HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-26-2001 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 - 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROI.I_ CALL: Commissioners Garakani, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Barry
ABSENT: Commissioners Hunter and Jackman
STAFF: Planners Livingstone, Knapp, and Oosterhous, Director Sullivan, and Minutes Clerk Shinn
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES -Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 12, 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 lawgenerallyprohibits the Planning Commission from discussingor tahing action on
such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f 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 September 20,
2001.
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARINGS
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a
decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this
agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior
to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets,
written communication should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting.
DR-O1-013, V-O1-013 ~ AS-O1-001 (397-43-001 Est -003) - JAIN, 18630 Allendale; -
Request for Design Review approval to construct a new single-story 6,850 square foot
residence and sport court. The Variance is to construct the sport court within the side
yard setback. Maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The 93,175 (net)
square foot lot is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (KNAPP) (CONTINUL~D
FROM9/12/01) (APPROVED 4-0-1, KURASCH ABSTAINED)
PIANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 2
SEPTEMBER 26, 2001
2. SD-99-003(A) psi GPA-00-001(A) (APN'S 517-13-018, 517-13-019, 517-12-001)
SOBRATO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 14800 Bohlrnan Road (site of the former
Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur); -Request to amend Condition No. 24 (fence
enclosure and grading issues) of Resolution SD-99-003, to adopt Resolution GPA-00-
001(A) formalizing the previous recommendation that the City Council amend the
General Plan Land Use Map designation from Quasi-Public Facilities to Very Low
Density Residential, and to replace the Conditions of Approval (No. 39 a - j, 40 and 41)
in the City Geologist Section of Resolution No. SD-99-003 with updated language from
the City Geologist. (SULLIVAN) (APPROVED 5-0)
3. DR-O1-026 (397-24-17) - SPARACINO, 14320 Lutheria Way; -Request for Design
Review approval to construct a new single-story 3,442 square foot residence, 936 square
foot attached four-car garage, and 1,568 square foot basement. The maximum height of
the residence would be 20 feet. The 20,690 square foot lot is located in the R-1-20,000
zone district. (OOSTERHOUS) (APPROVED 5-0)
4. UP-O1-011 (389-12-019) PROLIFIC OVEN BAKERY &z COFEE HOUSE, 18832 Cox
Avenue; -Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to allow interior and exterior
seating to allow the onsite consumption of food at the existing establishment. The site is
located in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE)
(APPROVED 5-0)
5. DR-O1-029 (503-26-040) -COUCH, 14440 Esterlee Avenue; -Request for Design
Review approval to construct a new two-story 2,691 square foot residence, 600 square
foot attached two-car garage, and a 1,377 square foot basement. The maximum height of
the residence would be 24 feet. The 12,448 square foot lot is located in the R-1-10,000
zone district. (OOSTERHOUS) (APPROVED S-0)
DIRECTOR ITEMS
COMMISSION ITEMS
Appoint Commissioner to serve on Public Safety Committee
COMMUNICATIONS
WRITTEN
City Council Minutes from Regular Meeting of July 18, 2001
ADJOURNMENT AT 9:SS PM TO NEXT MEETING
- Wednesday, October 10, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
• LAND USE AGENDA
DATE: Tuesday, September 25, 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, SEPTEMBER 26, 2001
ROLL CALL
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
AGENDA
1. DR-O1-013, AS-O1-001 - JAIN Item 1
&r V-O1-013 18630 Allendale Avenue
2. UP-O1-011 - PROLIFIC OVEN Item 4
18832 Cox Avenue
3. DR-O1-026 - SPARACINO Item 3
14320 Lutheria Way
4. DR-O1-029 - COUCH Item 5
14440 Esterlee Avenue
5. SD-99-003(A) - SOBRATO DEVELOPMENT CO. Item 2
&r GPA-00-001 (A) 14800 Bohlman Road
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 (S to 10 minutes) because of
time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public
hearing. Please contact staff Tuesday morning for an estimated time of the site visit.
•
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
DATE: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 - 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Garakani, Jackman, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Barry
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES -Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 12, 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 tahing action on
such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff 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 September 20,
2001.
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARINGS.
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a
decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public heazing 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 Sazatoga 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.
1. DR-O1-013, V-O1-013 Fst AS-O1-001 (397-43-001 &t -003) - JAIN, 18630 Allendale; -
Request for Design Review approval to construct a new single-story 6,850 square foot
residence and sport court. The Variance is to construct the sport court within the side
yard setback. Maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The 93,175 (net)
square foot lot is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (KNAPP) (COIVTIIVUED
FROM 9/12/01)
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 26, 2001
PAGE 2
•
2. SD-99-003(A) ~ GPA-00-001(A) (APN'S 517-13-018, .517-13-019, 517-12-001)
SOBRATO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 14800 Bohlman Road (site of the former
Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur); -Request to amend Condition No. 24 (fence
enclosure and grading issues) of Resolution SD-99-003, to adopt Resolution GPA-00-
001(A) formalizing the previous recommendation that the City Council amend the
General Plan Land Use Map designation from Quasi-Public Facilities to Very Low
Density Residential, and to replace the Conditions of Approval (No. 39 a - j, 40 and 41)
in the City Geologist Section of Resolution No. SD-99-003 with updated language from
the City Geologist. (SULLIVAN)
3. DR-O1-026 (397-24-17) - SPARACINO, 14320 Lutheria Way; -Request for Design
Review approval to construct a new single-story 3,442 square foot residence, 936 square
foot attached four-car garage, and 1,568 square foot basement. The maximum height of
the residence would be 20 feet. The 20,690 square foot lot is located in the R-1-20,000
zone district. (OOSTERHOUS)
4. UP-O1-011 (389-12-019) PROLIFIC OVEN BAKERY Est COFEE HOUSE, 18832 Cox
Avenue; -Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to allow interior and exterior
seating to allow the onsite consumption of food at the existing establishment. The site is
located in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE)
S. DR-O1-029 (503-26-040) -COUCH, 14440 Esterlee Avenue; -Request for Design
Review approval to construct a new two-story 2,691 square foot residence, 600 square
foot attached two-car garage, and a 1,377 square foot basement. The maximum height of
the residence would be 24 feet. The 12,448 square foot lot is located in the R-1-10,000
zone district. (OOSTERHOUS)
DIRECTOR ITEMS
COMMISSION ITEMS
Appoint Commissioner to serve on Public Safety Committee
COMMUNICATIONS
WRITTEN
City Council Minutes from Regular Meeting of July 18, 2001
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
- Wednesday, October 10, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
•
G J, i,~ /
n~
y U^
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, September 12, 2001
PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Acting Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
Absent: Chair Barry
Staff: Associate Planner John Livingstone and Planner Allison Knapp
APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of August 22, 2001.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
t
regular Planning Commission minutes of August 22, 2001, were approved as
submitted.
AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry
ABSTAIN; Kurasch
APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of August 8, 2001.
As there again was not a quorum available this evening of those Commissioners that were also in
attendance at the August 8, 2001, meeting, approval of the minutes of that meeting was continued to
the Planning Commission meeting of October 10, 2001.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Associate Planner John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the
agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 6, 2001.
ti_
U
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET
Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that there were no technical corrections.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 12, 2001 Page 2
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no consent calendar items.
***
PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1
DR-O1-013, V-O1-013 & AS-O1-001 (397-43-001 & 003) - JAIN, 18630 Allendale: Request for
Design Review approval to construct a new single-story 6,850 square foot residence and sport court.
The Variance is to construct the sport court within the side yard setback. Maximum height of the
residence would be 26 feet. The 93,175 (net) square foot lot is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning
district. (KNAPP) (TO BE CONTINUED TO 9/26/01)
Acting Chair Jackman advised that as this item was not properly noticed, it will be considered at the
next Commission meeting.
***
PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 2
•
r DR-O1-017 & UP-O1-012 (397-24-086) - PETERSCHMIDT, 18870 Hayfield Court: Request for
Design Review approval to construct a new single-story 2,427 square foot residence with a 720 square
foot detached garage for a total of 3,147 square feet. Maximum height of the residence would be 18 i
feet. The garage would be 15 feet in height. The 60,396 (net) square foot lot (62,746 gross sq. ft.) is
located in the R-1-20,000 zoning district. (KNAPP)
Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Said that the applicant seeks approval fora 2,427 square foot residence with a 720 square foot
detached garage on a vacant lot.
• Added that a Use Permit for the detached garage is also sought.
• Advised that the garage will be 15 feet high and located within the required rear setback.
• Informed that the rationalization for the detached garage is to retain the historic architectural style
of the Julia Morgan main house on the adjacent property, also owned by the Peterschmidts. The
roof pitch for the garage is proposed for the same reason.
• Pointed out that the property was subdivided in 1998.
• Advised that the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed this proposal on May 8, 2001, and
were in support, finding it to be compatible.
• Added that the need to construct the detached garage within the required rear yard setback is due to
the triangular shape of the lot. The proposal is fora 28 foot, 8 inch rear property setback where 64
feet is required by Ordinance.
• Said that staff believes that the necessary findings can be made to support the reduced rear yard
setback and is supporting approval of this application.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Pointed out the proposed kiosk depicted on the plans, which has not been discussed.
• Asked what the function is for this kiosk.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 12, 2001 Page 3
• Added that he would also like fencing to be discussed.
Ms. Allison Knapp advised that the fencing will be pulled back from the corner. The new fencing will
match existing fences. Said that the kiosk is open in nature and has not been included in the square
footage.
Commissioner Roupe declared that this square footage indeed should be counted.
Ms. Allison Knapp advised that she had felt it was up to interpretation but agreed with Commissioner
Roupe that this square footage should have been counted.
Commissioner Roupe asked if the proposed fencing would meet Code requirements regarding height
and placement.
Ms. Allison Knapp replied yes.
Commissioner Kurasch inquired whether these lots could be further subdivided since this specific lot is
currently three times larger than the minimum required 20,000 square feet.
Ms. Allison Knapp responded that subdividing is possible but that findings would have to be made.
Added that it is unlikely that any further subdivision will occur since this lot provides a connection to
the property on which the Julia Morgan house is situated.
Acting Chair Jackman questioned whether once this subdivision map was recorded it was set.
Ms. Allison Knapp responded that should the owners wish to consider further subdividing their
property, they can apply to do so.
Commissioner Kurasch inquired whether the total impervious coverage includes the access through the
cul de sac.
Ms. Allison Knapp replied yes.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if the outside parking area is impervious.
Ms. Allison Knapp advised that everything is impervious.
Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:20 p.m.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat, Project Architect, 501 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos:
• Thanked the Commission for convening this evening in light of the tragedy in the Nation.
• Advised that the Peterschmidts were aware that this property would not meet their needs when they
purchased it, including the need for a large garage to house Mr. Peterschmidt's car collection.
• Advised that by combining the lot on which the Julia Morgan home is located together with this
parcel allows them to enlarge the property and construct a caretaker's unit as a little sister house to
the main house, taking its design cues from the main structure. To do this they have copied details.
They plan to downplay the caretaker's home so that the main house remains the focus. A driveway
will be located in front of this lot to enhance the visibility of the main house.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 12, 2001 Page 4
• Stated that they are carefully working around the trees on the site. They will have to take some out
but they will be replaced.
• Said that they worked with previous Planning staff extensively in preparing this proposal.
• Advised that the caretaker's unit will be constructed in a 1920's style.
• Added that a garage for the main house is currently under construction and that the garage for the
caretaker's unit will resemble the main house garage but on a smaller scale.
• Pointed_ out that at first they believed that a fencing variance might be required although they are
aware that the new Director is anti-Variance. However, now with the 7 to 10 foot setback, the
fencing would not require a Variance per Director Sullivan.
• Stated that the kiosk is a whimsical thing that could shelter a gatekeeper for larger events at the
main house. It has been designed to fit within the landscaping, appearing as a sort of ruin. In fact,
they had considered installing rustic broken down gates nearby to enhance that effect.
• Agreed that they could add the square footage of the kiosk and still be within the allowable.
Acting Chair Jackman asked where the kiosk is situated on the site.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that it is 30 feet from the roadway.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Stated that she likes detached garages as they decrease the face of the garage door from the front
elevation.
t
• Questioned why only atwo-car garage is proposed when the owner has a car collection to house.
• Added that she would prefer a larger garage with less exterior pavement for parking.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat advised that the garage on this property is to serve the caretaker's unit, which is a
three-bedroom unit. The garage for the car collection is on the property with the main house. Added
that there is no viable parking on Douglas Drive to serve the caretaker's unit.
Ms. Allison Knapp pointed out that the drive and paving area is required by Fire for emergency access.
Commissioner Kurasch questioned the paving depicted beyond the property line on page C-1 that
appears to blend into Lot 9.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat advised that this particular paving is to allow golf cart type maintenance vehicles
and gardening type equipment.
Commissioner Roupe asked if all these properties are owned by the Peterschmidts.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat replied yet.
Acting Chair Jackman advised that the Commission is to limit tonight's discussion to Lot 7.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat said that they had considered having a separate drive off Douglas to the garage of
this new caretaker's unit but that there was strong opposition from the across-the-street neighbors due
to feng shui concerns. .
Commissioner Roupe asked for clarification that the applicant wants approval for the kiosk this
evening.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 12, 2001 Page 5
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat replied yes.
