5VLT1N0,9agpa3aT i3ti.~U,--0,ae ~, Limit - 4 - .~.p~n. 'Grading I -:A.` ~ ,Here 13 ~ ~ ~ i1 ~B,~ASEMfNT r~~ iI I `~ I ~T ~ i ~ AD 455.59 1'-, I,' Platform Buffer _ I ::--:- ~~~ ~ i - ~~ .- FF 470.5 .~~ ~ , .: ~ ',. , ,- -r-,- ~,I _ .~ ~_ _ ~ -- -- -- _ _!_ _ ~--_ _ Relocate ~ I ~~~ aOgK FNSf ~ K fJaST '` , I I -_ _ _ Edge of _. I _ !"~ -,, - _ - ~ 1 ~ _ _ _ _ Driveway To' • , 4 - 2 l ~ ~~: ,.._ ~ I . ~/Here ~ '.~-' - 1= F ~ 1 ~ ~ ,~ ~ 15 .6 ` ~ zs`y ~ ~ I ~ •-- -r _a ~ \s~r, a I ~ canPFnc scale - - - T" ~ O ~ `3 ~ • • a d3 d ~ U v :- m a d o d N ~C ~ U ~ a .., ro q j b ~~'~ p~ ~ly d ~$ ~ ~ ~ k Ry~ 5 gj ~~ ~~f : ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~i~ e~ ~~~ ~ s; 51~ ~~ ;o ~ ~ ~ ~~a<~d i~~~ r 8 0 r ~a a~ aB ~ ~~~s ;~ +4j6 ~ prodd ,.; b b od ~~a ~~~~ ~ lay !a @ ~~ ~ }y da~~ ~ $b f 9 ~~~ 7Y~~ l~g~~ A~ ~~ ~ ~tl ~jbj~ $8 F b d ! ~ ~ ~~ 1 yd9 1~ ! ~ , ~ ~ , ~~ ~ ! ~ ~~ ~ • ~~ ~Hy~s ~8~~~ a1~~.t bps ~ ~A ref al A'~~8 ;~ 9 6 0 yyy @i d ~ ~ ~~~ :~r~~~ ~~~ a ~~ , ~ ~ ~ a ~$ 7 g 9 I ~.:g~~ ~ B~a~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~y~~~7~~ ~ ~ f,~~ J~bt . ~a" d ~ ~~'"~l a~'~{~Y~ yi db ~~F~~E ~ $~~~ ~~~ ~~ 7~ c~~~~~ b~ ~ ~ ~d~ ~ ~ ~p ~~ a~~~~,~ ~~pby ~~~ d s # F5 ., a . ..~ ~ ~~1$t ~91~I,i ~1a~t~ ~d .~~ 1 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~'S$ v~ ~~~g4~ ~~ o } ~ s d7~~ ~ , ~~ ~ d ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ 8 ~d ~~~ ~~ ~~;~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ +a ' pt ~~ ~ ~ 1 ~#®~ 4~ ~~ °~~~~; tg~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ i~i ;~.j j~~~a~~ ~~ ~i~~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ a~ n A 17 d d g~ ~, ~ ~ l~ Q ~.~ d1~s~~b ,~ n~4~}~~ ~~ e~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ e~~a~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~i~~d dy ~ v~ ~ ~ ~~~ 5~~ ~ ~ ~ a I. ' ~~~~a ~~ I ~~ b ~ e~~ ~g9~~7~~ ~~d ~ d r ~5 ~~~;r 8~ ~ ~; r. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ = 7 [d ~ q ~p t 3 d p~ F ~,nl~ ~ ~~~l~ - - ;i E . ad ~p 4 .a 1 P _ ~ _ 5 1 k Y Y -_'- 1 t _ _ _ i i ----- 1 i 5 i 1 6 6 F F - _ .~ _ i --- = - " ~ ,. "s ~ ~ ? _ ~"` . ! ~ ; : ~e ~~e$ ~ ~ ~ ; + .,~ g~ a S ~:'. ~~l~ ~ ,al3 ~ pti~ g i °~ i3a R _o ~ ~. it ,~ ~ ~F~ $~~$,i j ~ a' __ __ ~^r . /~~l ~ I i ry'~ 'I ~ I -.,»-~~ Y eX x9633. ;. J i~~ ;, ~ i ~~ i „/ ~ l 4 ,I i r r~ ~i _ ~, I . ~~ `` ~1 1 ~ ~ np t{ t=3 tip. ~ i i i ~~ ,~ ~; ~ ~~ 1 _-_-' _ ~;~ r r t ~ Id ~ ~ ~~ ~ nf~1! . 9 ~ :J_ ; - s "~1 4~~3E ~ 7 ;~~ ~ [ ~ , Y ~~'1 a ••II 51 ~~ 6 1 ~ 1 ~.F `~'~ ~ i ~_`~ r'~ a X77' yylE i 7 is ~65$jy&yqqi ~ 8l:al ~~: p11yy7j99{t__Q ~~ ~itR/:i F , ~ ~.~ 5 ~~s~ ~~~~~F i~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .' ~~~~ ~ BSS a~~~ ' ~ ~~ ~~ ~l~ ~ ~ k j~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~~~A~ ~ ~5 ~i ~~ ~ ~ ~~ d 6 ~ ' ~ff ~~ 1~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ F.C Q ~~ ~ ~g ~ ~~~j~ ~~ ~ a! v ~~ .~.` 3: s$ii~ 7198 Ft'ala kll ~8'' :ED i'k iY i ifc s~ii d~l~a@lai a'1 ~'3+i$ ~9 {{ a p d9j t: itE~i : ~ltY ' D',:p~E+lt5 Fj~E~.E. ~+ iE } ~' Ea 1, d'a ,~ s i.et 'tE'~j ~ i. D' i " a }ia # ~ ; a~ 1E31a ; i#~.<~ ;~ii7ala~~~71 dtE~i b w e ~ l.~ta iliddi~ ~ i~59{{~t ~ t,~3il~~.~ ii ~'~ 1 ~ia E3~ a~Sf~' .:itra _ t r~az~~ Yl w.a ~~ ~~~ 7td~tljY7JiI~i ~ t }j~ii°f~'t x § f i' ~'1l~)I~~~~tli[ ~ j jl~plf9t;i F 3 ~ 7 'i~t1E?'EtI1Di~ - 's'+',[ii '7,417 t!Y tt # ~, ~ qq7a t i , ~dl ~'i~l ~' lFilit~t' ~° i e!' -- x 71 7 p~ a ~ # y~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~3i~t ~ ~ ~ 5 ba}}{~;1 9~~~,1 ~ ZY ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~(($~S,K '~~~; lei ~ 1~1 i'~r~ t(j ~j ~% kAtt ~tt ~e it/~~st ~.7j ~ t i~f 1 iii ` ~ fi a~~~y~t~~~d~~11~ A ~l~dia~l~~ ~ ~Sl~~j ~p ~~~o ~8#~ ~ t3~ ~~l~~ • ~ • b ~~ ~~ ~ ~e d„ ~~ ~ ~B ~ ~~g~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~$ ~ ~ ~7~ s ~~ Y o Y~ ~ o ~ ~, ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~a~ ~~~ ig ~$`y~ ~g~ ~~;l~~'ppp ~~ gg~ ~ g ~gg ~ ~ ~gg ~ g g~i ~4 grpp ~ t e ~ z ~a ~~ ~~ ~y ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~t8 f~g ~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~` ~ ~~ ~E a~ ~e g1 ~ tllt~~ g a ~ ~ : z ~~ x e a a a a g-I~ it II I I III ~ I ~ ~I III ~ III III ~ I II i W ?I,~9I ~ III I III ~ I III ~ ~ I,~~ I 1 4 r" I. N }/II I L~~I I ~~I I III I zlll~ III I11 III II! III III it I II I III ^~ d , W~~~ ~~ a ~ ~- ~ 'f ~~aa~ ~~ $ x b ~~c ~ ~~3n~ ~'~ ~a ~. ~~~~ ~K ~~~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ a rx ~ ~ ~ ~~ !r g6## saga bq Y ~' ~ 3a4~ $ e < ~ o'oc o c a^ ~ • ~ w ~ ~ ~ *'~ u ''~ h v 3 z S nz~ ep1 m Vaa~o ~ 0~1 ~: V ~ ~ uLz Y~ ~ ~~ ~ a ~ oGi N .'~. .o ~ ~ Q °d, `~ U n `' O W O~ a -~ w 0 a ~~--~ I ~~ I ~~ I~ I o I I ~~ ~ I i~ ~ ~~ ~~ I ~3 A ~ ~~ i~ ~~ I ~~ - ~ .~ I s ~ ~l}~ I ~ ~~ ®~L~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I I ' I ~ i~ I I ~„- ~ J ~-r--r F ~ I t 3~ 3 ~ I , s..:.6 ~ ~ I~ ~1 i I i4~ .j 4f .9 ~I I ~ I I I I ~ hl~ ~ I ~ L ~ I L~ ` I ~ i ~~ ~ - i I \ r_ O I SR i _ ~~ i t i i ~ -I ~ `~ j I ~~ ~ i h I ~ ~ i W I ~ 1 I .t/1 o•.6L pC$~ i .~ I ~ ~~y~y ~py I I .. I s~ ' Q ®~J I ~ 1 1 I O_ I ~~~ I ~n ~ I ~~ I Q I 4 I ' ~ ~ ®~~ ' ~ I 1 3 ~~ ~ i ~~I' i ' y~y w i ~~l..J ~) I ~ I I i I I ~i ~ ,, . , ~g ~ $ I ; I I t I ~ ~~ o ~~ ; ~ T ~ ~ I I~ I ~ ~ I ~ i ~ -r-~r~-~ ~ ~~~ i I ~~ `~ ~ L~-1LIL_~ I Z ~ j ~ ~ 1 ~ ~i ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 3 ,I ~ ~ ~ '~ i 3 I ~i I ~_ _~~ IF .~. ~ h i I ~, I ~ ~~ ~s I ' ~i i I I I I :u--,,,sc-- I I. I • • `u a °: ~ ~ ~E oN ~ ~ o~j i a O~ ~ ^ '~ 'C ~ h ~ W ~UL ~. d V~ A 4L w C (? "~+ ~ J a w a 0 0 _ ~ ` `1 m ~ U ct, i ~~ ~ o ~ a ~ o ~S~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~~ ~ j . ~ ~. I i ~ ~ §~ J ~ _ ~- ~~ ~ .a.¢ --- - -Y' W i 4 ~~ ( I R L_~ ; ~ i ~~ __ ~~ ---I I ~~ ~~ ~ ' I, ' -- ~~ ~ ~ ____:.___= i ~~ _ o i p `___-_____ ~ ~ ~- 4 ~ --------- ~; w ~ i ~ .. __--_--_- ~; w 3 ~ ~, ~~ ~ !+ '; ~ `~' i, ~ J ~~ ~; p ,i ~' h ~~ ,, i I ~~ ~ ~ a ~ ~; A ~ l - '~ a ~ ~; ~ -~ ~_ ~ ~ ; LJ u o ~ ! ; - ;~ ~ i~ i I i ~, w -~ i ~ , ~ ! __ -------~ i ~ I, I ti I ~' - ~~ ~ ~ ~ -~ -^ I; I a I ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ a ' _J I I 'F 1 ~ I ~~ ~~ ~~~ • • • g ~ ~ ~~ i i _ ~~~ ( i -- .~_.~ i ~~ ' ` i i ~: ~~~~ I; i ~ i~ i '~ ~ I l i i i C~ !' i ~ i ~ i i i ~ ~ i y i i I i~ i tJ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~a ~~$ ~~ ~~~~ • • • a ~ o ch O N k u ~ y, u 3 ~ _ `° J Fi32 ti 4 V~ h Ip ~ h ~ m~ k~ q ~ j ~ ~ 2° j Z N_ M T ~ ~' 14 i' ~ N O W~~~^ P y V ~ ~ Q K ~ ~ QJ~ W a ro~~ F> ~s ~:~: •G' ! O Gi I' Z ;y; ' -~ . - - - - . a°. mm ~ ~ .c., _....._ .._ 'I N 0 ~ 'I ~I ®m T ~ _ L~-~ ... j . _ ~ ~'~~~~yf ~• 4! _I- ~ / ___.~ 1, i I 1 .. t.l I I 1 1 I j S^~ ~' 3 1~. _ I ~ ~ ~ n I ~`~ gF S9 fil 0 + _ ^, at - ' Y: avm ~ I i ~ ~i .aa j f 4E I ~; S _ I I I _.:5.~ ~ I Q~~ uy~ ,a fi 16 d ~ ~~ N .iii _ ~ li . \~ ~ ST `~ II \` / m e#S ' o ® =:: ~` fit`; ~Jw.G:o L'iS ?7;;.'.ri ;rs ~:v F.i~1 4;~ t °a Y~Srs... ~i-s•k I. ~;v:.,,k~ .. yy,~i...Y,G.'~ I i I I'.___.'__' I r __....____._._ ~ I ! I __.__.__. _._.__. _I I I_.._...___.__... ._._________._.___._.. _. _.__._ I I I I I I i I ~_i 1 I I ! I I I I ~ Y I I ~ ~ I I I i I 1 ~_.__. ._ __.__ __. _. _I 1 I I L._.__..__._....__.____..._...__. ._._._____.___I __ __.. __. _._.__~ I I I ... _. _. .___... _._ _.____. __._..._... _. __... ____..__. ... _._____ __.______ _ _. _ I • <Y • • • • • • a $ o, 3 Z a $ ° o ~ ~~ A ~~p ~ ~ ~ y N ~ ~ ~ N v~ 9C b~~ ~ C N N > 4. .C '~ O W ~ 4 ~ ~~~' ° ~ v a ~ ~ I `' ,~•~~; ,~'+;i ~ I 1 ~ , ~Ya,~,+ 'l~ 4 j n 3 I I "y z I r I ~~ I I 5 I I i t-..4 I I ~%~ i ? I 3 t I I i ~ I ~.__.ca ___ f I ~ ~ I I I I ~ ~ __. ~ __._..._ I w..~._.._...,....... I I ~~ I I ~ ga ':o-ai I i".ct__ -____ i I ~ ~ I __ I ~ I F ~ i {{{} I ' s ; ~ I I ~ _ t t ~ i I N _____.___-_.._.._._ 1 ~ ro I w __."_ I ~ I y N I I f I j U1 I .. p 2 I j w I _~ __ __ __ ' ~ i b i ~ I a I ___-_. N t I I _ _~_. I I I I !~Fyy. I ~ i l` I / __~ I I ~ I I W ~ ~ I t ~._..~.. a~._...,_ _~ i I ~ ~ I I F .,.. I I Z ~ i tt UU I W __ I W I Q i ~ I `~ i ~ ( z I ,- O _ i~ ~ W I ry I ``tis;s z I ~; s I ~ t~~; P I I ' s~.r j -- _->.-_.._--- - I ~-~ .a.rr III f I __-.___ _______ _ ~ I ` ~ i t I ~ ~ 1 --__ U~ _ I :a=.r ~~ F ~ I ~I~ I I `~ 1 _... _____ I I I [: 1 ~ I ~ I + _____ ..____ V I i{t ~ .P,11 8~ I 1 ~ ~ II i ~ ~ F-•~ i .-i-.e '~.r.c ~_-~ 4 • • • I. t • 4 a~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ITEM 3 ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogosran John Mehaftey MEMORANDUM wick streit Ann Waltonsmith TO: Planning Commission FROM: Robert Schubert, AICP, Senior Planner~~C~ DATE: July 6, 2001 SUBJECT: DR-98-052.1; Nagpa1;19101 Via Tesoro Court DESCRIPTION The applicants request athree-year extension of Design Review application No. DR-98- 052 (see attached letter from the applicants dated April 18, 2001). The previously approved design review application was for the construction of a new 5,301 square foot two-story residence with a maximum height of 25 feet, l0 inches within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. BACKGROUND On May 12,1999, the Planning Commission denied a tentative map application by the applicants to subdivide an existing parcel into two parcels and design review approval to construct a new 5,301 square foot two-story residence on one of the parcels (see the attached Planning Commission Staff Report). The applicants subsequently appealed the Planning Commission's decision. On July 21,1999, the City Council approved the tentative map and design review application (see the attached City Council Staff Report and Resolution No. 99-46). Over the past two years, the applicants have satisfied the conditions of the tentative map and the final map for the project has been recorded. DISCUSSION The subject design review approval is scheduled to expire on July 21, 2001. The applicant has requested a 36 month extension of the design review approval (i.e., until July 21, 2004). Under Section 15-45.090 of the Zoning Ordinance, design review approvals are valid for 24 months. Design review approvals approved in conjunction with an approved tentative map maybe extended for a period or periods of time not exceeding 36 months (otherwise, design review approvals may be extended for a period not exceeding 12 Printed on recycled paper.. O®OV~~~ months). In this case, the maximum period of time that the subject application maybe extended is 36 months since the project included a tentative map. Extension of design review approval is not a matter of right and the Planning Commission may deny the application or approve it subject to conditions. In the opinion of staff, no new information which would affect the public's health, safety, or welfare has arisen since the design review application request was originally granted which would affect consideration of the project. However, the approved tentative map has been recorded and there is no evidence to indicate that more than a 12 month extension of the design review application is warranted at this time. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. DR- 98-052.1 extending the design review approval for 12 months (i.e., until July 21, 2002). ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. DR-98-052.1 2. Letter from applicants dated 4/18/01 3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated 5/12/99 4. Resolution No. 99-46 5. Tentative Subdivision Map and Plans, Exhibit "A" • • ~~D~Oti Attachment 1 RESOLEJTION NO. DR-98-052.1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Nagpa1;19101 Via Tesoro Court WHEREAS, application has been made to the Planning Commission fora 36 month extension of a Design Review approval as set forth in Resolution No. 99-46; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicants have not met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following finding has been determined: Although no new information which would affect the public's health, safety, or welfare has arisen since the design review application request was originally granted which would affect consideration of the project; t}-Le approved tentative map has been recorded and there is no evidence to indicate that more than a one year extension of the design review application is warranted at this time. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the design review application is hereby extended for 12 months and shall expire on July 21, 2002, subject to the following conditions: 1. All conditions of Resolution No. 99-46 shall remain in full force and effect, as applicable to the subject design review application. 2. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City 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. 3. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 3. 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. 000003 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 11`h day of July 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • C~ J ~~~~~~} /~`~ °~ .. Pr Descri tin and Status . o~ect p Attachment 2. ~ddress: 19101 Va Tesoro Court, Saratoga, CA 95070 caner: Amit and Susie Nagpal File No.: SD-98-008, DR-98-052 Date: April 18, 2001 Project: Subdivision of a 2.46-acre parcel and design review of a new house on Lot 2 The City of Saratoga Resolution No. 99-46 dated July 21, 1999, approved the subdivision of a 2.46-Acre parcel of land located at 19101 Via Tesoro Court into two parcels. Additionally, design review approval to construct a new 5,301 sq.ft. two story residence on the vacant parcel (Lot 2) was approved. The existing house on Lot 1 will remain. Over the past two years, several conditions stated in the resolution have been met and completed. These include: 1. All sub-division conditions have been met. The subdivision map has been approved by City Engineer and has been recorded with the Santa Clara County. 2. All applicable city fees have been paid including Park and Recreation fee. 3. All recommendations of the City Geotechnical Consultant have been met. A Geotechnical investigation of the site was conducted and the conditions outlined in the resolution were met. 4. Plans illustrating improvements for a pedestriaNequestrian pathway within the easement along Chester Avenue were submitted and approved by Planning Staff, City Arborist and Parks and Recreation Commission. 5. The Indemnification agreement with the City has been executed. Additionally, a process has been underway to develop details for submission to the Planning Department for Zoning Clearance. These will inGude: 1. A final landscaping and irrigation plan. 2. Complete construction plans including building, construction, and engineering details. Engineered grading and drainage plans. City Arborist report and recommendations. Over the past two years, the increased construction activity in the bay area has constrained the available resources and increased the cost of construction exponentially. Despite the efforts made, the availability of engineering resources have caused a delay in the development of the details required to secure building permits and develop engineering details necessary to initiate construction. Efforts have been underway to identify contractors to build, manage and complete the project in accordance with city expectations. The lack of available resources has driven the cost of construction abnormally higher, when compared to costs in different parts of the country. In reviewing all aspects of the current economic environment and conditions, it has been become necessary to delay the construction by the maximum time period allowable under the city regulations (36 months). It is our goal to continue to develop the details necessary to secure the Zoning Clearance and Building Permits. We expect to initiate construction as soon as it becomes economically feasible to build the house, and construction costs are more reasonable. (At this time the cost of construction in the bay area is more than twice of what it is in the rest of the country.) An application for the extension of an approved project is being submitted. Again, it is our goal to initiate construction as soon as building permits can be secured, and the construction costs become more reasonable. • _, ~~0~~5 • T~iIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ~©~®~~ Attachment 3 • • • Applicant No./i,ocation: SI3-98-008 & DR-98-052;191 O1 Via Tesoro Court App4candOwner: NAGPAL Staff Planner: Cluistina Ratcliffe, Assistant Planner ~~ Date: May 12,1999 APN: 397-13-057 Department Head:/~~I ~ '' 191111 Via Taenrn ~''n»rt Q®0®0'7 AppL'cant NoJLocation: SD-98-008 & DR-98-052;19101 Via Tesoro Court AppGcandOwner: NAGPAL ~' pp Staff Planner. Christina Ratcliffe, Assistant Planner ~~ Date: ~ May 12,1999 APN: - 397-13-057 Department Head: 1 . S i *. .I ~i .i n~~n~ 141 ~1~ Vwa T'ACr-trn- ~''f-t1Yt File No. SD-98-008 & DR-98-052; 1911 Via Tesoro Court EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 10/28/98 Application complete: 4/14/99 Notice published: 4/28/99 Mailing completed: 4/29/99 Posting completed: 5/ 7/99 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide into two lots an existing 2.46 acre lot containing one existing 6,240 sq. ft. residence that is on the Historic Preservation Registry. The existing residence would then be on Lot 1, and is proposed to remain. The applicants are also requesting Design Review approval for construction of a 5,301 sq. ft. two-story residence with a maximum height of 25 ft., 10 in. on the newly created Lot 2. The property is located in an R-1- 40,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Tentative Parcel Map and the Design Review request by adopting Resolutions SD-98-008 and DR-98-052. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolutions SD-98-008 and DR-98-052 3. Resolution HP-98-O1 4. City Arborist Report, dated 12/10/98 5. Correspondence 6. Tentative Parcel Map, Exhibit "A" 7. Site Plans, Exhibit "B" 0®0049 File No. SD-98-008 & DR-98-052; 19101 Via Tesoro Court STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Very Low Density MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 2.46 acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 11.08 % existing lot 10.16 % proposed Lot 1 11.07 % proposed Lot 2 GRADING REQUIRED: None proposed COLORS PROPOSED: Beige stucco with terra-cotta curved the roof to mirror adjacent historic residence PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE Lot 1: Interior lot Net parcel size: 58,236 sq. ft. 40,000 sq. ft. Frontage: 450 ft. 100 ft. Width: 202 ft. 150 ft. Depth: 261 ft. 150 ft. Floor Area: 6,240 sq. ft. 6,240 sq. ft. Setbacks': Front: 52.2 ft. 52.2 ft. Right side: 20.4 ft. 20.2 ft. Left side: 90 ft. 20.2 ft. Rear: 65.2 ft. 65.2 ft Lot 2: Corner lot Net parcel size 48,921 sq. ft. 40,000 sq. ft. Frontage: 153 ft. 100 ft. Width: 226 ft. 150 ft. Depth: 159 ft. 150 ft. Per Section 15-12.090(b), setbacks on newly created lots are percentage based or standard setbacks, whichever is greater. • C oooolc ~ File No. SD-98-008 & DR-98-052; 19101 Via Tesoro Court Floor Area: 5,301 sq. ft. 6,060 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: 31.8 ft. 31.8 ft. Interior (right) side: 22.6 ft. 22.6 ft. Exterior (left) side: 140 ft. 25 ft. ' Rear: 50 ft. 40 ft. PROJECT DISCUSSION Background In 1995 the applicant requested subdivision of this parcel and was denied. The initial proposal had a different configuration than what is before the Commission today, and required Variance approval to maintain an existing setback on Lot 1. The proposal before the Planning Commission today meets all General Plan, Subdivision, and Zoning Code requirements and does not require a Variance. Additionally, at staff's request, the applicant is concurrently proposing a residence on the newly created vacant parcel. Staff felt that this was necessary in order to properly evaluate the possible impacts of the proposal. Tentative Parcel Map The applicant is requesting Planning Commission approval to subdivide this 2.46 acre site into two separate lots. The existing historic residence on Lot 1 is proposed to remain. The applicant is also requesting Design Review approval to construct a new residence on the newly created Lot 2. The property is located on the corner of Via Tesoro Court and Chester Avenue, and is characterized by gently sloping terrain and numerous trees. Surrounding development consists of similar density single-family homes. Currently a circular driveway is used to access the existing lot. As part of the Tentative Map proposal, a portion of the existing driveway will be removed, so that the newly created parcels will have separate driveway access; Lot 1 from Chester, and Lot 2 from Via Tesoro.z ' Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Compliance: The City's Subdivision and Zoning regulations are the implementation tools of Saratoga's General Plan and the State Subdivision Map Act. The Zoning Ordinance establishes minimum standards for lot sizes, depths, widths and frontages. It also regulates building placement, modifications to natural topography and Ordinance-protected tree removal. This Tentative Parcel Map complies with all minimum zoning standards with regard to parcel size, configuration and setbacks. Z If the driveway connection were to remain, it would require the granting of access/egress easements, which would need to be deducted from the gross area in order to calculate allowable floor area. In addition, setbacks would have to be measured from the edge of the right-of--way, rather than the property line. (Sections 15-06.620 & 15-06.590) 4®001. File No. SD-98-008 & DR-98-052; 19101 Via Tesoro Court A clarification should be made here regarding the reason for the somewhat unusual configuration of the lots. The Zoning Ordinance (as amended in 1992) requires that newly created lots apply parcel percentage-based setbacks. As a single existing parcel, the current front yard setback would be 30 ft. The existing historic residence is located approximately 52 ft. from the front property line. The front yard setback for newly created lots is 20% of the parcel's depth (52.2 ft. for Lot 1). Thus, the proposed configuration meets all Zoning requirements, without requiring any Variance approval. Although this is an unusual configuration, it will allow the historic residence to remain and be in conformance with the current Zoning Ordinance. The applicant could propose a more regular lot configuration, but that would necessitate the demolition of an historically important structure. Other DepartmentlAgency Review This Tentative Parcel Map has been xeviewed by the Public Works Department, the City Geologist, City Arborist, the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the Saratoga Fire District, the West Valley Sanitation District, Pacific Gas & Electric, the Saratoga Union School District, the Historic Preservation Commission, and the Parks and Recreation Commission. All their recommendations and conditions have been included in the attached conditions of approval. Of note among these recommendations is that of the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) that the existing 10 ft. wide pedestrian/equestrian easement along Chester Avenue be improved. This easement contains several Ordinance-protected trees. Staff has included the improvement of this pathway as a condition of approval to the extent feasible without damaging any Ordinance- protected trees. Planning Staff, the City Arborist, and the PRC will jointly consider any pathway improvement plans. Staff has some concerns regarding the PRC recommendation of the pathway which will be discussed in more detail at the site visit and at the Planning Commission hearing. Design Review The applicant is proposing to construct a 5,301 sq. ft. two-story residence with a maximum height of 25 ft., 10 in. from natural grade. This includes an attached three-car garage. No other accessory structures or uses are proposed. The residence design utilizes several of the techniques recommended to minimize building bulk and mass in the City's Residential Design Handbook. The rooflines are well articulated to reduce the building mass, and large expanses of walls are avoided. In addition, the applicants have endeavored to design the residence with the adjacent historical home in mind. Specific design elements, as well as material and color choices, minor the adjacent historic residence. Staff had initial concerns regarding the relative size of the proposed residence (5,301 sq. ft.), but given the design, the size of existing homes in the surrounding area, and that the allowable floor area for this lot would be 6,060 sq. ft., staff feels that the size, placement and design are appropriate for this location. Additionally, the placement of the proposed residence minimizes grading and does not call for the removal of any Ordinance-protected trees. o®~~~; File No. SD-98-008 & DR-98-052; 19101 Via Tesoro Court Correspondence Staff has received correspondence from three neighbors. Mr. and Mrs. Zierdt of McClay Court do not oppose the development, but expressed concerns regazding possible negative impacts to their residence from drainage and runoff. Staff feels that due to the topography of the lots and the conditioned improvements, their concerns can be readily addressed. Roberta and Walter Weideman of Chester Avenue aze in support of the proposal, but expressed concerns that the existing vegetation, and particulazly Oak trees, would be damaged by the proposed equestrian/pedestrian pathway. Staff feels that by conditioning the proposed pathway as discussed above, no Ordinance-protected trees will be damaged. Mazda and Harry Ratner of Via Tesoro Court are opposed to the proposed lot split and residence on the basis that the proposed location is too close to their existing residence and that it will be too much of an imposition on their privacy, particulazly the second story element. The proposed setbacks conform to the Zoning Ordinance requirements as set forth in Section 15- 12.090 (b).When reviewing the plans, staff notes that the second story element is placed on the farthest portion of the residence from the Ratners. The nearest portion of the first story is 42 ft. from the Ratners' residence, the second story is 80 ft. from the Ratners' home. Staff feels that the placement of the residence is not only in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance, but preserves Ordinance protected trees and requires no grading. Moving the residence towazd the west, as the Ratners suggest, would result in increased grading, possible impacts on Ordinance-protected trees, and would require either the re-design of the residence or a request for a Variance to the setback requirements. Staff does note, however, that the proposed residence configuration calls for placement of the garage 42 feet from the Ratner's residence. Although the existing driveway is not proposed to change, staff feels that the presence of a gazage may create an additional impact to the Ratners. Staff therefore recommends that the applicant submit a landscape plan for staff approval in order to provide screening along the eastern side of the pazcel. This has been added as a condition of approval. Conclusion Staff feels that the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the General Plan, as well as meeting all requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances as detailed in Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Staff also feels that the Design Review findings outlined in Section 15.45-080 of the Zoning Ordinance can be made in regards to the proposed residence and supports the application for Design Review approval. RECOMMENDATION A rove the a lications b ado tin Res 1 - - pp pp y p g o utions SD-98 008 and DR-98 052. ®®0~~3 • T~iIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 0®0014 Attachment 4 • RESOLUTION NO. 99- ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA GRANTING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL SD-98-008. and DR-98-052; NAGPAL: 19101 VIA TESORO COURT ~J WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Nagpal made an application under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide .one existing parcel into two parcels and design review approval to construct a new 5,301 square foot two story residence with a maximum height of 25 ft., 10 in. on one of the parcels; and WHEREAS, on May 12, 1999„ the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing on said application at which all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and following the conclusion thereof, the Planning Commission voted to deny the application.; WHEREAS, the denial of the Planning Commission has been appealed to the City Council by the applicant; and WHEREAS, on July 7, 1999, the City Council conducted a de novo public hearing on the appeal, which included a review of the entire tentative map application and the entire design review permit application, at which time any person interested in the matter was given the full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered.the staff report, minutes of proceedings conducted by the Planning Commission relative to the application, and all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council in support of and in opposition to the appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA, as follows: Section 1. The appeal from the Planning Commission is hereby granted, to wit: The applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the application and the following findings have been determined: - The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and i 0®~®~S improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific regulations relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies, and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated May 12, 1999 being hereby made for further particulars; and . - None of the conditions set~forth in Government Code Sections 66474(a)-(g) and 66474.6 exist with respect to said subdivision and tentative approval should .be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth; and -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 neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy in that the placement and height of the proposed residence will not adversely impact adjacent properties. -The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural_ contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal. Grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas and all Ordinance-protected tress on the site will be preserved. -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 proposed design is similar in scale, size and style to other homes in this neighborhood and surrounding areas. -The proposed 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 (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy, in that the design minimizes the perception of heighx and bulk and the placement of the residence on the lot will not unreasonably impose on adjacent properties. -The proposed site development and grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. -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. Section 2. The Tentative Parcel Map for the subdivision, which map is dated April 9, 1999 and is marked Exhibit A in the hereinafter referred file, is hereby conditionally z ~®0®~,6 approved. The conditions of said approval aze as follows: 1. A portion of the existing circular driveway shall be removed so as to create separate and individual access to each lot. 2. Applicant shall submit to Planning staff plans indicating improvements for a pedestrian/equestrian pathway within the easement along Chester Avenue to the extent feasible v~~thout endangering any Ordinance-protected trees. 3. Pathway improvement plans shall be reviewed by Planning staff, the City Arborist and approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission prior to recordation of the Final Map. 4. Future development on both lots shall adhere to the then current Zoning requirements. Future homes shall be sited and designed to minimize the amount of pad . grading necessary and the removal of ordinance-protected trees. 5. Subdivision improvement construction hours shall be limited to 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except in the event of an emergency which imperils public safety. The Public Works Director may grant an exemption upon his/her determination of an emergency. 1Vo construction work shall be permitted on legal holidays. 6. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an external property corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the City Engineer, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 7. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map n substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14-40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the information required in Section 13-40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following~items: a. One copy of map checking calculations. b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. c. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map. d. One copy of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map. e. ~ One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the City Engineer. ~®~®~`~ . ~~ \~v, 8. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the time of submittal of the Final Map for Examination. 9. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements and/or rights-of--way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Vesting Tentative Map, prior to the Final Map approval. 10. All structures or appurtenances straddling the proposed lot line between Lots 1 and 2 shall ~be removed prior to Final Map Approval. ~ ~ . 11. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with Section 14-05.050 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map approval. 12. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the City Engineer. with satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serve the subdivision. 13. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to City Engineer. 14. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation fee prior to Final Map approval. ~ 3 I ~~ 9 ~ 15. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 16. All requirements for tree protection as recommended by the City Arborist shall apply throughout subdivision improvements construction. 17. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Pans are submitted for review. 18. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to City Engineer. 