Commissioner Roupe opined that the kiosk looks like an oriental teahouse more than like a Julia
Morgan style structure. Asked how Mr. Kohlsaat can rationalize that fact.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat replied that including such a structure is typical of English Country architecture.
Commissioner Roupe sought clarification that it is typical to introduce a whole new and unrelated
architectural style.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat replied yes.
Commissioner Kurasch said that the kiosk helps give the appearance of a gated community with a
guardhouse.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat agreed that this is a valid concern but assured that there is no plan to hire a
gatekeeper. There will be electric callboxes and cameras for property security. The kiosk will be
staffed if there should be a charity event with a few hundred guests.
Commissioner Hunter reminded that the Heritage Preservation Commission found the kiosk to be in
keeping with an English Country Manor and is a rather old-fashioned type idea.
t
Acting Chair Jackman pointed out that having something with Chinese influence together with an
English Country Home design was considered a way for the English to show their wealth.
Commissioner Hunter declared that the proposed gardens for this property will be phenomenal and
fascinating and will likely become a part of garden tours in years to come.
Commissioner Roupe asked how the fencing at the back of the property would be continued from the
primary property.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat replied that the existing solid redwood fencing installed by Pinn Brothers to
appease the neighbors would be retained. No fences are proposed between the three lots owned by the
Peterschmidts at this time, either between Lots 7 and 8 or Lots 8 and 9.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out asix-foot fence with gate on Lot 8.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat said that this would allow some privacy for the caretaker's unit from the main
property.
Commissioner Kurasch stated her surprise at the proposed height of the kiosk, with 12 feet being more
like a garage height.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat replied that the pitch of the roof is steep.
Commissioner Roupe said that the pitch neither matches the main house roof pitch or the caretaker's
unit roof pitch.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 12, 2001
Page 6
Commissioner Hunter asked about comments in Barrie Coates' report.
t i hat the have met with Mr. Coates. A stock ile of trees ha n stored under
Mr. Gary Kohlsaa sa d t y p d bee
the oaks to provide some shade. Mr. Coates asked that they be moved away and they were. This was
an error that has been mitigated.
Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:50 p.m.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Advised that she has made three visits to the site. Two as a member of the Heritage Preservation
Commission and most recently as a Planning Commissioner.
• Opined that this property will be a showplace in Saratoga.
• Said that she is thrilled that such a beautiful job is being done to restore this Julia Morgan house.
• Added that the Heritage Preservation Commission is in awe.
• Congratulated the applicants on the job they are doing.
Acting Chair Jackman agreed that this is no small undertaking.
Commissioner Zutshi said that she is impressed with the roof and added that she has never seen
anything like it before.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Said that she is in favor of this project but has reservations about the amount of paving area.
• Added that she favors a larger garage and less paved parking area.
• Said that the kiosk is out of scale and quite large of which she is not in favor. The design is rather
distracting and it is important to keep the integrity of the Julia Morgan residence.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Declared that he shares Commissioner Kurasch's concerns that the kiosk is not an integral part of
the architectural style.
• Suggested that an architectural style more compatible with the Julia Morgan architecture be used
for the kiosk.
Commissioner Hunter disagreed saying that the Heritage Preservation Commission found the kiosk to
be just fine.
Commissioner Kurasch said that the scale and size are in question.
Commissioner Zutshi said that she agreed that the kiosk is taller than most guardhouses.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that a Condition be added to limit the height of the kiosk and require
that the roof pitch be compatible with the Julia Morgan style.
Commissioner Kurasch agreed that these requirements will still allow the kiosk to be compatible with
the desired English Country Manor style sought by the applicants.
Commissioner Garakani inquired about bond requirements to ensure the safety of the existing trees on
site.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 12, 2001 Page 7
Ms. Allison Knapp assured that such a bond requirement is a standard part of the Resolution. Added
that all the recommendations of the Arborist's report must be met.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the
Commission approved DR-O1-017 and UP-O1-012 to allow the construction of a
new 2,427 square foot residence with a 720 square foot detached garage on
property located at 18870 Hayfield Court, with the added Conditions:
• That the proposed kiosk be limited in height so as not to exceed the pitch of the
Julia Morgan house;
• That the architectural style of the kiosk is to be worked out with staff; and
• That this approval pertains only to Lot 7.
AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry
ABSTAIN: None
Acting Chair Jackman advised the applicants that this decision is final after the 15-day appeal period
has passed.
***
t
•
PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3
DR-O1-033 (397-18-071) - HULME, 14900 Baran~a Lane: Request for Design Review approval to
construct a new 6,000 square foot two-story residence with a 2,700 square foot basement and demolish
an existing 4,336 square foot residence. Maximum height of the structure will be 26 feet. The 55,757
square foot parcel is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE)
Mr. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this application is fora 6,000 square foot two-story residence with a 2,700 square foot
basement and the demolition of an existing 4,300 square foot two-story residence.
• Said that the proposed new home will have a maximum height of 26 feet and the property is a
55,000 square foot property within an R-1-40,000 zoning district.
• Advised that the existing second story consists of 1,400 square feet while the new second story will
be only 627 square feet. The second story occurs only due to the undergrounding of the garage
below living space. If not for that fact, this home will be considered entirely asingle-story
residence.
• Advised that the proposal meets all five policies of the Design Policy including minimum
perception of bulk, articulation, integration with the environment due to existing mature
landscaping and use of natural materials such as natural stone and earthtone colors as well as
maintenance of the privacy of adjacent properties.
. • Added that the driveway entrance will be to Three Oaks Way.
• Said that the new home will not be in any view corridors and will not block any existing views.
• Concluded by stating staff's recommendation of approval.
Commissioner Roupe asked for details about fencing type and location and where the front of the
property was oriented.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 12, 2001 Page 8
Mr. John Livingstone replied that the front is oriented toward Three Oaks. Said that a Condition exists
that states that fencing can be no more than three feet tall in front and that additional corner lot setback
will need to be met. Acknowledged that the existing fencing is not compliant.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the Preliminary Landscape Plan calls out for afour-foot high
front yard fencing. Asked if this is ovemdden by the Conditions of Approval.
Mr. John Livingstone replied that the Preliminary Landscape Plan would be overridden by the
Conditions of Approval. Said that this project is already in the Building Permit process and that staff
is trying to work with the applicant to expedite this application.
Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:12 p.m.
Mr. Paul Hulme, Applicant and Property Owner:
• Advised that he is a 27 year resident of Saratoga.
• Added that with his two brothers and their extended families, their family owns 14 single-family
residences within the City of Saratoga.
Mr. Fred Luminoso, Applicant's Representative:
• Advised that the new home will face onto Three Oaks Way and that they plan to apply for an
address change to reflect that change.
• Said that this new horrie will be well setback from the street.
• Said that they will be excavating in order to place the garage under the home.
• Added that new redwood trees would be installed on both sides of the necks of the driveway and
additionally they are prepared to plant four redwood trees on the neighbor's property.
• Said that materials include dark roofing, natural earthtone stucco and faux stone surround.
• Advised that perhaps some berming would be used for the front lawn and some birch trees installed
to help hide the existing phone pole from view from this property.
Mr. Jun Sillano, Project Designer:
• Said that they plan to integrate the existing mature landscaping and property topography for this
new home. The new structure will be sited on the existing pad.
• Said that the neighbors' privacy and views have been preserved.
• Added that undulating walls, hip and gable roofs as well as other design features help break up
mass.
• Advised that they have considered energy efficiency and solar access. Walls, ceilings and floors
will be insulated per State guidelines and energy efficient appliances incorporated.
Mr. Fred Luminoso introduced project builder Mark Thomas.
Mr. Mark Thomas:
• Said that he has been building homes in Saratoga over the past nine years, that he lives in Saratoga
and is familiar with the community.
• Assured that he sets up a safe building environment, including the installation of construction
fencing with gates that are locked by the job site superintendent each evening.
• Promised that the construction parking would be contained on site as would material storage.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 12, 2001
Page 9
• Advised that prior to commencing demolition, it is his practice to distribute his business card to
surrounding neighbors so that he can be contacted should any problems arise as a result of his
project.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Thomas what he can and would do to recycle demolished materials.
Mr. Mark Thomas:
• Replied that he always strives to be efficient and that recycling is mandatory.
• Advised that their recycling efforts include separating concrete from steel as well as the recycling
of roofing material and stucco.
• Said that materials leave the site on separate trucks as sorted for various recycling methods. Said
that some materials, such as sheet rock and the are difficult to recycle.
• Identified his demolition contractor as Randazzo.
• Assured that he likes to recycle as much as possible and does so. Recycling is a good idea
economically as well as more desirable for the environment.
• Said that when cut occurs, it is generally not difficult to find another site requiring fill.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested Whole House Building Supply to Mr. Mark Thomas as a company
who recycles and sells off demolition site materials.
Mr. Mark Thomas thanked Commissioner Kurasch and said that he would add that company to his list
of potential resources.
Commissioner Hunter inquired about a letter submitted by a concerned neighbor.
Mr. Fred Luminoso said that Mr. Bowler's concerns have been satisfied by narrowing the neck of the
driveway and planting additional trees on this site as well as on Mr. Bowler's property for screening
purposes. Additionally, some of the windows facing his home have been eliminated.
Commissioner Hunter asked about concerns raised by a Mr. Ferrari.
Mr. Fred Luminoso replied that there is a 40-foot point of access drive located 10 feet from the
property line. Mr. Ferrari wants the drive to be moved further west. Said that they do not see a reason
to do so but will if the Commission asks them to do so.
Commissioner Kurasch asked for the width of the driveway to Baranga Lane into the motor court.
Mr. Fred Luminoso replied 24 feet. Said that this drive will allow access to the garage and to drive to
Baranga Lane. Said that the neighbor supports this drive. The drive meets the turning needs and
privacy. It was moved further to the south and narrowed.
Mr. Mark Thomas said that they will be working with the neighbor to shape the driveway in such a
way that everyone is happy.
Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:35 p.m.
Commissioner Roupe:
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 12, 2001 Page 10 .
• Said that this is an appropriate project that is actually less intrusive on the neighborhood than the
existing house.
• Commended the plan to recycle as much of the demolished materials as is possible.
• Suggested that with the inclusion of fencing conditions included, this is a great project that he will
support.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Agreed that this is the type of project she likes to see that creates an improvement. This project
offers nice grounding and is beautiful overall. The whole property has been considered and not
just the house.
• Suggested that the applicants might want to consider incorporating a dry streambed into the
landscape plan.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission granted a Design Review approval to allow the construction
of a new 6,000 square foot two-story residence with a 2,700 square foot basement
and the demolition of an existing 4,336 square foot residence on property located
at 14900 Baranga Lane.
AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry
'~ ABSTAIN: None
Acting Chair Jackman advised that there is a 15-day appeal period before this action is final.
***
PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 4
UP-O1-007 -SPRINT, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Farwell Avenue: Request for a Conditional
use Permit approval to construct a wireless communication facility consisting of antennas and
equipment cabinets in the Caltrans right-of--way. The site is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district.
(LIVINGSTONE) (CONTINUED FROM 8/22/01)
Acting Chair Jackman advised that this item has been continued to a future meeting.
DIRECTOR ITEMS
There were no Director Items.
COMMISSION ITEMS
There were no Commission Items.
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Communication Items.
•
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 12, 2001
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Page 11
Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 8:38 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday,
September 26, 2001, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
•
~ ITEM 1
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No./Location: V-O1-013, DR-O1-021 &r AS-O1-001;18630 Allendale Ave.
Applicant/Owner: JAIN/MORELAN
Staff Planner: Allison Knapp, Contract Planner
Date: September 12, 2001
APN: 397-43-0016~t -003 Department Head:
V
•
•
000001
18630 Allendale Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY
Application filed: 4/10/01
Application complete: 8/14/01
Notice published: 8/29/01 ~ 9/12/01
Mailing completed: 9/12/01
Posting completed: 8/23/01 ~z 9/20/01
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant has requested Design Review approval to construct a new 6,850 squaze foot
single-story residence and a 6,800 squaze foot tennis court on a vacant lot. The maximum
height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is 93,175 net squaze feet (2.39 acres
gross) in azea and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. The application also
includes a request for variance approval in order to construct the tennis court 10 feet from
the left side (east) property line. The tennis court is proposed to be located thusly in order
to preserve a mature grouping of trees on the site. The application also includes review of
an accessory structure (i.e., tennis court). A 200 square foot roof deck is also proposed,
however, staff is recommending denial of this element of the application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Variance, Accessory Structure and Design Review application with conditions
by adopting Resolution V-Ol-Ol, DR-O1-017 &r AS-O1-001.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution V-Ol-OI, DR-O1-017 ~ AS-O1-001
2. SD-98-004 and Conditions of Approval
3. Lot Line Adjustment Map
4. Arborist Report dated 05/20/01 and 07/20/01.
5. Letter dated September 14, 2001
6. Plans, Exhibit 'B'
•
•
•
nnnnn~
File No. V-01-013; DR-DI-021 ~rAS-01-001: 18630A11endaleAvenue
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R-1-40,000
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Low Density (RLD)
MEASURE G: Not applicable
PARCEL SIZE: 93,175 net square feet (2.39 acres gross).
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Seven (7%) at building site and overall site average 9.75 percent.
GRADING REQUIRED: Total cut and fill proposed is 1,980 cubic yards. Of the total, 750
cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of ten feet would be required to construct the
basement; 205 cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of 12 feet to construct the pool; 20
cubic yards of cut to construct the tennis court; five cubic yards of cut to construct the
drive and 10 cubic yards for other site work. The drive would require 125 cubic yards of fill
and 860 cubic yards of fill would be used for other site work.
Environmental petermination: The proposed project consisting of construction of
anew 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 CEQA Guidelines (Article 19, Title 14, Chapter 3 California Code of
Regulations). 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: Coral colored roof file and white stucco walls.
A color and materials board will be available at the Planning Commission meeting.
(This Area Intentionally Left Blank)
•
P \PlanningiAllison~StaEf Repotts\AllendaleSR dce
000003
File No. V-01-013; DR-OI-OZI d¢'AS-01-001.•18630A11endaleAvenue
c
Proposal
Lot Coverage:
Structures 6,850 sq. ft.
Driveway 6,400 sq. ft.
Tennis Court 6,800 sq. ft.
Pool, Patio, Walks 3,710 sq. ft.
Open Porches 2,300 sq. ft.
TOTAL (Impervious 26,060 sq. ft.
Surface)
Floor Area: First Floor 5,689 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable
Garage 1,008 sq. ft.
(Basement) (4,500 sq. ft.)
TOTAL 6,850 sq. ft. 6,940 sq. ft.
Setbacks: Minimum Requirement
Front (house) 135 ft. 30 ft.
Rear (house) 54 ft. 50 ft.
Rear (tennis court) 25 ft. 20 ft.
Left Side (house) 101 ft. 20 ft.
Left Side (tennis court) loft. 20 ft.
Right Side (house) 91 ft. 20 ft.
Right Side (tennis court) 268 ft. 20 ft.
Height: Maximum Allowable
Residence 26 ft. 26 ft.
PROJECT DISCUSSION
The applicant has requested Design Review approval to construct a new 6,850 square foot
single-story residence and a 6,800 square foot tennis court on a vacant lot. The maximum
height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is 93,175 net square feet (2.39 acres
gross) in area and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. The application also
includes a request for variance approval in order to construct the tennis court 10 feet from
the left side (east) property line. The tennis court is proposed to be located thusly in order
to preserve a mature grouping of trees on the site. The application also includes review of
an accessory structure (i.e., tennis court). A 200 square foot roof deck is also proposed,
however, staff is recommending denial of this element of the application.
P:\PlanningW IisonLStaEf Repoas\t111endaleSR doe
28%
Code Requirements
Maximum Allovvablc
35°i~~
•
r-~
~__.I
•
VO~OO•i
File No. V-01-013; DR-01-021 SAS-01-OO1.•1863OAllendaleAvenue
Background
Previous Land Use Fntitlernents
A parcel map was approved September 23, 1998 to split the lot into two parcels (SD-98-
004, attached). The current property owner has applied for a lot line adjustment to merge
the two subdivided parcels, to create one parcel (see attached drawings). The lot line
adjustment process is administrative and is currently being finalized by the City Sun~eyor.
Neighborhood Meeting- August 14, 2001
Staff, the architect and two concerned neighbors met on August 14, 2001 to discuss the land
plan. The issues identified by the neighbors are:
Tennis Court
Issue: Screen the chain-link fence of the tennis court. Action: The plan includes evergreen
landscaping on the fence. The conditions of approval require evergreen vine planting on the
chain link fence for screening and that the landscaping be maintained at all times.
Issue: Decrease the potential for noise exposure to the adjacent residents to the rear. Action:
The tennis court is moved 10 feet to the north in order to increase the rear setback to 25
feet. Barry Cotes Associates confirmed that this location would not damage or potentially
damage the trees.
Roof Deck
Issue: Privacy could be affected as the roof deck was originally proposed without screening.
Action: The roof deck is reduced in size and includes a roof element that would partially
screen the deck to the rear property line. However, the roof element providing the
screening would only be effective while seated; not while standing.
Staff Issue: Staff has a concern for the privacy of the neighbors and the potential disruption
to the lines of the building to accommodate the stair to the roof deck, as well as providing
any additional screening in the form of walls, increased roof height, or trellis work to
provide full screening for privacy. For these reasons staff is recommending denial of the
roof deck and the stairwell to the deck. Should the applicant wish to retain ascaled-down
version of the "pop-up" for ventilation (i.e., a clerestory window), staff suggests that review
and approval of such a design be referred to the Director of Community. Please note, the
maximum height of the building would be decreased by staff's recommendation.
t
P \PlanningWllison\Staff ReporesWllendaleSA.doc
~OOOO~
File No. V-01-013; DR-01-021 &z'AS-01-001.•18630AllendaleAvenue
Assurances
Issue: That the roof deck not be converted to a second story. That the stair leading to the
roof deck not be converted to a room. That the landscaping be maintained. Action: Staff is
recommending denial of the roof deck. Should the roof deck be approved by the
Commission it should be noted that approval of the project is conditioned upon complying
with the design and conditions of approval adopted as part of the project. Any
modification to the conditions and/or design would require Planning Commission action.
Any change in absence of City review is a violation of the conditions of approval and would
be remedied through the code enforcement process.
Variance
The application includes a request for left side (east) setback variance in order to construct
the tennis court. The variance is necessary in order to locate the tennis court closer to the
eastern property line to preserve an existing stand of mature trees that are located at the
northwestern edge of the proposed court. The trees that would be preserved area 32-inch,
22-inch and 16-inch Coast Live Oak and a 13-inch Douglas Fir.
Pursuant to Section 15-70 of the Saratoga Municipal Code (Zoning) the Planning
Commission may grant a variance provided that the following findings are made.
•
1. There are special circumstances, applicable to the property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings that strict enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
the vicinity.
2. The granting of the variance would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning
district.
3. The proposal would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
Evaluation of I/ariance Findings
There are special circumstances, applicable to the property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings that strict enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the
vicinity. The configuration of the lot, with a small separate parcel carved out along the front
property line, and the location of the creek and the steep bank along the western property
line are special circumstances that affect the site plan of this R-1-40,000 lot. The entire
development plan is set back farther to the rear of the parcel and off-center to the east in
order to provide separation and open space from the residence in front of the parcel and the
creek.
P \PlanningiAllison\StaEf ReporrsWlendaleSR doc
~l ~\ Il 1\ ,r'1
File No. V-01-013; DR-01-021 ~¢AS-01-001: 18630A11endaleAvenue
The tennis court is located 10 feet from the east (left) side setback in order to preserve a 32-
inch, 22-inch and 16-inch Coast Live Oak and a 13-inch Douglas Fir. Moving the tennis
court farther to the west would interrupt the root zone of the tree and ultimately cause its
death.
The granting of the variance would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on
other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. Preserving mature trees and
approval of a tennis court is not a grant of a special privilege. The variance process is an
appropriate tool within which to evaluate the merits of a proposal to alter the required
setbacks in order to achieve other goals, such as preserving mature trees while allowing a
tennis court on a 2.39-acre parcel.
The proposal would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity. The tennis court would be constructed with building
permits. The 10-foot fence would provide a barrier from the recreational activities (such as
escaping tennis balls off the property) to the adjacent properties. No light or glare impacts
would occur as the court would not be lighted. Noise impacts associated with hitting
tennis balls would be minimized by the increased setback from the rear property line.
Noise impacts to the side where the setback is being requested would be minimal due
again, to the separation of the use from the adjacent living areas of the residence to the east.
The house is set on the front portion of the lot, not the rear portion where the court is
proposed.
Accessory Structure Review
Accessory Structure review for the sport court (tennis court) is typically conducted by the
Planning Director. Since the application requires a variance and design review, the sport
court is being brought to the Planning Commission in one package. Pursuant to Section 15-
80.030(c)1-9 of the Zoning Ordinance:
(1) The recreation court shall not exceed 7,200 square feet in area. The tennis court complies with
this limit as it is proposed to be 6,800 in area. The tennis court as proposed
conforms to this requirement.
(2) The recreational court shall not include exterior lighting. No exterior lighting is proposed or
permitted. The tennis court as proposed conforms to this requirement.
(3) No direct or opaque screening of the court shall be permitted The recreational court does not
include opaque screening but proposes evergreen landscape screening. The tennis
court as proposed conforms to this requirement.
(4) No fencing for a recreational court shall exceed 10 feet in height. The fencing proposed is 10
feet in height and does not exceed the 10-foot height maximum permitted by Code.
The tennis court as proposed conforms to this requirement.
PiPlannin~Allison\Staff ReporuWllendaleSR.d«
ooooo~
File No. V-01-013; DR-01-021 ~z'AS-01-001.•18630 A11endaleAvenue
(5) No recreational court shall be located in a required front yard. Such courts may be located within +~
a required rear yard but no closer than 15 feet from any property line. The rear setback
proposed is 25 feet. A variance to the side setback to allow the tennis court to be
constructed 10 feet from the left (east) side property line is requested. The
proposed placement is requested in order to preserve three mature trees on the site
near the court, which includes a 32-inch, 22-inch and 16-inch Coast Live Oak and a
13-inch Douglas Fir.
(6) The natural grade of the area where the tennis court is proposed shall not exceed 10 percent. The
natural grade where the tennis court is proposed in less than three percent and
complies with this requirement.
(7) The recreational court shall be landscaped so as to create a complete landscape buffer- from
adjoining properties within two years of installation. In addition a bond, letter of creditor othe--
security, in such amount as determined by the Planning Director, shall be furnished to the City to
guaranty the installation of the landscape improvements in accordance with the approved
landscape plan. An arborists report was required as part of the application
requirements. Tree bonds are required as a part of the conditions of approval
pursuant to the arborists report. Additional evergreen landscaping is also required
as a condition of approval. The project as conditioned complies with this
requirement.
(8) The recreational court shall be designed and located to minimize adverse impacts upon trees,
natural vegetation and topographical features and to avoid damage as a result of drainage, erosion
or earth movement. The sole purpose of the variance request is to protect a mature
grouping of trees, which includes a 32-inch, 22-inch and 16-inch Coast Live Oak
and a 13-inch Douglas Fir. The tennis court as proposed conforms to this
requirement.
(9) The recreational court shall be designed to preserve the open space qualities of hillsides, creeks,
public paths, trails and rights-of--ways on the vicinity of the site. The site plan is designed to
avoid disturbance to the creek. The tennis court is set back 91 feet from the creek.
The project as proposed complies with this requirement.
Summary ofAccessory Structure Requirements
The project as proposed complies with the requirements of Section 15-80.030(c) 1-9 of the
Saratoga Zoning Ordinance provided that the side setback variance is approved as
recommended by staff.
Design Review
As noted above, the applicant proposes to construct asingle-story 26-foot high 6,850
square foot residence on a 2.39-acre vacant parcel. A 200 roof deck and a 4,500 square foot
basement is also proposed. A 135-foot front setback is proposed in order to provide a
separation between the existing parcel and house in front of the site and the proposed
P:\Planning\Allison\StaEf ReportsWllendaleSR.doc
- _ - - - f`1000OS _-
File No. V-01-013; DR-OI-OZI F¢AS-01-001: 18630AllendaleAvenue
. residence. The 91-foot right side setback is proposed in order to avoid disturbance to the
creek and the creek bank. Two re-designs of the project (at staff level) were required in
order to preserve the health of the trees on the site, to increase the setback of the proposed
tennis court to the rear property line and to preserve the privacy of the adjacent neighbors
to the rear of the site. Staff is recommending denial of the roof deck believing that the deck
cannot be screened adequately to insure privacy to the neighbors without aborting the
integrity of the architecture.
Houses in the area are a mix of one- and two-story structures that include older small
cottages, larger ranchers and newer construction. The project would not be visible from
Allendale Avenue due to the setback proposed. It is also important to note that Allendale
Avenue is a collector street and speeds that are traveled along this route are around 3~ miles
per hour, making it difficult to note the various types of architecture.
A clay roof is proposed. Stucco siding with quoining is also proposed. The stucco is
proposed to be a white color. Divided-light windows, paneled garage doors and
balustrades are also proposed.
Evaluation of Design Guidelines
The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Guidelines policies.
• Policy 1 Minirrmize Perception of Bulh, Technique #I: "Minimize Changes to Natural
Topography". The cut and fill on the site is balanced, which is recommended by
this policy.
• Polity 1 Minimize Perception of Bulh, Technique #3: "Use of Materials and Colors to Reduce
Bulk". The balustrade and quoining softens the edges of the building and anchors
the building to the site. The architectural design is a simple, clean statement. The
clean lines and use of architectural detail soften the bulk of the building.
Policy 1 Minimize Perception of Bulh, Technique #4: "Minimize Building Height". The
stairwell to the roof deck is the only 26-foot portion of the roofline, which as
recommended by staff will be reduced in size. Approximately half of the structure
is 16 feet in height with the main entry and circulation area being 22-24 feet in
height. The roofline is varied by the different heights of the structure and the use of
articulated bay windows.
• Polity 2 Integrate Structures with the Environment, Technique #2: "Integrate with
Environmental Texture and Forms". The land plan is designed to avoid interference
with the creek, creek bank and topography of the site. The built portion of the land
plan is rotated at an axis to honor the topography.
• Policy 2 Integrate Structures with the Environment, Technique #3: "Use Landscaping to
Blend the Structure with the Environment". The sole reason for the side setback
variance for the tennis court is preserve a 32-inch, 22-inch and 16-inch Coast Live
P \Planning\Allison~Staff ReportsWllendaleSR.doc
/'!. A n ~.