19. All recommendations of the City Geotechnical Consultant shall be adhered to. 4 ~~0®~p This includes, but is not limited to: a. Prior to Final Map approval the owner's (applicant's) Geotechnical Engineer shall conduct an investigation of the property. As part of this investigation, the ~~ consultant should characterize site geotechnical conditions and provide geotechnical design recommendations for the proposed construction. The investigation should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following tasks. - ~., ,. • The consultant shall prepare a Geotechnical Site Plan (1 "=10') \~ depicting slope gradients, locations of proposed improvements and ~ exploratory borings, and the distribution of earth materials (alluvium, colluvium, and bedrock). In addition, the consultant shall prepare geotechnical/geologic cross sections (1"=10') depicting existing and proposed slope profiles, the probable thickness and extent of surgical materials, locations of exploratory boreholes and proposed improvements, and anticipated groundwater levels. • The seismic setting of the property shall be characterized and seismic ground motion parameters should be provided in accordance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code for consideration by the structural ~~~en 'Weer in the design of the residence and retaining walls.. The, consu laalLals_ovide estimates of anticipated-total and differential settlement. 20. Lot 1 shall connect a new building sewer at Chester Avenue in place of the connection at Ten Acres Road. 21. Lot 2 shall connect a new building sewer at Via Tesoro Court. 22. Subdivision shall connect to San Jose Water Company prior to issuance of building or plumbing permits. 23. Per Santa Clara Valley Water District requirements, the owner shall show any existing wells on the plans. The well(s) should be properly registered with the District and either maintained or abandoned in accordance with District standards. 24. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City 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. 25. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this use permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each 0®O®19 day of violation. 26. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. 27. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 3. The application of Nagpal for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference, and Exhibits "B" and "C" as submitted by appellants on June 30, 1999. 2. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading permits, the following shall be submitted to Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a) A final landscapting and irrigation plan shall be submitted consistent with the approved Exhibit "C". All landscaping and irrigation required pursuant to Exhibit "C" shall be installed prior to final inspection. • b) Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. c) Four (4) sets of engineered grading and drainage plans, also incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. 3. All recommendations of the City Arborist Report dated 12/10/98 shall be followed. This includes, but is not limited to: a) Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance: • The Arborist Report shall be included as a separate page in the plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. • Protective chain link fencing shall be located in such a manner that it protects the entire root unless otherwise noted. Fencing must be in place before any materials, construction or grading equipment arrive on site and must remain in place until all construction is completed, including cleanup operations, unless supervised by an arborist certified by the ISA. • The tree protective platform buffer for tree #2 shall be inspected by the City Arborist prior to construction of the new path. 6 ~~~®~0 • The applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $5,698 pursuant to the report of the City Arborist to guarantee the preservation of trees on the property during construction. ~b) Prior to issuance of Grading and Building Permits: • Tree protection fencing shall be inspected by the City Arborist. • All other applicable tree protection measures shall be completed. c) Prior to Final Inspection approval: • The City 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 City Arborist fees shall be paid. 4. .All recommendations of the City Geotechnical Consultant shall be adhered to. This includes, but is not limited to: S a) Prior to Zoning Clearance, the owner (applicant) shall pay an outstandin fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project. g b) Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the project geotechnical engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the detailed site development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading and design parameters for the proposed construction) to ensure that hisJher recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted-to the City Engineer for review. 5. ~ An approved residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in the garage per the City of Saratoga Ordinance. The designer/architect shall contact San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. 6. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 7. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 8. Any new pool constructed on the property shall be subject to site modification - 00002 approval. Landscaping of the site shall substantially comply with the landscaping plan submitted to the City Council on July 7, 1999. 9. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City 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 City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. 11. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. 12. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. **: Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 21st day of July , 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Streit, Mehaffey, Vice Mayor Bogosian, Mayor Shaw NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmember Baker ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: Ci Clerk MSR:dsp August 2, 1999 F:\W PD\M NRS W\2 73\RES99WAG PAL.APV 8 Mayor • • 000022 0 n J ~ i Z 7~ ~ O 4 m 6 m n p v y • a a ~ a j ~ r a~ _> ~u° ~ u° i ~ 3~ ~ ~ ~ t r_ Z ~p~i a~N"< p.R ~Ru3 ~ W„ uLLO~ =~5~ ~ ty V Z s~ SS ~~8 ~~wg x y ~~'~ i ni=u1 ~ gala o~~ ~~~a ~ ~ i ~ ~ ' ~ w > = ~ 3 °d 3 w 3~3_ uS ~ ~ ~ S ~ ... b ~ N N ~ ~ t ~ Sooo g ~ . I ~ o000 ~ s r~~~ ~ ~hN..l r~' ~ F ~ W O T < < ~f ~ V 7 I: ~ C ~ ~ < ~' ~ l ~ '~ '• - n a z H ~ w :~ ~ ~ 0 W W ~ Ji W U Z V 2 LLO > I Z ~go aWm¢ p O n ~ J O O ~ u ~ ~ i c7 i ~ t O V J J ~ Q N ~ i ~ a ~ ~ a $$ ~ ' o ~ t7 u ~ N ,~ i ~ m z p X .. o= E u u 3 a '~ ~ i u H 'u5 y 'uf ~ a i a ~ ~ y ~ d a ~ N a 'u5 n u~ i b~H ~p 16 y F~ . ~sF ap ry~ b sQ hb ~I ~~ ~I 0 V' E 1 11 • E 11 ,rA O ~ ~ ~p ~ yl 1 ~w O ``, ,s \ i ~~,3 r r° 1 L ~"\\tr`. \ 1.~ A {. ./ ~ .- /.. .... i. , ~ ). >~ ~, a // .,~, F7 ,`e~ tom,,. o ~ ` ~~/ r~1 /~ 9c~~ 'd'am ~~t~ °' ~ lip/ / ._~, / `~,` ._~ ,/ . ~/~ .~f / ; • a i 0 1-` U F 11. n O ~+.n ~; Z ~ K ~_ _~ ~ O !r .°~ x m n~[ < = ii ~ n 0 W .~6yy ~ y 1 ~, n 'a U d p ~ w u < d f!1 ~ w m ,~~ ~ <r a°IIgJ~ r W W w W ~ N 0 n ~ ~ = J ~Q ~ v as ~ ~~ t... 0 ~~~° ~c ~~°~~ o~a. ~Q ~ > oc ~ ~~ ~~ ` o r `u 1.1 N Z (! ° ri Z z ~: w~ W ; ~, ~ ~ -~ ~ XX C7 t~il V ~ LL W N W J ~_ N 5 LL ~ v r V Zpp Z z 1°., /- 01 N ~ N \~ /_ IU ` , W ~J ~ ® ~S a LL O 2 O N .Q J Z 6 Z 7 O Z u N O =~ Vi_ _ m z N 1A 6 m N m r I ~ mi ;' r `^ Iot ar. ~ u ~ ~ q ~ _ t T LL ,~ m m m W W Z 7 I W Z Z Y W ~ ; V V ~ ~ W<< N W ~ 6 t V Q W 2~ (: O a O o V n -. __sa:~<<tIE~l.~ :_:~! {SSEny3€~ L ~~ ~i js'~:``3+i ~:'is3..'Ci3 j~c~3EES~.~e EZ _FaET~~3~a i; • ~~ } m 0 O s oLO56 dlNaodliv~ d~O1V2lVS 'l~ 0210S31 VIA 10161 ~`dd~dN llWd ~dW ~~S~W TJO~ 3~N3aIS32! J 0.0. ~ e j~ aZ Y ~R ,4 ~O Z f ~ nE N ~ o ~ 0 ., 1- 11- 0. p4 UIN d 4i w9 '+ ti ~ v m ~ t, ~ N N N P ~ ~ 0 L~ L~ a Q Q Q V d< ~ rw z 0 Q O F.. <~ 7 ~ul ~ O `z ~~ o .a; o < .- N N N 1 f w d W p r r O O F-KU' O ~ NN /" ~- k N ~ O O w `~ N O ~S ~9 OC • n w ~L Q < O j LL 1i ~ m <a o < ` r n, N 4 F F- J ~ ~ Q d ~ ~ +1 ~n V1 W (~ o H O ~ V' p v O „~ ~j y N M N ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~i ii ~1 11 11 . O w ' ~ l7 1~= t - Pf ~ j V > ~> > K n W l1 O LL o n- p U W v U U t N ` w W o n "i 9 v ~ w ~ c ~ 3 > p > ddu 2 O ~ i _ O K O O K Z < J ~ .n V ~~`~~ Joao 1~ y- U. m W w UI nl O O N N t O( W a d d? nl W r ~ (] ] CI a t<~ a ditL 1,. i u. ~i N 1 1-1 i P .9 ^_~ 11 0 d W w ~ ~ N ~~ = G ~ = o Z o w N < o_ m~ X OC .-, W < lu z 0 u 0 „/^. -~ _.- \ ~ Cryaq ~ A f \~ ~, y,,, -~ i~ Jb 9 y~~bOLry. ~.\ O w SO ~'d~p, . •.,~ ~ a N .. 3>ry, K O N~ F 1O ~~~ ' y.hhi I ~ ~~01 K \.. ~ ~~ \ 4~' Wes. ~ .. ~ ~I +, d,, ~~\ ~b~f3 ~~ ~u• IW '.V \ \ ~V•~0.R\l.. d ~ ~ t \I,~KV ~\ \ U /: ~ \ \ ! ~\~ x'.11 ~ r - ~~a ,~'\ ~ o ~ ' - ~ 1 ~ , jai . b\~ ,\ ~ O ~ v \~) ~ ~- f l ~, `~J' \ A~ i ,,, I ~w o ~ ~ r ~ ~~~- ~;- i' ~. O :y'~ ,o ~~, ~U ~o V)~~ /~ z~ ~ ~. J t' ~ - . ',:. -- - _ . ~nN~n~ -~a1s3N~ .. r1> Z ; W 1-- • ,~ S N 2 4 Q L 1= Z u 0 0 m a oLO56 VINb0~11V9 v~otvavs -lo oacsal vln IoI6I ~dd~'~N liWb '21 W '~ 'S21W 2l0.~ ~~N~OIS3Z1 J R ~ o 0 = S YN y .. ° ¢ 0 ,~;In ~ I , _._ ..... ~..._._ r ~ i ~ i I ~ ~ I n, . u~ I z I 1 :- _ ' ; ; ~`` - - 4 e-''* ~ ,pz ~'-- go;id LLI, , ' x; y I . ~' ~'. I I E_01 - n61Z I tl9~b ~'. -._. ~O 6 I 9916 < I n `O~\71 C.aL. _ 1 '61 ...//p/e.... ,,y /,~iA ;I n~IR IyR ? I n9 is i I i,"'~ ~ i, .~.~ ?>.L ^y.;..J~_\ f• ,, l.. i I I i I i i i j ... _ ._: ;I:ni/;~o ~} r~:4'I; i ryl i I ' I I'. I .'`nl I ('~ . 1 'Ji ( j I v; "I I ;w; ! I I I I I I '=i ` __ . ~ I o.S; , o.al a.sz ~o o, i I _ :~ -....... - _ . _ . _..-- - I t l I i ! i I ,'o;i~ --~-----e - - ~ I ~ ~ „_ - - - I I g °~ I ~ - ' c ~ r ' ". N j i I I I I` `~' n II 11 II II II U II ,II (11 N ~ ~ I I - • j u~~ I i Q I ~ K ~.0 1 ; x n y ". O v ' , t lL tr ^' N - '! I i ~ I ~e'~ 3i m ui j i I -r = _ ~ y :I n I I ~o I i i I U i O m :~ p c Z ~ .~_..._ I 1- ~ o o! I ~~ ~.°v, I~ I o ~ ~ ~'N'o-m~~. -_ x_,_10 K°uo >- I I - __ ~I,!,_ _ _ ~ `I I .. j, 9~B ~~ 9i 11 ~ y9 ie _• - ~-'-~~TW=-==-. 1\ r I ~4~~\1 I ~ i' I I ~ - ` . ~. ' I w': ~ - I ~ ~;~ - `.. ,. . ~~ _ _ i l .' .; I •. : _ I ~ - •y ~ ~ \ -' • I r , . ~` I - ~ I ~ m oC_ I -_ I I .:.. _ ~ ~., ! I F In i I ~ ~. .~ I I I .~.,.L. .. .-...-GZi"t.i .............. y1\• I uZi+~ I 'i \ • ' ~: : __ I o . I ~ ~... I ~ i t I I~11 1~ ~~~ i ~ I 1 ''.: ~ I IY. ~ I n'iJl l 1 ~ I ~ I I:Ii I I i~m~ I ° I r>oI _~j 4i ~`. 1 I I I .III J I i. to ; _ ~- o•• :~. ' + T i I f i I ~ i I I ! I ' Ir-- oo i t ! I I I I oD[ i Ii; I I I ~ol ~ ,...... N ~ I I o il; I I! i_. I r_~- ! I d~ I z~ i lid. _ ~ I I ~''t. ~~~ ~~ `I I ., ~I ~ ? * ~ I ~ I it I ~ I e ~ ~ _ I , ,.. ~ - _. __ - - ~_ 1 I ~ n ~ ~/ i I a ~ ~y j cam- _ ~„F~: _ - .. m `l \ ~- I 1 __j._ `I ti^l I 1. i ~~'~ 8 i ~ r I ~~ I I ~ ~. I i I ~ ,.., w I _ ~ y, . ~ \ I ' N N t •. \ ~ I I `\ N _ ..... .. .. .................._........ .` .. _. _._.__I -. ~ - I I T' ~ j i i ~ ,%y'~,. Ii' al .~ i I gip. i `\ : I I I ~ /.~~Y i~ j "`I I ~ I ,' ~` nl ~ q '\ p \; I - ---- I I ; I \ I I I ~ I W I I II 14- ,- I ~1 I I I I zo = ~, I~ I ~ I I I ~ j I Zo ~ ro ~bI 'I 71~ 1 1 ~ i j tl l I I ~-- ! ~ , I ooh lJ ,I j ; ~ ~ I' ~ 1 ` I j is -- I I I J ' I ~( j j I ~ r-I I i ' j I j ~ I ~ [-`~ j--; ~ I a I I I I i ~.: \ ~ i i I n j i i F i' ~ i I U I i ;p, j i I ~ \ ~ i ___JJJ ° I ' ~ / i' j •m. ~ i LI- j I I \~ I--J ~ i . In ' ._.. _.__..._.. ..._..~ .._-._-'- -- - ....-. ... ... ....... _...... ... _.... ..._ ... _ I • I I I i ~ I I I 1 I , i I i --~ ; ..... .~,... .... ~ _.. .. .. __.._. ... _- --k ... - .-......_ ..._.-_y._.....----~..._-~...---..__.......j....,.._....------------~ ~'~ o- (I I n•A ' ~ ~o.El t~r',9 ~ 9•II ~~l III „c~a -B I uU"il... .. 1 p0~91 0-92. .O~~OI 1 • n , ._...... ub7 I'L------...-- --'---- ------- • • oLO56 dIN?JO~Iw~ doO1d21dS '1~ O?1oS81 VIA IoI61 ~`dd~bN llWd ~2~W'S'S?~W 2~0~ 3~N~aIS32~ w ~ `~ G I ~ ~ Q i <o ,,, :e11 U i I of ~ ~ _ ~ 6 ._ _~__'.... ' ~- 1 . i ... _ . ~~------~.~--. .. .. .. .. -~-----°-~ -* --~--~-------.. ....----- I I :1 I I I I I I~ I ;l ,I it I II ~ it I~ w ~I 1 ~~ I I ~ { ~ ~~ ~ I 1; ;, , ~ ~ II w 0 4{ I (1 II II I I i I LL ~ ( ~' I I ~ ' I I I II I I ._~... ~~ ~ I L+ y ~I II----..__ -. ~~ 'r _._ --__.- ~.. _~.{. -- ~---...._._1. _ ._.. ...__..-_. _.._....{~ . II II 4! . ---1..._... i~ ~ ~ t-._......... is i~ ~~ I U I ~i I i iu i I N: tll~ I >~ ! ~~ I 1~ C~ I , \1 N.I 1 I ~ ~ I I YI I I! ~' I ,~•, I I~ 1• I .: ,, j i ,i~...~-' 1. I/ . i~ ''\~.~ ~I \~; , \~ . ~, ~ ~I i i II i I i i \.... - •... `0;61.. .._...--~---.:--°-.....~..._. _ ... l ~. i .- - - - -r. .. ~~ I ~_~ ` 057 ~ p:(t-61' ~ _~ I.i I t j I . I hT !1-1.1.51%1 ~ r ~~ , ~N~ U \--1- I ~„.~ . r .. ~ i '.y 1 ~ ~'r~j ~ ~a:~ ul - .S) ... .. .' ~ fA -„~; i '~,I ~ .____ , ~ I ___ ~ ~ ~ I L ~ ml ~ Yj ro' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ _ J i ~ ~ ! y ^ ~ ~~ ..._.- -- __ __...... .... Ir. ...- --..._.-_.._...._..._.. 0- 9: _1NI --~-v I ~,i `;m -~ r ~^' `^I i i ,;~ iI -N~ ~{ ~ 1 (, I 1 1 ' I ~ I I 'o. -m. I T ~,~ \ ; i ~i ~... I - ~I I -,1,; I ; z '~ J SL 0 O J l~ (~~ Z U Lvtl l ~~-H ,.-.I ..~Ik N,~ ~ ~ a~f/l ~o~H: ,~.__.... q~_ve LL 1 N ., ~ " .'. u N n ~ ~ U ., T ~ u n u u tP a "' .-. o °.. ~~ '• nu n -,~, E Z • • • m a s a OL056 VIN210jI1V7 Y~olyadS 'lo o~OSal vln lolbl ~dd9dN lIW`d ~2~W '8 'S?~ W ZIOd 37N~dIS3~ 1 ` n I V ~ ^p p • • ~ _ ^ ~ 2 U o 0 11 U I ~ I 1 U< I U ~r~ ~ ^ N 0 Z .1 °d- I ,; I~ .f ~ II f i .. ~ _... I 1 --> ~ ~ is ± ~' ~i 1 ~~ ~ ~ ~t ,; ~ ~' i I ~{ ~; .~ ;: ;, ;; ~ , 1 ---._.._----~_. - ~i I..---_._. _._...._.------~-, i ., ., ., ~. ,. ;, _ . _~.J ............_._......_. __.- •~-- _ _ _II- -~- -~ .; .~ --._.. .. ~~ ~ {~ ~ ,! I I ~; , ~: 1-j i '• ~ ~ l i i iil ~ I. ~ II ~. ~ ~ Y !: I~~i ~~ I' I; ~i ~~ t~ ~f ;~ 1 `~ I ~.- i~ i. _ ~--- ~ 1 t 1. L~ ~.\ .\~` ~\ i Z IL_ LL L~ ~1: N O ~ i ~ i ii ~ ,..~ _~ 2 ..~ a ! I ( i ~ i- , ~ I`' : I i i '_1 • • • m 5 a OL056 dIN?JOdlly7 b901d2ld5 '10 O~lOS31 VIb 10161 ~bd~~fN 11 Wd '?~W '8 'S~1 W ~IO~ ~~N~GIS~21 ~ _< s ; o- 'o • u i ~ 'i r . '4 _. u" z 1 a ~ ~ : u n_ = • u ' i F s V 0 ...... . ,...... . ~~~ + x ~ n 7 N LL ~ t] X W O pz ~ ~ K ~ JI ~ ~ W ~ _ w d ~ i .~ o m n u ~o 2 ~ N_ V 2 IT- z ~ LL- , X w I I of-SZ ~ I ~ ..... .. .. ....n ~ .. ...:. ... . i_ 6~SZ ~ Y •y;L ! ~y-b ~~, I i o.ll . .. ~.i • i -~~ O; I I _ ~ s ! ;: I~ I i N K 4~ W 1-. j.- ll n- !`1 ~ ~_ O •` u L >- a m ~ 3 ~1 - , 1 l V - Ix V N l9 ~ ,.. ~r, , . ~~ . ~•. ~' ...~rJ /r ` ;, ~~ r~ . .I, ' , ;. ~,~` 1 ~, N p1 T e< nl f~ ~.- x x 1~ _ • ,%~ ; . \~ ~~~ ~ 11,\x. '~\ -~;,~ ~~. '` ~ 1'1~ -. t `. ~ , t-,1;` ' _~ 1 \' .. .s f 8 K t] dl 0 i I m I o: I v- I a~ I ~ o I ~~° I LL ,.1. I p 1 w w 1 ~_ 1 ~_ z Il Y Iy 1¢ I_ ~s i.. ,~~cl I I .... _ . i ~~. . _...__ p716~.._. _.... .. .. -~-----...°--b~6- ( u ._. ..... .. ~_ . -..... I Y w ! T- ~ ~ 1 N ' j I I ~ i i i w I I I 1- I ~ ' :~ I ' , ~ ' I LL II -\ I ' I i I v w I 11 "l" = i I ifN N 1 .C u. i I i~ I j ~ i ~~. ~ ~~ I ! ' vl nl ~ ~ K K l7 I I O l7 W i t I I ___ l~ __-_____ ' ~ ~ I I ~ x O W n. !; li~ ---- +• --- ..ts,l ~., . ,. J~ 1' 'iii i ii '~ i Y . .~ ~I ' it ~ ,1 .,: ~... I j ~~ ! 1: i __._. _._.......___ i C . I. --------... -._-T~~~ I .- .----i...,;; 1 . i I I II r -~ ' i =~~ y ~ ~ i ... 'I(~I~• - a --~ 1~'~ . r_ s=.. r ~ ~~ ~ I _, J A, i -~. I /~I1 F _ ~ {f`Ia ~ ~ I tit., Y I~, ~, ~_____ ~- r . i j ii~_._ I~;-- ~ - ~_ _ii Z i ~~\~, ~" I I ._. A _..... _._...- z 1 ~t1 ;i `ice: i-_~ ~ Ili _ 'I ILr ~ .~~I ~II --y-.. _......_._. .._ .. .._.) I 601 - 81 I bl St ul 0 d K ~~ 0 w ~: N Z IL U1 x In i IG ~= (11 i 7 O f- 1>_I _I I1J ~- U) I1J ~ _~1.. • • • 'm ocos6 bIN?lo~l~v7 V9o1V21"VS '1~ Oa OS 31 dl,~ 10161 :> : ,,; ~ . ~ ~ ~b'd~bN 1 I Wb .~ W '~ •S~l W ' ~~_ °~~ a ?~O~ 3~N 3d IS 321 ~~~ a „1 d Z n ,J 0 .. ,~,,, _ ,,•. . , ° \~ . ---------. __----- of=s1 '_ - ^~ u ~'~ ° u a • ~. \•• x w ~' ,.. ., I , __. ~ _ _ I ._. . . _.. uy.L! ; !~ if~ !I ~ I I ~ I ~ ~ ,!_ _.: _ ~_ ~,~ ;Ili ~T . I wl < ~ L. I Ii ! i ~ I ~ I O ~ -~ ._.-._.~.... I I ~r I t N ~/y/ IL _ I_. ~.._~ ~ I I _ ~_LJ_ _1 i ~---- 1 i ~~ ~ - _---, I ~ I---- ~:--- I I_ ~~, , i I 4 ~// I ~ ~~ ~~/ ~ ! 1 I I i \I i i i 1 I I ` I c t ( ~ / lam!..... I ,: --ii.. I ,~ ~~_ I I ',;, , i I ~ 11~ -- I I I \ I i ~ I i ! i `~\ I I ~ 1\ -- ' ' ' 1 I ! I ---- - -~.. i; I I ~~- Tlj - ~l 5 I I ~r I ~ ~ i -- _= Lj~ _~ 1.' I ~ ~ JIB r ~ I ! rJ;~l i ! ~~ I ! l' ~ ~ ~ I II I ! El it rJ :1 :' ::!~[7 u r j ~ I ~: Y I f~ Il!ha :_ii~y.l .7 iJ !i ~ I f yU ~_' Il : I IlIC;.t i I'I f I I .:I'_I l:: il~J :l tLI LI I 4.~ ri L,~:rj ns~~l:i c u i I ~-- .- ~ It oaul~u~.,i:7u~.i ! uc`innnn7iiu uU 4~ noouurj~:ia~ci l i _ I 4~ O is i7 ;:i ; U~L.',:I ~I i] I L _-_J I II :• u I I c I I I j ur ~u ~~lu` :~ o~ ~. uour~ I I I n%o~~ni.uuu_, I;. ..~ I I ! I i // I y i~,~ -~/ ~ ~ I I •-~ .__ ~ ~ ~ o f - L~ ' I___ ~ __ q ~ .I ~~. - `~, C~ :~~ ~ Z z o ~? ~~~, ,, [-- Q i > _ - ~---- ~ ~ ~ J ~~r ~ i !' / i uJ i W II , I I ~ ! ~ ~: 1;.__::. 1 I l i I ~ ._.__ .. _ _... _ t II __ I O ' I'. ___ ......_.__ _.... _..... _ • ~-~ I I ' ~ -~ -- to ,ti ~ bi ~ I I ! ~ __ ~ E I~ j __. _J~ ----] ~ po/II^ 1 • m S °a oLo56 vln~oalw~ d9o1d21~1s 'lo o~1oS21 Vln In161 ~dd~d N ~l w~ ~ w ~ ~S?J w ?~O~ ~~N~aIS3?J a :.. o ~ ow n ~ P ° -?p u d i oo^Y :~a~ -,~ ao S ~c.1 ~'3°'°• ~ Ye 2 a~ ~ c n' 11 ~~ V i 3 •~sm _ oEn to -. pa1'~ 7 Lea 1C O~w~c Ern. _ e~ ~•~$±L~3 u~.11ua...L.w d w Y u V V"= ~° y 11 .c _ u S •F N n V L n v O u F w r` q ~'m`wEJllu ^~'`v' _u3:~~5° yaSiJ~ ~, _ ,~ 4 ~'~ O r .1 ~ u ~ U.o V. ~ i •~ , t ~~-pit ~, e ~a'3~~ `e~a ~~~ 21 0 ~ 9~ E ~ F ~ 1y~1 ,_= 1 .~amaE2 4 ~~ V' Ijj41 ~~ dI ~ V ~=~ ~i~a~ n w • " w' ;y A ll - 'A. yI r. :~~"f 3~ o- " 11 ~I fir (1 f1 LL 4olU Jil Pi d. ii A .;'~~,., /~ ,.. ,. ,. ,~ ,.~-~ ~-.,.:J .~ ~~ t { I --,., .. r I1 ~Y ~J `~~-. ~ ~ ~ i ~. ~ ~ ~+ \ ,, ~ % ,.._ ~ . r ~J () / ~-~..Ivl `l 1 1 J ~) ,~ ~ :C ,1 -~... ,, U // ~. t' N ~ ti i .~ . ..l ,~ , ~ ~ ~~ c iY,~~ ~~~ ~~f. ~ ~~ , . :;s ~ ~ ..>, . ..-.._-._-.~, i / ;' I~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ C fig.. i ~;• i. ~ ~ ~.% ' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ` ,.fir, ~.,_, ~ x LLL 7_ ~~ 1-- ~' `' ~ ~; ~~~ / /1 / c •~ ~... ~.~ ;1' .~~. %.- 1 ~ t ~~~I~ . 1 ,~ `, P' 1 '~ ~ ~I; \~ . `t ~ ~ / \ 1 ~ \ \ . fit _< 1 / . I ~~ ~,i- o i i 1 ,,1 1~ ... ._._ .~ ~, :- .: ... y ,.. _._ i ~ ~~~ ~ _ 1 1: lil w V .1 U 4 l .ll . \I 4 -~ ~~1 - sue, ,~ ~ga 1 C n 11' ° ~ ~ ~ e°ii~a~eu~i~ ul ~~~ ~~ ~o~ i Oa n o Vu aid ~ o " mn .E knadoa.4~1{$~Y9~,ua C°C~`E~geiTOa 1 L~U1"yrw._o~~~e ~.OU°V V~Va44'_"\1"~OOltj~~(nj .p ~ .. ,1 p~p~V EtV ~ ,d.n:lanoine ;looo$ao4noZ~q~ s$"_iEOO~°e 1 ~ ~e e s'"o"oo.~."e:5 `.~~t,,5~$..z s`g co;~.n$=`§z•q" 11 4{i Vl1 V~iT"~.f Zi~~~Y'.COO~?X .D O JL1E. 1-~ U F a of n 1 Y ~ A' V V o '; 7 mo .I ~y°s, z '~ ~ j n ° ' ` 'O ~ x -^- P u~ ~ u = U ~„ U 9 a :.. Q 1 I J 0 ~5g"- Y ~' ° O. o a c ~ o 20 Ory os4~~~ :10 °"\i e~d,Y,i,~ ~\o!~Qo i 3 ~ 1 ,: _ ° ~ i O e U V " 14 •~•,1w Jt u_~\ ,a 'L 1 7: 0 a JW 1-k 1`7.. { a •c U~lUi1I~SJJT LE~ti I _y Ill 1 11 \IO~ ~ 1= w i ~ ~~ e P- ~~ ~~ ° ~~ ~ ~~ , ~..~:. y ~~. b1 \\;~ 1. , ~ :• ~ ,, :,\ ~, ~ ~~ 11 , l ~:~ ~ ~~ ~~, . . ~, ~` ~~ . ~~ :. .:, `~ '~ l .! ~ ~'~`, \`y '~ t, ~ ` w • • ~ • • • s~ S oGo56 ViiVzlOdl'Id~ d901d?JYS '17 Ob0531 Vii lolbl ~dd~FiN lewd ~w ~ sew 7J0~ ~~N~aIS3?J D` v ~ a V o c ~ "0 2 0 I ~ ~ o ~~ u ~ t"' u °0 1 o ~ i ~ ~` ~ a_ o a a` . t ~^ • ~ ~ ©a ~ ~ ITEM 4 GB~~Z op °3 ° SHOO C~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 MEMOR.AMDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION ~~~ FROM: John F. Livingstone DATE: July 11, 2001 RE: Village Mews, 14612 fiig Basin Way, Trafalgar Homes, Inc. BACKGROUND COUNCII. MEMBERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehafley Nick Streit Ann Waitonsmith . On March 28, 2001 the Planning Commission approved the applicant's request for a Negative Declaration and a Parking Variance for the proposed commerciaVresidential project at 14612 Big Basin Way and 20717 St. Charles Street. At the March meeting the Planning Commission also denied the requested Design Review, Subdivision and Rear Yard Setback Variance. The decision was appealed by the applicant to the City Council. On May 2, 2001 the Ciry Council reviewed the appeal and recommended support of the project sending the project back to the Planning Commission with direction on several issues. DISCUSSION The Council supported the Parking Variance and agreed with keeping the two lots separate and designating the second floor of the commercial area as permanent office space. The City Council also made the following recommendations: 1. The Council recommended a stronger wall separating the residential units from the commercial parking lot. The applicant has agreed to this and is proposing a solid six- foot tall red brick wall. The brick will match the exterior siding of the building facade and the brick paving in the proposed plaza area. • The Council recommended redesigning the storefront and adding showcase windows and a glass front door. The applicant has incorporated both elements into the revised design. The applicant is also proposing a recessed entryway and individual awnings over each storefront window as recommended in the Saratoga Village Design Guidelines. The larger windows on both the first and second floors combined with the brick paved plaza area in front of the retail store will create a visually interesting storefront. The project is also very pedestrian orientated with the proposed benches in the plaza area and the proposed walking path connecting St. Charles Street with Big Basin Way. Q~OO~v Planning Commission Memo y RE: 14612 Big Basin Way July 11, 2001 Paget 3. The applicant has revised the plans to show an elevator to the second floor commercial office area. 4. A condition of project approval has been added that requires the applicant to provide a parking fee for the eight parking spaces that where approved for the parking variance for a total amount of $40,000 or $5,000 per parking space. The funds will be used for the proposed parking district. If the proposed parking district is not established by July 11, 2006, the amount will be refunded to the applicant. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the requested Design Review, Subdivision and Rear Yard SetbackVariance. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission could deny one or more of the requested entitlements or continue the project and provide direction to the applicant on a revised design. ATTACHMENTS 1. City Council Minutes from May 2, 2001 2. Staff Report from the March 28, 2001 Planning Commission meeting 3. Updated Resolutions and Conditions 4. Plans - Ethibit "A" p:planning/johnU14612 Big Basin,TrafalgarRrafalgar PC memo 0~0~~~ .~ 1~mvIJTEs SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MAY 2, 2001 Attachment 1 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 6:00 p.m. Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation (Government Code section 54956.9(a)): Name of case: City of Saratoga v. Hinz (Santa Clara CounXy Superior Court Doc. - No. CV-784560) • Conference With Labor Negotiator: Agency designated representative: Dave Anderson, City Manager Employee organization: Saratoga Employees Association MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:02 p.m. Mayor Mehaffey reported there was Council discussion but no reportable action was taken. Mayor Mehaffey called the Re~ulaz City Council meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and requested Deputy City Clerk Ann Sullivan to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers 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 Ann Sullivan, Deputy City Clerk Mary Jo Walker, Director of Administrative Services John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Irwin Kaplan, Interim Community Development Director Phil Block, Associate Planner REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MAY 2, 2001. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of May 2, 2001 was properly posted on Apri127, 2001. - City Council Minutes May 2, 2001 ~®Q®4~ • COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following people spoke: Clay Leander, Saratoga Community Television, apologized for last week's technical difficulties during the broadcast of the Adjourned Meeting on Apri127, 2001. Mr. Leander noted that as of midnight his contract as acting Community Access Director expires. He thanked the City Council for all of their support and noted that he enjoyed working with the staff and the City Council. Beverly Phipps, 15270 Norton Road, requested that the City Council support construction of a second access trail on Bohhnan Road. David Dolloff, 20685 Sigal Drive, requested that the City Council not accept the Public Safety Commission's report on fire protection services in Saratoga. Ed Farrell, 20877 Kittridge Road, expressed dissatisfaction with the Council not allowing all.the members of the FACT committee adequate time to speak at the adjourned meeting on Apri124, 2001. K.B. Walter, 20281 Blauer Ave, requested that the City Council delay the building of the new fire station until the current fire service issues are resolved. Ms. Walter strongly stated that the citizens of Saratoga would benefit if Santa Clara County Fire served the entire city. . Art Marshall, President/SCC Firefighter Association, noted that Chief Kraule reported inaccurate infortnation to the City Council at the Joint Meeting on April 24, 2001. Mr. Morrison explained that when Chief Kraule discussed the recent fire on Mendelsohn Lane and stated that he dismissed County Fire from the scene, because their assistance was not needed, was an inaccurate statement. Mr. Morrison stated that one of the County trucks stayed and assisted the Saratoga Fire District for a significant amount of time. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Councilmember Waltonsmith requested a status report on the issues Mr. Phipps discussed concerning Bohhnan Road. In response, City Manager Anderson noted that the Public Safety Commission is currently reviewing this issue. City Council Minutes 2 May 2, 2001 QQQ®Q~ CEREMONIAL ITEMS 1 A. PROCLAMATION -DECLARING APRIL 29 -MAY 5, 2001 "MUNICIPAL CLERK WEEK" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Read proclamation. Mayor Mehaffey read the proclamation and presented it to City Clerk Boyer and Deputy City Clerk Sullivan. 1 B. PROCLAMATION -DECLARING MAY 20-26, 2001 "SAVE A LIFE WEEK" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Read proclamation. Mayor Mehaffey read the proclamation. 1 C. APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve Resolution of Appointment and Administer Oath of Office. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: Ol- 026 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTING MIKE GA,ILAKANI TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING MIKE GARAI{ANI TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION PASSES 5-0. City Clerk Boyer administered the Oath of Office to Mike Garakani. 1D. APPOINTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEMBER STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve Resolution of Appointment and Administer Oath of Office. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: Ol- 027 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTING CAROLYN GALVIN TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION. BAKER/STREIT MOVE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING CAROLYN GALVIN TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Clerk Boyer administered the Oath of Office to Carolyn Galvin. City Council Minutes 3 May 2, 2001 O~O®OS Mayor Mehaffey noted that it was the appropriate time to begin the Public Hearings. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. SARATOGA COMMUNITY LIBRARY RENOVATION AND EXPANSION PROJECT -ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: APN: 397-301- 053; 13724 SARATOGA AVENUE ('TEMPORARY RELOCATION SITE); APN: 397-301-047 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open Public Hearing, heaz public testimony and adopt Negative Declaration. Mary Jo Walker, Director of Administrative Services, presented staff report. Director Walker explained that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an environmental analysis be done before the Saratoga Community Library Renovation and Expansion Project begins. The City prepazed an RFQ and sent it out to thirteen firms that perform this service in the Bay Area. Maureen Owens Hill Consulting was selected to perform the environmental review, subcontracting to Fehr Peers to perform the traffic study. Director Walker noted the following environmental factors that were given the most attention in the Initial Study: 1. Traffic 2. Cultural resources 3. Visual resources 4. Temporary impact on the Heritage Orchard during construction Director Walker reported that the Initial Study concludes that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment because revisions in the project have been made or agreed to by the City. Councilmember Bogosian asked the cost to perform the Environmental Review. Director Walker responded the total cost to perform this report was $22,000.00. Vice Mayor Streit asked the status on a new left turn lane, off of Saratoga Avenue, in front of Sacred Heart Church. Director Cherbone noted that the Public Works Department is currently working on the design of the new lane. Mayor Mehaffey opened the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m. and invited any pubic testimony. No one requested to speak at this time. Mayor Mehaffey closed the public Hearing at 7:41 p.m. City Council Minutes 4 May 2, 2001 • • • OOODUU - BOGOSIAN/STRETT MOVED TO ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SARATOGA COMMUNITY LIBRARY EXPANSION AND RENOVATION PROJECT. MOTION PASSED $-0. 4. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, DESIGN REVIEW, AND REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A 22,582 SQUARE FOOT SITE, LOCATED ON BIG BASIN WAY AND S.T. CHARLES STREET -DR- 00.011, SD-00.001, V-00.018 AND V-O1-004 (517-08-008 & 016) - TRAFALGAR INC., 14612 BIG BASIN WAY & 20717 ST. CHARLES STREET STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Irwin Kaplan, Interim Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Kaplan explained that the Planning Commission held an initial public hearing on January 24, 2001, a study session on February 14, 2001, and took action on this project following a final public hearing on Mazch 28, 2001. Staff recommended approval of the Design Review, the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and the 32.$-foot reaz yazd setback variance. Approval of all four requests was necessary for the Planning Commission to approve the project. Director Kaplan noted that the Planning Commission voted ($-0) to approve the proposed pazking variance, but denied the other three requests on a 2-3 vote. Director Kaplan explained that the applicant has appealed the part of request that the Planning Commission denied. The appellant has submitted the following changes to the proposed development: • Reduce the number of townhouses off St. Chazles Street from three to two in order to save a Cork Oak Tree. • Increase the amount of retail commercial space on Big Basin Way from the original proposal. • Offered to designate the second floor above the retail as office for five years to give the City the opportunity to create an expanded pazking district or some other mechanism to increase off street pazking neaz the site. Director Kaplan explained the half of the site is on Big Basin Way and is zoned CH-2 (Historical Commercial), and the reaz portion of the site fronts St. Chazles Street and is zoned RM-3000 (multiple-family residential). Without a reaz yazd variance, a 36-foot setback is required between these two zone districts. The purpose of the setback is to provide a wide sepazation between commercial (CH- 2) and multiple-family residential (R-M-3,000) zone districts in order to buffer residences from commercial uses. Because the applicant was proposing townhouses next to townhouses, staff felt such a buffer served no purpose and that the findings necessary to grant the reaz yazd setback vaziance could be made. Director Kaplan noted that without this variance the project could not proceed. City Council Minutes $ May 2, 2001 O©0~~,7 Director Kaplan explained that subsequent to the Commission's action, the applicant requested Planning Commission reconsideration, proposing to delete the lot line between the two lots, in effect merging them. This would eliminate the need for the rear yard setback variance. The applicant requested Planning Commission reconsideration of the project without the variance at its April 25, 2001 meeting, but the Planning Commission declined to reconsider the request. Director Kaplan explained that the Zoning Ordinance { 15-19.0250(2)}allows single-family and multi-family residential units as permitted uses when located above the street level or at street level if separated from the street frontage by a retail service establishment. The applicant's proposal is ~eonsistent with this requirement. This application is exempt from the City's commercial moratorium since it was filed prior to the March 15, 2000 effective date. Director Kaplan noted that four new 3,505 to 4,475 square foot townhouses, including garages and basements, would be constructed if the Design Review request were approved. Additionally 1,316 square feet of retail space with a 2,688 square foot second story office or residential condominium would face Big Basin Way. The front portion of the project would have access from Big Basin Way and the reaz townhouses from St. Charles Street. Referring to the front lot which has a CH designation, Councilmember Baker asked if the City's Code specifically states the amount of space that has to be commercial and retail. Director Kaplan responded that the Code does not specifically state specific squaze footage of commercial and retail space, however it does state that the ground floor frontage has to be retail. Referring to the request of parking variance, Mayor Mehaffey asked if there currently is adequate or: street parking. Director Kaplan responded that the Developer did his own pazking study and found the study indicated that there is adequate parking on the street. Director Kaplan noted that in Mr. Gamble's recent proposal he suggested that in five years, if the City has not provided reasonable pazking alternatives and if the pazking deteriorates, the commercial space converts to retail space. Vice Mayor Streit asked what would be more appropriate merge the two lots or keep them separate. Director Kaplan noted that staff recommends that the two lots remain separate pazcels. Mayor Mehaffey opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. and invited any public comments. Stan Gamble, President/Trafalger, presented a brief history of the project. Mr. Gamble noted that when he presented his first design he was told by the Planning Department that for every 200 square feet of retail he must provide one parking space. After taking the Planning Commission's and the City's recommendations City Council Minutes 6 • • May 2, 2001 ~©0®08 ' he modified the original design, even though the project is exempt from Measure G, and increased the retail space from 900 square feet to1,300 square feet. Mr. Gamble noted that the design went to the Planning Commission in January 2001, and included 6 townhouses and 1,300 square feet of retail. The Planning Commission recommended more commercial space and recommended that the cork oak tree located on St. Charles Street be preserved. In order to preserve the tree, Mr. Gamble noted that he had to delete one of townhouses on St. Charles Street. Mr. Gamble noted that he has tried very hard to comply with all the Planning Commissions recommendations even though this project is exempt from Measure G. - Mr. Gamble noted that since the parking study indicated that there was adequate parking, he requested that the retail space on Big Basin Way be converted to office space. Betty Feldheym, 20184 Franklin Avenue, noted that because of her interest in affordable housing, she followed the Trafalger project from the beginning. Ms. Feldhym noted that she supported Trafalger's original design of residential space above commercial space. Ms. Feldhym noted that although the proposed townhouses were not going to help with providing affordable housing in Saratoga, she supports the project. Srini Srinivasan, 14598 Big Basin Way, noted that he owns the property next door to the Traflager project and lives above one of the retail spaces. Mr. Srinivasan noted that he supports the design with two exceptions 1) the residential units in front need yards 2) there needs to be significant space between the residential space and the retail space. Mr. Srinivasan recommended the following in regards to the proposed project: • St. Charles Street -two townhouses instead of three. • Big Basin Way -one townhouse in the rear with commercial in front and residential above. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked what type of commercial use is in his building. - Mr. Srinivasan responded that in one space he runs a dance and yoga studio and the other would soon be a gallery. Chuck Page, 20790 Norada Court, noted that he was a Planning Commissioner when this project came before the Planning Commission and he voted to support the project. Mr. Page noted that the Planning Commission held several public hearings and one study session. Mr. Page noted that the Developers concession to convert the retail over to commercial in five years if the parking problem continued was a good idea. Mr. Page noted that the same Commissioners that rejected the variance also requested that the three townhouses on St. Charles Street be reduced to two, which in turn allowed the Developer to increase the size of the two townhouses. Mr. Page pointed out that at the study session ' Councilmember Bogosian was coaching Commtssioner Jackman on how to interpret the City Code. Mr. Page indicated that because of this conversation Councilmember Bogosian should recuse himself from this discussion. Mr. Page also noted that during his interview to be reappointed to the Planning Ciry Council Minutes 7 May 2, 2001 0~0~®3 Commission, he felt that Councilmember Waltonsmith continually asked him questions in regards to the Trafalger project using references to Measure G, even though this project is exempt from Measure~G. Councilmember Bogosian interjected and noted that Mr. Page's statements were false. Councihnember Bogosian stated that Commissioner Jackman just asked him if he wanted half of her sandwich. Mayor Mehaffey requested that both Councihnember Bogosian and Mr. Page refrain from this type of discussion. Peter Palmer, 14473 Oak Place, noted that he and 1us wife were investors in the proposed Trafalger project. Mr. Palmer briefly summarized the project and reminded Council that this property is exempt from the Measure "G" moratorium. Because of this exemption, Mr. Palmer explained, this property would be allowed to be developed in accordance with it's zoning and within the intent of the Village Plan. Mr. Palmer noted that when this project went to the Planning Commission, knowing this project is excluded from Measure "G", three Commissioners still felt that this project did not meet the zoning or the intent of the Village Plan. Mr. Palmer noted that he agrees that the Village needs to be improved and more destination type retailers and services need to open but this in turn would bring more people to the Village and cause more of a parking shortage. Mr. Palmer pointed out the Village is currently short a few hundred parking spaces. In an effort to compromise, Mr. Palmer noted that Trafalger is willing to increase the commercial space on a temporary five-year basis. If a viable pazking plan was developed and executed within five years, then the property would remain commercial. If no viable plan was developed then the property could be converted to a residential flat. Mr. Palmer stated that he believes Trafalger has meet the zoning and intent of the Village Plan and he request that the City Council grant their appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. Cynthia Barry, Chair/Planning Commission, noted that this project has had two public hearings and one study session on whether or not to merge the lots together or keep them separate. Staff's recommendation was to keep the lots separate in order to keep a clear definition of use in the future. Chair Bang noted that in regards to the St. Charles lot, the proposal went from three units to two in order to save a cork oak tree. Chair Barry pointed out that there aze now two driveways on St. Charles Street, which have upset a few of the neighbors, even though it does provide more off street pazking. The heritage oak tree on the Hernandez property is still a concern of the Planning Commission. Chair Bang noted that the Commission felt the roots were not protected enough. The Developer is willing to forego the basement on unit two if the Council accepts his appeal. Chair Barry stated that the Commission approved (5-0) the pazking variance but denied the set back variance with a 3-2 vote. In regazds to the parking variance, Chair Barry noted that five Planning Commissioners approved it. City Council Minutes 8 • • May 2, 2001 ®®O®~~ . Chair Barry noted that the story poles were not erected at the project site. Chair Barry reported that the issue of height and bulls of the roof was brought to the attention of the Commission and is still a concern because the proposed design is very large and boxy. Chair Barry noted that the Commission did not specifically address design issues but agreed that the ground floor needs retail size windows, which the design does not have. In regards to the impervious coverage, there is no limit to the coverage in.the CH-2 zoning lot so this proposed design can be built within the set backs specified in the code. In regards to the set back variance, Chair Barry explained that the Developer knew early on the Planning Commission's concerns, which were discussed at the February 14~' Planning Commission, the Developer was asked to justify the need for the variance and he did not provide a valid reason. Chair Barry noted that the 30-foot set back is not in this design. Staff did not justify this request so the Planning Commission denied the request (3-2). Chair Barry noted that the Planning Commission had to decide what type of residential use fit into the Ch-2 zone. Smaller houses in a commercial district would be more affordable. Chair Barry stated that three of the Commissioners requested greater retail and more affordable housing. In regards to the zoning interpretation of the Village Plan. Chair Barry noted that the Planning Commission was advised early on that they had the discretion in deciding what was the best combination of multiple residential and commercial uses. Anastasia Palmer, 14473 Oak Place, noted that the Trafalger project is their first project she and her husband have been involved with. Mrs. Palmer noted that they have had many obstacles standing in the way of their project. Mrs. Palmer noted that Measure G and affordable housing has gotten in the middle of their project. Mrs. Palmer requested that the City Council grant their appeal. Paul Rodriguez, 13020 La Vista Drive, requested that the large oak tree that is on his property be protected. Mr. Rodriguez commented that when his project came before staff, Mr. Walgren instructed him that he had to have a 26 foot rear yard set back, even though the code allows a 23 foot set back. Mr. Rodriguez requested that the Council be consistent with their decisions tonight. Mr. Gamble noted that there might be some confusions of what is a permitted use in the CH-2 zone. Mr. Gamble noted that when he started this project he read the Village Plan and reviewed the CH-2 zoning standard which specifically states that retail and commercial be in the front and residential in the back. Mr. Gamble noted that the residential use is required to be placed in the back on St. Charles Street. City Council Minutes 9 May 2, 2001 ®~®~ Mr. Gamble noted that the St. Charles Homeowners Association supports the homes and do not want a pazking lot. Mr. Gamble noted that he made sure that this project was in compliance with all of the requirements for CH-2 zoned lot. In regazds to affordable housing, Mr. Gamble stated that building affordable housing in the Village is impractical due to the high cost of the land. Vice Mayor Streit asked Mr. Gamble if he would be willing to install retail windows on the front of the building that faces Big Basin Way and would he consider designating the upstairs unit as permanent office space if the Council granted the pazking variance. In Response, Mr. Gamble said that retail windows could be installed and the designation of a permanent office space could be an option to consider. Councihnember Baker noted that the front elevation of the commercial space looks more like a multi unit row homes. Mayor Mehaffey closed the public hearing at 8:41 p.m. Mayor Mehaffey asked if the two lots were merged would the lots have separate zoning requirements. Director Kaplan responded yes. In response to Director Kaplan, Mayor Mehaffey asked if the two buildings would have to be built under two separate sets of zoning requirements. Director Kaplan responded yes and explained that the zoning line would stay in the same place and both buildings would still have to abide by the zoning in each azea. Mayor Mehaffey noted that he supports keeping the lots separate, Mayor Mehaffey noted that he has concerns in regards to the limited parking in the Village. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that this proposed project looks more like a two-story home rather than a retaiUcommercial building. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she does not support this project and would vote to deny the appeal. Councilmember Bogosian supported Vice Mayor Streit's suggestion on the permanent designation of office space and removal of the five-year stipulation. Councilmember Bogosian noted he agreeed with his colleagues that the design of the commercial building should look like a commercial building, and suggested adding showcase windows and a glass front door. Councilmember Bogosian noted that his main concern is safety and supports the need for a buffer between the residential units and the commercial units. Councilmember Baker asked what separates the commerciaUretail building (Unit 1) from Unit 2 (residential). City Council Minutes 10 May 2, 2001 • • ODUU~2 Mr. Gamble responded that a parking lot separates the two units. Mr. Gamble explained that a fence encloses the backyard of Unit 2 (residential unit), which abuts up against the parking lot. Vice Mayor Streit asked if the Council requires the permanent office designation on the second story, would there still be a garage or would it be eliminated. Vice Mayor Streit noted that this would eliminate the need for a parking variance. If the residential space is eliminated those spaces would be needed to provide more parking. Councilmember Bogosain asked if Mr. Gamble ever considered a different configuration of Units 2 & 3. Mr. Gamble responded no. Councilmember Bogosian requested that the City Attorney briefly explain the Council's options in regards to the direction they could go with this proposed project. Richazd Taylor, City Attorney, explained that the City Council has three options 1) deny the appeal 2) return the project to the Planning Commission with specific direction 3) grant the appeal and approve the project. Vice Mayor Streit asked Chair Barry why the Planning Commission approved the pazking variance. Chair Bazry noted that the parking study provided by the Developer answered the questions the Commission had and also the Commission hoped that in the neaz future the City would develop viable solutions to increase parking in the Village. Vice Mayor Streit commented that he could support sending this project back to the Planning' Commission with the following direction: • Supports the parking variance • Redesign the commerciaUretail building • Permanent designation of office space on the second floor • The fence between the residential units and the pazking lot be made out of amore study and permanent material • Make it more viable retail space Councihnember Baker noted that he does not support the front building because it could be easily converted into two homes. Councilmember Baker noted that he supports sending this project back to the Planning Commission. Councihnember Bogosian concurred with his colleagues to send this project back to the Planning Commission. Councihnember Bogosian agreed with keeping the two lots separate, permanent designation as office space on the second floor, and a higher and stronger wall separating the residential units and the pazking lot. Councihnember Bogosian also supports the need conducting a parking study. City Council Minutes 11 May 2, 2001 Mayor Mehaffey noted that he concurred with Councihnember Bogosian and ' Vice Mayor Streit's suggestions on the direction to the Planning Commission. Mayor Mehaffey noted that he supports the idea of conducting a parking study in the Village. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO SEND THE TRAFALGER PROJECT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL. MOTION PASSED 4-1 WITH WALTONSMTTH OPPOSING. ~ - Mayor Mehaffey declared afifteen-minute recess at 9:35 p.m. Mayor Mehaffey reconvened the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Mayor Mehaffey reported that Attorney Taylor has requested to be dismissed. Consensus of the City Council to dismiss City Attorney Taylor. CONSENT ITEMS 2A. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF: ADJOURNED MEETING -MARCH 27, 2001 REGULAR MEETING -MARCH 21, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve minutes as submitted. BOGOSIANBAKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 2001 AND MARCH 27, 2001. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2B. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the check register. BOGOSIANBAKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2C. MARCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. BOGOSIANBAKER MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE FEBRUARY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2D. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES - APRIL 25, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. Ciry Council Minutes 12 May 2, 2001 0~0®~,~ Attachment 2 ~ ITEM 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: DR-00-O11, SD-00-001, V-00-018 psi V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way Esc 20717 St. Chazles Street Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: TRAFALGAR, INC. Philip W. Block, Senior Planner ~IIIQ Mazch 28, 2001 517-08-008 ~ 016 Department Head: C7 • 00005 14612 Big Basin Way ~ 20717 St. Charles Street -~ CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3/U00 1U17/00 3/14/01 3/15/01 3/4/01 Request for Design Review, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Variance approval to allow the subdivision of a 22,582 net square foot site to allow townhouses and retail commercial space. A rear yard setback variance has been requested for a building on the CH-2 portion of the site. The Big Basin Way portion of the site is zoned CH-2 and the St. Charles Street portion is zoned R-M-3000. Four existing residences with garages totaling 4,595 square feet and 1,000 square feet of retail space would be demolished. The original proposal called for the creation of a six-lot subdivision with five new two- story townhouses with garages and a 1,316 square foot retail space with a second story residential condominium that would face Big Basin Way. The Commission will consider the original proposal as well as the following modifications that are proposed to the application as originally submitted: ^ The project would remain divided into two parcels along the existing CH-2 and R- M-3,000 zone district boundary. All of the units would be separate air right condominium units instead of individual lots. ^ There would be two rather than three townhouses on the St. Charles Street portion of the site for a total of four two story townhouses. ^ The proposed retail space with the second story residential condominium along Big Basin Way would be retained. . ^ The modified proposal would require a rear yard setback variance. The applicant's request is for approval of either the original proposal as modified above or the following alternative proposal: ^ With the following exceptions, this alternative would be the same as the modified proposal. The unit above the retail commercial space would be designated as commercial office for a period of five years (until March 2006). It would remain as commercial office assuming additional parking was available through an expanded parking district or some other mechanism. If additional parking was not available, the commercial office space would be re-designated as a residential condominium. • • • Q~®~~~~i 1 t ~ , . ~ File No. DR-00-011, S_ JO-001, V-00-018 & V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street ^ A parking variance for eight off street parking spaces to allow the space above the retail commercial portion to be used for commercial purposes (retaining the same number of parking spaces as the original application) is requested. • There would be two rather than three townhouses on the St. Charles Street portion of the site for a total of four two story townhouses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION If the Commission believes that the additional commercial space will be a benefit to the community, approve the Design Review with the unit above the retail space (Unit 1B) designated as commercial office (applicant's alternative proposal), Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, rear yard setback Variance and parking Variance with conditions by adopting Resolutions DR-00-O11, SD-00-OO1,V-00-018 and V-O1-004. The unit above the retail commercial space (Unit 1B) would be designated as commercial office for a period of five years (unti12006). It would remain as commercial office assuming additional parking was available through an expanded parking district or some other mechanism. If additional parking was not available, the commercial office space would be re-designated as a residential condominium. ATTACHMENTS 1. staff Analysis 2. Resolutions DR-00-O11, SD-00-OO1,V-00-018 &r V-O1-004 3. Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration dated December 19, 2000 4. Arborist Reports dated March 27, 2000 and May 17 ~ June 6, 2000 (Environmental Initial Study attachment) 5. Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes for October 10, 2000 Meeting 6. January 15, 2001 opposition letter from M. C. Burrell,14658 Big Basin Way 7. January 18, 2001 opposition letter from S. and M. Srinivasan,14598 Big Basin Way 8. January 22, 2001 response letter from W. S. Gamble, Trafalgar Inc. (applicant) 9. January 22, 2001 opposition petition from Saratoga Village area residents 10. March 12, 2001 letter in support from Betty S. Feldheym, 20184 Franklin Avenue 11. Planning Commission January 24, 2001 meeting and February 14, 2001 study session mmutes 12. Saratoga Village Parking Study prepared by Trafalgar Inc. (applicant) dated March 18, 20001 13. Plans, Exhibit °A° C P:~Planning~PhiI~PC Stall Reporrs~Big Basin WayTtaEalgarDR-SD-V-V 3.26.Ol.doc ®®O®~ ~ - r File No. DR-00-011, S: JO-001, V-00-018 & V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: CH-2 (Historical Commercial)- Big Basin Way lot R-M- 3,000 (Multiple-Family)- St. Charles Street lot GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CR (Retail Commercial)-Big Basin Way lot RMF (Multi-Family)14.5 DU/net acre-St. Charles lot MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: Net size 22,582square feet (0.518 acres) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 9 GRADING REQUIRED: 600 cubic yards of cut and 600 cubic yards of fill exclusive of basements. The basements involve 1,207 cubic yards of cut and export. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The exterior finish will be beige stucco and brick veneer with dark beige and green trim and accents. "Hardi-slate" will be used as the roofing material. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. Below is a comparison of the two proposed lots (Lot A and Lot B). Lot A Max. Lot B Max. (Proposed) Allowed (Proposed) Allowed (CH-2) (R-M-3, 000) Lot Area -net (sq. ft.) 11,250 7,500 11,332 12,000 Avg. site slope (in %) 6% - 12% 30% Proposed site coverage (sq. ft.) 4,714 6,7501 3,532 4,533'` ( all structures) (42%) (60%) (31%) (40%) Lot frontage (ft.) 75 ft. 50 ft. 75 ft. 60 ft. Lot width (ft.) 75 ft. 50 ft. 75 ft. 100 ft. Lot depth (ft.) 150 ft. 100 ft. 151 ft. 115 ft. In the CH-2 district the max. net site area covered by structures is 60% Z In the R-M-3,000 district the max, net site area covered by structures is 40% P:~Planning~PhiI~PC Staff Reporrs~Big Basin W ayTrafalgarDR-SD-V-V 3.28.Ol.doc • • ®®o®~C7 • • File No. DR-00-011, S_ JO-001, V-00-018 & V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street LOT A IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: STRUCTURE FOOTPRINTS: SUB-TOTAL MAX. ALLOWED CH-2 UNIT 1 1,889 sQ. FT. UNIT 2 ~ 1,416 sQ. FT. UNIT 3 1,409 SQ FT. 4,714 SQ. FT. 42% 60% PARKING &Y DRIVEWAY 3,119 SQ. FT. 27% - WALKWAYS 236 SQ. FT. 2% - TOTAL 8,069 SQ. FT. 71% - LOT B IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: STRUCTURE FOOTPRINTS SUB-TOTAL MAX. ALLOWED R-M-3,000 t1NIT 4 1,888 SQ. FT. UNIT 5 1,644 SQ. FT. 3,532 SQ. FT. 31% 40% PARKING SST DRIVEWAYS 2,227 SQ. FT. 19% - WALKWAYS 224 SQ. FT. 2% - TOTAL 5,983 SQ. FT. 52% - LOT A PEDESTRIAN OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT: 28% PROPOSED FSC 20% REQUIRED LOT B PEDESTRIAN OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT: NO SET % REQUIREMENT Below is a comparison of the proposed units on Lot A. Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Max. (proposed) (proposed) (Proposed) Allowed (CH-2) Setbacks: Front 15 ft. 72 ft. 116 ft. 15 ft. Rear 97 ft. 34 ft. 3.5 ft. 30 ft. Left Side 6 ft. 11 ft. 11 ft. - Left - 2°d floor 5 ft. 13 ft. 10 ft. - Right Side 5 ft. 12 ft. 11 ft. - Right - 2°d floor 5 ft. 12 ft. 15.5 ft - Height: 26 ft. 26 ft. 26 ft. 26 ft. P:\Planning\Phif~PCStaffReports\Big Basin WayTcafilgarDR-SIYV-V 3.28.Ol.doc V~®0~~~ File No. DR-00-011, S_~ JO-001, V-00-018 & V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street Below is a comparison of the proposed units on Lot B. Unit 4 .Unit 5 Max. (proposed) (proposed) Allowed (R-M-3,000) Setbacks: Front 88 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. Rear 17 ft. 83 ft. 25 ft. Left Side loft. 18 ft. 7.5 ft. Left - 2nd floor 13 ft. 14 ft. 7.5 ft. Right Side 10 ft. 10 ft. 7.5 ft. Right - 2nd floor 13 ft. 14 ft. 7.5 ft. Height: 26 ft. 26 ft. 30 ft. PROJECT DISCUSSION Backgrorand One half of the site (Parcel A) fronts on Big Basin Way and is zoned CH-2 (Historical Commercial). The rear portion of the site (Parcel B) fronts on St. Charles Street and is zoned RM-3000 (multiple-family residential). The present zone district boundaries are being maintained by the proposed Vesting Subdivision Map, which will provide clear definition of use in the future. Because this project has a number of policy issues, the Planning Commission held an initial public hearing on January 24, 2001 and a study session on February 14, 2001. At this first meeting, public testimony was taken and the Planning Commission opened discussion of the project. The Planning Commission, staff and applicant discussed various issues and options and public testimony was taken during the study session. Since the study session, the applicant has revised the rear portion of the proposed site plan to contain two instead of three townhouses. This preserves the exceptional Cork Oak (tree #8) and provides greater open space. The front portion of the site remains the same with a retail space including a second floor residential condominium (Units lA and 1B) and two townhouses (Units 2 and 3). However, the applicant has offered an alternative in which the unit above the retail commercial space would be designated as commercial office for a period of five years (until January 2006). It would remain as commercial office assuming additional parking was available through an expanded parking district or some other mechanism. If additional parking were not available, the commercial office space would be re-designated as a residential condominium. If the Planning Commission prefers the [':\PlanningU'hiMC SralEReports\Big Basin WayTrelalgarDR-SD-V-V 3.28.Ol.doc • • • l Y~IJIP~Il File No. DR-00-011, S_ JO-001, V-00-018 & V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street commercial office option, a parking variance for eight off street parking spaces (retaining the same number of parking spaces as the original application) is requested. The applicant has modified the proposed subdivision to be five air space condominiums, including common areas, instead of the previously proposed six substandard lots. En vironmental Review Staff has prepared an Environmental Initial Study consistent with the. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore a Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guideline sec. 15060. (the Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration are attached). The applicant's revised plans contain one less townhouse, thus preserving the Cork Oak tree #8 on the rear portion of the site. There are no changes to the front portion of the site, although the applicant has offered to have the unit above the retail space designated as commercial office if the Planning Conunission prefers that instead of a residential condominium. Overall the revised plans have less environmental impact. Commercial Policy Issue The issue before the Commission is the extent to which there should be commercial uses on theCH-2 portion of the site. Toward this end, the applicant has offered two alternatives. The first would be retail on the ground floor with residential above. The second would be retail at the street level with commercial above, at least for five years. The Zoning Ordinance {15-19.050 (2)} allows single-family and multi-family residential units as permitted uses when located either above the street level or at the street level if separated from the street frontage by a retail or service establishment. The applicant's original request and the alternative are consistent with this requirement. The applicant's intent is to develop the property for residential use, meeting the Code requirement for ground floor retail along Big Basin Way. In response to the staffs concern about maximizing retail commercial uses on CH-2 zoned Parcel A, the applicant increased the initial proposed retail area by 30% to its present proposed 1,316 square feet which could be divided into two shops of approximately 650 square feet each. In doing so the applicant stated: "The demand for retail space in the Village in general is low with several vacancies already existing in the more desirable retail area on `lower' Big Basin Way (below Fifth Street). To insist on further retail area in the less desirable area of `upper' Big Basin Way (above Fifth Street) would result in the loss of residential units which we feel would be unreasonable. Our design is based upon the present zoning and the intent of the specific Village Plan on which this zoning is based Incidentally, we need the 61/2 parking spaces for the retail. This together with the driveway needed to support this parking plus the pedestrian open space means that 50% of the area of the lot on Big Basin Wayis • necessary to support 1,300 square feet of retail. We feel that allocating half the lot for retail is fair." P:\Planning\PhiI~PC Staff Reports\BigBasin W ayTrafalgarDR-SD-V-V 3.2B.Ol.doc 0®002 File No. DR-00-011, 5_ ~0-001, V-00-018 & V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street The applicant's request was filed prior to the City Council's commercial moratorium (March 15, 2000 effective date). Therefore, the Planning Commission can approve the applicant's request for townhouses on the CH-2 portion of the site if the Commission feels it is consistent with the Village Plan, design policies and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. The Commission asked about the legal basis for requiring the applicant to expand the retail commercial area. The Zoning Ordinance {15-19.050 (2)} allows single-family and multi-family residential units as permitted uses when located either above the street level or at the street level if separated from the street frontage by a retail service establishment. The applicant's proposal is consistent with this requirement. The Village Plan stresses the importance of maximizing the amount of retail commercial in the Village core area, and it specifically calls for continuous retail frontage, but contains no minimum area standards. The City's codes do not require the applicant to expand the proposed 1,316 square feet of retail commercial area since the application was filed prior to the City Council's commercial moratorium (March 15, 2000 effective date). The Commission may accept the applicant's alternative to use the second Iloor of the Big Basin Way professional or ad.-ninistrative office instead of the residential condominium as originally proposed. This explained in greater detail below. In response to the Commission's desire for additional commercial space, the applicant has offered the following alternative proposal: The unit above the retail commercial space would be designated as commercial office for a period of five years (until January 2006). It would remain as commercial office assuming additional parking was available through an expanded parking district or some other mechanism. If additional parking were not available, the commercial office space would be re-designated as a residential condominium. ^ A parking variance for eight off street parking places (retaining the same number of parking spaces as the original application) is requested. Subdivision The applicant originally requested to subdivide the 22,582 net square foot site into six lots ranging in size from 1,756 square feet to 2,489 square feet and two additional common area lots. Although the property can be a subdivision of airspace for the purpose of developing condominiums, it cannot be subdivided into physical lots that are smaller than allowed by city code. The CH-2 portion (parcel A) has a 7, 500 square foot minimum lot size requirement and the R-M-3, 000 portion (Parcel B) has a 12,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement. The applicant has resubmitted the proposal as a five lot (unit) air space condominium project including two common areas. Aground level retail space with a second story residential condominium or office commercial space (Units lA and 1B) and two adjacent P:IPlanning~PhiN'C Sta~Reports~Big Basin WayTrafalgarDR-SD•V-V 3.28.Ol.doc ®®0022 . ~ ~ -. _ File No. DR-00.011, S_ ~ ~0-001, V-00-018 & V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street townhouses (Units 2 and 3) occupy the Big Basin Way parcel. Two townhouses (Units 4 and 5) will be constructed on the St. Charles Street parcel. Maximum lot coverage and minimum lot frontage, width and depth requirements have been met. Parcel B, the half of the site that fronts on St. Charles Street, is zoned R-M-3000. The minimum net site area per dwelling unit in R-M districts is 3,000 square feet. Therefore, three is the maximum number of dwelling units that can be constructed on Parcel B (11,332 square feet) assuming all setback, parking and other requirements can be met. The applicant's revised plans contain two, rather than the original three, townhouses in order to preserve the Cork Oak (Tree # 8) and provide for more open space. Rear Yard Variance The applicant has requested approval of a rear yard setback variance. Section 15-19.050 states that where the rear lot line of a lot in the CH-2 District abuts an R-M District, the minimum rear yard shall be 30 feet, plus one foot for each two feet of height of a structure over 14 feet in height within 60 feet of the rear lot line. Since townhouse unit 3 is 26 feet high, the Zoning Ordinance requires a 36 foot rear yard setback. The applicant has proposed a rear setback of 3.5 feet for unit 3 and therefore requests a 32.5 foot variance. Neither Units 3 or 4 can be build with out the rear yard set back Variance and therefore little use can be made of Parcel A. Staff finds that there are special circumstances applicable to the property that warrants approval of the Variance request. The staff believes the necessary findings can be made based on the following special circumstances: The Zoning Ordinance clearly contemplates the need for additional setbacks if commercial uses were proposed adjacent to residential uses. This is not the case here, where there would be residential uses in both zone districts. ^ The site consists of two zone districts. i.e. Ch-2 and R-M-3,000. The rear yard set back Variance would not be necessary if the project was not divided in half by the boundary that separates the CH-2 and R-M-3,000 zone districts. The staff believes it is critical to maintain the boundary rather than have it floating in space to avoid future problems. The Arborist Report identifies a number of trees that impact the location of buildings and construction in general on parcel A. This creates a major physical limitation in making use of the property. The fact that the site is long, narrow and sloping limits design options. • P:~Planning~hif~PCStaHRepocts~BigBasinWayTrrfalgarDR-SD•V-V 3.28.Ol.dce ©f~0®23 File No. DR-00-011, S_ ~0-001, V-00-018 & V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street Design Review The proposal calls for demolishing four existing residences with garages totaling 4,595 square feet and 1,000 square feet of retail space. Four new 3,505 to 4,475 square foot townhouses, including garages and basements would be constructed. Additionally, 1,316 square feet of retail space with a 2,688 square foot second story condominium would face Big Basin Way. The front portion of the project would have access from Big Basin Way and the rear townhouses from St. Charles Street. The Big Basin Way half is zoned CH-2 and the St. Charles Street half is zoned R-M-3000. The buildings are proposed to be 26 feet high in both the CH-2 and the R-M-3000 halves of the site. The buildings are designed in a contemporary architectural style and incorporate rooflines, materials and detailing that reduce the appearance of bulk and height. Overall, the architecture appears compatible with the buildings in the surrounding area. Staff believes the design of unit lA and 1B, that faces Big Basin Way, is compatible with the pedestrian streetscape. Landscaped sitting areas are proposed in front of the retail space adjacent to the Big Basin Way sidewalk. The second story windows that face the residential condominiums to the east should not create a privacy problem given the design and site orientation of those units. • The Public Works Depamnent, City Arborist and the Saratoga Fire District have reviewed the application and provided recommended conditions. All of these recommendations are included in the proposal or as conditions of approval attached resolutions. In addition to the usual design considerations this project is sensitive because it fronts on Big Basin Way in the Village and it impacts a magnificent tree on the adjacent motel property that the Arborist report refers to as "one of the best valley oak specimens that I have seen in the area." Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence located in amulti-family development to have at least one enclosed parking space within a garage plus one and one-half spaces on the site. Each townhouse will have an attached two-car garage plus one-half space in the common area. One off street parking space is required for each two hundred square feet of gross floor area, therefore the 1,316 square feet of retail space in unit lA require 7 off street parking spaces. They are provided between units 1 and 2. The applicant has utilized two compact parking spaces to slightly increase the amount of parking near the retail area. Also, the north side of the site is located adjacent to Big Basin Way off -street parking spaces. Parking Variance The applicant has offered an alternative in response to the Planning Commissions desire for addition commercial on the site. In the alternative, the unit above the retail commercial space would be designated as commercial office for a period of five years (until January P:U'Ianning~PhiI~PC Staff Rcpocts~Big Basin W ayTrafalgatDR-SD-V-V 3.28.OLdoc ®®0®2~ ...,.._ File No. DR-00-011, S_ ~0-001, V-00-018 & V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street 2006). It would remain as commercial office assuming additional parking was available through an expanded parking district or some other mechanism. If additional parking was not available, the commercial office space would be re-designated as a residential condominium. If the Commission prefers this option, a parking variance for eight off street parking places (retaining the same number of parking spaces as the original application) is requested. The project has sufficient parking spaces for the original proposal as modifies and therefore does not need a Variance unless the Planning. Commission prefers the applicant's alternative proposal to designate the upper floor of unit 1 as commercial office instead of a. residential condominium. A second floor residential condominium requires 2.5 off street parking spaces and 2,115 square feet of commercial office requires 10.5 spaces, at one space per 200 square feet of gross floor area. Therefore, if the Planning Commission desires the second floor be designated as commercial office, a Variance for 8 required off street parking spaces is necessary consequently. The staff thinks there is sufficient justification to grant a Variance. The Saratoga Village Parking Study prepared by Trafalgar Inc (applicant) indicates that there are consistently off street parking spaces available along Big Basin Way west of 6`h Street between 8;00 - 9:00 am,12-00 -1:OOpm and 5:00 - 6:OOpm. Staff finds that there are special circumstances applicable to the property that warrants approval of the Variance request. The staff believes the necessary findings can be made based on the following special circumstances: The Arborist Report identifies a number of trees that impact the location of buildings and construction in general on parcel A. This creates a major physical limitation in making use of the property. If 8 additional parking spaces were added, one or both of the townhouses (units 2 and 3) would have to be eliminated in order to make room. Additionally, the sloping site is rather long and narrow, which also somewhat limits design options. ^ Most of the retail and other businesses in the Village core area are within parking districts therefore they are able to share parking spaces and avoid having to provide their own spaces. The site is outside the parking districts and therefore must provide its own parking unless a parking space Variance is granted. ^ The City is requesting that the applicant provide more commercial space beyond what the City Code and policies require and this is what necessitates the 8 additional parking spaces. ^ Although the site is located beyond the limits of existing Saratoga Village parking districts, it is adjacent to unrestricted off street parking spaces on Big Basin Way. These parking spaces are beyond the heaviest concentration of businesses and therefore are currently available during normal commercial office business hours. P:U'IanningV'hiN'C Scaff Reports~Big Basin WayTrafalgarDR-SD-V-V 3.28.Ol.doc (~~~~ d a File No. DR-00-011, S~ .JO-001, V-00-018 & V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street Grading 600 cubic yards of cut and 600 cubic yards of fill exclusive of basements. The basements involve 1,207 cubic yards of cut and export. Geotechnical Review This application did not require review by the City Geologist due to the stability of the site. Trees The City Arborist report dated March 27, 2000 (attached to the Environmental Initial Study) contains recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site and adjacent site. There are fourteen trees exposed to some level of risk by the proposed construction. Significant design revisions are suggested in order to preserve exceptional specimens #3 (valley oak w/ 80-90 canopy), #4 (coast redwood w/ 20 foot canopy), and #8 (cork oak w/ 40-50 foot canopy). The report states that: "However, in the case of tree #3 (the neighboring valley oah) the single descriptive term "Exceptional" does not do this tree justice in the sense that we also use this term to describe small diameter specimens. Tree #3 is one of the best valley oah specimens that I have seen in this area I consider it to be exceptional of the exceptional, and in my opinion, it should be treated with all possible care and caution" • Some mitigation procedures are suggested in the March 27, 2000 Arborist Report, but further analysis is suggested for trees #1 (coast live oak w/ 60-80 foot canopy) and tree #8 (Cork Oak). Following a further site visit(s) an additional Arborist report dated May 17 &t June 6, 2000 was prepared (attached to Environmental Initial Study). The applicant's revised plans contain one less townhouse, thus preserving the Cork Oak tree #8 on the rear portion of the site. Fireplaces The plans indicate that only one wood-burning fireplace will be constructed in each of the nevt~ residences and there is one chimney proposed for each townhouse. Correspondence ^ S. Srinivasan and Malini Srinivisan,14598 Big Basin Way (adjacent property owners to the east) have submitted a letter dated January 18, 2001 that raises a number of concerns about the proposed project including the joint ingress-egress easement. ^ W. S. Gamble, Trafalgar Inc. (the applicant) responded with a letter dated. January 22, 2001. ^ M. C. Burrell,14658 Big Basin Way, submitted a letter dated January 15, 2001 that Saratoga is becoming residential at the expense of retail. P\Plannin~Phi1~PCStaffReports\BigBasinWayTrafalgarDR-SD-V-V3.28.Ol.doc (~ c • lJ®oO~V •, File No. DR-00-011, S_ ~0-001, V-00-018 & V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street ^ A petition from Saratoga Village area residents dated January 22, 2001 expressed opposition to the project and the shrinkage of commercial potential in the Village downtown area. ^ Betty S. Feldheym, 20184 Franklin Avenue, submitted a March 12, 2001 supporting the project and the need for additional affordable housing. Conclusion This project is complicated because it involves four requests (Design Review, Subdivision map, setback Variance and parking Variance.) and the site is in two zone districts (CH-2 and R-M-3,000). Because all four applications are interrelated it makes sense for them to be processed concurrently. There is also the issue of trying to ma.~~mi?e the amount of retail commercial in the Village downtown area under existing Ciry Codes and policies and balancing the desire for more retail with parking needs. The applicant has reduced the number of townhouses on the St. Charles portion of the site from three to two townhouses to preserve a large Cork Oak (Tree #8) and offered to substitute office commercial for the second floor residential condominium assuming an 8 space parking variance is granted and addition parking is created in the area within five years. STAFF RECOMMENDATION If the Commission feels that the additional commercial space would be a benefit to the community, approve the Design Review with the unit above the retail space (Unit 1B) designated as commercial office, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, rear yard setback Variance and parking Variance with conditions by adopting Resolutions DR-00-011, SD- 00-001, V-00-018 and V-O1-004. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring that the unit above the retail commercial space (Unit 1B) would be designated as commercial office for a period of five years (until March 2006). It would remain as commercial office assuming additional parking was available through an expanded parking district or other mechanism. If additional parking was not available, the commercial office space could be re-designated as a residential condominium. • P:U'lanning~Phi1~PC Staff Rcpocts~Big Basin Way'I'tafalgarDR-SD-V-V 3.26.Ol.doc -'y Q©0©~ I 3 !. ...'. • T~-IIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ®0028 File No. DR-00-011, SL-~0-001, V-00-018 & V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-00-O11 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRAFALGAR INC.;14b12 BIG BASIN WAY ~ 20717 ST. CHARLES STREET WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval for the construction of a first floor retail space with a second floor residential condominium or commercial office (Unit lA and 1B) and four residential townhouses (Units 2 - 5) utilizing five air right condominium units (lots) on two e.~sting parcels totaling 22,582 net square feet; 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 Re~~iew approval, and the following findings have been determined: The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed townhouses and retail vti~ith a second story residential condominium or office commercial, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community ~~iew sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the location of the proposed residences will be partially screened with existing mature trees and proposed landscaping. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be ITLnim~ed and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed azeas and undeveloped areas and in that limited grading will be necessary, mature trees are being preserved and the site will be fully landscaped prior to completion. ^ The proposed retail and Townhouses 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 such as wood tone colors and stone materials which minim~e the perception of bulk and integrate the structures into the surrounding environment. P:~Plannin~PhiN'CStaHRepocts~BigBasinWayTnfalgarDR-SD•V-V328.OLdoc //'~~~ nnn((']] l FfllOR~FsJ File No. DR-00-011, SL-v0-001, V-00.018 & V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street The residences will be compatible m terms of bulk and height v~nth (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 (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. ^ The proposed residences aze designed to conform to the design criteria set forth Section 15-45.010 of the City Code. Now, THEttEFOxE, the Planning Commission of the City of Sazatoga 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 TRAFALGAR, INC. for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" (including Option 2 on Sheet 6), incorporated by reference. 2. For a period of five years (i.e., until March 2006), occupancy of the space (Unit 1B) above the retail area on Lot B shall be limited to professional office or commercial office as defined in Section 15-06.480 (a &t b) of the Zoning Ordinance. It shall remain as professional or commercial office use if additional parking (i.e., at least eight spaces) becomes available through an expanded parking district or other mechanism. Occupancy of said space (Unit 1B) may be changed to any other permitted use after Mazch, 2006, if additional parking is not available. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Cleazance: Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: A written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans all applicable recommendations of the Ciry Arborist. This shall include specific times during, site prepazation, demolition, grading, trenching and construction that the City Arborist provides on site supervision to assure that all Arborist Report conditions aze complied with. This is particulazly important with regazding to assuring the safety of Tree #3 (Valley Oak). The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. P:~Planning~PhiAPC StaHReporrs~Big Basin WayTraFelgarDR-SD-V-V 3.28.OLdoc ®®O®~O . File No. DR-00-011, SL-X0.001, V-00.01 S & V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street . ^ The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide." ^ The plan indicates that there will be no more than on wood-burning fireplace . per unit. If awood-burning fireplace is proposed, it shall be equipped with a gas starter. 4. Four (4) sets of complete grading plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing all applicable recommendations of the City Arborist. No ordinance size tree shall be removed (except for any exceptions provided for in the Arborist Reports) without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 6. 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. 7. 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. CITY ARBORIST 8. All recommendations in the Ci Arborist Re orts dated March 27, 2000 and Ma tY p Y 17, 2000 ~¢ June 6, 2000 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: ^ The Arborist Reports shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. ^ Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan and grading plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Grading or Building Permit. ^ A note shall be included on the site plan and grading plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. ^ A landscape plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance showing locations of all the trees to be preserved per the Arborist Reports. 9. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $22,903 plus a sum recommended by the Arborist to assure protection of the P:~Plannin~PhiI~PC StaHRcpotts~Big Basin WayTra6lgarDR-SD-V-V 3.28.Ol.doc ®®0 ®~~ File No. DR-00.011, SL-X0.001, V-00.018 & V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street other trees pending the outcome of Arborist Report recommendations #1-6. This is to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit provisions will be made to assure the presence of an on site arborist selected and supervised by the City Arborist during all critical site preparation and construction phases. This is to insure that all Arborist report conditions are met and to carry out addition investigative work such as confirming trees root locations and protective measures .such as discontinuous footings (pier and on-grade beam design). This is particularly important for Trees #3, 4 and 8. 11. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, any required native replacement trees shall be installed in accordance with the Arborist Reports. 12. All utility line, driveway construction and other tree protection recommendations in the Arborist Reports shall be strictly followed 13. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 14. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's recommendations. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1~. Pro~~ide one on-site fire hydrant that meets the Saratoga Fire Districts specifications. The hydrant shall be installed and accepted prior to construction of any building. 16. All driveways shall have a 14 ft. minimum with plus one foot shoulders. Driveway cures shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet. 17. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance ~~~ith the pro~~isions of the City of Saratoga Code-Article 16-60. 18. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. 19. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garages (2 heads per stall). The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. • P:~Planning~Phi1~PC Staff Repotss~Big Basin~VayTta6lgarDR~SD-V-V 3.28.Ol.doc ®^ O ®~ l • File No. DR-00.011, SL-X0.001, V-00.018 & V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street 20. Prior to building permit application, the applicant shall provide a recorded copy of deed or easement showing legal access across the 12-foot ingress -egress easement from Big Basin Way. CITY ATTORNEY 21. Applicant agrees to hold Ciry harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City 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. 22. 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 City 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 met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 28`h day of March 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIn Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission P:V'Iannin~PhiflPC Staff Rcpotts~Big Basin W ayTrafalgarDR-SD•V-V 3.26.Ol.doc ®0~~~ ~-iIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 00003 • • • r .~"` l~l APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. SD-00-001 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRAFALGAR INC.;14612 BIG BASIN WAY ~ 20717 ST. CHARLES STREET WHEREAS, 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 Vesting Tentative Map approval of 2 existing parcels into five air right condominium units (lots) including two common areas, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD-00-001 of this City; and .. WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdi~~ision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto; and the proposed subdivision and land use are compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the staff report dated March 28, 2001 being hereby made for further particulars; and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdi~~ision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested pames were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an Environmental Initial Study was prepared and a Negative Declaration was issued on December 19, 2000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Vesting Tentative Map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated March 16, 2001 and is marked Exhibit "A" in the herein above referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A' (including Option 2 on Sheet 6), incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, a landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director. /° 000035 File No. DR-00-011, SR-~0-OO1,V-00-018,V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way Est 20717 St. Charles Street 3. Prior to Final Inspection, all landscaping on the approved landscape plan shall be installed. 4. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the Public Works Depamnent, the follov~~ing shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: ^ Four (4) sets of complete Improvement Plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: ^ All applicable recommendations of the City Arborist. ^ Provisions for the Ciry Arborist to provide an on site arborist during critical site preparation and construction stages including grading and installation of utility lines and driveways. S. Four (4) sets of complete grading plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: ^ All applicable recommendations of the City Arborist. ^ Pro~~isions for the Ciry Arborist to provide an on site arborist during critical site preparation and construction stages including grading and installation of utility lines and driveways. 6. Construction, alteration or repair acti~~ities (for subdivision improvements as well as the construction of the residences) which are authorized by a valid City of Saratoga permit, or which do not require the issuance of a City of Saratoga permit, may be conducted only ors weekdays between the hours of 7:30 AM and 6:00 PM so long as the noise level does not exceed 60 dBA at Project property boundary. No such construction work shall be permitted on Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays. Construction noise should be reduced whenever possible. The Ciry Engineer may grant an exemption upon his/her determination of an emergency. 7. A sign indicating permitted construction hours shall be posted on the site in a visible location. 8. Applicable construction conditions shall be included in any and all contracts with each and every contractor and subcontractor working on the Project. 9. Dust and erosion control will be maximized onsite and on streets in the adjacent neighborhoods shall be maintained in a manner to avoid the accumulation of mud and dirt in the streets. 10. The final landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of any Building or Grading Permits. P:~Planning~PhiflPC StaHRepotts~Big Basin WayTtaFilgarDR-SD• V-V 3.28.Ol.doc ~ ®~ ©~ • File No. DR-00-011, SR-.,~-OO1,V-00-018,V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way ~ 20717 St. Charles Street . CITY ARBORIST 11. All recommendations in the City Arborist Reports dated March 27, 2000 and May 17, 2000 &t June 6, 2000 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: The Arborist Reports shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. ^ Five (S) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan and grading plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note °to remain in place throughout construction.' The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Grading or Building Permit. A note shall be included on the site plan and grading plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. 12. A landscape plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance showing locations of any native replacement trees. (This number may be reduced depending on the trees that the applicant is proposing to be relocated instead of removed in revised site plan.) 13. The applicant is proposing to relocate instead of remove in the revised site plan. 14. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, any native replacement trees shall be installed in accordance with the Arborist Reports. 1~. All retaining walls, driveway construction and other tree protection recommendations in the Arborist Reports shall be strictly followed 16. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 17. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the City Arborist Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $22,903 plus a sum recommended by the Arborist to assure protection of the other trees pending the outcome of Arborist Report recommendations #1-6. This is to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 18. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, provisions will be made for the City Arborist to provide an arborist on site during all critical site preparation and construction phases. This is to insure that all Arborist report conditions are met and to carry out addition investigative work such as confirming trees root locations P:~Planning~PhiAPCStaIiReports~BigBasinWayTtafalgarDR-SIYV-V3.26.O1.d« ~~O®~~ File No. DR=00-011, Sk-~0-OO1,V-00-018,V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way &t 20717 St. Charles Street and protective measures such as discontinuous footings (pier and on-grade beam design). This is particularly important for trees #3, 4 and 8. 19. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, any required native replacement trees shall be installed in accordance with the Arborist Reports. 20. All utility line, driveway construction and other tree protection recommendations in the Arborist Reports shall be strictly followed 21. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the Ciry Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 22. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the City Arborist recommendations FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 23. Provide one. on-site fire hydrant that meets the Saratoga Fire Districts specifications. The hydrant shall be installed and accepted prior to construction of any building. 24. All driveways shall have a 14 ft. minimum with plus one-foot shoulders. Driveway cures shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet. 2~. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the pro~~isions of the Ciry of Saratoga Code-Article 16-60. 26. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. 27. .Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garages (2 heads per stall). The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of ser~~ice and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. 28. Prior to building permit application, the applicant shall provide a recorded copy of deed or easement showing legal access across the 12-foot ingress -egress easement from Big Basin Way. PUBLIC WORKS 29. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the Public Works Department for examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property corner locations, either P \Plannin~PhiMC SraH Rcports\Big Basin W ayTcafalgarDR-SD- V-V 3.28.Ol.doc ~ ®o O ~ 8 - File No. DR-00-011, Sk-~0-OO1,V-00-018,V-O1-004 - 14612 Big Basin Way &t 20717 St. Charles Sweet found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each ne~v corner location, angle point, or as directed by the Public Works Deparanent, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 30. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14-40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the Public Works Department for examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the information required in Section 14-40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items: 31. One copy of map checking calculations. 32. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. 33. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map. 34. One copy of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map. 35. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the Public Works Department. 36. The owner (ap licant shall a a Ma Checkin fee, as determined b the Public P ) P. Y P g Y Works Director, at the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. 37. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the Final Map or some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by the Public Works Director shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. 38. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements and/or rights-of-way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Vesting Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval. 39. Aline of sight study prepared by a licensed engineer shall be submitted to verify that the intersection of access road with St. Charles Street will be safe, prior to Final Map approval. 40. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans to the Public Works Depamnent in conformance with the approved Vesting Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the appropriate officials from other public agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and private utility providers, prior P:~Plannin~PhiI~PCStaHRcporrs~BigBasinWayTnfilgarDR-SD-V-V 3.26.Ol.doc Q • O®0®~/ File No. DR-00-011, Sk-UO-OO1,V-00-018,V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way Fst 20717 St. Charles Street to approval of the Final Map. The following specific conditions shall be included on the improvement plans: 41. Sidewalk at Big Basin Way within the limits of the subdivision shall be replaced. Encroachment Permit from Caltrans shall be issued for this replacement. 42. Hydraulic calculations for connection to existing storm drain system on Big Basin Way shall be provided. In case capacity of present storm drain system has been reached, alternate way of drainage plan shall be provided. 43. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Plans are submitted for review. 44. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City in accordance with Section 14-60.010 of the Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval. 45. The owner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities in accordance with Section 14-60.020 of the Municipal Code in the manner and amounts determined by the Public Works Director prior to Final Map approval. 46. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with Section 14-05.050 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map approval. 47. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the Public Works Depamnent with satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serve the subdivision. 48. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to the Public Works Department. 49. The owner (applicant) shall deposit a $5,000 cash bond with the Ciry prior to Final Map approval for funding of future AC overlay of St. Charles Street within the limits of the subdivision. S0. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation fee prior to Final Map approval. 51. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. P:~Planning~PhiI~PC Staff Reporrs~Big Basin W ay TrafalgarDR-SD-V-V 3.26.Ol.doc o ®O ®~ O • File No. DR-00-011, SR-~0-OO1,V-00-018,V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way ~ 20717 St. Chazles Street 52. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. CITY ATTORNEY 53. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City 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. 54. 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 City 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 met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 28`h day of March 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: • Chair, Planning Commission Secretary, Planning Commission P:~Planning~Phi1~PCStaHRcports~BigBasinWayTrafalgatDR-SIYV-V3.26.Ol.doc O®O©q • T~iIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ®~~~~ ~. File No. DR-00-011, Sk-~0-OO1,V-00-018,V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way &r 20717 St. Charles Street ~..~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. V-00-018 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRAFALGAR INC.;14612 Big Basin Way ~ 20717 St. Charles Street WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Variance approval to decrease the required rear yard setback from 36 feet to 3.5 feet. ;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 variance approval, and the following findings have been determined: ^ Strict enforcement of the rear yard setback requirements would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by adjacent properties in the vicinity in that only one of the three proposed buildings could be constructed and therefore only limited use could be made of 11,250 the net square foot parcel. The Variance would not be necessary if the mixed-use commercial and townhouse project was di~~ided in half by the boundary that separates the CH-2 and R-M-3,000 zone districts. The City believes it is critical to maintain the boundaries. A number of significant trees that the City wishes to preserve on this parcel impact the location of buildings and construction in general. This creates a major physical limitation in making use of the property without this Variance. ^ The proposed reduced rear yard setback would not constitute a special privilege in that similarly zoned properties would be treated the same. ^ The proposed rear yard set back reduction would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare or injurious to properties in the area in that it will not be ~~isible from adjoining properties not part of this project, and it poses no health or safety risks. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Trafalgar, Inc for Variance approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: P:V'IanningU'hiAPCSraHRepocts~BigBasinWayTtafilgarDR-SD-V-V 3.28.OLdoc oOOO43 File No. DR=00-Oll, Sk- ~0-OO1,V-00-018,V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way &z 20717 St. Chazles Street COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed per Exhibit °A° (including Option 2 on Sheet 6), incorporated by reference. CITY ATTORNEY 2. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City 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. 3. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a ~~iolation 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 City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will empire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 28th day of March 2001 by the following roll call vote: Al'ES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission P \Planning\PhiAPCStall Reports\BigBasin WayTra6lgarDR-SD-V-V 3.28.Ol.doc • • • O©OO`g~ File No. DR-00-011, Sk-JO-OOI,V-00-018,V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way &r 20717 St. Charles Street APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. V-O1-004 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TRAFALGAR, INC ;14612 Big BasinWay Esc 20717 St. Charles St. WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Variance approval to decrease required off street 8 parking spaces; 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 Variance approval, and the following findings have been determined: ^ Strict enforcement of the parking requirements would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by adjacent properties in the vicinity in that only one or two of the three proposed buildings could be constructed and therefore only limited use could be made of the 11,250 net square foot parcel. The Variance would not be necessary if the second floor area above the retail space (unit lA) was designated residential condominium rather than commercial office as the City requested. The City believes it is critical to maintain as much street level retail commercial and second floor office commercial in the Village along Big Basin Way. A number of significant trees that the City wishes to preserve on this parcel impact the location of buildings and construction in general. This creates a major physical~limitation in making use of the property without this Variance. The proposed reduced parking requirements would not constitute a special privilege in that similarly zoned properties would be treated the same. The City is requesting that the applicant provide more retail and/or office commercial space beyond what the City Code and policies require and this is what necessitates the 8 additional parking spaces. Most of the retail and other businesses in the Village core area are within parking districts therefore they are able to share parking spaces and avoid having to provide there own spaces. The site is outside the parking districts and therefore must provide its own parking unless a parking space Variance is granted. ^ Although the site is located outside the limits of existing Saratoga Village parking districts, it is adjacent to unrestricted off street parking spaces on Big Basin Way. These parking spaces are beyond the heaviest concentration of businesses and therefore are currently available during normal commercial office business hours. [':U'Ianning~PhiAPCStaHRcporrs~BigBasinWayTnfalgarDR-SIYV-V3.26.Ol.doc ,; a~ j/`pA i~C File No. DR-00-011, Sk-~0-OO1,V-00-018,V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way ~ 20717 St. Charles Street ^ The proposed parking Variance would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare or injurious to properties in the area. Strict enforcement of the specified regulation is not required by either present or anticipated future traffic volume or traffic circulation on the site. The project v~~dl not generate traffic that can not be temporarily handled by adjacent restricted and unrestricted off street parking during the next five years while the City . , explores parking districts and other mechanisms to increase Village parking and it poses no health or safety risks. If after that time parking or traffic volume or circulation become a problem the unit 1B second story commercial office can be converted back to a residential condominium. Granting the Variance will not result in the parking or loading of vehicles on public streets in such a manner as to interfere with the free flow of traffic on the streets. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drav~rings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of TRAFALGAR, INC. for Variance approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COiv1MUNITY DEVELOPMENT The development shall be located and constructed per Exhibit "A° (including Option on Sheet 6), incorporated by reference. ?. In ?006, the City will review the status of creating a parking district or other parking mechanism in the area including parking variances. It will also be determined whether parking and/or traffic volumes and flows on and around the site are a problem. At that time it will be determined whether the unit 1B should continue as a commercial office or should be converted to a residential condominium. CITY ATTORNEY 3. 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 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. 4. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. P:\Planning~PhiMC StaHAcports\Big Basin WayTnfalgarDR•SD-V•V 3.26.Ol.doc .:0004G -. • File No. DR-00-011, Sk-~0-OO1,V-00-018,V-O1-004 14612 Big Basin Way &t 20717 St. Charles Street ! 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 met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (1~) days from the ; date of adoption. __ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 28th day of March 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN • e Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission P:U'Ianning~PhiN'CStaffRcports~BigBasinWayTtafalgarDR-SD•V-V3.28.Ol.doc ~®oo~ / • T~iIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ~~~~~.8 • ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Prepared For TRAFALGAR, INC. Proposed Townhouses and Retail December 2000 Project Description: Request for Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map approval for the subdivision of a 22,582 net square foot parcel into six condominium lots ranging in size from 1,756 square feet to 2,489 square feet and additional common areas. The proposal calls for demolishing four existing homes with garages totaling 4,595 square feet and 1,000 square feet of retail space that includes a second story flat. Five new 2,686 to 3,030 square foot townhouses, including garages and basements would be constructed. Additionally, 1,300 square feet of retail space with a second story condominium would face Big Basin Way. The front portion of the project would have access from Big Basin Way and the rear townhouses from St. Charles Street. The site is zoned a combination of CH-2 and R-M-3,000. Project Location:14612 Big Basin Way and 20717 St. Charles Street Applicant: TRAFALGAR, INC. 247 North Third Street San Jose, California 95112 Lead Agency: City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 • Ciry of Saratoga TRAFALGAR, INC. y00049 CONTENTS Environmental Evaluation/Checklist Negative Declaration Attachment A: Exhibit A (Plans) Attachment B -City Arborist Report, March 27, 2000 Attachment C -Heritage Preservation Commission October 10, 2000 Minutes • City of Saratoga TRAFALGAR, INC. ~~30050 I ENVII20NMENTAL ISSUES ~ Potentially Potentially Less Than No (See attachments for information sources) Significant Impact Signiftcant Unless Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporated I. -LAND USE -AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? p p p ~ b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies p p p ~ . adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? p p p ~ d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to p p p ~ soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an p p p ~ established community (including aloes-income or minority community)? Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan -Land Use Element, Saratoga City Code -Zoning Ordinance `II. POPULATION AND HOUSING.' Would the proposal - . . a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population p p ~ ~ projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or p p p ~ indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? p p ~ ~ Four existing homes and a second story flat will be demolished to provide a location for the five new townhouses and second condominium. There will be a net gain of one unit. Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan -Housing Element, Plans ("Exhibit A") III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ~ ~ ~ ~ b) Seismic ground shaking? ~ ~ ~ ~ c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? p ~ ~ ~ d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? p ~ ~ ~ e) Landslides or mudflows? ~ ~ ~ ~ f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions p p ~ ~ from excavation, grading, or fill? Ciry of Saratoga TRAFALGAR, INC. r ^~~~~ ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially "° .,ientially Less Than No (See attachments for information sou. ) Significant dignificant Significant Impact , Impact Unless Impact Mitigation - Incorporated g) Subsidence of the land? ^ ^ ^ ^ h) Expansive soils? ^ ^ ^ ^ i) Unique geologic or physical features? ^ ^ ^ ^ Sources: Ciry of Saratoga General Plan -Safety Element IV. WATER. Would'the proposal`:result.in: ~ , - a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate ^ ^ ^ ^ and amount of surface runoff? Absorption rates will decrease and surface runoff will increase as the percentage of the lot covered by impervious surfaces is increased. The project will not exceed the maximum percentage of structural coverage allowed by the zoning ordinance for the CH-2 and R-M-3,000 zoning districts which the two lot site is zoned. Building coverage on the Big Basin Way lot will be approximately 4,620 square feet (41.1 %) and on the St. Charles Street lot approximately 4,490 square feet (39.6%). 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? 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 quality? ^ ^ ^ ^ i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater ^ ^ ^ ^ otherwise available for public water supplies? Sources: Ciry of Saratoga General Plan -Conservation Element, Correspondence from Santa Clara Valley Water District V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing ^ ^ ^ ^ or projected air quality violation? City of Saratoga TRAFALGAR, INC. ~~~Vsy~i ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially .,tentially Less Than No - (See attachments for information sou. ~ Significant .significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ^ ^ ^ ^ c) Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any ^ p ^ ^ change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ Sources: Citv of Saratoga General Plan -Air Qualiry Element VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCJLATION.~ Would: the;picoposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? O O ^ ^ The proposed project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Saratoga Avenue, as well as, on Big Basin Way and St. Charles Street. The addition of six new dwelling units and the approximately 1,000 square feet of proposed commercial space will not have a noticeable effect on traffic congestion. b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves ^ ^ ^ ^ or dangerous intersections) or incoripatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The buildings have been designed to provide for the minimum turning radius required for the safe turning of automobiles into and out of the garages and open parking areas. c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ^ ^ ^ ^ d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ^ ^ ^ ^ e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ^ ^ ^ ^ f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative ^ p ^ ^ transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts? ^ p ^ ^ Sources: Ciry of Saratoga General Plan -Circulation Element, City's Traffic Engineer 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)? ^ ^ ^ ^ c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, ^ ^ ^ ^ coastal habitat, etc.)? City of Saratoga TRAFALGAR, INC. ' ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES °- (See attachments for information sou. Potentially Significant Impact .,[entially .significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? p p ~ ~ e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? p p ~ ~ Sources: Saratoga General Plan -Conservation Element, report from City Arborist VIII. ENERGY~AND MINERAL°RESOURCES.'.Would.the proposal: . a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? p p ~ ~ b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient p p ~ ~ manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a lrnown mineral p p ~ ~ resource that would be of future value to the region and state residents? Sources: Saratoga General Plan -Conservation Element lx. HAZARDS. Would the;proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous p p ~ ~ substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides,; chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or p p ~ ~ emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health p ~ ~ ~ hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health p p ~ ~ hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, p p ~ ~ or trees? Sources: Saratoga General Plan -Safety Element X.NOISE. Would the proposal result.in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ~ ~ ~ ~ Existing noise levels will increase temporarily during construction of the proposed project. Construction hours will be limited to 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Noise levels are not expected to exceed 75dBA at the property line, which is the maximum permitted for a single event for a construction project. City of Saratoga TRAFALGAR,CNC EhV1ItONMENTAL ISSUES " - Potentially .,tentially Less Than No _, (wee attachments for information sou. ~ Significant significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ^ ^ ^ ^ 'XL.PUBLIC SERYICES:`Would'thegroposal have.an effect upon; or result in a need for new or altered govenltnent services, yin any of the following:areas: a) Fire Protection? O O ^ ^ b) Police Protection? ^ ^ ~ ^ . ^ c) Schools? ^ ^ ^ ^ d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ^ ^ ^ ^ e) Other governmental services? ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ Sources: Correspondence from Saratoga Fire District ~> .. XII. UTII.,ITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS'~Would.the;proposal.result in ~ aneed for.new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations.to thefollowing>utilihes. T': , 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? ^ ^ ^ ^ Sources: Correspondence from; PG&E, Saratoga Fire District, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health ' J~II. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ^ ^ ^ ^ b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ^ ^ ^ ^ c) Create adverse light or glare effects? O O ^ ^ Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan -Land Use Element XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES:. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ^ ^ ^ ^ City of Saratoga TRAFALGAR, INC. ,.. ... ~.. ~~ ~ .5 Ei~iVIItONMENTAL ISSUES - Potentially ' - .,i.entially Less Than a No (wee attachments for injormarion sou. ~ Significant - significant Significant Impact ,. Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Disturb archaeological resources? p ~ ~ ~ c) Affect historical resources? ~ ~ ~ ~ On October 10, 2000 the City's Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed and approved the application, thus determining that the existing structures on the prop erty have no significant historic value. d) Have the potential to cause a physical change, which p -~ ~ ~ would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the p ~ ~ ~ potential impact area? Sources: Ciry of Saratoga General Plan -Conservation Element, City's Heritage Preservation Commission >,_ z ~~ XV. RECREATION. Would the.proposal:., - . . a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or p p ~ ~ other recreational facilities? A less than significant increase in the demand for parks and recreational facilities is expected. b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? p ~ ~ ~ Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan -Open Space and Recreation Element - XVI. 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 with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ^ ^ ^ O ^ ^ ^ ^ • City of Saratoga TRAFALGAR, INC. 00056 ~~ 1 4 '~ ~ ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially .,.entially Less Than No _ ("See attachments jor information sou. ~ Significant significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Does the project have environmental effects, which will ^ ^ ^ ~ cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan, Saratoga City Code -Zoning Ordinance 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 IlVIPACT REPORT is required. DATE SIGNATURE FOr: 1AMES C. WALGREN, AICP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR • City of Saratoga TRAFALGAR, INC. u r ~. A r THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ,, ~:..., ~5~3 • NEGATIVE DECLARATION Declaration That Environmental Impact Report Not Required For Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map. Approval (SD-00-001), Design Review Approval (DR-00-011) and Building Site Exemption (BSE-00-012) TRAFALGAR, INC. 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 Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 of the City of Saratoga, and based on the City'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 Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map approval for the subdivision of a 22,582 net square foot parcel into sip condominium lots ranging in size from 1,756 square feet to 2,489 square feet and additional common areas. The proposal calls for demolishing four existing homes with garages totaling 4,595 square feet and 1,000 square feet of retail space that includes a second story flat. Five new 2,686 to 3,030 square foot townhouses, including garages and basements ~~ould be constructed. Additionally, 1,300 square feet of retail space with a second story townhouse would face Big Basin Way. The front portion of the project would have access from Big Basin Way and the rear to~~•nhouses from St. Charles Street. The site is zoned a combination of CH-2 and R-M-3,000. Project Location: 14612 Big Basin Way and 20717 St. Charles Street • Na-ne and Address of Proponent: TRAFALGAR, INC. 247 North Thircj Street San Jose, California 95112 Reason for Negative Declaration The proposed townhouses and 1,000 square feet of commercial area are not anticipated to cause any substantial adverse impacts on the environment. Although the proposed project will modify the existing use of the site, it is a minor modification, and the anticipated City imposed conditions, assuming the project is approved, will insure that the project ~•ill not cause significant environmental impacts pursuant to the terms of the Environmental Quality Act. Executed at Saratoga, California this ~ ~1 ~ day of ~2~_es.~~k-, 2000. JAMES C. WALGREN, AICP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR City of Saratoga TRAFALGAR, (NC. ~UUU59 • T~iIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • ~~ ~~ ATTACfIlVIENT B City Arborist Report • • City of Saratoga TRAFALGAR, INC. ,00061 ,~- • T~iIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ~~UV6~ BARRIE D. CC AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 RECEIVED ~U~ 1 3 2000 PLANNING DEPT. A REVIEW OF DESIGN FEATURES AT THE TRAFALGAR PROPERTY AT 14612 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Erik Pearson Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 • Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist May 17, 2000 June 6, 2000 Job # 03-00-061 A • ~,:.. ~.~063 A Review Of Dr.+~gn Feats U T1Fe Tin~dgar Phvperly At l 1612 Big ~;~ way - Sor~atoga Asslgnmerrl At the request of Erik Pearson, City of Saratoga, this report documents a meeting on Wednesday, May 17, 2000, between Mr. Stan Caambel, Developer; Trafalgar, Inc., Erik Pearson, and myself to review the design features that pose risks to selected trees at the Trafalgar project site located at 14612 Big Basin Way, Saratoga. Obsen~ations The stability of tree #1 is in question because of a fimgus infection on the north side of the trunk and on at least one buttress root. Due to the fact that the root collar is covered with decorative bark and soil, a thorough inspection cannot be made. It is agreed that a root collar inspection must be done after the root collar is excavated. Mr. Gambel agreed that the drain system would be redesigned as suggested to preserve the root system of tree #3, the neighboring mature valley oak (Quercus lobata), in the report prepared by this office dated March 27, 2000. There is a question about whether or not it would be feasible to construct a basement inside a portion of the root zone of tree #3. This would depend primarily on whether a significant quantity of roots woiild be lost by the excavation adjacent to constriction. Considering the locations of existing buildings and of the existing paved areas on this property near tree #3, it is not possible to determine with any degree of accuracy where significant roots exist. This would require a series of test excavations after demolition of the existing buildings and paving. It was agreed that a series of excavations would be done at the appropriate time in the future. Mr. Gambel indicates that the proposed building adjacent to tree #4 would be constructed using a pier and on-grade beam foundation in order to retain the tree without a major design revision. I agreed to this while at the site. However, recently Erik Pearson informs me that engineering may override my recommendation for a pier and on-grade beam foundation. This may require a meeting with the engineers to address this issue. Mr. Gambel indicates that it may not be feasible to construct the building nearest St. Charles Street and to retain tree #8 as well. If tree #8 cannot be retained, I believe that this tree is significant enough that trees of equal value should reP~ it. Reconunendarh'ons 1. I suggest that an inspection of the root collar of tree # 1 be conducted by the city arborist after the decorative bark and soil is removed for a minimum distance of 2 feet completely around the root collar. 2. I suggest that a series of test holes be dug after demolition of the existing buildings and paving to determine the pmesence of roots of tree #3 in relation to the proposed basement. 3. I suggest that a meeting be arranged between planning staff, engineering, and this office to address the feasibility of the pier and on-grade beam design. 4. If tree #8 will not be retained, I suggest that it be replaced with trees of equal value. Pr+~,~a ~: ar~,r z ~~, co~rrtr~g tl,~6o-ia May 1 ~, aid lase 6, 2006 ~~ass4 • A Review Of 17~esign Fear' . It T14e Tin, fsJg~r Phgpo~ At u612 Bia Basin way Saratoga Subsequent Observation of June 6, 2000 Subsequent to this meeting, I conducted an inspection of the root collar and the trunk of tree # 1 on June 6, 2000. At approximately 6-inches above guide, four inspection holes were drilled into the depressions in the trunk At all of these locations, the bark and perhaps the outside layers of phloem tissue were somewhat atypically soft for a depth of approximately 2-inches, but the interior wood inside of 2-inches is dense and appears to be healthy. . Additional holes were drilled into the top of the buttress roots on the north and east sides. No decay was found. Cotrclusiotrs The irnernal wood at all.location appears to be sufficiently durable and strong. As a result, it appears that the present internal wood can support the existing structure. ReY. subj. , a.`~ Michael L. Bench, Associate ~~ Barn .Coate, Principal • MLB/sl Pr~gimrd by: Mrdiad L Be+aclr, Cona+r~Aing Arbo~ist May 17, and June ~ 2000 2 ,. v"t~V'OJr Barrie '` - .Date and Ass.,ciates Horticultural Consultants X408) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 ~ECF`~.~ED APF 1 8 2000 PLANi~~~vG DEN1. C] TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE TRAFALGAR, INC., 14612 BIG BASIN WAY AND 20717 ST. CHARLES STREET SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of Judi Crowley City of Saratoga Planning Dept. 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist March 27, 2000 Job # 03-00-061 Plan Received: March 8, 2000 Due: April 10, 2000 • Tree Survey And Preservatti .ecommendations At The Trafalgar, Inc., !46 ig Basln Wm' and 20717 St. Charles Street Saratoga Assignment ' At the request of Judi Crowley, Planning Department, City of Saratoga this report reviews the proposal to demolish the existing buildings and to construct three new buildings on this long narrow property between Big Basin Way and Saint Chazles Place in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing. trees. This report further provides information about the health and structure of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to them can be restricted within acceptable horticultural practices to prevent significant decline. The plans reviewed for this report are the Preliminary Subdivision Plans prepazed by Glenn Cahoon, Fremont, sheets 3-7 and 14-14, dated February 2000, and the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by Guiliani and Kull, Inc., sheets 1 and 2. Summary This proposal exposes fourteen trees to some level of risk by construction. Significant design revisions aze suggested in order to preserve Exceptional specimens #3, #4, and #8. Some mitigation procedures ai•e suggested, but further analysis is needed for trees # l and #8. A preliminary bond is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. Observations There are seven trees on this site and seven trees on the adjacent property toward the south that are at risk of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. All trees that will be affected by proposed construction and meet the requirements of the city ordinance are included. Typically, the root systems of trees extend outside their canopies a minimum of 50% of the total canopy diameters. If the canopy reaches into the construction area, the root system in all likelihood does as well and, therefore, has been included. The fourteen trees aze classified as follows: Tree # 1 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Tree #2 tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) Tree #3 valley oak (Quercus lobata) Tree #4 coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Tree #5 Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga mert~iesii) Tree #6 Big leaf maple (Ater macrophyllum) Tree #7 California fan palm (Washingtonia filifera) Tree #8 Cork oak (Quercus suber) Tree #9 American persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) Trees #10-Italian cypress (Cupressus sempervirens) (5 trees) Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist March 27, 2000 Tree Survey And Preservat. .recommendations At The Trafalgar, Inc., 14~ 1ig Basin Wm~ 2 and 20717 Sr. Charles Street Saratoga The heahh and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent -Poor) on data sheets that follow this text. Because the combinations of these ratings maybe difficult to interpret, the overall condition of each of these specimens is rated as follows to aid with planning. Exceptional S ecimens Fine S ecimens Fair S ecimens 3,4,8 5,6,7,10 1,2,9 Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their current condition must be used. Trees located on the adjacent property must be treated as Exceptional regardless of condition. Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. However, in the case of tree #3 (the neighboring valley oak) the single descri tive term P "Exceptional" does not do this tree justice in the sense that we also use this term to describe small diameter specimens. Tree # 3 is one of the best valley oak specimens that I have seen in this area. I consider it to be exceptional of the exceptional, and in my opinion, it should be treated with all possible care and caution. Tree # 10 represents five Italian cypress trees. The diameters of these do not meet the size requirements of the city ordinance for protection. However, this is one of the few species that rarely grow diameter stems large enough to meet the size requirement, despite their age. These five trees are living in a severely restricted space, which has resulted in significantly limiting their growth. Mr. Hernandez, who was present at the time of my site visit, informed me that these trees are about 18 years old. The specimens are quite small for their age. In my opinion, these should be included for protection. Extent of Root Systems The canopy spread of each tree is noted on the tree data sheets, which follow this text. The size of the canopy is one method of estimating the size of the root system A conservative estimate is that the root system of most species extends outside the canopy by a minimum of 50% greater than its total canopy diameter. Some experts estimate that the diameter of spread of some species, such as oak trees may reach two to three times the existing canopy diameters, depending on the soil type and site conditions. The root systems of the larger specimens are estimated as follows: Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arbortst Match 27, 2000 ,~ :~~68 Tree Survey And Preservai. terommendations At The Trafdgar, Inc., 14~ :ig Basin Wm~ 3 and 20717 St. Charles Street Saratoga Tree #1 (coast live oak) has a canopy spread of approximately 80 feet north to south and 60 feet east to west. I estimate that the root system of this specimen has a minimum diameter of 120 feet, although fewer roots are expected to be found in the compacted soil of Big Basin Way. This specimen has turkey tail fungus (Trametes versicolor) on the north side of the trunk. This fiingus generally attacks only dead wood and is commonly an opportunist that takes advantage ofpre-existing conditions; usually dead wood resuhing from an injury or vascular dysfunction. There is a 15-inch diameter buttress root on the north side that has had the majority of its bazk removed. This buttress root also has turkey tail fungus, which may indicate that this buttress root no longer provides stability. At the very least,. its strength is reduced. By tapping the root collaz with a hammer, it appears that these sections of the root collar are hollow. Tree #3 a valley oak has a canopy spread of approximately 80 feet north to south and 90 feet east to west. Its root system is expected to have a minimum diameter of approximately 140 feet. Tree #4 a coast redwood has a canopy spread of approximately 20 feet. Because of its typical narrow habit, this species is often an exception to the idea that the root system may be only 50 percent greater than its total canopy diameter. When this species receives adequate moisture it has a vigorous and extensive root system Tree #4, has an exceptionally narrow canopy. With the trunk diameter of almost 4 feet DBH, I estimate that the root system extends a minimum of three times the canopy diameter. Also, this species has a bulb (called a lignotuber) just below grade that is probably two times the size of the trunk diameter (i.e., 7-8 feet in diameter). This is an adaptation for recovery after fire. It will continue to grow at the rate of the trunk growth. It has the capacity to damage the foundation of a two-story building of a typical foundation design. The building is proposed approximately 6 feet east from the trunk, 13 feet on the south side, and about 8 feet on the west side. By this design, the building foundation is at risk of being moved by the tree in the distant future. The rate of growth of the trunk and the lignotuber depends on the proposed design, the extent of the root damage, and follow-up care, which cannot be determined at this time. Tree #8 a cork oak has a canopy spread of approximately 40 feet north to south and 50 feet east to west. I estimate that the root system extends for a minimum diameter of 75 feet. The cork oak species (Quercus suber) is not very common in this azea but is nevertheless well suited for most places in this area provided the drainage is adequate. Drainage does not appeaz to be a problem of this location for this specimen. The root collaz of tree #8 is covered by periwinkle (Vinca minor), and it appeazs that the root collaz may well be covered by fill soil. This is difficult to determine without the removal of the periwinkle around the base of this tree. If sufficient fill soil exists, the root collaz would be highly susceptible to fungus infections, one of which is oak root fungus (Armillaria mellea). It must be stated that roots grow where there is least resistance to their travel. It is not possible to reasonably determine the extent of root systems or where concentrations of Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist March 27, 2000 0(~UU69 Tree Survey And Preservai. :ecomtnendations At The Trafdgar, Inc., 14~ ;ig Basin Way 4 and 20717 St. Charles Street Saratoga roots exist without exploratory.excavations. Thus, the location of significant root systems as noted here are only estimates. If more accurate estimates are needed for an individual specimen, a series of test excavations would be required. Effects of Construction Tree #5 is in direct conflict with the proposed storm drainage system and in conflict with the proposed new sewer line. Tree #5 would lose approximately 50% of its root system as a result of trenching for the drain system. - Trees #7, #8, and #9 are in direct conflict with the proposed building on the east side of this property, and would be removed subsequent to the approval of this design. Tree #4 would suffer severe root damage by trenching for the drain system and by construction on the other three sides. Tree #1 would lose approximately 30-40% of its root system from trenching for the new sewer. These three trees would be so severely damaged that they would not be expected to survive. Tree #3, the large and very Exceptional valley oak, would also suffer severe root damage by trenching for the proposed drain system Tree #3 may be able to survive but it would certainly decline. In all likelihood, the decline would be significant if not severe. Tree #10 the five Italian cypress trees would suffer severe root damage by construction of the adjacent driveway. It appears that the majority of the roots are likely in the location of the proposed driveway. The only tree that would not be significantly damaged by this proposed design is tree # 2, the tree of heaven, which has very little value. In addition to the specific risks, all of the trees are at risk of damage by one or more of the following: 1. The stockpiling of materials or the storage of equipment under the canopies. 