File No. V-01-013; DR-01-0216zAS-01-001.•18630A11endaleAvenue
Oak and a 13-inch Douglas Fir. The proposed location of the structures on the site is
to avoid any disturbance to the creek, creek bank and to preserve open space areas.
Policy 3 Avoid Interference with Privacy, Technique #1: "Control View to Adjacent
Property". Elimination of the roof deck will assure that no interference with
privacy occurs to the residents to the rear of the site. Other elements of the site
design including the increased setback from the front and side property lines, assure
pnvacy.
The City Arborist, the Public Works Department and the Santa Clara County Fire District
have reviewed the application. Comments from the City Arborist and the Santa Clara
County Fire District are included as conditions of approval.
Parking
The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking
spaces within a garage. The residence will have a detached 943 sq. ft. four-car garage. Two
guest parking spaces are provided along the eastern portion of the property. An area of
interlocking pavers, 78 feet in width, could provide additional site parking if necessary.
Grading
Total cut and fill proposed is 1,980 cubic yards. Of the total, 750 cubic yards of cut to a
maximum depth of ten feet would be required to construct the basement; 205 cubic yards
of cut to a maximum depth of 12 feet to construct the pool; 20 cubic yards of cut to
construct the tennis court; five cubic yards of cut to construct the drive and 10 cubic yards
for other site work. The drive would require 125 cubic yards of fill and 860 cubic yards of
fill would be used for other site work.
Geotechnical Review
The subject site is comprised of Sun soil, which is classified as an "Area of Relatively Stable
Ground". The slope of the site is an average of 9.75 percent. Therefore additional
geotechnical review was not required. The City Engineer has determined that additional
conditions of approval are not required.
Trees
There are 21 trees on the site that are at some level of risk due to construction. Four trees
would be lost due to construction: A 30-inch Coast Redwood, a 25-inch Canary Island
Pine, a 10-inch Pacific Madrone and an 11-inch Silk tree. The applicant proposes six 36-inch
box Coast Live Oak, seven 36-inch box Coast Redwoods and one 36-inch box Big Leaf
Maple as replacement trees. A tree bond in the amount of $25,079 is required to be posted
prior to issuance of a building permit.
There are two arborists reports one dated May 20, 2001 and one dated July 20, 2001. Please
note, the Apri125`h report is based upon a land plan that staff required to be revised to save
P \Plannin~,4llison\StaEERepores\AllendaleSRdoe
000010
File No. V-01-013; DR-01-0216zAS-01-001: 18630A11endaleAvenUe
30-inch Deodar Cedar. The driveway was relocated to protect the tree and as a result the
30-inch Coast Redwood (tree #3), which is only in fair condition, would be lost due to the
relocation of the driveway. The arborist recommends three 36-inch box native trees as
replacements for the Redwood which, as noted above, the applicant has included in the
land plan.
Fireplaces
No fireplaces are proposed
Correspondence
One letter was received and is attached for your information. The author of the letter
requests a six foot high masonry fence be built along the back of the tennis court which
would wrap around the sides to a four foot fence to reduce potential noise to the residents
to the rear of the property. This is an item the Commission may wish to discuss and add as
a condition of approval should the Commission find to do so. Essentially the fence would
be topped with a chain link fence making the over all height of the fence 10 feet as
permitted by Ordinance. The plans do not reflect this request as the request was made on
September 14, after the application had been accepted as complete and after the
neighborhood meeting, as noted in the letter.
Conclusion
The proposed residence, in absence of a roof deck, is designed to conform to the policies set
forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required
within Section 15-45.080 of the City Code. The proposed residence and sport court is
designed to conform with the findings and requirements of Section 15-80.030 (Accessory
Structures) and 15-70 (Variances) 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 allowable floor area, setbacks
except as requested, maximum height and impervious coverage.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Design Review application with conditions and without the roof deck by
adopting Resolution V-Ol-Ol, DR-O1-017 ~ AS-O1-001.
•
P \Planning\Allison\Scaff ReportsWllendaleSR.doc
000011
•
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
000012
•
Attachment 1
APPROVAL OF RESOL V- -
uTION No. Ol Ol, DR-O1-017 ~ AS-O1-001
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
JAIN; 18630 ALLENDALE AVENUE
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application
for Variance to the side setback to construct a 6,800 square foot tennis court, Accessory
Structure review to construct the tennis court and Design Review approval to construct a
new 6,850 square foot residence and garage on a 93,175 net square feet (2.39 acres gross)
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 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Article 19, Title 14,
Chapter 3 California Code of Regulations). 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
family home and associated out buildings; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application, and the following variance findings have been determined:
There are special circumstances, applicable to the property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings that strict enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the vicinity in that the configuration of the lot, with a small separate
parcel carved out along the front property line, and the location of the creek and the
steep bank along the western property line are special circumstances that affect the
site plan of this R-1-40,000 lot. The entire site plan is set back farther to the rear of
the parcel and off-center to the east in order to provide separation and open space
from the residence in front of the parcel and the creek.
The tennis court is located 15 feet from the east (left) side setback in order to
preserve a 32-inch, 22-inch and 16-inch Coast Live Oak and a 13-inch Douglas Fir.
• The granting of the variance would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same
zoning district in that preserving mature trees and approval of a tennis court is not a
grant of a special privilege. The variance process is an appropriate tool within which
000013
File No. V-01-013; DR-01-021 &rAS-01-001.•18630 AllendaleAvenue
to evaluate the merits of a proposal to alter the required setbacks in order to achieve
other goals, such as preserving mature trees while allowing a tennis court on a 2.39-
acre parcel.
The proposal would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that the tennis
court would be constructed with building permits. The 10-foot fence would provide
a barrier from the recreational activities (such as escaping tennis balls off the
property) to the adjacent properties. No light or glare impacts would occur as the
court would not be lighted. Noise impacts associated with hitting tennis balls
would be minimised by the increased setback from the rear property line. Noise
impacts to the side where the setback is being requested would be minimal due
again, to the separation of the use from the adjacent living areas of the residence to
the east. The house is set on the front portion of the lot, not the rear portion where
the court is proposed.
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application for Sport Court approval, and complies with the requirements of Section 15-
80.030(c)1-9 of the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance based upon the following findings of fact:
• The recreation court shall not exceed 7,200 square feet in area. The tennis court
complies with this limit as it is proposed to be 6,800 in area. The tennis court as
proposed conforms to this requirement.
• The recreational court shall not include exterior lighting. No exterior lighting is
proposed or permitted. The tennis court as proposed conforms to this requirement.
• No direct or opaque screening of the court shall be permitted. The recreational
court does not include opaque screening but proposes evergreen landscape
screening. The tennis court as proposed conforms to this requirement.
• No fencing for a recreational court shall exceed 10 feet in height. The fencing
proposed is 10 feet in height and does not exceed the 10-foot height maximum
permitted by Code. The tennis court as proposed conforms to this requirement.
• No recreational court shall be located in a required front yard Such courts may be
located within a required rear yard but no closer than 15 feet from any property line.
The rear setback proposed is 25 feet. A variance to the left side (east) setback to
allow the tennis court to be constructed 10 feet from the side property line is
requested. The proposed placement is requested in order to preserve three mature
trees near the tennis court, which include a 32-inch, 22-inch and 16-inch Coast Live
Oak and a 13-inch Douglas Fir.
• The natural grade of the area where the tennis court is proposed shall not exceed 10
percent. The natural grade where the tennis court is proposed in less than three
percent and complies with this requirement.
P \Planning\Allison~.S~aEf Reports\AllendaleSR doc
000014
File No. V-01-013; DR-01-021 ~z'AS-01-001.•18630A11endaleAvenve
• The recreational court shall be landsca ed so as to create a c m lete land
p o p scape
buffer from adjoining properties within two years of installation. In addition a
bond, letter of credit or other security, in such amount as determined by the
Planning Director, shall be furnished to the City to guaranty the installation of the
landscape improvements in accordance with the approved landscape plan. An
arborists report was required as part of the application requirements. Tree bonds in
the amount of $25,079 are required as a part of the conditions of approval pursuant
to the arborists report. Additional evergreen landscaping is also required as a
condition of approval. The project as conditioned complies with this requirement.
The recreational court is designed and located to minimize adverse impacts upon
trees, natural vegetation and topographical features and to avoid damage as a result
of drainage, erosion or earth movement in that the sole purpose of the variance
request is to protect a mature grouping of trees which includes a 32-inch, 22-inch
and 16-inch Coast Live Oak and a 13-inch Douglas Fir. The tennis court as proposed
conforms to this requirement.
• The recreational court is designed to preserve the open space qualities of hillsides,
creeks, public paths, trails and rights-of-ways on the vicinity of the sit in that the
_ site plan is designed to avoid disturbance to the creek. The tennis court is set back
91 feet from the creek. The project as proposed complies with this requirement.
• WHEREAS, the a licant has met the burden of roof re uired to su ort said
PP p q pp
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 the proposed
structure ranges from 16 to 26 feet. Elimination of the roof deck will assure that no
interference with privacy occurs to the residents to the rear of the site. Other
elements of the site design including the increased setback from the front and side
property lines, assures privacy. Approximately half of the structure is 16 feet in
height with the main entry and circulation area being 22-24 feet in height on a 2.39-
acreparcel.
• The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing
' structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minim~ing 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 land
plan is designed to avoid interference with the creek, creek bank and topography of
the site. The built portion of the land plan is rotated at an axis to honor the
topography. Additionally, the cut and fill is balanced.
• • The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots,
and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and
P \Plannin~AllisonlStaEf ReportsWllendaleSR.doc
111 ll /l,7
File No. V-01-013; DR-01-021 F¢AS-01-001.•18630A11endaleAvenue
will be integrated into the natural environment in that the roofline is varied by the
different heights of the structure and the use of articulated bay windov,~s.
Additionally, the neighborhood is a mix of one- and two-story residences.
Approximately half of the structure is 16 feet in height with the main entry and
circulation area being 22-24 feet in height. The roofline is varied by the different
heights of the structure and the use of articulated bay windows.
^ 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 proposed residence is 16 to 26 feet in height and minimal in
size and bulk with respect to the setbacks 135 feet in the front, 91 to 101 on the sides
and 54 feet at the rear and the size of the lot (2.39 acre) and would not block light
and air to adjacent properties.
^ The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and
erosion control standards used by the City in the construction requires aCity-
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 i
techniques set forth in the Residential Design Guidelines and as required by Section 15-
45.055. In particular the project conforms to Policy I Minimize Perception of Bulh,
Technique #1: "Minim~e Changes to Natural Topography"; Policy I Minimize
Perception of Bulh, Technique #3: "Use of Materials and Colors to Reduce Bulk"; Polity I
Minimize Perception of Bulh, Technique #4: "Minimize Building Height"; Polity 2 Integrate
Structures with the Environment, Technique #2: "Integrate with Environmental Texture
and Forms"; Policy 2 Integrate Structures with the Environment, Technique #3: Use
Landscaping to Blend the Structure with the Environment" and Polity 3 Avoid
Interference with Privacy, Technique#I: "Control View to Adjacent Property".
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 JAIN for
Variance, Sport Court and Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted
subject to the following conditions:
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A",
incorporated by reference, without the roof deck and including a reduction in height of
the "pop-out" feature that would have provided access to the roof deck . The stairway
P \PlanningiAllison\StaEf ReportsW IendaleSR doc c
~OOO~V
_- ~
File No. V-01-013; DR-01-021 F¢'AS-01-001.•18630A11endaleAvenve
in this element shall be removed. The plans shall be reviewed by the Director of
Communit}~ Development.
2. The chain-link fence of the tennis court shall be screened with evergreen landscaping.
The landscaping be maintained at all times.
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:
All the recommendations of the City Arbonst shall be followed and
incorporated into the plans.
ii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or
Licensed Land Surveyor.
iii. 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."
3. No Ordinance-size tree with the exception of tree #'s 10, 11, 12 and 13 (a 30-inch
Coast Redwood, a 25-inch Canary Island Pine, a 10-inch Pacific Madrone and an 11-
mch Silk tree) shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit.
4. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no
fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in
height.
5. No structure shall be permitted in any easement.
6. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-
site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management
Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or
other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan.
B. CITY ARBORIST
7. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report dated 05/20/01 and 7/20/01 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 (5) 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
PiPlanning~Allison\.Stafl ReportsWllendalaSR.doc
R~~~~ w
File No. V-01-013; DR-01-021 ~¢'AS-01-001: 18630AllendaleAvenue
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 three to four inch layer of tree chips shall be installed in all areas beneath the
canopy of trees before actual demolition begins.
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the Ciry, in a
form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount
of $25,079 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the Ciry Arborist to
guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site.
9. 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.
10. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the
Arborist's recommendations.
C. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
11. Provide an approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building,
designed per National Fire Protection Association (NPFA) Standard #13D and local
ordinances. The fire sprinkler system supply valuing shall be installed per Fire
Department Detail and Specifications SP-4.
12. The required fire flow is 2,750 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. An automatic fire
sprinkler system shall be installed, the fire flow has been reduced by 50%
establishing an adjusted required fire flow of 1,375 gpm at 20 psi residual which are
located at the required spacing.
13. Installations of required fire service(s) and fire hydrant(s) shall be tested and
accepted by the Fire Department prior to start of framing or delivery of bulk
combustible materials. Building permit issuance may be withheld until required
installations are completed, tested and accepted.