2. The dumping of construction materials, especially waste materials, such as painting products, mortar, concrete, etc.) under the canopies. 3. The construction traffic, including foot traffic under the canopies. 4. Demolition of the existing buildings, driveway, and pathways. 5. The excavations for foundation or for other construction. 6. The trenching for new utilities or for landscape irrigation. 7. The grading of the surface soil resulting in the removal of quantities of absorbing root tips. 8. The driving or parking of vehicles or construction equipment under the canopies. Prepared by: Michael L Bench, Consulting Arborist March 27, 2000 ouoo~o Tree Survey And Preserve Recommendations At Thee Trafalgar, Inc., 14 Big Basin Way and 20717 St. Charles Street Saratoga 9. Broken branches or bark injuries a result of construction equipment passing too close. Recommendations The following mitigation suggestions are intended to reduce the extent of construction damage to acceptable levels, so that retained trees can reasonably be assured of survival without decline. These suggestions aze based on the construction plans provided. If any changes ~to these plans occur during construction, the following may -require alteration. I . I suggest that the building on the east side of this property be redesigned in order to retain tree #8. In this event, tree #8 would require a minimum undisturbed root zone of 18 feet from the trunk if two sides of the trees root zone were to be affected. If three sides were to be affected, the minimum clearance must be 22 lineaz feet. Additional mitigation, such as supplemental irrigation, mulch, platform buffers, discontinuous foundation design (pier and on- a beam), may also be essential depending upon the proposed design. 2. I suggest that a full inspection of the root collar be done by myself or by Barrie Coate. This involves exploratory drilling with a 1/8 inch diameter drill bit in order to provide evidence of the structural stability. This requires a sepazate report. In the event, that it appeazs that tree #1 is presently sufficiently stable, it will be essential to relocate the proposed sewer line and possibly to install a portion of the sewer line by tunneling or using jack and bore equipment. 3. I suggest that units 2 and 3 be redesigned to provide for a minimum cleaaance of 15 feet between the building foundation and the trunk of tree #4 on all sides. 4. I suggest that any portion of the foundation within 25 feet of the trunk of tree #4 be constructed by a discontinuous footing (pier and on-grade beam design). 5. I suggest that the portion of the storm drain neazest tree #3 be redesigned to be located between units #3 and #4. There must be no trenching or excavation closer than 35 feet from the trunk of tree #3. 6. I suggest that the root collar of tree #8 be cleared of periwinkle and if necessary be excavated with an air spade or a water jet spade in order to determine the health of the root collaz and to reduce the risk of fungus infection. 7. I suggest that any further recommendations, which may be essential to preserve existing trees, await the feasibility outcome of recommendations #1-6. Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition. The value of each of the Exceptional specimens is as follows. Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, ConsultingArborist March 27, 2000 - 1~~00d~~. Tree Survey And Preservrn ~Zecommendations At The Trafalgar, Inc., 14, :ig Basin Wati• 6 and 20717 St Charles Street Saratoga Tree #3 - $45,806 Tree #4 - $33,767 Tree #8 - $ 8,208 The value of tree #1 is presently appraised to be $23,393. However, this may be reduced subsequent to the analysis of the root collar condition. I suggest a bond equal to 50% of the total value of tree #3 but that a bond to assure protection of the other trees await the outcome of recommendations #l -6. . Respectfully submitt M c ai'T eTt~enc ~~ late B oate,` rinc pa1~ Enclosures: Tree Data Charts MaP (2) Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Construction Impacts MLB/sl Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist March 27, 2000 • • C7 '~000~?'2 #~ 0 0 0 0 O ~~ 3 G .~ R 60 n N .D ~' ~--~ y v L J O --• c {.. R CO W ~~ F O Irtl ulaorda ~rnow3a E ivnowaa aN3wwoo3a °i ; Q 7 ~ ° > °f > m 3 a3Zl'llla3d S033N y ~ .p ~ w ~ w , a ~„ ~ q (S-L)2i31VMS033N u n n n n n ~ ~ ~ ~ CS-t) 3SV3S10 21dT1001002i i ~ m ~ n ~ + (s-t) 03a3no~ avno~ loos ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a x X x x X x 0 a` IS-t)AV030 ~INI1L11 ~ (S-t)000MOd30 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p j N 1° Y + (Sl) 3SV3S10 NM0210 33li1 w r- a (S-t) S103SN1 n x x u . ~~ lSt) ALL1012ld ~JNINf1Md ~ $ $ ~ $ + M 03033N S3lBV0 o ° ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c = 1H~J13M-ON3 3110w321 s $ $ ~ x x x x x x m °JNISId21 NMO210 U 0 ~ NOI1b2101S3L1 NM0210 a `JNINNIHl NM02i0 ~ ~ w $ v w m ~ ~y o ry w ~JNINFl3l0 NMOaO n x u n x n (6T)'JNllda 021`dZ`dH ~ o ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~° c -° (Ot-Z)~JNIlVMNOI110N00 1° ~ v v q u ~ ~' v a °m u ~ o u ~ m u ° U (s-t) 3anl~nals N + ~ ~ N ~ m X X X X X X lS-tl H1lV3H ~ av3ads ~ ~ R ~ m ~ R m R ~ ° _~ 1H~JI3H v C N R N w v ~ N $ ~ w ~ fn q R O w + ~ 0 133 L~ 2i313w1/10 v o ~ n ~ n u ~ n '~' n E w H8O ,E ~° c c c c c o HEO r~ N ° ~ n w r: N N N M X X X X X X w31sAS-uinw H8O ~ ~ R m ~ a c ~ ~ ~ v 'may' m ~ e ~, s s s s s W 6A Q F-- Q r ~ ~ • vv a m g $ ~~ B V Z ~~ ~+ S a E ~ . ~ , W a m ~ ° m ~ m m E + - c°Ce -a ~ ~ ~ ~ m s ~ E _ ° `° m 'a ~ ~ 5 ,_~ ~ ~ ¢ ~ ~ + ~ E o ~ ~ ~ o ° ~ m J Y .~I~~~\~ O > O U a m ~~~~'~! a Y r N 17 ? 1(f IC C N n v ^ 3 u c m ~I C ~or~ ~~~~ Q II 1 A ~ x x 7d 0J L ~ y, N ~O N r- ~' ~n c~ ''~ N~vi y~~~~ J ~ 1 II II Q II x ~ x ...7 7 tL ~S S ~ L ZS 1ff N ~ n 0 J00'73 ~ ~ o O 0 3 C ,;, n ~ 1>: N A,uaaad Trnaw3a ~ ~ v, O ~ m m v 'r ~ ~vnowaa onowwoosa ? ~ ~ ~ .o ~ ~~ m> `O> ~>. m '~ ~ a3Zflila3~ S033N $ .,. ~ .~ ~ ~ ~~ IS' L) a31bM S033N n n n e lSl) 3SV3SI0 adll0OlO0a ~ $ ~$ '~~° a ~ (S-L) 03a3A00 aV11001'OOa $ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X x x x 0 a (5-L)AV030~Nnal 0 a (S L) DOOM OV30 ~ m ~ O G ~ ^ ~ lS• L) 3SV3SI0 NMOaO 33x1 p w y N (S'L) AllaOlad `JNINnad a M 03033N S3l8VJ 0 3 ~ 1H~JI3M-ON3 3nOW3a ~ X ~ X c 4; G s `JNISItla NMOaO '~ U N R ~ NOI1VaO1S3a NMOaO ~ c ~ N ~ Dl '~^ a °JNINNIHl NMOaO ,p ° M N ~N. `JNINb'3l0 NMOaO ~ u Luc o ~ (6~) `JNLLb~a OaVZVH ~ 8 A c G~1 = (OL-Z)`JNI1VaNOLLIONOO N °a N ~ in ^ N „~ ~ u u v u ~ ~ (sL)3anl~nals ~ x x ~ X z Q ~ (St) H1lV3H ^ O ^ m ~ m ov3aas ~'~ ~ ~ ~ g ;, 0 1F/913H ~ N ~ N N ~ q e ry 133j Z® a313WM0 v° n n n `~ u rc ~ ~ E c c S ,jc c 3 HBO ~ v, u ~; `n ~ n n p N N p H p N ~ H9O X K ~ X ~ X walsASUinw u ~ .s ~ ~ .~ ~~~~ ~ ~iAVa~, ,`~'. W ~' Q u i n > n px x ~" 4 ~ CO O < ~ ~ s ~ ~ C^. L L 0 Q ~ m ~ 2 a ~ g '~ ~ ^ ~ IN ~.. ... v~ "' .~ a E ._ E ~ F _ ~ ~ Sc ~ o°Ge~~"a a € ~ ~ a.~ ~ ~ cn NQ p A O ++. m ~ L p ~~c ~ '~ o C ma (J fPj ~ n ~ V ~~EO ~ N U O d O ~ U - ~ O ~',i19~ ~ ~ ~ L L L Y ~oO~~~ i ~I R.~ ~ ,- ~~- ~ I 4 ~ by _ ti .-_~' , -„s . ~y llr~ ~ ~ ~`~~"i m. ~I p~ ~ ~~~~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~b ~ ` I ® 0101 ~~ ~ I ' 4 I - - ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ _ i I ~ ~ 1 -. _ ~ ~ ~ a - - ~ ^I ~ ~ -- _ ~ Z Im o t ~ I ~ ~ ° c - - j~ ~ __ _ U ~~ M f~ ~-~ ~ ~' ~ _ `, ~ _ 3` ~M I ' ~ I O 'i. ~ --~. .o I 0 rL of r° by u -' ~'i `~.~ ~ ~ , Q ~ S t-- N O r ; m_0 ' ~_ II 4,~ _. ~, - ~ !: ~ - ~ = .~ ~, _- _ DC L - - - < ~ S S - - ~~~ - -~FE~1~ , _ ` i '~ `I J ' `° o I n ~ N i ' ~~i I ~ ~ C ,~; ' ' ~_ L7 - = I _ G - , ,4 m ~ $ ~ ~ ~I i- I~ ~ I i ~~ ~ . ... a~ ~ ~, ' I • I ~.. ~ III ~ •I I I r ~ ,~ I i ` _ • ~ O :~ II \I--...x. .~.. ... I a) ': I I ~ ~ _I~ I ~ ~~~ ti~~ ~ ~ Ii1 ~. =• i _ 1 _ .~ _ .00'SC 3.OS.60.9CN ' - - - - ~n / /_ J v^i Nv y I \~ r y ~~~®~S BIG SIN W A Y • T~-IIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ~~0~~6 r_~ ~_~ ATTACHMENT C Heritage Preservation Commission October 10, 2000 • City of Saratoga TRAFALGAR, INC. ~~OI./ City of Saratoga HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Date: Tuesday, October 10, 2000, 2000, 9:00 a.m. Place: Planning Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Type:: Regular Meeting I. Foutine Organization A. Roll Call Present: Peck, Wyman, Hunter, King Absent: Anderson, Koepernik, Peepari Staff: Erik Pearson, Associate Planner Guests: Council member Waltonsmith, Stan Gamble, Phylis Ballingall, Arvin lilglesot~ B. Approval of nunutes from 9/ 12/00 Conunissioner Wyman moved that the Commission approve the minutes and Commissioner Hunter seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4-0 C. Posting of the Agenda Pursuant to Government Code Section 94954.2, the agenda was posted on Thursday October 5, ?000. D. Oral Communications Conullissioner Hunter expressed her interest in the Commission having a mission statement. She will draft one and bring it to the next meeting for discussion. E. ~~'ritten Communications I~'one. III. A. Trafalgar; 14612 Big Basin Way - SD-00-001 & DR-00-01 1 Stall Gamble presented his project and explained the site plan and proposed architecture. Commissioner King asked if there would be one or two retail units. Mi•. Gamble responded that there could be either one or two. Commissioner Peck asked about the age of the existing structures on the site. He thought they might have been built in the 1920s. Mr. Gamble was not sure, but thought they were built in the 1940s. Commissioner Hunter asked about the roofing material. Mi•. Gamble explained all the proposed colors and materials. Commissioner Wyman moved that the Commission approve the applicaiion. - Commissioner King seconded the motion. ~~~~~8 Motion passed 4-0. I. A. Schuck subdivision (SD-00=003) Planner Pearson presented the letter from Mr. Schuck's Civil Engineer dated October 3, ?000. Lari~~ Schuck presented his memo dated October 7, 2000 and explained that he would clotih• the HFC after the framing is exposed. Commissioner Wvman expressed that she was in favor of the proposal. Planner Pearson noted the conditions of approval that had been drafted, which include a c•egtiireti~ectt for a schedule of inspections to be prepared. Mr. Schuck told the Commisiion that he was nervous about being restricted b~• the Secretai~• of the li~terior's Standards. Commissioner Wyman assured Mr. Schuck that the standards are based on common sense and that he should be able to complete his project in a reasonable manner and still comply ~vitl~ the standards. I. D. Saratoga Federated Church Arvin ingleson presented the construction project that is currently underway. There are four buildings on the site and the first one was built by Julia Morgan. The Julia Morgan sh-uchire was iii tl~e best shape. Mr. ingleson explained that a section of roof needed replacing and that most of the existing roofing is clay tile. Concrete file is only one third of the weight of clay tile. Mr. ingleson presented a metal roofing that looks similar to clay file and that the area in need of the new roof is on the back side of one of the buildings. He noted that he likes the look of concrete better atld that it would require only a little extra engineering. Commissioner Peck stated that he was fine with the metal roofing and noted that the building was built in the 1960s. Commissioner Wyman noted that she thought she had seen more alternative roofing materials in the past. Commissioners Hunter, Wyman and King noted that they do not like the metal. Mr. ingleson said that he would find the closest match possible in color and shape to the chapel and will use the concrete tile. III. B. Hunter; 14700 St. Charles Street - DF-00-049 (St. John's Episcopal Church) Planner Pearson presented the plans for the proposed residence and noted that the Commission had approved the demolition of the church building in April of this year. Commissioner Wyman asked in the front of the proposed residence faces Sixth Street. Planner Pearson responded yes. Commissioner Wyman moved to approve the project. Commissioner Peck seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. A. Libra Ex ansion ry p Phvlis Ballingall told the Commission that she was happy that the Point of Interest application had been sent to the state, that she voted in favor of the library expansion and that she was concerned about the ~0~~~~ • T~IIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • ~Q~~$Q ~~ ~2~~ ~e~ ~\ ~~ ~~ \~ 2w ~~~~~Z~--r ~ L9 n ~~~ ~ ~ ' ~~b~~~ ; , ,~ c e~~ ~'~ ~~ w ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ -~ .. ~~~- . ~LiJ ~~ ~ ~ v ~^ ~ ~ ~ J ~- ~~ r -C' q-~i n JAN 2 3 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT ®Q~B~ LJ T~-IIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • 000~8~ S. Srinivasan January 18, 2001 Ciry of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Sir or Madam: JAN 16 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT My wife and I are the owners of the townhouse complex just next door to 14612 Big Basin Way. There are 3 townhouses in the back row that we rent out to families all with children. There is one townhouse in the front row that we reside in with our children; underneath that there are two small retail units that my wife uses for her "Dancing Yogi" studio/gallery. I wish to make some objections with respect to the proposed building of 6 condominiums on the lot next door, i.e. 14612 Big Basin Way/20717 St. Charles Street. Some of the objections are general in nature to the character of the town, and some of the objections are personal in that they affect the quality of my family (and my tenants) living next door: General Objections To destroy what was once commercial property and convert it into residential property changes the character of the place, and in particular the historic district needs to preserve its heritage. Albeit the existing structures are in quite shoddy condition, a remodeling should be sufficient to restore them to acceptable standards and use the area for its original purpose, i.e. retail/commercial, attracting visitors to downtown and showcasing the spirit of Saratoga. The current proposal further:, Saratoga's continual slip into becoming a boring bedroom community and does not add in any way to the development of the vibrant Historic downtown area. 2. There is already a severe strain in providing Internet & phone connections in my neighborhood, as DSL does not penetrate into our region and PacBell cannot supply sufficient phone connections without inadvertentl}~ disconnecting the neighbors'. When considering utilities load of a proposed construction, it is not just gas/electricity/water/sewage, but also modern utilities need to be considered. 3. It seems that the builder is trying to "stuff' as much construction as possible into the available space and although it might make sense mathematically, there is a certain sense of aesthetics that one must consider too when building in the Historic District in particular. Reducing the number of condos would a good step in the right direction as it would preserve the character of the area and not make it appear congested. After all, this is on the main road of town and appearances Personal Obiections 4. There is already unwanted car traffic from passersby on Big Basin Way that make U-turns into our driveway and we are always concerned about our kids' safety as the cars zip through and around our property. By city code we are not allowed to put any fences to prevent this, and we do comply. However, with the addition of the new parking structures next door there will be an . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~~~08~ Januar}~ 18, 2001 Page 2 . increase in traffic caused by the new residents. We are extremely concerned about the safety to our kids. Like I said earlier, there are about 6-8 kids in the complex at any one time and they play in the driveway, along with their friends who visit. Any proposal to build next door must consider this point and seek to ameliorate our concerns of safety, e.g. the exit entry of the cars from their garages onto the street must stay as clear as possible of our land. The easement rights of Trafalgar on to our property is not clear from the title records and we want to ensure that the builder does indeed have ownership of the rights to use our land in such fashion. Any proposal to build must clearly research and document the rights of usage with respect to the various owners. For example, in my title documents it states that in addition to us. . the easement rights also belong to John & Marylou Irwin, and William R; Shelly Ward. Who are these people and have their consents been obtained? 6. As an extension of the previous two points, the merging of the Charles/Big Basin properties into a single property would increase the usage of the easement area beyond what was originally intended. Instead of just the current 3 retail/commercial properties using our easement area, there will now be 6 properties using the easement area! It is not fair to continually increase the use of the easement from its original intent. 7. We have gotten used to the beautiful views of the Saratoga Foothills from our complex, and the new 2-story construction next door will destroy our views completely. Please keep in mind that the grading of the land is such that our complex is already low lying relative to the land on 14612 Big Basin Way, and a 2-story construction would be relatively higher than our buildings. We would want the builder to demonstrate using whatever techniques available, e.g. story poles, how the landscape/view would be affected, and also to consider reducing the 2-story down to a single story construction, and also reducing the number of condos. 8. There is an underwater stream that flows under our property that we pump out for pure mountain water and any construction next door must ensure that the stream quality and flow is not affected. 9. When, and if, construction actually happens, we would definitely want the builder to not be sloppy in moving equipment parts and people around the property. A strong fence must be provided between the consi>ruction area and our townhouse complex for safety purposes, as we are very concerned about our kids playing in that area and trucks/earth-moving equipment being deployed in close proximity. Thank you for listening to our concerns. We are long time residents of Saratoga and will probably live here for the rest of our lives; as such our concerns are deep rooted regarding the welfare of our families as well as that of the surrounding neighborhood. Sincerely, // ~`~ S. Srinivasan & Malini Srinivasan 14598 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Phone: 408.315.5710 (And owners of 14598, 14602, 1.4608, 14610 Big Basin Way) • 000084 JAN-22-01 MON 04:48 F TRAFALGAR INC 4Pr 293 1802 P.Fbl .... ... . ~"R,AFA,LG~R 1 IV C Builders & General Contractors 247 NOrth Third Street License No. 438402 San Jose, Calitornie 95112 (408) 292-0797 FAX: (408) 293-1802 January 22, 2001 Community Development Airector City of Saratoga 13777 Pruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles St. Dear Sir: I refer to the letter from Mr. Srinivasan objecting to ow proposed development. . I find leis objections preposterous, especially since he has just recently bought his complex which is almost identical in concept and density to our proposed development on the $ig Basin Way lot: I even showed him our proposed development while he was negotiating the purchase of the retail space and flat. With regard to density, while his lot is 10% bigger, he has four residential units and 795 sq.R. of retail. We are proposing three residential utaits and 1300 sq.ft. of retail. Historically the three structures on our Big Basin Way lot are houses, with the ;Front two sharing an outhouse. We have an easement over Mr. Srinivasan's property as is clearly shown in the Preliminary Title Report and are using it to access these three "houses". We intend to continue use of this easement for access to the proposed new units on the Big Basin Way lot. There is no vehicular access proposed from the Big Basin Way lot to the three units on St. Charles Street. Several months ago, Mr. Srinivasan approached us and expressed an interest in purchasing the completed part of the project on Big Basin Way and we left him a complete set of drawings of the project. I even had some negotiations with his attorney, I call only assume that he must have had no objections at that time and am somewhat astonished and curious about the motives for this U- turn in his thinking, Yours ly, W.S amble P.S. Is a "dancing yogi" studio/gallery retail? oL~~L~O-dL~ s D JAN 2 ~ 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMM);7NITY ENVIRONiK$NT Q~~~~~ o~C~L~Od[~ January 22, ?001 D FEBQ~2001 City of Saratoga Planning Department CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue ~ COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT Saratoga, California 9070 Re: Proposed Single Family Condominiums on RetaiVCommercial zoned lot, between Big Basin Way and St. Charles Streets. Ladies arid Gentlemen: We object to-.~e proposed residential development of the above-mentioned property. We are concerned that allowing residential use of retail/commercial-zoned property will eliminate any chance of retaining a viable and vibrant downtown area. Our understanding is that the lot with frontage or Big Basin Way will retain minimal retail/commercial space. The retail/commercial space, as proposed by the developer is now limited to the lower floor of one building only. As long time residents of the Saratoga Village area, we have witnessed the gradual shrinkage of the commercial potential of this important downtown area. As the downtown commercial establishments are replaced with residential units, fe~t~er people will come to shop. If fewer people come to shop, more businesses will fail. If more businesses fail, we lose our precious downtown. Many of the local residents enjoy the use of the shopping facilities afforded by the local merchants. Residential development forces Village residents to travel long distances for everyday necessities. This lack of convenience however, is trivial when we think of the destruction of the Home Town ambiance provided by a vibrant downtown shopping area. Without the Saratoga Village, Saratoga is just another sprawling residential sub-division. with the associated strip-mall. canned culture, available anywhere. The Village of Saratoga has lost enough of its commercial vitality due to recent projects of similar scope. We feel that it is high time for our elected and appointed officials to take a stand in the face of this rampant destruction of our time honored and cherished Saratoga Village. We the Saratoga Village Citizens agree that we would like to preserve the commercial viability of the Saratoga Village area, ~~ X077 ~ ~1 ~~~~a.. ~Q 7 ~o~ ~i4/~E~A f'~ ~c~ ~. ~~~ ~ eS?~. ~~ /~~ 20~?0 ~° ~ ~ ~ • ooooss e ~ Mfi 20184 Franklin Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 March 12, 2001 Chuck Page, Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratioga, CA 95070 Re: DR-00-O11, SD-00-001 and V-00-0188 (517-00-008 & 016) Trafaglar Inc., 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street. Gentlepersons: As you may remember, I spoke at the Public Hearing on this application on February 14 in support of the project. I had hoped to appear again on Wednesday, March 14, but am scheduled for skin cancer surgery that day and do not think I will be able to be present. I was happy to note on the agenda that it is to be continued on March 28 when I hope to be able to come. According to the Planning Department no vote will be taken on the application on Wednesday but the Hearing will be opened for public comment. Since I can not be there, I am writing to reiterate my support. 1 know you feel a commitment to Measure G, but since this application preceded the moratorium, it's mixed use offers a possible opportunity to help meet Saratoga's desparate need for affordable housing. I shall look forward to seeing you on March 28 after the teachers have their meeting on housing with the City Council on March 27. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely yours, Betty S. Feldheym • D M~,~ :~ `~ ~30~ CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUN[TY F,NVIRONMENT O~DdB~ Sazatoga Planning Commissic,. _~Iinutes of January 24, 2001 Page 10 SD-00-001, DR-00-011, BSE-00-012 & V-00-018 (517-08-008 & 016) -TRAFALGAR, 14612 Bid Basin Wa_y & 20717 St. Charles Street: Request for Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map approval for the subdivision of a 22,582 net square foot site into six lots ranging in size from 1,756 squaze feet to 2,489 square feet and two additional common azea lots. The proposal calls for demolishing four existing residences with gazages totaling 4,595 square feet. Five new 2,686 to 3,030 squaze foot townhouses, including gazages and basements would be constructed. Additionally, 1,316 squaze feet of retail space with a second story condominium would fact Big Basin Way. The front portion of the project would have access from Big Basin Way and the rear townhouses from St. Charles Street. The Big Basin Way half is zoned CH-2 and the St. Charles Street half is zoned R-M-3000. The Planning Commission will take testimony, discuss the proposed project and continue the item for a Public Hearing and final action at a later date. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that there aze two legal lots of record. The St. Charles property is zoned R-M, 3,000 and the Big Basin Way property is zoned CH-2. Staff is recommending keeping that zoning boundary. Said that an informational discussion would occur this evening with a continuance recommended to February 14, for final action. This is necessary, as the Variance was not properly noticed. Commissioner Patrick asked why the condo project was being subdivided. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the subdivision allows greater FAR for each individual lot. Commissioner Patrick said that this project would create six substandard lots ranging in size from 1,756 to 2,489 square feet. Inquired whether the moratorium impacts this proposal. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that this project was submitted prior to the moratorium. Acting Director Irwin Kaplan advised that these are freestanding condo units that are not attached. Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the second floor office. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the applicant must increase parking by 10 spaces and meet ADA requirements to incorporate that office space. Chairman Page pointed out the normal parking requirement per residential unit as 2.5 spaces (one covered and 1.5 uncovered). These units only propose two enclosed spaces. Added that visitors to the site will end up parking in the Village spaces therefore impacting commercial uses. Chairman Page opened Public Hearing No. 4 at 9:35 p.m. Mr. Stan Gamble, Civil Engineer, Trafalger Incorporated: • Advised that this project includes two lots, Lot A and Lot B. • Said that his firm has constructed 250 homes since 1980 and they just won an award. • The existing parcel profiles are as follows: 1. Parcel A is on Big Basin and has three existing structures. They were originally built as residences. 2. Parcel B is on St. Chazles Street and has one existing cottage. • Adjacent Uses are as follows: ~00~$~ .. Y,+, Saratoga Planning COmmlSSll,: .Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 11 1. To the east of Lot A are four residential units over two retail spaces with 895 square feet. 2. To the east of Lot B are four residential units. 3. To the west of the property is a hotel. • Lot A is proposed to be developed with two two-story townhomes and two retaiUoffice spaces of 1,300 square feet with one residential flat above the retail space. • Lot B is proposed to be developed with three two-story townhomes. • The average size of the townhome units on both lots is 2,140 square feet excluding basements. • The proposed density for Lot B is equal to the neighboring project and Lot A includes slightly less. • Provided a time line for the project to date including being initially under contract in October of 1999; in escrow in January 2000 and submittal of his initial plan with the City in March 2000. His project is excluded from Measure G. • Initial staff comments have been met. Included was having a separate structure at the lot line. An . increase in retail space in Lot A, provision of additional parking and the retention of a cork oak tree in the center of Lot B. Commissioner Patrick asked about access to St. Charles. Mr. Stan Gamble said that a driveway would connect the courtyard area with St. Charles. Commissioner Roupe stated that while this project is not under the constraints of Measure G or the moratorium, it is the will of the people and the Council to do everything possible to retain the commercial aspect of the Village, including not converting commercial space into residential uses. Inquired whether the Commission does have some discretion. Acting Director Kaplan promised to research and provide a detailed answer for the next meeting. Commissioner Roupe asked what is precluding the applicant from keeping the use strictly commercial. Mr. Stan Gamble replied economics. The parking is limited to 14 spaces. More retail space might be viable if a Variance is possible on the parking requirements. Commissioner Roupe suggested that a Variance on parking might be a possibility. Asked the applicant if he was willing to pursue the idea of a more commercially oriented project. Mr. Stan Gamble replied that he would be willing along Big Basin. Added however, that he finds that the retail traffic turns around at Fifth Street. Commissioner Patrick stated that the Village Plan requires plaza type areas. Mr. Stan Gamble pointed out the proposed plaza area that is setback 15 feet from the sidewalk plus there is the 10-foot sidewalk. Commissioner Patrick questioned the roof design. Mr. Stan Gamble said that the steep roof design is cut flat at the top to meet height limitations. Commissioner Patrick inquired whether the easement might be overused with six residential units. (100089 Saratoga Planning Commissii. _~Iinutes of January 24, 2001 Page 12 Mr. Stan Gamble advised that the easement is currently used for three existing residences. Commissioner Patrick asked if Mr. Gamble has a Preliminary Title Report. Mr. Stan Gamble replied that he has provided those documents to staff. Commissioner Kurasch advised that the Commission would need one set of clear square footage numbers for this project. There are a lot of different numbers on the various pages of the plans and none of the numbers are corresponding. Mr. Stan Gamble pointed out that some figures are depicting areas of units and not square footage. Commissioner Kurasch reiterated that it must be made very clear what square footage the units include. Commissioner Patrick said that the data needed includes property lot lines, the square footage for each proposed lot, each current lot and the proposed buildings. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the applicant has discussed other possible uses for the front of Lot A with staff and whether other alternatives are doable. Added that with Lot B, the units are large and may need to be reduced or perhaps to flip the garage placement in order to allow ambiance, open space and a quality walkable environment. Asked if the applicant has considered providing affordable units. Mr. Stan Gamble said to incorporate affordable units he would need greater density and smaller units. Commissioner Patrick warned that more general information is required this evening rather than a debate on the specifics. Commissioner Roupe expressed confusion with the depiction of fireplaces on the plans. Mr. Stan Gamble advised that each residential unit has a fireplace. They are direct vent fireplaces and therefore there are no chimneys required. Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the height limitations for these sites. Mr. Stan Gamble advised that the maximum height he is proposing is 25 feet. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the zoning for each lot is different as are the height limitations. The St. Charles property is R-M and allows a maximum 30-foot height. The Big Basin lot is zoned CH-2 and allows a maximum 35-foot height. A moment later he corrected himself to say that the maximum height for CH-2 is 26 feet. Mr. Bill Brown, 14755 Oak Street, Saratoga: • Advised that he had sent an email to staff and proceeded to read it aloud to the Commissioners. • Said that this project is out of character with the area. Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Brown if he objected to the residential uses or if he had architectural design concerns. 000090 Saratoga Planning Commissic,_ _~Iinutes of January 24, 2001 Page 13 Mr. Bill Brown clarified that he had rio objections to the rear lot but supported the maximum commercial use possible for the Big Basin parcel, be it retail or office. Commissioner Roupe suggested that there might not be incentive to drive to this location for office space. Mr. Bill Brown stated that there is demand for office space in Saratoga including his own business, which is located outside of Saratoga because of limited office space available in Saratoga. Commissioner Kurasch sought clarification that Mr. Brown prefers commercial office and/or retail use to residential uses. Mr. Bill Brown replied yes. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Brown if he would support a parking variance. Mr. Bill Brown replied yes. Mr. Srinivasan, 14598 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Stated that he has a similarly sized parcel but that his property has 3,000 square feet less building that~is proposed for this site. • Expressed his disagreement with Mr. Gamble that business stops at Fifth Street. • Said that the easement will be used more than the original intent with this development and that he is concerned about the safety of children due to traffic impacts of the expanded easement use. • Added that the mass of this project will create views impacts. Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Srinivasan if he counted basement spaces in his square footage comparisons. Mr. Srinivasan replied yes. Chairman Page asked how many units are included on~Mr. Srinivasan's property. Mr. Srinivasan replied that he has four condominiums (three in the back and one over the retail space) and 900 square feet of retail space. Each residential unit has atwo-car garage and there are five additional parking spaces. His parcel is a half an acre. Ms. Margaret Marchetti: • Stated that the overall plan and design are very attractive but that the project is still massive and very close to St. Charles. • Said that the Village atmosphere is being lost. • Suggested that the one tree being removed be replaced with a 36-inch box tree rather than the proposed 24-inch box tree. • Added that a parking variance is not a viable option. • Reiterated that her concerns are the massiveness of the project, trees and parking. Commissioner Patrick asked Ms. Marchetti where her property is located in relation to this site. ~0~~~~. Saratoga Planning Commissic.. _/Iinutes of January 24, 2001 ~• Page 14 Ms. Margaret Marchetti advised that she is located at Sixth and St. Charles. Added that she does not mind retail space on Big Basin but does not support any on St. Charles. Commissioner Kurasch asked if parking was the reason for that concern. Ms. Margaret Marchetti replied yes. Ms. Betty Riley, Pamela Way, Saratoga: • Expressed her agreement with the comments made by Ms. Marchetti: • Said that she supports retail on Lot A but does not want to see more traffic on St. Charles. Ms. LeAnn Hernandez: • Said that this project will be a great addition to the Village. • Added that when compared to the average of $3 million plus for homes in Saratoga, this project will equate to affordable housing. • Said that she had minor concerns including a 7 a.m. construction starting time. This will pose a problem with their motel next door. • Suggested that the CC&Rs include a restriction that requires that garage doors be kept closed and that no parking be allowed in the courtyard. • Added that this project will represent an improvement over the current structures on site. Mr. Paul Hernandez: • Asked that the oak trees be properly cared for on this property. • Said that he felt the density was a cause for concern. • Said that most of the roofs in the area are of a low pitch. Asked that the roof height be reduced if possible. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Hernandez if he has been building on his property in the recent past. Mr. Hernandez replied that they are currently under construction. Commissioner Barry asked for the square footage and number of buildings on his property. Mr. Hernandez replied that his parcel is an "L-shaped" parcel 150 x 150 and 75 x 150 feet. He has four buildings, two single-story and two two-story. Two buildings have 600 square feet each and the other two have 1,100 square feet each. Commissioner Barry asked if trees on his site are being protected and whether any have or will be removed. Mr. Hernandez replied that they are not removing any trees, except shrub trees. Chairman Page asked Mr. Hernandez if the units are bed and bath or kitchen units. ~vlr. Hernandez replied that they are bed and bath units. • 000092 Saratoga Planning Commissic.. _/linutes of January 24, 2001 Page 15 Mr. Stan Gamble said that he wanted to refute some of the comments made. Said that the easement exists for use by this site. Added that the setback is 25 feet. Said that the house sits down five to six feet from St. Charles. Added that the motel has a height variance and is located only five feet from the property line. Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Gamble if he owned the property when that variance was sought. Mr. Gamble replied yes. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, .the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 4 at 10:50 p.m. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) Commissioner Roupe suggested that the Commission would need guidance on the issues of the Commercial uses moratorium as well as Measure G. Added that the square footage information must be straight and identify the lots and the size of the residences/structures. Commissioner Kurasch stated that the Commission has the Village Plan to serve as a guideline. Added that it is important to retain retail space. The Commission will need to evaluate what mix is fair and best serves the City. Expressed the importance for flow of pedestrian traffic as well as open space. Said that one of the goals of the Village Plan is the side to side development of retail spaces and that goal must be respected. Commissioner Patrick discouraged the applicants and neighbors from pointing at each other with regards to past approvals. Stated that there are trees to protect and that density is an issue. This project might offer a way to arrive at affordable house. Agreed that more reliable square footage figures need to be provided in order to properly evaluate this proposal and that clear drawings and renderings are important. Said that the garage doors are an issue and that imposing construction hours is a good idea. Commissioner Barry expressed her agreement with the comments of the other Commissioners and encouraged the applicant to consider ways of providing parking including underground. Suggested that some tradeoffs could be considered. Traffic and parking are the biggest issues raised by the neighbors. Suggested that staff evaluate the possible impacts on St. Charles and potential mitigation measures to offset those impacts. Said that the project drawings should be made available to the Commission as soon as they are available. Said that a model of the project might be helpful to show the flow of space. Chairman Page agreed and added that he does not want this project to have an impact on Village parking. Commissioner Roupe suggested that story poles might be helpful. Commissioner Kurasch stated that density needs to be considered. Perhaps the size of the units or different configurations. Commissioner Patrick suggested that a Study Session may be appropriate if the Commission wants to consider alternatives and explore square footage issues. That format allows the most flexibility to deal with issues. 000093 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000094 MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION & INFORMAL REVIEW OF TRAFALGAR PROJECT DATE: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 PLACE: Conference Room, City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Study Session _ Chair Page called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Bernald, Jackman, Kurasch, Patrick, Roupe & Chair Page Councilmember Bogosian Absent: None Staff: Planner Mark Connolly Guests:Mr. Stan Gambel Mr. Glen Cahoon Mr. Stan Gambel, Applicant: • Identified their parcels as 517-08-008 and 517-08-016. • Discussed the access easement shared with Mr. Srinivasan. • Provided a copy of the original site plan and proposal. • Advised that they will remove a palm tree and two fruit trees. Commissioner Patrick asked about the access easement. Mr. Stan Gambel advised that the easement is 12 feet wide. Commissioner Jackman asked who owned that easement. Mr. Stan Gambel replied that the townhomes own the easement. Mr. Stan Gambel: • Pointed out the second sheet of his original proposal, which included 1,300 square feet of retail space at the ground level (Big Basin Way) with a loft above that space with 2,500 square feet. Commissioner Patrick clarified that the applicant is aware that this is retail and not office space on the ground floor. Mr. Stan Gambel said that he was aware that the space is intended for retail and not office use. Commissioner Kurasch asked what the lot sizes are for these two parcels. ~~ ~J 000095 Planning Commission Study Session on Trafalgar Project Page 2 February 14, 2001 . Mr. Stan Gambel replied that Lot A is 11,250 square feet and Lot B is 11,332 square feet. He continued by stating that the Cork Tree would be retained. Under the new proposal two units, like single-family residences in a flag configuration, will include 2,750 square feet in living area each. This will create two lots from that one lot. Chair Page asked if there will be a share drive. Mr. Stan Gambel replied that there would not be a share drive. Commissioner Patrick asked how this property could be subdivided into substandard. lots. Commissioner Kurasch asked what the difference is in creating condominiums and subdividing the lots. Mr. Mark Connolly explained that with condominiums, the owners own air space and not land. Added that staff is recommending keeping the boundary between the two existing lots and their differing zoning districts. Commissioner Roupe asked whether the proposal is for a subdivision or condominium project. Mr. Stan Gambel replied whichever is possible to do. Stated that for the Big. Basin Way lot, he is proposing one lot with different Assessor Parcel Numbers for each unit and common area. Commissioner Barry pointed out that the newest proposal does not increase the retail use of Lot A. Mr. Stan Gambel disagreed and reminded the Commission that with this alternate proposal what would have been a residential loft is now being considered as commercial office space. Discussed parking requirements for that parcel. A viable commercial use of this parcel equals 3,400 square feet with 1,200 square feet downstairs and 2,220 square feet upstairs. For 3,400 in commercial space, 17 parking spaces are required. Nine are provided on site. Therefore a Variance for 8 parking spaces would be required. Commissioner Roupe asked if this sort of Variance is possible. Chair Page replied yes. Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Gambel what factors he takes into consideration in calling a project viable. Mr. Stan Gambel replied that a 2,500 square foot residential flat is more valuable. Turning that space into commercial space creates the requirement for elevator access and handicapped accessible restroom facilities. Commissioner Roupe added that it appears Mr. Gambel is seeking the same economic viability with the commercial use, as he would have obtained developing a residential use on the upper floor. 000096 t ' Planning Commission Study Session on Trafalgar Project Page 3 February 14, 2001 Commissioner Jackman disagreed that residential use of the upper floor is a given. Added that residential use is a discretionary use at the approval of the Planning Commission and Council and not a given right. Mr. Mark Comiolly added that residential use of the upper floor is a permitted use. Commissioner Bang added that the Village Plan is more specific regarding commercial use than~the zoning designation. Commissioner Patrick asked for information about the potential for underground parking, suggesting that use of underground parking would require less pavement and impervious surface at the street level. Commissioner Jackman asked if the intended use of the easement would be exceeded with this development. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the shared access easement allows for ingress and egress. Commissioner Patrick asked whether more open area is achieved with the underground parking and whether the need for a Variance would be negated. Mr. Glen Cahoon • Advised that under-grounding the parking creates only 16 spaces as a result of the need for the access ramp. Additionally, they cannot put retail space on the first floor directly over the ramp, as there would be no pedestrian access to that space. Their original proposal provided 14 spaces. The only landscape addition would be a small patch of grass at the rear of the site. Commissioner Barry asked what the parking requirement would be if the CH2 parcel is completely commercial in use. Mr. Glen Cahoon replied that 20 spaces would be required. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she would be more in support of a Variance to allow reduced provision of parking for commercial uses. Mr. Glen Cahoon stated that this is a constrained lot that lends itself for residential use. Commissioner Jackman disagreed; stating that this is a viable commercial property that she is not willing to give up easily. Mr. Stan Gambe] advised the Commissioners to check with staff. The residential use is not discretionary but a permitted use. Commissioner Barry stated that the purpose of this Study Session is to come up with alternatives to the original proposal. Commissioner Patrick agreed and added that the Commission is not here to argue the point. 00009'7 Planning Commission Study Session on Trafalgar Project Page 4 February 14, 2001 Mr. Stan Gambel advised that the maximum parking possible on site is 14 spaces, which would allow 2,800 square feet in retaiUcommercial use. Chair Page stated that retail use on the second floor has been found not to be viable so the second floor would be office space. Commissioner Jackman suggested larger retail on the first floor and maybe one condo on the rear of that parcel. . Commissioner Kurasch stated that the justification for mixed use has been made. Mr. Stan Gambel argued that a big office building on stilts would not be an attractive addition to the downtown. Added that it is clear there are no advantages to underground parking. Commissioner Barry stated that there are differing views on the Commission about what represents viability. Commissioner Roupe stated that in Mr. Gambel's case, he is saying what is economically viable in his view and what he is willing to do. • Mr. Stan Gambel advised that the City of Saratoga is doing a study on the viability of commercial uses in this area. Suggested that he be allowed to construct a 3,400 square foot retaiUoffice building on the Big Basin lot and four residences on the St. Charles lot. If it were determined after five years that the office use of the upper floor is not viable, he would be allowed to convert that space into a residential flat. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that Mr. Gambel consider three smaller residential units on the other lot rather than hvo larger ones and only one residential unit on Lot A. Mr. Glen Cahoon stated that parking and access constraints result from three units instead of two. With three units, they need six garage spaces and 1.5 on-site parking spaces. In addition, retention of trees including the Cork becomes more problematic. Commissioner Kurasch suggested flipping the direction of one unit. Commissioner Barry asked what justification there is to approve the rear setback Variance from the required 30 feet. Mr. Stan Gambel replied that the justification is the expanded retail use of the Big Basin parcel and the retention of the lot lines and differing zoning designations for these two lots. He reiterated his offer to accept two residential lots on the St. Charles property, two on the Big Basin property, giving up the idea of the residential lot on top of the Big Basin retail space with a total of 3,400 square foot of retaiUoffice space on Big Basin. Commissioner Patrick added that this proposal would require Variances for both parking and the setback. UUUU98 f , k Planning Commission Study Session on Trafalgar Project Page 5 February 14, 2001 - Commissioner Roupe reminded that Mr. Gambel is seeking a conditional five-year option to allow the conversion of the upper floor commercial space into living space should the office space be determined to not be viable at this location. ADJOURNMENT Chair Page adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn Minutes Clerk r~ r~ U = 0®®®99 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 0~~~~0 Attachment 3 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-00-011 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRAFALGAR INC.; 14612 BIG BASIN WAY ~ 20717 ST. CHARLES STREET WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval for the construction of a first floor retail space with a second ~ . floor commercial office (Unit lA and 1B) and four residential condominiums (Units 2 - 5) utilizing five air right condominium units (lots) on two existing parcels totaling 22,582 net square feet; 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 e~~idence; 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 condominiums and retail with a second story commercial office space, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the location of the proposed residences «~ill be partially screened ~~ith existing mature trees and proposed landscaping. 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 minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas and in that limited grading will be necessary, mature trees are being preserved and the site will be fully landscaped prior to completion. The proposed retail and condominiums in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and v~lill be integrated into the natural environment, in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials such as wood tone colors and stone materials which minimize the perception of bulk and integrate the structures into the surrounding environment. ^ The residences 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 (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. ~~0~~~. File No. DR-00-011, SD-00-001, V-00-018 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street ^ The proposed residences are designed to conform to the design criteria set forth Section 15-45.010 of the City Code. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of TRAFALGAR, INC. for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference and date stamped June 29, 2001. 2. The applicant shall provide a certificate of deposit as a parking fee for the eight parking spaces approved for the parking variance for a total amount of $40,000 or $5,000 per space. The funds will be used for the proposed parking district. If the proposed parking district is not established by July 11, 2006, the funds will be returned to the applicant. The Heritage Preservation Commission shall review the final design of the proposed project and forward all comments to the Planning Commission. 4. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: A written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans all applicable recommendations of the City Arborist. This shall include specific times during, site preparation, demolition, grading, trenching and construction that the City Arborist provides on site supervision to assure that all Arborist Report conditions are complied with. This is particularly important with regarding to assuring the safety of Tree #3 (Valley Oak). 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." ^ The plan indicates that there will be no more than on wood-burning fireplace per unit. If awood-burning fireplace is proposed, it shall be equipped with a gas starter. P:~PlanninBi)ohn LV4612 Big Basin,TcafalgacUtesolu[ions.doc O®OlOI~ File No. DR-00-011, SD-00-001, V-00-018 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street 5. Four (4) sets of complete grading plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing all applicable recommendations of the City Arborist. 6. No ordinance size tree shall be removed (except for any exceptions pro~~ided for in the Arborist Reports) without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 7. 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. 8. 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. CITY ARBORIST All recommendations in the City Arborist Reports dated March 27, 2000 and May 17, 2000 &t June 6, 2000 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but i~ not limited to: ^ The Arborist Reports shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. ^ Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan and grading plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note °to remain in place throughout construction.' The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Grading or Building Permit. ^ A note shall be included on the site plan and grading plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. ^ A landscape plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance showing locations of all the trees to be preserved per the Arborist Reports. 10. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of X22,903 plus a sum recommended by the Arborist to assure protection of the other trees pending the outcome of Arborist Report recommendations #1-6. This is to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit provisions will be made to assure the presence of an on site arborist selected and supervised by the City Arborist during all critical site preparation and construction phases. This is to insure that all Arborist report conditions are met and to carry out addition investigative work such as confirnung trees root locations and protective measures such as discontinuous footings (pier and on-grade beam design). This is particularly important for Trees #3, 4 and 8. P:~Planning\John LU4612 BigBasin,TcafalgacUtcsolutions.doc O®Olol~ File No. DR-00-011, SD-00-001, V-00-018 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street 12. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, any required native replacement trees shall be installed in accordance with the Arborist Reports. 13. All utility line, driveway construction and other tree protection recommendations in the Arborist Reports shall be strictly followed 14. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 15. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's recommendations. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 16. Provide one on-site fire hydrant that meets the Saratoga Fire Districts specifications. The hydrant shall be installed and accepted prior to construction of any building. 17. All driveways shall have a 14 ft. minimum with plus one foot shoulders. Driveway cures shall have a mini.*num inside radius of 21 feet. 18. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the City of Saratoga Code-Article 16-60. 19. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. 20. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garages (2 heads per stall). The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the ,size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. 21. Prior to building permit application, the applicant shall provide a recorded copy of deed or easement showing legal access across the 12-foot ingress -egress easement from Big Basin Way. CITY ATTORNEY 22. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City 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. 23. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City cou~d incur due P:~Plannin~John LU4612 Big Basin,Ttafalgat~Resoludons.doc O ~0~ 0~ File No. DR-00-011, SD-00-001, V-00-018 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City 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, Ciry and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED ArtD ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 11`t' day of July 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIn Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • P:~Planning\John LU4612 Big Basin,Tcafalgat~Resoluuons.doc ~~3~ ~ ~l APPROVAL OF RESOLLTITON NO. S - D 00-001 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNLA TRAFALGAR INC.;14612 BIG BASIN WAY ~ 20717 ST. CHARLES STREET WHEREAS, 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 Sazatoga, for Vesting Tentative Map approval of 2 existing parcels into five air right condominium units (lots) including two common areas, all as more pazticulazly set forth in File No. SD-00-001 of this City; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto; and the proposed subdivision and land use are compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the staff report dated March 28, 2001 being hereby made for furt.ier particulars; and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdi~~ision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a dul}' noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present e~~idence; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an Environmental Initial Study was prepazed and a Negative Declaration was approved March 28, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Vesting Tentative Map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is date stamped June 29, 2001 and is marked Exhibit 'A' in the herein above referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A' incorporated by reference and date stamped June 29, 2001. The applicant shall provide a certificate of deposit as a parking fee for the eight parking spaces approved for the pazking variance for a total amount of $40,000 or $5,000 per space. The funds will be used for the proposed pazking district. If the P:1Planning\John LU4612 Big Basin,TnGlgac~Resolurions.dac (~` ®~~~C. File No. DR-00-011, SR-00-OO1,V-00-018 14612 Big Basin Way Est 20717 St. Charles Street proposed parking district is not established by July 11, 2006, the funds will be returned to the applicant. 3. The Heritage Preservation Commission shall review the final design of the proposed project and forward all comments to the Planning Commission. 4. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, a landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director. S. Prior to Final Inspection, all landscaping on the approved landscape plan shall be installed. 6. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the Public Works Department, the following shall be submitted to the Plannuig Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: ^ Four (4) sets of complete Improvement Plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: ^ All applicable recommendations of the Ciry Arborist. ^ Provisions for the Ciry Arborist to provide an on site arborist during critical site preparation and construction stages including grading and installation of utility lines and driveways. _ 7. Four (4) sets of complete grading plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions:' ^ All applicable recommendations of the Ciry Arborist. ^ Pro~2sions for the Ciry Arborist to provide an on site arborist during critical site preparation and construction stages including grading and installation of utility lines and driveways. Construction, alteration or repair activities (for subdi~~ision improvements as well as the construction of the residences) which are authorized by a valid City of Saratoga permit, or which do not require the issuance of a City of Saratoga permit, may be conducted only on weekdays between the hours of 7:30 AM and 6:00 PM so long as the noise level does not exceed 60 dBA at Project property boundary. No such construction work shall be permitted on Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays. Construction noise should be reduced whenever possible. The Ciry Engineer may grant an exemption upon his/her determination of an emergency. 9. A sign indicating permitted construction hours shall be posted on the site in a ~~isible location. ,~ 10. Applicable construction conditions shall be included in any and all contracts with each and every contractor and subcontractor working on the Project. P ~Planning\)ohn LV4612 Big Basin,TcafalgatViesolutions.doc O ~~~ ~~ File No. DR-00-011, SR-00-OO1,V-00-018 14612 Big Basin Way Fst 20717 St. Charles Street 11. Dust and erosion control will be ma~m~ed onsite and on streets in the adjacent neighborhoods shall be maintained in a manner to avoid the accumulation of mud and dirt in the streets. 12. The final landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of any Building or Grading Permits. CITY ARBORIST 13. All recommendations in the City Arborist Reports dated March 27, 2000 and May 17, 2000 Esc June 6, 2000 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: The Arborist Reports shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on ~ the site and grading plans. ^ Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan and grading plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction.' The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Grading or Building Permit. A note shall be included on the site plan and grading plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. 14. A landscape plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance showing locations of any native replacement trees. (This number may be reduced depending on the trees that the applicant is proposing to be relocated instead of removed in revised site plan.) 1~. The applicant is proposing to relocate instead of remove in the revised site plan. 16. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, any native replacement trees shall be installed in accordance with the Arborist Reports. 17. All retaining walls, driveway construction and other tree protection recommendations in the Arborist Reports shall be strictly followed 18. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 19. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the City Arborist Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $22,903 plus a sum recommended by the Arborist to assure protection of • P:U'Ianning~John LV461? Big Basin,Trafalgai\Resolutions.d« ~ ®~~OC7 . File No. DR-00-011, SR-00-OO1,V-00-018 . 14612 Big Basin Way &r 20717 St. Charles Street the other trees pending the outcome of Arborist Report recommendations #1-6. This is to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 20. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, provisions will be made for the City Arborist to provide an arborist on site during all critical site preparation and construction phases. This is to insure that all Arborist report conditions are met and to carry out addition investigative work such as confirming trees root locations and protective measures such as discontinuous footings (pier and on-grade beam design). This is particularly important for trees #3, 4 and 8. 21. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, any required native replacement trees shall be installed in accordance with the Arborist Reports. 22. All utility line, driveway construction and other tree protection recommendations in the Arborist Reports shall be strictly followed 23. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 24. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the City Arborist recommendations FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 24. Pro«de one on-site fire hydrant that meets the Saratoga Fire Districts specifications. The hydrant shall be installed and accepted prior to construction of any building. 25. All driveways shall have a 14 ft. minimum with plus one-foot shoulders. Driveway cures shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet. 26. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be~installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the City of Saratoga Code-Article 16-60. 27. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. 28. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garages (2 heads per stall). The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. 29. Prior to building permit application, the applicant shall provide a recorded copy of deed or easement showing legal access across the 12-foot ingress -egress easement from Big Basin Way. P:~Planning\John LV4612 Big Basin,Trafalgat~Rcsolutions.doc OOO~ OJ File No. DR-00-011, SR-00-OO1,V-00-018 14612 Big Basin Way Est 20717 St. Charles Street PUBLIC WORKS 30. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the Public Works Department for examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the Public Works Department, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 31. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14-40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the Public Works Department for examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the information required ir.. Section 14-40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items: 32. One copy of map checking calculations. 33. Preliminary Title Reporr. for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. 34. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map. 3~. One copy of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map. 36. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the Public Works Deparanent. 37. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. 38. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the Final Map or some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by the Public Works Director shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. 39. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements and/or rights-of-way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Vesting Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval. 40. Aline of sight study prepared by a licensed engineer shall be submitted to verify that the intersection of access road with St. Charles Street will be safe, prior to Final Map approval. P:~Plannin~John LU461? Big Basin, Trafalga~Resolutions.doc O ~ o ~ ~ O • File No. DR-pO-Oll, SR-00-OO1,V-00-018 14612 Big Basin Way &>r 20717 St. Charles Street 41. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans to the Public Works Department in conformance with the approved Vesting Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the appropriate officials from other public agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public. and private utility providers, prior to approval of the Final Map. The following specific conditions shall be included on the improvement plans: 42: Sidewalk at Big Basin Way within the limits of the subdivision shall be replaced. Encroachment Permit from Caltrans shall be issued for this replacement. 43. Hydraulic calculations for connection to existing storm drain system on Big Basin Way shall be provided In case capacity of present storm drain system has been reached, alternate way of drainage plan shall be provided. 44. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director, at the tune Improvement Plans are submitted for review. 45. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the Ciry in accordance with Section 14-60.010 of the Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval. 46. The owner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities in accordance with Section 14-60.020 of the Municipal Code in the manner and amounts determined by the Public Works Director prior to Final Map approval. 47. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with Section 14-05.050 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map approval. . 48. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the Public Works Department with satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serve the subdivision. 49. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the Ciry and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to the Public Works Depamnent. 50. The owner (applicant) shall deposit a $5,000 cash bond with the City prior to Final Map approval for funding of future AC overlay of St. Charles Street within the limits of the subdivision. 51. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation fee prior to P:\Planning\John LV4612 Big Basin,TrafalgadResolutlons.doc OOO~g,~ File No. DR-00-Oll, SR-00-OO1,V-00-018 14612 Big Basin Way &r 20717 St. Charles Street Final Map approval. 52. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. 7 53. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. CITY ATTORNEY 54. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City 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 Ciry's action with respect to the applicant's project. 55. 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 City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval v«ll expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, Ciry and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 1~-90 of the Saratoga Ciry Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (l~) days from the date of adoption. PASSI=D AIw ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 11`h day of July 2001 by the following roll call vote: Axis: Noi=s: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission P:V'lanning\John LU4612 Big Basin,TnGlga~Rcsoludons.doc O oo~ ~~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. V-00-018 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRAFALGAR INC.; 14612 Big Basin Way &20717 St.Charles Street WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Variance approval to decrease the required rear yard setback from 36 feet to 3.5 feet. ;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 variance approval, and the following findings have been determined: • Strict enforcement of the rear yard setback requirements would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by adjacent properties in the vicinity in that only one of the three proposed buildings could be constructed and therefore only limited use could be made of 11,250 the net square foot parcel. The Variance would not be necessary if the mixed-use commercial and condominium project was di«ded in half by the boundary that separates the CH-2 and R-M-3,000 zone districts. The City believes it is critical to maintain the boundaries. A number of significant trees that the Ciry wishes to preserve on this parcel impact the location of buildings and construction in general. This creates a major physical limitation in making use of the property without this Variance. • The proposed reduced rear yard setback would not constitute a special privilege in that similarly zoned properties would be treated the same. ^ The proposed rear yard set back reduction would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare or injurious to properties in the area in that it will not be ~~isible from adjoining properties not part of this project, and it poses no health or safety risks. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Trafalgar, Inc for Variance approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: I'.1Planning`,~ohn LV4612 Big Basin,Trafalgat~Resolurions.doc ~003,g3 File No. DR-00-011, SR-00-OO1,V-00-018 14612 Big Basin Way &t 20717 St. Charles Street COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed per Exhibit °A" incorporated by reference and date stamped June 29, 2001. 2. The applicant shall provide a certificate of deposit as a parking fee for the eight parking spaces approved for the parking variance for a total amount of $40,000 or $5,000 per space. The funds will be used for the proposed parking district. If the proposed parking district is not established by July 11, 2006, the funds will be returned to the applicant. 3. The Heritage Preservation Commission shall review the final design of the proposed project and forward all comments to the Planning Commission. CITY ATTORNEY 4. 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 CityL'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. 5. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City 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 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 11th day of July 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN Chair, Planning Commission P:~Planning\John LU4612 Big Basin,Trafalga~Resolucions.doc oo~~~~ • ~~ u • File No. DR-00-011, SR-00-OO1,V-00-018 14612 Big Basin Way &t 20717 St. Charles Street P:~Planning\John LV4612 Big Basin,Tcafalgat~Rcsoludons.doc ATTEST": Secretary, Planning Commission 000115 T~iIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ~`V ~IlIlIl~~~ l~I~~~ ~~~~~ ~Il~ ~~1~llIl'll ~~~ ~~~1 ~®~~~ ~~o cCl~~~°ll~~ ~~~°~ce~ Printed copies will not be exact representations) III®®~~ng ~IHI~~°~lIl~~ll~~~~ ~~~~~~°9 IE~~~ ~~~1 ~~°ll~ KM586-M Palazetto ., .~ ~~an~~® I~®~lg~ ~®~~l ~®~°Il~l KM585-L Kenwood House ~~°Il~I~ d~~~~~° PEACOCK ~IlII11Q~®~Y ~Ii°~lII7Tll~~ • ~ ~ ~ $ 968L-£Z9 (OlS)'4d 6£Sb6 e!wo~!~e~ `iuowa~3 L6L0-Z6Z (804)'4d ZI156 E!wo~!~e~ `asof ueS ~ 2 = 8 ~ ~~ neM sESUe?7 96Z ~~,s- J--7~ ~J ~ t~07i ` iaarlS W!4.L 4uoN LrZ ~ ~ '• . ~ r D ~ uooye~ uuai~ •~uI samog .ze~i~3~.~,I, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ?~ ~ pur~m~ u?sn~ B•~~ zt9~ ~ ~ - - s d m o o R m o i _ __ O~ ~ `~ ~~ t~ ti ~~ U •.. N M ~ ~n ~c c~ oo a .. -- o~j a G a, - - ca ~ y ~ ~ y ~ p C CO CO L '« ~ • ~ a ~ °' 'fl a, o_ oo ~ a, ~' ~ ~ o a ~ a, o ~ ' ~ y , G~ ~ ~ ~~ a °' E A ~ °~ ~ i ~ G, .~ ~ ~~•~ ,~ .~ ~ ~~ „ a a 3o ~ U>a v w 'v~ a rxw a .._ • • • .a ~~ elov~oo a80(' uos wngny •~nvo 'v~olvavs do Ally W nH L.sls-SB8 (pfS) Xo~ LplS-S88 cots) dVW 3/111b~1N ~ $ •e aaa53u f09S6 Vp 'wngny 'p alms 'pooa poowa6P3 66811 J~yM NISVB JI8 ZL9bl 31 ~ N " : NOI ~ ~ c H ~ N .~ .a nB ` '~Q SIA1a9f1S a3SOdOdd JNIIS3A oz- ~ rroisin SYriNI~ m; n~ Ih~ ~ d I ;hl9 J , . 31v75 SNO5N3L 31Y0 ~ ~y ~~ Y •~ f~ fig ~~~~ a ~ ~_ _ ~ 9~9 '~ ~ D d a N N W ~ pry U ~ ~ ~ ~ . N K ~ NW~n YI ~ ~ N j < ' v ~. ~ ~ ~N ~O r44~1~ G {k ~~~ Z j~ s tZ _~ W G ~ Z<i~ J W W ~N Sy ~ Y~~4' 8 ~~a ~ ~ o =oJC ~ W ~O <is2R4 W zd S~ ,- W N QQ~ xN_ ~ Nx J ' U7 ~ N ~ W N ~ N W ' - N R ST CHARLES STREET ~ ~I ~ _ ~ I I T I "' I 1I ~ N I W I I I ~I L r ~ ' _ m ~ ir' ---a ..a 1` ~ ;,~ ' J to ~ Alter 1-- o F s~ni om F• ix~ I W ~ Q U l t+~ I ~I~ ~ ~, ~ i- ? r~ ~ Q o a ` - io "` z w F- ~ t.l~ m Q ~ ~ , ' ~ I~ o ~I ~ a U ~ 'I ~ I • ~ i I'~ u v a i. _ i R Oo ~ ~ooooooo o0 LY .OV& 3.Orib0.9LN I I I I ~rnl ~_J N I W dl I I I Ei I j \ o I! I t ~ 0. 13 I~ ~ '~ I ~ I r O i i ~~ ~I p O~W iy k ~ I~ I t] Z W I & I m~~I ~ rl ~ IS I ~ I ~ 3a I- ~ IIY~ I _ ~•: I I y h __ ~,~ V _~ ~~ I I~ ~5 a N ~ ~ ~ r,~ ` p 4 WS I A .. I I I I I ro Q Z Q IJ..I .~ I dl I; W I ~ ~ 8 ~ Q ~. r i 4 ~ - ---------- - ~ _ 6 ~ i ~'~zs~~~~~s~~~~ ~Wa~~ ~ T~ p~(,p. ~-__ `@@ Z ~ < < ~ J ~ ~ 1- _ _ _ z Wg - - BIC BASIN WAY ,~ ~ I ~~ ~; ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ` . ~ ( ~ ~ I ~ ~ E ~ ~ a aR ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I~ I' ~ i i V_ i i L V° R --- ~ -- -- ~ ~ - - - - - - - - ~ i I I d c ~ i t ~ i i i ~ i R lSd /ld Gt a[ Zl l0/Zl/f0 6~0'gLZ8Z66\CBZ66\6661\0\tl34M35\\ • I g'~ n JII ~~ -~~~ N ~a m3w3w oloP~oO • osop uo5 • wngny ~ •dnvo •H~JOltlatlS ~O AlIJ w cs~s-sae (ofs) =o~ cois-sae (ofs) W ,.e ~s3o f09S6'tl~ 'wngny 'p e~lns 'pooh poo+~a6p3 66811 AbM NI$t/6 ~18 Zt9~L Nb1d ~111111f1 '8 3JdNit/aa ~ ~ ~ ~g ~~ .a „~~„~ ~ NOISIA149(1S a3SOdOad JNIdVaJ JIaVNIWll3ad N `< ~~ .oz-.l .r3a~swin ~o,~r '~aI `[ing ;9 lns~jnig . J a ~rx s!+osNw nr0 R •~ g ST9 ~ARI~B:i STREBT ~4. R ~- ri --~~ _~- Q. ~_ --ff , 6 ~ r a• ~ •• L ~,, ~, _ ~~ ~~ o~ ~I~ ~ ~ >~ ~~ ~ , .-\ ~ r----~ r-- ~ Cp tp I r_{~_ I ~ I ~1- f~ I ~ I m 0 V ~~~~`~ • J~~ I ~ I r V !~ ~ i~ g ;~ ~ ~ i y g ~ ~ Wit.,.}.` I l Z. _ J ~ l CO w ~.) ~ ----~-~ D ~ ~I -_1_. I ~wi Z ^ ~ I .~-. y / z U ~' ~ ~~ ~~ 9 ~ i p~ MMN ~ z H - ~Sa ~'vY L6 yWm k VR L... ~ g Q H 4 Y~. rrW 1 44~ i ~ Z ~ ~Y ` --- ~ X41 L ~ . J o~p Q p ~ p ~ ~ .o O-- - - ~ f ` b ~ V ' ~ j ~m r -~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i 9 ~ ~ U 2 m ~' ~ ~ ~ ~° ~ ~, --- :, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II z~ v ~ ~ Q u., . I ,. I i v e;'=1 -~ a I ~ ~ ~i I I -,a s, Ilj~ s;~ ~~ ~') ~i ~: I ~; ~i~ y~, .~ ;~j ~..t -.-$-~=~._ (c';:- ,tall r+a:rr; :]rxii a~ _ _ ~`t - - -~S; _ `~~ ~ BIG\BA.SIN WAY ~ _ 5 4 .L r.. ~~ 9 4 ~`.~ 1C E`" 3- i `r`i M'.C rya ~ ~2 ~'' I ~ xNC IO F~ iF°~ ~ "E+ 2 ~ _ _ _ ~ ~~ e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . lll V NR w R u, i ~ ~ _ R ~ IaJ ~is Z 0 ~ ~ ? N~~O Q ~ ~ Z3 F~g~ ~ V ~ ~N<0- o ~~k' Y O d ~ ¢o~F IW ~~ 3 ~ V O ~j Y ~ J LL d w = W~ p ~~ ~ W bl z~a Wm <~N~ ............. _.............. . ~-_ : • {~ h ip i C i 1 1 i f 15d Irv 9f ~aY ~ll l0/Zt/CO 6•D'~dZ8i66\29266\6661\0\il3Atl36\\ _._ ,..._ _.. _.. , .. .._ ... .:._... .. i {. • m $ 96RL-£Z9 (Ol5)'4d 6ESb6 e~wo~ile~ `~uoula~,~ L6L0-Z6Z ~80t')'4d ZI l56 e~wo~ge~ `aso~ ueS ~ ~ _ a ~CEM SESUC~ 9CZ ~ "v J'~~7~ ~S~T~~ 3aai1S P~!4.L 4uot~(Lh N s ~~ uooyL~ uualJ /t[1 ZC1SI7 B,Z sawog ~e~~e3e~Z ~ z ir', ~ ~~ ~ ~, ~ NL ~ ~ ZT9~T - Qa o~o~~ o 1 ! w U~ 4 N it U°_ ~ S ~ o = U ~ 4-- ' ~ ~'%. ~_4~ - - -__ __ - - x-41 w .,. ^` _~_ ' _.-_ q... \ ~` ~ I I ~ ~ -_~ _"T!_ I I I I I -- 'L_J L------J ~ 1 - ~~ ----- t i ~ I I _. ~ r----i r----~ I 1 . ~ l i ~ I I m ~ `•r• ' I r ~~ I ;~ ~ ~ I I I I I I 11 I / N m( 1 ...L ..._ .. I I I I o f np ~ 1' i ~ 1 1 1 I _-_.-...1 l~'v j IJ a L7-J~1 ~t_J~ ~, ~ % 1 W h r-------1 d l ~ ~ ' I I I ~I ~!~ I I I i r- 1 I I _ 1 I I I ~ i, I i. I ~ ~ ^~ I I ~~ y j ~1 ~ 1~ r---~\ I cv I ~~, . rF ~ ^ I ~ ~ \y_I 'Z~; S~ I v I -{- • ~c~ I I _ ~ _ ~ 1 ooaoooooooooo.aa-o..a~ ~L I o .._. _..-.._.. T--- __.- I ~ ~I (i _ I i i~ I ~~' i i - 1 ~ I `3 11 _~i ~, I c i_ I ~ I i I' , _ ~~ o ~ i ~r1-~_ i ~ ~ 1 ~~ ~ ~ I i __ _ '._ . ~ ~ i ~~ I ~ ~ i I 1 i r Ili -.,, i ~ ~ia ! _ l ~, I v I „~J ~15j'y' ~"l ~E,l~ J `c i~ i I ° i m ~ I I i et>G / o ` f 1 ` l am ~ i _ ~ I ~~ ~ ~ ~ AIL,"Iy I 1 1 _.-- N ~ I I I ~:: _ I - ~ n -ice l{[ '..I " i 1 j I I i _ j i I jl ~ it-- ~: ~ _ ! ( ~ I _ ~ I I V/ i I it l ~ ~` I - ~ I ~ --------- _ I 1 1•I _'-- --r ~~ rJ i --4---_..__..-..____~_-...~_.._.._-.~ _____ ` n~ltnt ~.c;r+rmcroo~.orrai - - - - - -- -- -- ryC-- ~> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - i a i~: • • • m ~' 968L-fZ9l01SY4d GfSh6 c!wglyr.J `tuoulaa,l ` ~ • eiwo i e aso ue L6L0-Z67. ~806)'4d 21156 J I J' f S ? ~, w ~_ ,CeM srcury 9G~ ~ ( ~~/ ( T ~ -~s_ J__7~ ~J ~i~~Z taa~l I S W.4.L 4uoN LbZ ~ o n~ W ic~ al .y uooye~ uua~~ ~ /(/~~~(~//~~ I//~~y/~J}//~/ }/J~/ //~^/~9]t~ / IY~ ~I • KW YV/ ~W V I~ J / T 1J •auI ~sawog ~e~~e~e~Z ~ s P F Z LL' ~ ~~~ -" \V yi~~- ~r C v O G ~ q O 1332l1S S3ladH~ 1S ---~ _.:'Jj :11 1~1 ~ ~'' ~I.J ~ . II iii ~ L. .. } ~ ~ . h~ ~ ) `'\_, Z ~ i \ i ^~ ` \` LL ~1C i N ~~ ~ I \ ~ I m I m ~ \ ~ ~' 1 F- w - • ~, i 2 ... .~ . m ... _-- _ 0 N ~J ~ I O' ... + W .t w ~ _ rn ~ I"i ~ '' -~ ~ ~ ¢' ~i~- __ _ ~~_ - •a ~ m F W ~„, Z N 0 Q ~_ - - -~ . m.---~ 1 ~ ~. .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I W i `°n 'o I ~~ ~'1 ~ ~ !. m M ~' w ~ r. ... -- • _. ~ i 4 1 . 1 1 LL ~ ~ O .~ i N h 1 1 ~ ~ r .r. N r F W Z N G .__ ~ . m ~I ~ • _... ., ~ ~~ F _ I W Q W II O d ... yj ~ ~ W V iw O Z. ZI ~' o ~O ~ G J N ~_ , Z i '. _ O N. • O .. a a O f . _. ... ~._-. = W ~~ O. W r' 2 - I 41I .' _._.. 0., . ~ \ I pp~~U Z 0 ~NC ~ "_ QI ~~~ _ ~ - f _ ~ . -I ~. Ql i --- e ' --- --- ~ . ; _...._ _._. I. 1 y . BIG..BASIN WAY_ _ ....--- _ i ~ ~ ~ ~~'~~ . I •IY'/z 8~ I .oF/ ,D t/ I.c,S .C'J ' .ai4.' .L i I ~ i , .. ~ ~ ' ~+ t I l= ~ S`' V I ~. . o ~ a r JI` o I ~ h ~ 4 c ^ 6: , 4 . ~j~ ~ ~ I Q O m ~` i ~ e I ~ ~ I QI ~ .~; f ~ m I I I ~: Q- 7 f _r ~ V S~ _ \~~- ~ e ~~ ~ J o n ~~~~ ~ ~ __ o x°' :S .9U , n,B .f/52 i I . I. I c w I .o.U .Dg .BILL , a I ~ ~~~ ~ . C ~ 1 \` .. u ' I .fLY . ~ T x ~'j~ W `i© ~ c~ a t O I I I O h ` °i~ i V-i N. r~ I ~ I p , , I ~ I I ~ . w "~ ~ © ~_ ~ , ~ -~,, g ~ ~ a i I ©. ~ N o. J F ) ~, V - ~ Q • o~J~ooooo0000000ooooop°° ~ !~0 ~ ~ Ml 7 ' _ ~ _~ l J _~I r o ~ 3 ~ ~ Y j ~7 a ~ p Q0 d~ I ~ n o `~T-•I • ... ~ m i ~O - _ ~~ ~ i~ ~ e; ~` ~ ~~ o i ~~~ ~ ~ I ! 5 ~ ~~ ~}' e ~ ~~ W ~ 3a~:~~ e ` \~ . 1~rr,co i~vr~m ~ ~ ~-rna ~~rb' "nn.~ e9/xaB ..sora~ nl a ~ aSY ra.C agra•SS'. aC/r;s ~ ~- z L 7 s0/~~ ~ /iOr6( •o S6 M o p og°-~ sOiL! rJi'~ /S N ~ I J ~ ~' Q W ¢ O TU)d •nnd and nlAl --~- ¢ .~J a4iX36 .B/xi6 ;grxx; ;g~x~6 ~ ll.l m/o~ c j \ W ^~ Q ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ .. _, .._ `D v ~ ~. ~ e}- .. m ~ ~J ~ m ~p ~o ,N v C7 I ~ _2 O 2 ~ O N i N z ie o QID m V J l n „a~ <aW~ ~ H ~~m ~ ~ ~' a v y ,Il N NI m ~'1 P N N ' ,., l^9 C C .I ^. 3.'vz QV?y :;: o _~lo c ooh N P NI ~ V fV . I~ .jl ~ - ~ N N OC N' p .ZI 4 r1 h Z M N J. F.cc V vcd Z v v v Y ~ Z$ y} .. Fhe~3 O x«°3 _ = g Y ~- -> ~~p==j L c4- .^z. ;n 47 0 ~ ~ -~???ZY_ m Z2Z3 ~N<C F ~ '~NYc F <3~ g s <I - ~, ~ 3tF ~~~ c cced 3 ?YSF _ cc c - ~m~ A S~g3~ ~~T~`e~X a esq°~,~ _ ~:~_ ~'~ m NOn- V . ~ ~N~^P rv ..4 ~ c F-W : -_~ ' . _ ~ ~ OZUZ =• :< ~ « ~'~z: i.y-i tel.-l~ z~_3~>< 7 ~ - ^ZZ C ~. V _ • ,J ' c~c FCCd ° O e C~' C~ ~ '~ cccc2~c o c~.o +1 9~CSi 9~S~S g YCCR'Y_ Sf iI- „Vpu'~~ C ~ VN N O N ,^s C~GI„ O~~eO e~j ~O < ., 8 y ~ NP N ~ .. rnn -.N NV J y F ~.. < "f K V < _ =i- ~Z c z_s ~ - -~-3~j?aI~" ~ W - » ~ 0 '- ~ .~ oc z ~ J ~ I fZ L6L0-Z6Z (80r)'4d ZI 156 r!woJ!IrJ •asot ue~ p ? • iaan5 P~!414LOt~ LtZ c L ~ a 'JIII'caLU(-I; .ir..gi>~3ea1, ~ z `, y ~~ o` c .~ o J Q H ~ W O y, i~ Uj~ ZI~ W '~ ~ ~ ~~.~5!-£~9 (OlS)'4d 6ESt6 ciwo,~i~r~ yuoma~~ av :6:0-%6 (80h)'4d F,1 l56 e!uo~i~eJ ~asoj ues z ~ _ ~ ~S~~~ ~S~TlOZ S P .414E k LtZ ~ o ~ ne/h s~sury gbh ~aa~l n o uooge~ uua~~ v ut.st~ ~,t `~ ~ > ~~ ~ l~ ~ S ZI9~Z 'aUI sawuli ~Cn~c~c~Z Q ~ ~ m ~° '" ! s 6 a ! y c d ~S 6{ S 1332i1S S3ladH~'1S ter. i .~~ ~-, '3iKi ~ l ~ I ~l :~ ~' 0 ~ , '~~ 4 t I ~';r~~ ~ t ~, . --- f ` ' U _4 }~ N ~z a -~ Z ~ N I 0 _~ _._ _ m ~ 968L-f"c9 (01 S)'4d 6fS46 e!wo{!!eJ `tuoula~,.! L6L0-%6Z (80b)'4d Z.I t 56 e!wo39e~ `aso~ ues o „ ~ FPM sesuey 9f~~ ~aa'~S'~-_ J~ .~54 T~OZ laa~lS W!4.1.4uoN LbZ ~ '~ u ~~ uoo~~~ uua~~ puv~M,utsv~B~ZT9f~T •~ul~sawoH.~u~~~,{ea,i, - 6u ~ ~ ]~°, s o i ~ s a .m ~~~ uI ~ - ~ h:i~ "~ ,x~ d~N ~ ~ ~" ! ~ '~ ~ --\- '~ ~ I ~ li ~~ l ~I-- ,_ --- i II ~ ~-~ )~ N ~~~ ~~~~ I - i . ~ i ~ i I ' i -_._-- 1 a ~ 3 I ~ . I d- ~ . 8 ~ 1 { I -~ -- -~ N I~ I ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ 3 ~ W ' ~ tl- 2 ~ I O y ~ ~ I l 1 m w aI W ~ ~ I I o I . I e Al wl J iII I i a II _ a H W ~ -, ~ w y i. O C a6i i W v W N l~ ~ O p z Q o' ~ .. ~ o a .: , l 4 tj; il, r i It _ I. .f' I i ~-fit ~ e .C _~ ~ ' _._ -- __ I~ it . s i ~ '~~ ~'• i U I o, ~jj K~ -~ .~. - Q I^ v/ ._ ..I - O O ~ ~ .. i. ~ t . ~ W W Ill ~ F i WI . u ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ O ° (n (... ~ Q. l ~ j I o~ 0 111 . < > ~w ~ ~, o - p ~ i , o Z o ~, ~ ~ - _ ~ , ,. -- • • o ~ - _ _ 96RL'fi9 (015~'4~1 6iStb E!w~l!IE~ `~uowa~d ~~f,~(~('~ m'/~'l ~5.4 L4~2' / ~~ JJ''~"~~77/ L6L0-Z6Z ~80b)'4d,. 21156 e!wo~!IeJ'asof us$ ~aai~$ W!41 gvol~l LbZ ~ 2 _ • - ~ _ rCeM sesua~ 962 ' o ~ N $W uoo u uua 4 ~ I~ ~ u1S`11 ~1 ~ ~Vi, ~ ~ ZT9f~I sawoH .~c~ie,Ie.~,I, •~uI e ~ ~; ~ °O ~ ~ • ~ t W R V ~ ' O S O ~A~ , • ~ ... G I I ~ ..v, 'V .~--.__~__P ~ Al..l;^ q/_ %%``~' ~ I I 1 I I ~ ~ O I ~ I r I I~ I ~ I I 3a ~ 'b i u: ' I I• I ~- ~; j I i ' i ~ I I I ! I I I. j ! 1 I ~ ... .. .. ~- ~ ~ ._ --. ~- . , ~ ~ . , ~ ~ I ; I ~ . ~ ; I .. . I _ , Il i , ~ i ' ~ -f~-i---~ i , ; I -~ I I ~ ~ 1 I ~ i i _... .._ I ~ 1~ ~ ~ I i t ` i I i ~i ~ I i i I I I ~ I 1 _. LL ~` -1~ X1, '3 'I ~ ~ yn~1 U ~ LL O 0 I ~I _ , Z ~. I II N' ~ .' I I I I ! I I I ~. 1 ~9 I I~ j t I I I ~ I ~i t~ I ~~~ .I i f I i i i l I I Q ~~ ~,~ W 1.{ i m l 1 ( ty ~l i .. ~~ I Q F j l I. ~' Z _ ®~ I i ', I I I ~ I 1 I I C I i ~ y O i W ~~ w - .~~ ul~ 2 z ~ _ . - i ~ F-I ~; III ~ . ~ i i N i - Zi; 1 I I I I~ I WI ~ II ~ =1 W i~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~S ~~ ! ~rg. J ~ ~~ ~ ~ I I I I ~ N ~~Z~a v i H L LLLN a ~z ~~ ~ ~z ~ i~ ' ~ ~ W• ~. '~ .. ' _L , ~ _ ~ m II I I ~ E` Y . t O I ~ ~ ! I ~ I. ~ ~ ~~ `~ .~~_..Z~ m ! I 2 .. ~~ 3 ~ ~ { l I I ~ . I ' I ~ i I ~ ~ j ~ ~ I O ~jQ{ {e ~ 'N .W I Y I j I I. O. ~~ I i ~ I ~ ~ T l l~ ~ l I --..:._... _ ~ ~. ~ _ ill I I ~ I i I ~. J i W J T ~ - f .~'_~ ~ ~ i l I I -' ,13.1 i. j~I~ H - ~~ LLLLL~ LLLLL : N I is H ~ ~, ~ I I O I I ~ .J _ .~ f j ~ 1 ~. I I LLLLL ~ ~I o ~ ~'YISN/ 4~/BG ~ I I ~ : ... ~ i I , ~ J ~ IJ T..j j ~ ~ i .0~9L< ~ I I I . .. ~ ~0~~ I ... ~ .. 1 ~ __ - - I i I ~ ~ I ~~~ ~ i ~ l _, I _~_ I -- I - - ~ .rt ~ ~ ~ ~.I ~ ' I' I ~ _ . .I II I . .... ~ I i1 - © I - i I - i ®. - ~ Il I I . ~ t I i ( ~ I ~ ~ I I ~ - ~ Ia i W ~ ~ I _ _= I ~,I ` F W ~, ~~ ri I I !~ .I I O~ a I ~ I Q W ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~~ ~ Y ~~ I 1 I 32 ., ~ ° ~ ~ ~ -- ~- ~ ~S ~ ~ i. I ~ 4' _ I I a ` 1 I I . I 3 ~ z ¢ 2 ~ . ! 1 1 I N,' F .=-.- ~ I 'W - W V~' ~ QI r r , ~ I W , ¢: hQ ~ ( 3 u, O ~ N i ~' ma ~ ~ F p ~~ ~ I W i W I ~ ~ i "Q I / y, Y. ~~~ e ~ ; _ ~ a ~1 I WI ~ 1 ~;Q i~ , ~ I . m! i ~ W _ I of v -._~_ .. ._ ._. ~ o _ .. ri ~ y .. ~ I 2 ~ . i i I 0 'I o W ~ II1 ~ ~I. Z ' ~ I { ~ I, ' I~ I II I I N o ~° ai ~ ~ I 2 i O I z /- r N _ I _ ~. .. I ~ I ~ W I ~ { ~ 1 I ! I ~ + W ~ ) ~ ~ V C~. ¢ z I p~ ' I I I . ~ 1 , I I l 1 I I I ~ ¢ ~ W ~ ' ~ i Ie 1 ~ ~ 3~ ~ ~ ~• W I` ¢~' ~ H O i~ I )I ,. _ I L~^ ~, W ¢ ~ b; ~i ~ I ., I . I I j 1 i I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c L_La I Z`' ~ m: F- ~ } I I `~ 21 J i o . _ 1 ~ Z ~ I o -~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ L-L ' ~ ~ ~; ~ O ~ Iy ~ ~ I ~ t: 'I 1 i I I G N j W ~ i ,I ~ - - W .J i ( I ~ I _ I i a l m S; i m ~ w I ~ . i I z. O I 4 ' JI 1 ' I I I I _ _..._ Z`r _.. ~ ~ ~ ..~ I ~ I I I ~ ~Y~ N 54'~ 9/9 ~ ~i _ ~ .1 l~at/c 97dIF?/7'~ M u <0 ~9 d~ ca v o~mc,c~m ^~~i4iWW~ .•. ~ .- ~ ~ - - ~ _ _ f.o ouo - a,op„op • asop uos • wngntl ',~IIV~ •N901~/21VS .~0 ..illl~ ~ ~ w °o n>I _ - LS IS-S88 (o£S) ,o~ cols-ssa (o£s) JIyM NISVB X18 Z l9~ L I '" `" ~~ fn mraslo £0956 tl~ 'wngny 'p a,lns •poob poo.xa6p3 66811 ~. --~9NV~~ ar,-~ ONIlNd~d ,ld~/Nll~ll~3dd ~ - Q .a"~~,~ ~e,~:,~-NCB ~ NOISI/~Ia~l(1S a3SOd0~ld ~ ~~ si- I 5 < '~ul 'lln~{ ~ lunllnl~ . J 71YJ5 SNp4Nltl 31V0 ~ p~rj 1NYl ISSNDS NpIY,NLtl YCS~6 YJ 'llgn7Nf ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rv'~ Np570 :fCIJ;ONVI 'M1B 5 1IN CS[[C Nohow Nal~ ~ y ~~ 8 ~ ~,J `II O ~ ~ LIO V yl ¢~ ~ ~IJ ~~ Y N S C t 7,~n.~i a> v1V ~~{~, ~~y ~ I Ug ~ 0 - I ~ i~ ~ ~~' iJ - u d ~ Z wO. e~Z~ ~ Q c z_ Q J - d. -~- o ug3im ~ ~, ~- - ~ I F Sa°°m ' R Z \~ i ~, .- _~- I s I l~ + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; z lu ~~~ J i ~~ i ~ ~~~ ~ ` ~ z ,+Y ~ ~~ .a~< '>~3yg'd w~Y>°z3 ESo~twmr~w «~o o ~ 3e W n < Edo $z ~g ~Szd<~ GiBordzz uzl~~ ,z~ ° W o ~ i° ~ ~ ~3 8~~ ~3~~~~ ~~~6~~ ~m~~F~d 8v' ~ < z tZ ~ ~; ro~- L~~ ~ ~p .sad ~~iVTS~e ~3_dCY 3m ~m~~~ ~`dF,...._ . qS ~ a ~ m~2 8a~ p~~q<~zm3 ,~<+~~°oy~Zm ~~<~~{ <~G3 ~ < ' S ~ p eA\ ~ ~ ~,~ . m~~ 'CUZS~S F$s0 °d~ o~~~~~~ p~iz ~F ~~ ~ oe '~' ~ ~ r < o CeiQQ~~u w z ~ z rA~ z w< u ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ 5~~~~E o~5~m~'. Sys o ~~~ ~~ C~ IWw. w"~ ~~~Z~z ~I?Y~~~ wz~«oc~ 0 oo~i ~ .F~ ~ff~ o~ mSm <~~ o~wk ''ogu~~aZ< uii ~ ~ ~~ ~~ o~~ uw'T,~i ~ .~Oi° o r ~<~ uw ~u~'l uoi Sz o~ F m - o m - - NN ~' ~~ ~' ~ m ~ ~ kk <c any' ~ a ~~~ <~+m o~o~G ~ 8~ oo ~ ~ i '~' ,[ ~.W F. ~ < ~~O ~ ~i° y I ~_~ o~ ~ o <0 8=8 °< ~ t wW ~s ~ ~ ~ u z @o E;a~~u ~ j° z s y ' - J x ~ m, ~ml sE d~4<~<~ ~. ~z ~~ I CC ~ ' ° ,`. ^. ~ ~oz ~ ~ ~m~fio 3 ~< ~~ ~ o x ~. " ~ ~ u 2 m ~ o° 3- a ~$ Qi ~;~ a U ~ <~ ~~m~ ~~~O~~m~u E~oo°~ ~~z~o~ ~a f r~ ~ I H i G o°~y °' ~ ro~~ ~u~~ 45S~~~ ~~zz~o`W~Wu~y`~ ioo;3~0~ o° I j: Yw ~ 5 ug ~ma~ Z~n~~t+H~~ <~izPi~FZkz'?~u~s`~ ~~ r ~ ? N ~~ a \ <~ d I d p ° , o.;fWN o,, L a ~~ .-~ 7572.'j - ~ F; 1? °z z ~ 1 I !.f u~, /i _- `~--~ I 8t ° ~ <~ ~ oT xS~o w~~y~-^P`u, azs~~ ~t~~~e~d~~~~'c~~ ~o ~~~` '„ - I^ ~~ i ~3 ~.Q = ~. r <p i-m~x ryF~~~«tm< 73<mu oWe ci i z~~ 1 eY s °°° v `r _ ~ o m B 3 . ~ ZL ~ ~ W m ~ o Yq~ Z K. _ _ ~ s~ ~~ V ~ I~i O~ ~ < Yam= Cg~g I ~i ~ < < ~ IIF I y ot~ q u ~y~' ~~~ ~ ° ' ~. ~a I~~x ~ ~ a v~ ~tF oW a~ ° Qp 5g ~G ~ ~ F~~!~I ~~7g mm N ~ p G F~ e p ~ U~ fn6 O Yµ' , 2 ~~~ .J ~ d ~Qt~ ~G°S~~ S = IC ~ Ss U ~ Y<1 ~ ,_ g~ {Z; ~ 3 S ~- F 45 ~ ~ < m ~ ~ ~ pg~ '9 ~ ry ~ I ~) ~ ~~ p~p{{~~ °~'°'Gi ~ ~~ ~ 1.9v ~ ~~ ~ 5 a °z~ ~~i ~ a '~ i 3 ~~ s ..-__. ...... i _: .. ....._. M qq r 1 I -.....~._ .. ~ ~BS U~- ~yyyu ryyyppgm ! 2 2p{ y - Z ~t FF > .~l ail. t ~ f J ~ - I ~ \ i__ i. :~ ~! ~~ ,f .: ~\\ ~"W' ~ N1AlS _ t ' i . ~{ ~~ ,. 3 ~' 's - - ~I ~ J ~ ~~ rt~ ~F[~t$~5 F~~K ~ 9< ~ ZO 5 ~~~ y h~ ~S ~ F ~pe•,Z ~N ~ ~ Z~ S.R.IQ F~~a Imp y~~ ~~ <8 2228 72¢05 = ~~ !ppa' 4pE ~~~ <~ ~ }py~~y~~ ~~<<7 ?°I~~ ~ <S ~° ~ ~O 2 ~~ ~S z V ~~~ J S F~ ~l ]Z ~ d ~m~ S~'is ~ ?3 ~ ~~ < <m~ <_ ~_~~ €0 3 _~ ~_~~ ~ y <g I ~ , I , ~ 1 ,~ i ~i ., • • ~ I F~ ~ \ II i ~ ~ ~ ~~ 4. I II I I I ~ _ i ~ i~ r ~ I ' I I I 1 ~ J ~ i I s ~~ I nl d I ~ < I ~'I I ~'1 I ' - ~~ RP` ' _.. ~...rt~s~ . DIRECTORS ITEM City of Saratoga Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director DATE: July 11, 2001 RE: .POLICY HANDOUTS At the Planning Commission's request, the Department has conducted a survey to ascertain what other Cities require with respect to Story Poles and Neighborhood meetings. The following is a summary of that survey. STORY POLE SUMMARY TABLE C~ City of Fremont Hillside Homes Weekend prior No Handout to PC meetin City of Orinda All Projects Must be Handout attached installed prior to project being deemed com lete Ciry of Foster City "What is a Story Pole" No Handout They use "Mock-ups" for water front develo ment City of Encinitas Projects exceeding Not Specified No Handout hei ht re uirements City of Millbrae Projects that could Prior to PC No Handout block views meetin City of Tiburon All projects that go to 10-days prior to No Handout Design Review Board Design Board Meetin City of Malibu No Handout -Working on one City of Santa Barbara Buildings over 3 Prior to PC No Handout stories currently, meeting. Allows considering photo expanding to include documentation 2 story buildings for possible a eals In order to be effective, the story poles need to be installed before the Land Use Committee site visits and need to remain up until after the 15-day appeal period has expired. Additionally, the applicant needs to provide a roof plan/site plan so that the installed story poles have some orientation to the plan set. The story poles and orange fencing needs to indicate ndgelines, ~~000~ peaks and eaves. A Licensed Surveyor shall direct the installation of all story poles. Any Handout needs to have a photographic example of the use of story poles and of the roof plan diagram. Of the Cities, responding several indicated that they encourage or strongly encourage neighborhood meetings before submittal of applications.. Some Cities are somewhat stronger in their approach. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY TABLE Ci of Fremont Stron 1 ~ Encoura es No Handout City of Encinitas Citizen Participation Ordinance, not a handout Ordinance Ci of Millbrae Stron 1 Encoura es No Handout Ci of Tiburon Stron 1 Encoura es No Handout City of Redwood City Requires as Policy for 2" No Handout Sto Additions Ci of Malibu Stron 1 Encoura es No Handout City of San Rafael Requires pre-application No Handout neighborhood meeting/staff attended City of Campbell Required after Staff No Handout determines that the project may be controversial. Develo er or anizes meetin Ciry of Santa Rosa City Council Policy to require No Handout neighborhood meetings prior to a lication -all ro'ects City of Santa Barbara "Good Neighbor" policy No Handout encourages meeting with neighbors prior to application -especially when "privacy" issues area otential City of Los Altos "Los Altos Mediation Copy Attached Pro am" As can be seen the responses vary between require and strongly encourage. Staff suggests the following Policy: • "Following apre-application meeting with the Planning Staf f of the City of Saratoga, an applicant shall meet with all immediate neighbors and any Home Owner's Association. I'he breadth of the area to be included in any neighborhood discussion needs to be determined based upon the issues. For example, privary is an issue most likely reserved co neighbors within the view shed of the proposed development, but at a minimum, contiguous neighbors need to be involved in the design review. Size, bulh, mass and height issues are neighborhood wide, as is general design compatibility. It is at the discretion of the developer as to the type and number of meetings that are held." 000002 7 ;,-w CITY OF ORINDA REQ FOR APPLICANTS TO IDENTIFY SITE and ~ TO PROVIDE STORY POLES A REMINDER TO ALL APPLICANTS AND AGENTS PROPOSING -NEW RESIDENCES AND ADDITIONS All project sites must be marked with an identification sign (i.e. address and /or lot number) and the property corners and/or property lines must be identified either by existing fences, or by stakes and/or tape. For new residences and additions to an existing residence, story poles must be provided by the applicant to delineate the footprint and height of the proposed construction. Story poles shall indicate the height of the structure at the major corners of the structure and at the extremities of the major roof ridges. The story poles and staking must be installed to deem the application complete, and be maintained throughout the public hearing process. Failure to do so may result in your application being deemed incomplete or rescheduled for a later hearing. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT (925) 253-4210. PlanninSSUomu io mp~~auiAa.:htttlisls. paitiomlNEW CODE Rvdouu45ion Pole I:aiu • Notice of Story Pole Requirement 000003 V u/ rJ~ V 1 l1 Y Jv:J ~x - .. ~~;;~~ i DRAFT 1 / 10/2000 i DRAFT 1 / 10/2000 DRAFT PROJECT MEETINGS OF OWNERS AND NEIGHBORS "BRING YOUR NEIGHBORS ABOARD" Goal: To establish an early exchange ojideas and concerns between an owner/developer and neighbors in order to avoid later conflicts in the formal residential design review approval process required by the City. Sequence of Events for LAMP Facilitation l .Owner receives LAMP form letter from Planning Department at initial Owner contact. 2. Owner calls LAMP (Program explained by LAMP Coordinator) 3. If facilitation requested: A. Intake form completed by Coordinator B. Acknowledging letter sent to Owner/Developer 4. Owner Assigned Tasks: A. Supply parcel Assessor's number and property address B. Supply azchitect/contractornnmes and anticipated project start date C: Obtain neighbors names and addresses and Assessors Map of neighborhood from the Planning Department Parcel data book and map book . A minimum of 11 surrounding neighbors (4 Across the street, 2 on each side, and 3 in the rear is suggested) D. Obtain necessary number of "Notice Labels" from LAMP and post cazds from Post Office E. Schedule available facilitation dates and times for interested parties with LAMP Coordinator. Coordinator assigns mediator(s) to facilitation and mails facilitation case report to mediator F. Address and mail neighborhood facilitation invitation/RSVPcequest cards to neighbors two weeks in advance of the facilitation date 5. When RSVP responses aze obtained by Owner A. Owner informs LAMP Coordinator of number of neighbor responses. Owner determines if number of responses is sufficient to proceed with facilitation. If YES- B. Mediator assist Owner in basic preparation for meeting, a selection of a suitable neutral meeting site ,and includes a review of potential neighbor concerns which may arise during the facilitation 6. Facilitation A. Mediator obtains keys and opens location B. Introductions made. Mediator states purpose, unofficial, and impartial role 7 L • OOOOU~ • ~,t. r .....__... _... . .~ ~. C. Project described and presented by Owner/Developer along with Architect/Contractor if available D. Mediator facilitates process E. Closing summary and Owner or Mediator advise neighbors of formal neighborhood contact from city to come F. All notes given to Owner (No permanent report of content by Mediator) G. Location secured 7. Progress Report A. Quarterly summaries to LAMP Board by number, type, facilitator B. Annual summary to Planning Department • OOOO~US • • COMMISSION ITEM City of Saratoga Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Thomas Sullivan, AICP C~ DATE: July 11, 2001 -~ RE: Planning Issues Staff has attached the same report listing the various issues previously raised. Staff has also attached an a-mail received from Commissioner Kurasch. • ~~ x'00®0~. • T~IIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 0~0®Qti .. • • • Attachment 1 C~~~~ o~ ° ° ~OC~~ 1377? FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ~ Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director DATE: June 27, 2001 RE: Planning Issues COUNCIL 1VIEMBERS: Evan Baker Stan t3ogosian John Mehafley Nick Streit Ann Waltonsmitli As we have discussed there are several issues that the Commission believes need to be studied, discussed and possibly new procedures or ordinances established to address growing concerns in the community. Through the Chair many of you have provided me a list of issues you as individual Commissioners, feel need to be looked into. I have indicated to you that to fulfill your responsibilities as Planning Commissioners and to have a more rewarding experience on the Commission, you need to be involved in a wider range of activities other than Development Review. Belo~~ I listed the individual issues that you have collectedly identified. I have also added a few that the Staff has identified. 1. Basement Standards a. Size limitations b. Geological limitations c. Ground water d. Light well size limitation and justification ?. Amend Ordinances to allow greater Staff review of development projects. 3. Streamline Planning Commission review process by use of Subcommittees (2) 4. Allow remodels without Planning Commission review ~. Conduct Study Sessions for Advance Planning issues 6. Require Story Poles for all new construction 7. Require 3-deminsional models as needed 8. Require neighborhood review prior to submittal to the City for Design Review 9. Plan sets presented to the City need to include preliminary landscape design 10. Develop Neighborhood Design Guidelines (example - Communities by Mountain View) 11. Increased sustainable, energy efficient alternatives and methods 12. Create or establish a library for public and contractors 13. Expand criterialguidelinesfnr appropriate landscaping, including xeriscaping 14. Review Zoning Ordinance for conflicting provisions, ie allowing deviations heights coverage, etc. by Use Permit. Design in to setbacks, Staff suggest that the Commission rank the above items and then appoint two Commissioners to an item to work with Staff to study and make a recommendation to the full Commission. 000®03 Page 1 of 1 ' -~ .~ .. Tom Sullivan From: <Drcba rry~aol.com> To: <tsulNvan(~saratoga.ca.us> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 128 PM Subject: Advanced Planning addfions to Tom, Just received these. Also testing email. cynlthia Kurasch: 1. Develop Neighborhood Compatibility Design Guidelines. Communities By Design in Mountain V ew consults with a process of~ommunity Imaging Surveys -2. Increased sustainable, energy efficient alten~atives and methods. Create library for public and contractors. -3. Expanded criteria/guide for developers for appropriate landscaping including xeriscaping. • ~~ C7 6/11/01 X00®0~ s r~ ,. MEMO To From: Date: Re: ~~ • Tom Sullivan CDD Cynthia Barry PC Chair Junel 1, 2001 Individual PCs Priorities for Advanee Planning Consideration Jakman: 1. Basement Size Limitation: Geology, Soil Stability, Underground Water Flow. 2. Lightwell Size Limitation: Justification. Garakani: 1. Decrease projects requiring PC review via criteria that allow CDD approval. 2. Streamline PC component of project review process via subcommittee review Kurash: 1. Reduce PC review via procedure allowing no fee revisions where code compliance is the problem 2. Allow remodels without PC review. 3. Use Study Sessions for Advance Planning. Barre: . 1. Procedural requirement for story poles, 3 dimensional model, neighbor review, and preliminary landscape plan. Od0®®5 • 1~-IIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • ®~®~6 Tom Sullivan Attachment 2 rom: SLKURASCH@aol.com ~ent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 8:16 PM o: Tom Sullivan; Drcbarry@aol.com Subject: Advanced planning list clarifications Thomas Sullivan, Saratoga Community Development Director Cynthia Barry, PC Chair Re: Saratoga Planning Commission Planning Issues I would like to clarify my requests for advanced planning as I mistakenly understood that they should be focused on reducing a PC application backlog. For that goal alone I forwarded a few short term suggestions which I wish to withdraw: #2,3,4 in the Memorandum issues list of June 27, 2001. I suggested giving applicants the OPTION to revise submitted applications, without further fees, in order to comply with codes that would otherwise"trigger" PC review - such as building heights etc., thereby eliminating the necessity for review at all. These three listed issues do not really reflect my request or interest. I am interested in working on: #5, short study/discussion sessions as a process for general sharing of ~eas. To me it is important to keep discussing and understanding the erall functions of the commission and the effectiveness of our process. That understanding can form the basis for our approach to other issues and what we need to change. I would be very interested in a qualified speaker/informal seminar on this, such as Meg Caldwell, former PC, now Professor in the Natural Resources and Environmental Law Dept. at Stanford University. She is very knowledgeable about many land use issues. #8, To involve the public earlier in the application process so it is responsive to both applicant and community needs. How we should inform/engage the public in processes that affect them in order to close the gap between processing applications and presentation of the final design. How can we better educate the public. #10 is related to #8. To develop goals and guidelines to better define neighborhood/architectural compatibility, including visual imaging tools and models such as CBD in Mt. View as well as other communities' efforts. #11,12. Please add: to develop policies to reduce the amount of materials entering the waste stream from tear downs. To explore efforts by other communities such as Palo Alto for recycling building materials in order to comply with state mandates for waste reduction. ~13. As far as scheduling priorities I think the most time sensitive is the Housing Element development and review. That could be used as a context 1 ®~~®~ I s for other .issues such as story poles, basements, noticing, etc. I will have `+ mor4 time available starting at the beginning of September and will be happy to contribute as much as I can. Thanks for your time! Lisa Kurasch 30 June 2001 • 2 Q©0 ®VV