14. Provide one fire public hydrant at locations to be determined by the Fire
Department and the San Jose Water Company. Hydrant(s) shall have a minimum
single flow of 1,000 GPM at 20 psi residual, with spacing not to exceed 500 feet.
Prior to applying for the building permit, provide civil drawings reflecting all fire
hydrants serving the site. To prevent building permit delays, the developer shall
pay the required fees ASAP.
15. Any gate installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and
Specifications G-1 and when open shall not obstruct any portion of the required
P \Planning\Allison\Scaff Reports\AllendaleSR.doc Q
ooOO~Q
File No. V-01-013; DR-01-021 ~Cz'AS-01-001: 18630A11endaleAvenue
width for emergency access roadways or driveways. Locks, if provided, shall be fire
department approved prior to installation.
16. Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turn around with a minimum
radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire
Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1 (Note: The plans show an
inside turning radius of 20 feet).
17. Required driveway installations shall be constructed and accepted by the Fire
Department prior to start of construction. Bulk combustible materials shall not be
delivered to the site until installations are complete. Note that building permit
issuance may be withheld until installations are complete.
18. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on al new and existing buildings in
such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street and or road
fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background.
19. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system designed per National Fire protection
Association Standard #13D and local ordinances shall be provided for the garage.
To ensure proper sprinkler operation the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal
ceiling.
20. Provide an approved Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of
the structure installed per City of Saratoga Standards.
D. PUBLIC WORKS
21. Conditions of SD-98-004 shall be complied with as applicable to the development
of this single-family house on the merged lot.
E. 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 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.
P \Plannin~Allison\Staff Reports\AllendaleSR.doc 000O1J
File No. V-01-013; DR-01-021 c4zAS-01-001: 18630A11endaleAvenue
Section 4. Unless a Baled ursuant to the re uirements of Article 15-90 of the
pp p a
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 26th day of September 2001 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall
have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property
Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms
and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions
within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission.
Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date
•
•
P \Planning\Allison\Staff Reports~AllendaleSR doc
000020
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION NO. SD-98-004
CITY OF SARATOGA~PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Snyder: 18630 Allendale
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
Tentative Pazcel Map approval to subdivide one existing pazcel into two single-family residential
pazcels, all as more particulazly set forth in File No. SD-98-004 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 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 dated September 23, 1998 being hereby made for further
particulazs; and
WHEREAS, 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
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at
which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heazd and present evidence;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Tentative Pazcel Map for the hereinafter described
subdivision, which map is dated April 13, 1998 and is mazked Exhibit "A" in the hereinafter
referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of the said approval
aze as follows:
1. 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 ofordinance-protected trees.
2. Prior to Final Pazcel Map approval, Lot 1 shall grant and record an exclusive ingress/egress
easement in favor of APN: 397-02-003. Easement shall not be used in future for Lot 1 or 2.
Easement azea will be landscaped and maintained by APN: 397-002-003.
3. Prior to Final Pazcel Map approval, Lot 1 shall grant and record aningress/egress easement in
favor of Lot 2.
4. Lot 1 shall record a landscape and maintenance agreement to assure that the area of Lot 1
bordered by Allendale and the driveway for Lots 1 & 2 will be properly maintained.
5. Prior to Final Pazcel Map Approval, Lot 2 shall grant and record an easement in favor of the
Santa Claza Valley Water District as indicated on Exhibit "A", and more particulazly set forth in
File No. SD-98-004.
6. Landscape plans shall be required for each new home application. These plans shall incorporate
a reasonable number of native trees to vegetate the property.
000021
File No. SD-98-004; 18630 Allendale Avenue
•
7. 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.
No construction work shall be permitted on legal holidays.
8. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner (applicant)
shall submit the Final Map to the City Arborist for review.
9. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner (applicant)
shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security
pursuant to the report of the City Arborist on the Final Map.
10. All requirements for tree protection as recommended by the City Arborist shall apply
throughout subdivision improvements construction.
11. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner (applicant)
shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil
Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property
corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each
new corner location, angle point, or as duected by the City Engineer, all in conformity with the
Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act.
12. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance
with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14-
40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for examination. The Final Map shall
contain all of the information required in Section 14-40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be
accompanied by the following items:
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.
13. 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.
•
000022
•
~~
•
File No. SD-98-004; 18630 Allendale Avenue
14. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the Final Map or
some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the
setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by
the City Engineer shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of
interior monuments.
15. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements
and/or rights-of--way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative
Map, prior to Final Map approval.
16. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans to the City Engineer in
conformance with the approved Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and
improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The improvement plans shall
be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the appropriate officials from other public
agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and private utility providers, prior to
approval of the Final Map.
a. The plans shall include improvements for a pedestrian pathway along the frontage of the
subdivision. Every effort shall be made to avoid removing the coast live oak located to the
north of Lot 1, identified as tree #1 in the Arborist's review, including, but not limited to
curving the path around said tree.
b. The plans shall include improvements fora pedestrian bridge to be constructed adjacent
to the existing vehicular bridge on Allendale Avenue. Prior to approval of the Final Map a
Saratoga Building Permit, a Department of Fish & Game Permit, and a Santa Clara Valley
Water District Permit shall be obtained for the construction of the pedestrian bridge.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. Prior to Final Map approval the owner (applicant) shall furnish the City En ineer
satisfactory
subdivision
subdivision.
g
written commitments from all public and private utility providers servin
guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serv
with
g the
e the
000023
File No. SD-98-004; 18630 Allendale Avenue
•
22. 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.
23. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Pazk and Recreation fee prior to Final Map
approval.
24. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the
Regional Water Quality Control Boazd to obtain coverage under the State General Construction
Activity NPDES Permit. Satisfactory evidence of the filing of the NOI shall be furnished to the
City Engineer. The applicant shall comply with all provisions and conditions of the State
Permit.
25. 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.
26. No overbank drainage or storm water shall be directed to the existing storm drain system.
27. Subdivision shall connect to West Valley Sanitation District prior to issuance of building or
plumbing permits.
28. Subdivision shall connect to San Jose Water Company prior to issuance of building or
plumbing permits.
29. 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.
30. 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
City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from he date of adoption.
r~
000024
r~
•
•
File No. SD-98-004; 18630 Allendale Avenue
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California,
this 23`~ day of September 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bernald, Murakami, Page and Chair Pierce
NOES: Commissioner Kaplan
ABSENT: Commissioners Martlage Pa i
~-t~--
Chairperson, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Se e , Plannin mmission
000025
•
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
•
•
000026
Attachment 3
No
° ~ s
~''~ ~ ~~
EXHIBIT A
~ ~ o 3o bo
w LEGEND izo
o W ~ EXISTING LOT UNE
~ - - - LOT UNE TO BE EU~IINATED
pq ~ APN ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER GRAPHIC SCALE
FXP
~ ~
o~
Z
O
f OF Cp`\~ D~~~~~ ''~ Z`"~
ALLENDALE AVENUE B~GINNI
NG
S89'28'00"E S89'28'00"E
120' 12' b o 134.00'
0 0
0 0
3 JA1N W
0
` o DEC. NUJ. o
°
°
O -°
1530150: -°
v d ~
~' Z EXISTING APN ~ ~
~ 60.00' ~ 397-43-003
I
'
'
" ~~
tii S89
28
00
E ~ ~
a
~ I
w
~~~ N EXISTING APN °- ~~
~ 397-43-001 ~ ~ I ~
°
~
r~
~`i w o
Z I LOT LINE TO BE ~,
`"' N ~; t I ELIMINATED
w °
u;
~.l n
N
~ N
~?
Z M - i'~` J O
O ~
ADJUSTED ~' `,~`'
PARCEL "A" ~~
~
ADJUSTED AREA = 2.390 ACRES f ~ ~
~
o ~ ~ ~~
~ -'
tq
~ PARCEL 2 z i PARCEL 1
1U 718 M 1 & 2 c°n rn 718 M 1& 2
~ w
~
-~ ~ ~ ~ EXISTING AREA
EXISTING AREA ~
~' ~ °'- =1.106 ACRES t
=1.284 ACRES f o0
~~
199.17' ' ~ 151.51'
N89'27'28"W 350.68'
LJT la LJT 15 LET Jr, LET 13 ~ UT 12
TRACT 1140 TFiA~T 1140 TAA~T 1140 TRA~T 1140 TRAOT 1140
44M4 44M4 44M4 44M4 44M4
SARATOGA, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Subject LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
11~ ~ 981 Ridder Pork Drive, Suite 100 PARCEL A EXH i B I T A
Son ,lose, CA 95131 Job No. 986144-50
E~yin«n s~rwyon Pio,,,,.r, 408/467-9100 Dote 7-20-01 Chkd . JVK
408/467-9199 (FAX) By KEH
SHEET 1 OF 1
i re}I
`J '~
Brian Kangas Foulk
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners
981 Ridder Park Drive, Suite 100
San Jose, California 95131-2305
408/467-9100, Fax 408/467-9199
TRANSMITTAL
Date: August 24, 2001 BKF No.: 986144-50
To: Warren (Mike) E. McDowell
City Surveyor
City of Sazatoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Copies To: Davis Thresh - BKF
Jim D. Morelan -Arch.
From: John V. Koroyan
Project Surveyor
Subject: Lot Line Adjustment (Combining), Jain Residence, 18630 Allendale Av.Lot Line Adjustment (Combining), Jain Residence, 18630 Allendale Sazato~a CaCa
We Are Sending You !~ Attached Via 0 U.S. Mail (First Class)
^ Under separate cover Overnight ^ A.M. ^ P.M.
The Following Items:
^ Photocopies ^ Prints ^ Plan originals ^ Report ^ Proposal
O Specifications O Shop drawings ^ Change order 0 Originals
o ies Date o. Descri lion
7-20-2001 1 of 1 Si ed• Ori 'nal Lot Line Adjustment lat - "Exhibit A"
7-20-2001 2 pages Signed; Original Lot Line Adjustment legal description -
"Exhibit B"
These Are Transmitted As Checked Below:
O For signature ^ For review and comment ^ No exception taken
0 For approval ^ Returned after loan to us ^ Returned for resubmittal
!~ For your use ^ Response to proposal request ^ With corrections noted
0 As requested ^ Other
Mike - I have sent a signed, sealed and dated copy of the Lot Line Adjustment plat and legal
description to Kit Manning of First American Title Company for the purposes of setting up the
Grant Deed document.
Please call me if you have any questions at 408-467-9136.
Thank you
•
•
If enciosures are nor as noted, kindly notify us at once. DDO~~L7
Sheet 2 of 2
~0 LAND S!i
For Brian Kangas Foulk: Seal: ~S ~`
DAMS THRESH °~u
By: .. ~ ~ EXP. 9/30/04 ~
Davis Thresh, P.L.S. No. 6868 v, ~ ~g Q,
License expires 9-30-2004 ~~~FOF CAL~F~~~\
Date: ~ - Z o -- 2 ~~ ~~ 1
K:4Sur98V 86144U.egals~Lot_Combining.doc
000029
Brian Kangas Foulk
Engineers .Surveyors Planners
July 20, 2001
BKF No. 986144-50
Sheet 1 of 2
EXHIBIT `B"
Lot Line Adjustment
ADJUSTED PARCEL "A"
(A Combining of Parcels 1 and 2, 718 M 1 & 2)
Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California
All that certain real property situate in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of
California, described as follows:
Being a combining of two contiguous parcels of land, described in those certain Grant Deeds,
conveyed to Ashok Kumaz Jain and Shipra Jain, as Trustees of the Jain Family Trust, Created on
December 11, 1995; (1) recorded January 21, 2000 under Document No. 15128248 of Official
Records of Santa Claza County and (2) recorded January 21, 2000 under Document No.
15128498 of Official Records of said County, described as follows:
Being also a combining of Parcels 1 and 2, as shown on that certain Parcel Map filed in the Office
of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on July 21, 1999 in Book 718 of
Maps at Pages 1 and 2, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the northeasterly corner of said Parcel 1 (718 M 1 & 2);
Thence leaving said corner and along the easterly line of said of said Pazcel 1, South OS°22'00"
East, 329.37 feet to the southeasterly corner thereof;
Thence leaving said corner and along the southerly line of said Pazcels 1 and 2 (718 M 1 & 2),
North 89°27'28" West, 350.68 feet to the southwesterly corner of said Pazcel 2;
Thence leaving said corner and along said westerly line of said Pazcel 2, North O1°00'20" East,
327.58 feet to the northwesterly corner thereof, said corner also being a point on the southerly
line of Allendale Avenue, as shown on said Pazcel Map (718 M 1 & 2);
Thence along said southerly line of Allendale Avenue, South 89°28'00" East, 120.12 feet;
Thence leaving said southerly line, the following two (2) courses:
1) South 00°40'00" West, 80.00 feet;
2) South 89°28'00" East, 60.00 feet to the westerly line of said Parcel 1;
Thence along said westerly line, North 00°40'00" East, 80.00 feet to said southerly line of
Allendale Avenue;
Thence along said southerly line, South 89°28'00" East, 134.00 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Containing an area of 2.390 acres, more or less.
981 Ridder Park Drive, Suite 100. San Jose, CA 95131-2305. (408- 467-9100. FAX (408) 467-9199
000030
•
FROM Panasonic FRX SYSTEM PHONE N0. 408 3531238
Attachment 4
TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVAT1fON RECOMMENDATIONS AT
THE JAIN PROPERTY
18630 ALLENDATjE AVE.
SARATOGA
Prepared at the Request of
Community. Planning Dept.
City of Saratoga
13777 l~ruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Site Visit by:
]vlichael L_ Bench
Consulting Arborist
Apri12S, 2001
Job # 06-98-146-01
Plan Received' Apri120, 2001
Plan Due: May 20, 2001
•
000031
FROM Panasonic FAX SYSTEM PHONE N0. 408 3531238 Sep. 04 2001 09:29AM P3
TREE, SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT 1
TiIE JAIIV PROPERTY. I863f1 ALLENDALE AVE. SARATOCA
Assignment
At the request of Planning Department, City of Saratoga this report reviews the proposal
to construct a new home on a vacant lot 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 to prevent significant decline.
Comments and suggestions contained in this report presume that the locations of trees in
relation to proposed construction are accurately presented on the plans provided.
Su»tnurry
This proposal exposes twenty-seven trees to some level of risk by construction.
1~ our trees (1 S, 16, 22, 27) are to be removed by implementation of this design.
Replacement trees, which equal the values of these trees removed, aze suggested.
Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected to retained trees.
A bond equal to 35% of the value of trees #9, l0 and 11 combined with a bond equal to
t 20% of the value of ali of the other trees is suggested in accordance with the levels of the
expected risks.
If bonds have been established for the protection of trees on adjacent lots, no additional
bond funds are requested for them.
Observations
The trees at this site have been evaluated in previous reports by this office in 1998 and
1999 under a different owner. At the time of those evaluations a 2l-inch diameter blue
atlas cedar (C:edrus atlantica glauca) in exceptional condition was located just south of
the existing tree # 15. This tree stood. approximately 70 feel in height and had a spread of
about 45 feet. Its health and structure were exceptional_ It appcazs that this blue atlas
cedar was removed by the previous owner.
There are twenty-seven 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. Trees # 1-16 have been tagged with a metallic label with an assigned
number.
The twenty-seven trees are classified as follows:
Trees #1, 2, 9 Deodaz cedar (C'edrus der~dara)
Tree #3 coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)
Trees #4-8, 10.12, 17, 23-26 coast live oak (Quercus agrrfolia)
Trees # 13, 14 Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesir)
Tree # 15 canary island pine (Pines canariensis)
Tree # 16 pacific madrone (Arbuhts mereriesii)
Trees # 18-22 English walnut (Juglans regia)
Tree #27 silk tree (Albizia julibrissin)
PEtEpARF.D BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CnNSULTiNG ARBURIST APTt[L 25, 2001
000032
FROM Panasonic FAX SYSTEM PHONE N0. 408 3531238 Sep. 04 2001 09:30AM P4
TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT ~
THE JAIN PROPERTY,18630 ALLENDALB AVE. SARATOGA '"
The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent -Poor)
on the data sheets that follow this text- Please note that each trees structure is
distinguished from health. The structure rating is a visual evaluation of each tree's ability
to remain standing and to maintain its branching without breaking or splitting apart.
17amage of this nature can occur despite exceptional health. ALso, structure is not an
aesthetic focus. A tree that has an excellent structure may not necessarily be aesthetically
pleasing.
Because the various combinations of health and structure sometimes require
interpretation, the combination of health and structure ratings for the trees are converted
to individual descriptive ratings as follows:
Exceptional Fine Fair Marginal Poor
S imens S imens S imens S 'mens S imens
1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 6-S, 11, 12, 15, 3, 18, 22, 2'7 21 19
13 14 17 16, 20, 23-26
Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed
to retain therm 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 are worth retaining but again without major design nevisions. Mitigation
must prevent further decline.
Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to
facilitate construction- Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant
decline.
Poor specimens cannot significarrtly improve regardless of care. For any which are
considered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not
be typically requested.
The root collars of trees #23 and 24 are covered by soil. This exposes both trees to
diseases that attack the root collar and it can be very serious. It will be essential that the
soil covering the root collar and the tops of the buttress roots be removed without bark
injuries.
Impact of Construction
Tree #9 will require crown raising to prevent the risk of breaking Lower limbs by passing
vehicles. By itself, this will not be a significant loss to tree #9. However, it must be
considered as part of the total construction impact upon this tree.
PREPARID BY: MICHAEi, I.. BRNCH, C[klSUI.TFNG ARI3ORIST APRIL 25, 2001
000033
FROM Panasonic FAX SYSTEM PHONE N0. 408 3531238 Sep. 04 2001 09:30RM P5
TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT j
THE JAIN PRCR'ERTY,18630 ALLENDAI,E A VE. SARATOGA
A 6-inch concrete curb is planned approximately 11 feet from the trunk of this ~~ `'
`y~
exceptional Deodar cedar. If a cut is made to a depth of 6-12 inches, which is typical curb ~~~ ~
construction, the root damage to tree #9 would likely be severe. This can be mitigated by , ~'~ ~ ,
a pier and beam curb design. Also, if the existing driveway must be widened such that a ~~ ,,~'L
cut would be made into the existing slope adjacent to the trunk of this tree, the root ~~ ~(N
damage would no doubt be very severe. I suggest that the widening of the driveway be ~~')
done on the apposite side, which would sacrifice tree #3, the coast redwood tree in only ~^(~ ~~
fair condition. /1 ~~ `
Two parking spaces are proposed under the canopy of tree #9. This would result in
significant root damage which must not occur. Proposed interlocking pavers do not :~ L ~
reduce the root loss. ~y1~
a~
Tree #S
A 6-inch concrete curb is also proposed within approximately 5 feet from the trunk of
tree #8 a fine multi stemmed coast live oak This would result in significant root damage
but it can be mitigated by use of a pier and beam curb design for the portion of the curb
within 10 feet of the trunk of tree #8.
Trees #15,16 and 27 are in conflict with construction of the proposed residence and
would be removed Replacements are suggested-
Tree #10 is a 32-inch diameter (T7BI~ coast live oak in exceptional condition- The
following proposed features would affect this specimen:
a. a four-car garage located 15 feet from the trunk on the north side, resulting in
both root loss and the canopy reduction.
b. Grading for a tennis court within 8 feet of the trunk on the southeast side,
resulting in significant root loss;
c. The new residence within 32 feet of the trunk on the west side, resulting in the
minor root loss;
d. Pathways between the garage/residence and the trunk ofthis tree, resulting in
potential root loss;
e. Soil compaction by construction activity inside the dripline to an estimated
30% of the root systetlt;
f. Unknown trenching or excavation fpr landscaping or drainage, resulting in
expected but unquantified root loss.
The combined features described and the procedures required to construct them would
result in very severe damage to tree # 10.
Tree #11 is a 22-inch diameter coast live oak in fine condition. The only reason that this
tree is rated in fine condition instead of exceptional condition is the fact that the majority
of its canopy has grown on one side because of competition with adjacent trees- It will be
many years before this oblique structure becomes problematic. Several construction
features threaten this specimen as follows:
PREPARP.1~ RY: MIICFiAEL L, BENCH, CCXISULTING ARBORIST APRIL 25.1001
000034
FROM Panasonic FAX SYSTEM PHONE N0. 408 3531238 Sep. 04 2001 09: 31 AM P6
TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMM'>tNDATION5 AT 4
'1'EIE JAll`I PROPERTY, 18430 ALLENDALE AVE. SARATOCA
a. the proposed residence is located 15 feet from the trunk on the west side,
resulting in significant root loss, and approximately 30% canopy loss;
b. the pathway between the residence and the trunk of this tree, resulting in
potential root loss;
c. soil compaction by construction activity inside the dripline to an estimated
SO% of the root system;
d unknown trenching or excavation for landscaping or drainage, resulting in
expected root loss.
The combination of features described and the procedures required to construct them
would result in severe damage to tree # 11.
Tree #14 would be subjected to severe root damage by grading, which is proposed within
3 feet of the trunk. If tree # 14 is expected to survive, the Grading Plan must be revised so
that there is no grading within 20 feet of the trunk.
Tree #14 would also be subjected to significant root loss by construction of the proposed
residence. The remaining portion of the root system would be subjected to soil
compaction, which would result in at least some root loss. These problems could be
mitigated by the provision of a platform buffer during construction.
S In addition to the specific risks noted, the retained trees may be subjected to one or more
of the following damaging events that are common to construction sites-
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 traffc, including foot traffic across the root systems, and the parking
of vehicles or construction equipment under the canopies.
4. Demolition of the existing buildings, driveway, and pathways adjacern to trees
resulting in bark injuries, broken branches, or root loss.
S. The excavations for foundation or for other construction ~Idjacern to trees.
6. The trenching across root zones for new utilities or for landscape imgation.
7. The grading of the surface soil resulting in the removal of quantities of absorbing root
tips.
8. Broken branches or bark injuries as a result of construction equipmern passing too
close-
9. 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
PRFPARPD BY' MTCHAF.L L. BENCFI. CONSULTING Af2HtiRIST APR.iI.25, 2001
nnnn:~S
FROM Panasonic FAX SYSTEM PHONE N0. 408 3531238 Sep. 04 2001 09:31AM P7
TE2EE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATEONS AT 5
THE .CAIN PROPERTY,18630 ALLENDALE AVE- SARATOCA
without decline. If any changes to these plans occur during construction, the following
may require alteration.
1. That portion of the curb within 25 feet of the trunJc of tree #9 must be constructed
without a soil cut. At least this portion of the curb must be either constructed
completely on existing grade without a soil cut or it must be constructed by a pier and
grade beam design.
Relocate the two guest parking spaces proposed under the canopy of tree #9 a
minimum of 35 feet from the trunk. Because the root system is restricted rather ~
significantly by the driveway on the west side of the tree, a greater area of the root
system of tree #9 must be preserved on the other sides.
a` ~~
1~
~~ ~~ , ~
~. ~~~~,
~~
.~ ~ ,
•
3. There must be no grading cuts within. 25 feet of the trunk of tree #9. This includes , ,~~ ~ I
shaping or scraping the surface. The grading plan must be revised to reflect this ~ ~` ~~
requirement. .~ l
4. The total impact to tree # 10 must be reduced I suggest this be achieved by the
following.
t ~! relocate the footprint of the proposed garage 4 feet toward the north.
~~ ,~ `lam b. No grading allowed within 20 feet of the trunk on this side of the proposed
.~.f ~..E ~;~_ tennis court.
c. Proposed pathways be constructed completely on top of the existing grade_
.~~ "' ~`~~` `~ ~' A platform buffer be provided between the trunk of the tree and
~/~ G~ ~ ~ construction of the garage and of the house. This is composed of a
4-5 inch thick layer of tree chips (not sawdust) covered with 1-1/2 inch
thick full sheets of plywood coveting all exposed areas beneath a canopy.
e. Installation of construction period fencing.
f. There must be no trenching or excavation within 25 feet of the tnuilc_
g. The provision of 3 inches of coarse of wood chips and supplemental
imgation.
S. The total impact to tree # 11 must be reduced I suggest this to be achieved by one of
the following:
/a!relocate the footprint of the house 7 feet toward the west and toward the south
~G~ by approximately 10 feet ordinarily it would be sufficient to relocate the
~ ~ ~~ footprint of the house S feet toward the west_ This would severely impact
tree # 14. For this reason, a relocation toward the southwest is suggested as
~~ ~'`~~ ~ would be required in order to preserve both trees # 11 and 1.4. Please note that
~l~v~/ tree #22 would be sacrificed
6. 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 S 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
PrtEPARF:D RY: A2TCHAEL L, BENCH, CUN'SULTII3G ARBORIS'1' APRIL 25, 2W 1
•
•
000036
FROM Panasonic FAX SYSTEM PHONE N0. 408 3531238 Sep. 04 2001 09:32AM P8
TREE SL1RV EY AND PRPSERV A'rION RFCOMMEIYUATIONS AT 6
Tl{E JAIN PROPER'rY,18630 ALLENDALE AVE. SARATOCA
be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown
on the attached map.
7. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping beneath the driplines of
retained trees, (tither before or after the construction period fencing is installed or
removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other naquirements our office
must be consulted.
8. Any portion of the curb within 10 feet of the trunk of tree #8 must be constructed
either completely on top of the existing grade or must be construction by a pier and
beam design.
9. 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, l 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.
10, in order to retain tree #14, the following mitigation procedures would be required:
/;v~ ,~ ~~; d' ~ revise grading plan such that no grading would occur within 20 feet of the
L ~~'
b. Any underground drain must be within ,1 foot of the foundation of the house.
~~~~'~ c_ Provide a platform buffer as noted on the attached map.
/~~~/ d Provide protective fencing as noted on the attached map.
e. Provide 3 inches of coarse wood chips as mulch over the entire root zone that
is not protected by a platform buffer.
f. Provide supplemental irrigation
11. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to retained trees #8-12 and 14 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 the use of a simple soaker hose for each tree.
12. Spread a full 3-inch layer of coarse wood chips over the entire root zone of trees #8-
12and l4 that are otherwise riot protected by a platform buffer. Spreading must be
done by hand
• 13. A platform buffer must be placed as shown on the map provided for the protection of
trees # l0, 11, and 14_ A platform buffer consists of 4 full inches of coarse bark chips
(shredded redwood is not acceptable for this propose due to its compressibility)
spread over the existing grade, which must. immediately be covered by 1 inch
plywood (full sheets), Lied together, and secured to prevent slippage. This platform is
sufficient for workers on foot using hand carried tools or wheel barrows- This
platform must cover the entire exposed root zone area adjacent to construction.
s
PREPARE.ll BY MICHAEL L. BENCH, CUN3ULTING AttBC3RI3T APRIL 25, 2(101
U0003'7
FROM Panasonic FAX SYSTEM PHONE N0. 408 3531238 Sep. 84 2001 09:33RM P9
TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT 7
THE iAIN PROPERTY, 18639 ALLENDALE AVE. SARATOGA
I4.1/xcavated soil may not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of
trees. Loose soil must not be allowed to slide down slope to cover the root collars of
retained trees.
15. Trenches for a drainage system must be outside the protective fences as noted on the
attached map. For any area where this cannot be achieved our oi~ice must be
consulted before construction begins_
16. 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.
17. Any pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboricultural certified
arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards.
18. Landscape irrigation trenches, which cross a root zone, and/or excavations for any
v-~~v^ Iw••lavsr. Fc..ak•u+c.s aaiuok lio aao olooor to w trvalc s~ac+ i'S ~s2C~6l~o iruaa~c ai~l3tor
from tree trunks. However, radial trenches maybe 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 are no closer than 10 feet apart at the perimeter of the canopy.
r
19. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed so that it does not strike the trunks of trees.
Only drip or soaker hose irrigation is allowed beneath the canopies of oak trees.
20. 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 tnlnk of oak trees.
2 i . 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 $roadway, Suite 810, Oakland
94612.
22. 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.
23. $ender board or similar edging material must not be used beneath the canopies of
existing frees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may
result in significant root damage.
24. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped under the driplines of
trees, or buried vn site_ Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint
products, etc.) must be removed from site.
25. I suggest that the root collars of trees #23 and 24 be excavated to expose the tops of
the buttress roots without in}wring the root bark. This must be done by an ISA
certified arborist or by a landscape contzactor experience with the procedures.
PREPARED f3Y: MICFIAEL L, BENCIi, CCNVSUL'CIIJG AI2BORIST AP'RII. 25, 2001
000038
FROM Panasonic FAX SYSTEM PHONE N0. 408 3531238 Sep. 04 2001 09:33AM P10
TREE $rJRVEY ANn PRESERVATION RECOMIVIEPIDATION5AT ~
THE JAIN PROPERTX, IlIb30 ALLENDALE AVE. 5ARATOGA
' Value Assessment
The valuc of the trees are addressed according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition, 1988.
Tree # 15,16, 22, and 27 aze expected to be removed They have a value of $9,805, which
is equivalent to seven 36-inch boxed, and one 24-inch boxed native specimens. It may be
useful to note that tree # 15 alone has a value of $8,084. Rcpaacements are suggested.
However, 36-inch boxed specimens and sometimes 24inch 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 recomnr-end that it be required that replacemert trees be secured within
60 days of the issuance of permits. Growers will hold trees upon request. Thus, delivery
may be schedules after construction is completed.
1 suggest a bond equal to 35% of the value of trees #9, 10, and l 1 (bond $12,312)
combined with a bond equal to 20% of the total value (bond $12,76'n of all of the other
trees that will be retained tv assure. their protection
Acceptable native tree replacements aze:
Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia
Valley oak - Quercus lobata
Big leaf maple - Acer »Iacrophyllum
' California buckeye - Aesculus culif~rnica
Coast Redwood - .Sequoia sempervrrens
Respectfully sub
~..
Michael L_ Bench, Associate
Barri oate, Prin~ci~
MLB/sl
Enclosures:
Glossary of Terms
Tree Data Accumulation Charts
Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction
Protective Fencing
Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies
Platform Buffer
Map
C
PREPARED BX: MICH.4FL L. BRNCH, COPi'SULTING ARBORL4T APRIL 25, 2041
000039
FROM Panasonic FAX SYSTEM PHONE N0. 408 3531238 Sep. 04 2001 09:34AM P11
o c
. ~d i>
~ ~
ao
a
"'~
ai
Q
6r
C
Q
~o
w
..
V
7
Q
O
7
t
L'
r
0
(~ c) ulaOlad lVIVJw3M
~
E
~vnow3b aN3wwoaaa
.~-- ---- --
- N
~ ~
~
>
- ,,.
~
Q ~
~
~
-- ~p
~
~ m
~
>
-- C
~ m
~
--
~ m
~
>
~ O
~
~
° ~
~
~
a3r~~la~~ saa3N ~ -
~ -
~ h - ~
'gyp --..... ~^ -- ~
~
(9-I) LI31VM S033N u u II n Y Y Y
(s-c) 3sv3slo av~io~ loos ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
m (s-.) a3a3no~ av~~o~ loon ~ ~ ~ < .~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
o ------------------ --- - X -- x -- x -- X -- ''~ .... X ------- x
a lS-l)AV030 ~Nn2i1
p .................................... .. .... ...
W .....
y --- - ---
a
0
w (S• t) DOOM Ob~30 0 ~ ~ a ~ ~
m
~
(5-t) 3SV3SI0 NM02{O 33x1 r r
d ~ ~y ~y ~ ~ W y
~ - _----
(S-l) S103SNI II Y Y r Y Y II
(S-L) A112l012ld ~JNINnad $ g ~ i
e
o ~ ~
~ Y 03033N S318M0 _ .
-------------------- ---- ~ --~ --- ~ -
V
Z
•GN3 ~OW3LI
°
H
iS ~
tS ~
t5 ~ g
$ ...-.-- ~
~ JI
M
iH
------------------~~~-----------° -- x X X x X X
x
_ -- --- -____~~ --- --
a °JNI$1!/a NMOaO
V .....................................
a
.~
N011b'a01S3!! NM02f0 -"
a ---- - -
9NINN1H1 NMOaO
°
.e; ~
^ -_"._ m
m
tp
m -- t0
m - ~u
~~y
N ------ m
'~
N
.............. 69 f/! ___ M ~ w
°JNINV313 NMOaO Y Y Y Y r e Y
(e-s) `JNI1Va oab'ZbN o ~ ~ S S S o
(OL-Z)'JNIl1f2~ NOIlldN00
N
`~
cv
`~
Y'/
`~
tN
~
N
~
v yy~
!0
m t~l~
lO
c
C
°
V
(S-t) 3anl~nals
~
w
.-
N
m
In
N
ch ____
N v
y
....................~.~-._~_ X ---- X X X X _ X _
. . X
lS-l) Ml'lb'3H N
ardads Q ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ N ~ 2 0 2 ~
......................~._ __
J,H`J13H -
O
h C
~
N -__
O
m aD
M .__.
O
ma Q
~
ay ~~-.
~
~V O
p .._...
~
CV fD
y _"--
~
CV N
~y
h
ry
N
y~
13 ~~ Z® x313 WVI^ N W Y (
N Y (
y
N II O tl O~
w Y O A II N•
m
-_-----_-___~____._~ ..........
........
-
__-_-
-
-- „
E c_ e c c c c c
~ H80 _
~ H80 h ~ ~ ~ w ~ w ~
____-- x x X °---- X ..-. x °° X
w31s~s~linw x
----------------------------
H80 ----
o
N
t!f
u~ ..Y
o
N
~
a, ....
c
o
^O
,~
~
ae
~
N
.~
a;
~
~„
0.~.
o;
h
o..
~
c c e e e e e
~yi
F"' W
"~ ~
OV~~~ ~
c
W
~ ~ ~ S7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E O ~
~'
~
~ h
~
~
~ Q.'
~ •~
~ J
~ ~
~ J
~ J
d J
h
~ ~, a a
!`
Y ~ N Ni Y Yy 10 h
c
3 a,
e
•
00
mo~8
~».+w
~ II II M
',~~~
~ ~~~
H
2
W no
w »»
~> ~
~~ ~~
a eQ ~ g
K ill fYV ~A
000040
FROM Panasonic FAX SYSTEM
c o
a
~L
O
"7
v
r
i
ai
Q
::
c `Cy
O
h
{w
0
`~
f
C
.~
~^
PHONE N0. 408 3531238 Sep. 04 2001 09:34AM P12
(c~) uiao-ad ~vnowaa ~ ~
W ~ ~ ~ o
~vnow3a aN~wwooaa 3
- -.._-_
a32nlla3j S433N ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ~ }~ - ••• '" ~ .o - W
eis F- o ~g g m
(S-1) a31dM S033N u ••- "' - ~
Y 11 ° n
p 11
..'(C_U ~sv3s~Q arno~ looa ~ ~ W o 0 0
..--- ------ -- _.... ..,.-_ .._ h ,,
(s-L) a3a~no~ avnoo loos ~ ~ b g ~{ --- ~ -
-----•----------------------- ---- x X X X ~
--- -- '~ -- X x
(s•i),~vo3Q >INnal -
(9-L) oooM Q~Q ~' ~ --- ---
f V ~ `-' [`'~ O~
_ m h N w
~A m --_ o, ° n rn
^ --__.~
(4-U 3SV8SIQ NMOaO 33a1 e" '- ~ --- m
--..........-_ W ~ ~ y
------......_-_- ..`-_ ~__- M W H
(S'1) S103SN- Y Y --- Y Y `-- Y - _ ._
u 1,
(5-L) IWaOlad `JNINnad ~ o o ~ ~ aE
S 03g33N S3l8VQ ~- ~- - -'-•
•----------......-------.......... ---- ~ ~ ti;
------ x --- •° .... X
... ..._ ~ ----- X
•------'-1N`J13M-ON3 3AOW3a $ S
- --- - ..._ X _
~JNISIVb NMOaO
NOIldaOlS3a NMOa~
M v m
----~..........._-------• _----- O .. ~ ...____ Oh ..._ N .._ O
~ ..~ ___
- N
.-
`JNFNNIHI NMOa'J ro ~ • N o v Im. ~
'JNINV3l0 NMOaO u Y Y u 11 p
Y
--------- (9-£) °JNI1Va OZI~ZVH p ~ o ~ o ~ ~
- - - -------- --• - 1` _ ~ ° __ ° 1° 53
- N .-.... N ~ ~ ^ -- ---_
- (Ol-Z) `JNllda NOtlIQN00 v'
~- a N ~ N ~ O N a N N ~ N ai
....------------------------ ~ ~ - ~ 3
• ..
(S-l) 3anlOflalS sh ~ ~ a ^ m N n m ,,, ^ „~
.---_-_____...._____________~- N
.... -- -- X ~--- X __ X X
-~ _____ x
(S-l) H1lV3H ^
t0
__.. dd3adS e4i m a
W_ n0 p •' O ~ '~ N N ~ N p N
Yi
1H`J13H r y o0i uo v° M v M M •, c~ `y c `-- ti
.. -_ d! M M b M
1334 Z~ x313 WVIQ N p ~ ~• 11 M - II N ~ ~ ~ ••~
...__-___-------..... -- - C .___
... 11 ^ II ~ Y l'i II
H90 - - ~ ~
.....~ .................---~. ..._ ti -
.. n ---.~. ~ ~
- -- - -~
N9p N K w » N N ry h
...........-__-___--_.......__ --_ K X ~ % °A h
__- ...-___ ?C ... X ...... X X
W31Sl.SillflW x - - °'
O W O h ---
MHO 10 N G ~ (y O N m O p O ~ O~ O
M th 00 N % ~ N ~ O t00
N
.rJ ~ C C C C
- C
~ N P1
~ t~
~ ~ m
V V ~ ,pl a 5 :_
~ a R 8
Q ~~ z .~ WR'o
.~ C ~ ~M MN
~ ~ ~ ~ a Y ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~
oe ~ $ ° + ~ ,g' p
J U ~' ~ ~ LL - epi n
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8
V U Q
~ V ~ p'p 0. ~ S i~ 1~ y »
.Y p ~ ~
nnn~a~
z~oooo
S ~ ~ ~ ~ N o io ac v en a ~
"
~ ,
~ ~
°a
,
,
Por~m m m
' m
= ~,
~ m
~
a'
~
~' O
~
$a ;
y ~ .
u ~
~ r
~ __
~ ~ G ~ ~ = r.
~ ~ K
S r h
x ~ - < ~ ~ c m ~ Q N ~ ~' a ~ ~ ~ 7O d
. ~~ ~ ~
~ ~, ~
h ro ~ ~ ~ ,~ cn rr, _.
YV~U . m ~
z ~~ ~ ~
8
O O /
~
~~t LS ~ } Q(
T ~'
N
7
~'
N
J
j ~n
N
m o
_ N ~
~ o ~ N
w
°
~ ° ~ b
a o
~ •~
o y N
° c
OBH
... - - --- .............------
x
_
x ----
MULTI-SYSTEM
X ° X -
a~ x ._..._.
~,. x ----
o>
>c
x
~' °- ~.
~ ~.....
~
~ °
~
n~i /~
Ai
DBM ~
` ..~... ~
- V
_____ 01
_____- ....
ti .................... M
--- ~ --... a __ o .. ~ a
~'
°i
° ~
w
o ,..
J`
~~
~
u _.""
.+
° ^~ ----- 3
DViMETER 2 FEET
b
~,,, °_ N
~ ~
Of N
° ~ -------
° ...
b!
o
~ --
cn "_
`~ °D
O
HEIGHT
N ...
~ W -.~... N ~ _____- N ~,.__ r
~
N
°' o ~, o o
N o ~ w ~ a 4 ~ ~ o sPREAD
W
'
^'
N ~.
HEALTH (1.5) O
N
N m
N x x --- x •--- X -•-- x ____ ...............^____________
__
~
N
~`
r
`"
q J
m N
STRUCTURE (1-5) c C
m
~ ~
w _
~
°~ Q ..
~ > __
~ ^'
~ .~--_ .... 7
__
"" _ N ~ w CONDfTION RATING (2.10) ~ y
w
O
~
O
~
w
p
ae
w
~ .._...
~
cn
~ -- ----
~p
° ---_-.._._---------------- ~ ..
-+
HAZARO RATING (3.9) ~
~
~
M „
---- ~~
--...... ~~ _ °
_~~ ° °
° CROWN CtE4NING ~
~
Y w
• W
m
W
- N
~
N ~
m
v __-_ ~
~ .....
.tea
~
_~___
w.,,,..___~_________,,,,,,,••••
CROWN THINNING
~ ~
a
_ _
„_._ _
....~_
..
__..~ N CROWN RESTORATION a
n ~
--
•--- ....,,,
CROWN RAISING
v ~
~
x
n
__
- x ----- x
~ -----
g
•°°
$
_-°^
k
g
....,.
REMOVE END-WEIGHT a
Z '
' _
-
a
--
a
-...._ ~
a
....
~
n
_....,
-- --.........._°--------
o
m
~_
.. ~ CABLES NEEDED ~ a
~
m
~ ~
~
~
v
U
~
--
~
...~
~
.._...
~
---...
..------~°.....-------
PRUNING PRIORITY (1-5)
n ____
.. ~~
--- ~~
.. ° Y ° ~~ INSECTS (1.5)
N H M ~ ~
TREE CROWN DISEASE (t •5)
Oi ~
~
p A -- OD
A ....~_ . .._ °
_
-......
___~_........._~__
O
^' a m ~ o DEAD WOOD (t-5) o
___
.•
-
TRUNK OECAY(1-5) m
Q
x
x ----•
X _...
---
-
~ _
~ ~ k ROOT CO
R
~ ~ ~ LLA
COVERED 7.5 3
u
O
~
~
3
e
~
~
~ ~
~
ROOT COLLAR DISEASE (1.5)
'I _
- a
-- n
- w ° " n NEEDS WATER (1-5) p
-
~ -
-
~
~+
~
d N
~
___.
~
NEEDS FERTILIZER o g
._____
w ~ ~ -- C ~ -- ~ U -
A ~ "' m ~' m ~°" m ~ N ~ N ~ ~ R ECOMMEND REMOVAU ~ pip
~
ca ~
~
R a ~"
EMOVAL PR10R7TY (1J) !n ~
~~
~~
...
a
~Ld WdS~:60 i00Z b0 'daS 8~zi~S~ 80b 'ON SNOHd W81SJ~S Xdd ~?uos2ut'd WObd
•
FROM Panasonic FAX SYSTEM
~o
O
Q
c °p
C
V
Q
^M
h
b
Q~
0
^~
.w~.
^i
~~.
.G
PHONE N0. 408 3531238 Sep. 04 2001 09:36AM P14
~, It-Ll Al1~IOt21d rrnow~a
e
e
E
'IYAOw323 ON3wwOO~a
~
a
,
~
m
~
r~
~
°
~
~
g
~
8
;
N
~
a3Zlllla33 S433 ~---- ---^- - m
fO --- -
'
N K
- .___ _ .. ,,..
(S•l) a31VM S033N
n
u
„
„ ___
~
n _ _
~
(S-l) 3SV3SI0 ad1~001O0a ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~
m •---------------~............_--
(S- l) 03a3A00 2lK1100 1002!
~
m
~
m
_
_~ m
c -
.........~------
YC
--
---
X
---
X
---- _
- X
.
X
a (S-l)~y030 ~Nn2l1 ._
~
~
(S -l) DOOM Ob30
o
a
w -
c ---
~ --
N
----- .. _
a (S-1) 3Sb3S10 NMOa:I 33a1
~
--- H
--- ~
•• W M eA
(S-l) S103$NI a .. ~ u
a u
(S-L),W2J012Jd`JNINnad ~ ~ ~ aE ~ h
--
• >:03033N S318b0
-----
a
Y
1H'JI3M-ON3 dnOW3a t5 -- tf
a
-------------~.__....._.....
X
__
x
__
'e JNISIbb NMOaO
~
c NdlbaOlS3a NMOaJ
`
d ____
9NINNIHI NMOaO ~
~ ....... N
~
-
N
---
R
~
------- ~
~
-- N
N
-
....-------- ------ w e„ ~ w ~
... _ __ N
'JNINb3l0 NM02l0 n u n u u a
(6-E) `JN111~2! a2lbZbH o c o ~ ~
o
~
L ---- ~
~ (Ol•Z) `JNllba NOI110N00
~
~
<
~
r>
~ ...
m
"~ ...
m
~
-_
~
~
............. -___--~__-
° ..... -- V ....~. ~ -~ ~ _ ~ __
(S-l> 3an1~nals
v N m
X m w N ,o N v, N
N
of
- .. ~( _
~S-L) H1lb3H N N
av3ads N b m N ~ N
~ ~ n ~ r ry m
________________~-__-~..~....
1NQ13H
.~~
p
N _
Q
y
--
M
m
y
.....'
c4i
-
t0
y
--~
N ~
fV
y
pQ ~
fH
n
h
-~..
N
~
N
Vi
1394 rZ~ 2J313WM0 ~O m -~ o N
....°---.._..~------- -- „
c ---- u
c - n
c -- G E --
FI9Q
w
~ HEO o n
~
?'C --- ~.
h
N
K ...... ^
M
N n
w ....-- i+
M
"'
__________________-____-_ __ ~ X - ~( X t( i
W31SASy1lnW x
,....._..-----------------
H90 c ... _
~
4
~
t+
N
O
N
N
O __
O
Y'1
^ _
~
~
~D
O
N
~
~
~ E c G c
~ N N ^ o~
~ ~
Q ~ N ~ M
~ V ~
~ ~ ~ ~~ Z
_ 3[ C
~
a
oC ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O m ~
a
`i' J
~ J
~
a-i
~+
..Yq'
N
m
N
N
N
N
N 0
v
N
~
7
d
~ 5
Q Y
m
"'
o m a
9 W
~ m
a5~
mo~25
W N
j M M N
~ ~~ M M
~ O O
~~~~
W 4 ~ o
V ~.T».e
~~~ss
K h ~ w
000043
FROM Panasonic FRX SYSTEM PHONE N0. 408 3531238 Sep. 04 2001 09:39AM P1
c
P.!! c!men S!OrS anC tree IOCation5
are approximate y r~,~ -_
~GDO"- SO 6 oN T/ W
•
•
A Review of the Revised Constriction Plans at
~~ BARRIE D. COATE -
~~~{OO/'~ and ASSOCIATES The lam Property, 18030 Allendale Ave.
~O~ !408)35}!0?^ i .. _ ...
1[r/J' 135355u.nAAo~d Prepared lor:
In Glos,U 95000 -
City of Saratoga Planning Department
HORTICULT[TEtAL CONSULTANT i Date: July 7n 2nrn
!~ .; / '
/"'' ~ ;
I '? /~.. r
~r
~l
_ ~ -~ i=
. I ~ ~ .~T'
Y ~^ ~ ~/
CG ~ ~
r ~ '~ ,
Horticultural Consultants
(408) 353-1052
Fax (408)353-1238
23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033
Drip Line of Tree Canopy
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -Protective Fencing
,-,r
k,
_rw^
,q:..
~(r
~.r,__ h~
.i .y
)~~R~
~. ~ fSCn
-~.
"~.~ ~.
r
;'
•
OOU044
FROM Panasonic FAX SYSTEM PHONE N0. 408 3531238 Sep. 04 2001 10:14AM P1
~_J
A REVIEW OF THE REVISED CONSTRtJCTION PLANS AT
THE JAIN PROPERTY
18630 ALLENDALE AVE.
SARATOGA
Prepared at the Request of
City of Saratoga
Community Planning Dept.
13777 Fr~itvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Prepared by:
Michael L. Bench
t
Consulting Arborist
July 20, 2001
Job #06-98-146-01
•
000045
FROM Panasonic FAX SYSTEM PHONE N0. 408 3531238 Sep. 04 2001 10:15AM P2
A H}.:V11~ W OP TIIF RLV itih:u C'l)Ntil t2[i~"IZIlN PLftNti Al' I
TI II: .LAIN PK(>i~}iK'I~Y IR5?0 AI,I.F.Nt~AI.!-: Av}•: SAIUITCX;l~
Assignment
At the request of the Community Development l~partment, Planning C~vision, City of Saratoga,
this report reviews the recently revised wnstruction plans for the Jain property located at 19630
Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing
trees.
1'he trees at this site were surveyed recently in a report by this office dated 4-25-01.
Observations
This plan proposes to relocate the entry driveway a few feet toward the west for the protection of
tree #9, a large exceptional D~*odar cedar (Cedars deodara)_ 'This change puts tree #3 a coast
redwood tree (Sequoia sem~ervirens), which is in only fair condition, in conflict with driveway
construction. This sacrifice, in my opinion, is preferred to the alternative of attempting to retain
boot trees which would result in significant damage {and subsequent decline) to both trees.
Tree #3 has a value of $7,726. This value is equivalent to six 36-inch boxed native trees. Because
the objective of removing tree #3 is sacrificial in order to assure the preservation of a touch better
specimen (#9) ratl'-c-t' than pursuing a course of damaging both trees, 1 recommend that the
replacement equivalent in this case be reduced to three 36-inch boxed native trees.
The other relationships suggested in the report by this office dated 425-01 between construction
features and existing trees are improved by th:s plan. Also, the limits of grading as noted on these
most recent proposed plans are within acceptable tolerances of existing trees. Thus,
Recommendations #2, 3, 4a, 4d, Sa, and l0a noted in the report
4-2S-O1 by this office should be eliminated.
Tree #22 will be retained. It has a valne of $550, which is equivalent to one 24-inch boxed native
specimen. This replacement should not be required.
A platform buffer will no longer be required for the preservation of trees # 10, l 1, 12, and 14.
Thus, ltecotrunendation #!3 noted in the report 4-25-01 by this office should be eliminated.
All of'the other preservation recommendations described in the report 4-25-01 by this office must
sti}} be conditional to the approve} of this project if the existing trees are expected to survive in
their present condition. Howevtr, judsing by the revisions to the p}ens presented by this most
recent proposal, it would appear that the applicant will assure that the other protections (mostly
procedural or cultural in nature) wit} be provided.
No additional protections are suggested at #his time.
Respectfully submi ,
NCic t~ael Bench tat
B D. Coate, I'riucipal
MLB/sl
Encl. ~ Map
YKBPAKF.U HY: MICHAF.[. 1.. RFNCH, C(~NSiJT:ITNG ARRQRIST JULY 20.2001
000046
•
•
~ ~~~««t
svo
~~ :c
~ ~
c~> i_
r E. ~y~__
...~ ~ '.
i, ,,
,' ,, ~~+`
~ h6.'
J d ~ f
-~ I f ,~ z.~(~
~ ~ ~ i ~~-
1 ~4
_ ,_,
~- -- ---~ t~?
~ ~~
-~ r ;~
-/ 0
~~!
A Review of the Revised Construction Plans at
,fit BARRIE D. COATE
'~ dlld ASSOCIATES The Jain Property, 18630 Allendale Ave
;, ~aoe~3so-~os~ Prepared for:
23535>ummilRwd
los Gala, G 9S(130
City of Saratoga, Planning Department
HORT1Cl'LTURAL CONSULTANT I Date Jul ~ 20, 2001
CC)NSULTING ARBORIST .Job # 06-98-146-O1
Tree nurnbers correspond to evaluation charts.
?,II dimensions and tree locations
are approximate ~ __~
~' -
1 M i ~_~.
i~ K'
d --
~~~ ~ So ~ ~,~co ~ '
1] 1
uet ',
` rt ` (~,
1#~y
._}_~ ~-
IY
_ ~, ~; °:
,,
A ~~
A
N M
I
YI 1 Y~
1 ~ ~~~`
r~
~ M0:'
~ 1 ~f~h
~ ~~ ~ ~=
~. ~ . ~ I~
. ~.
G~
,< .
~.
,1,
~:
At
1 `J/
'" LRA
„S C A
GF~
~~
004'7
•
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
LJ
•
X100048
Attachment S
i ~~ ~~- ~ u u ~ ~I:
I'J
`~
September 14, 2001 ll ~ S E P 1 4 20 01 J
CI I 1 OF ~AIt~A~I UG:1
('f)\1111 "`'Tl' I)I \'I:LI?P11(''~ t
Tom Sullivan -Community Development Director
City of Saratoga
Community Development Department
1377 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Tom:
My husband and I live at 18603 Ravenwood Drive. I am writing with our concerns
about the proposed single-story residence and sport court to be built at 18630 Allendale, on
the three lots behind our home. One of the biggest reasons we moved to Saratoga three
years ago was for that country feeling of peace and quiet.
We are very concerned about the noise the sport court would create. We are requesting
that the sport court be moved at least another ten feet away from property line. A six-foot
masonry fence be built on the backside of the court and wrapped around four-feet on
either side to act as a noise barrier. The plans indicated aten-foot chain link fence around
the court, we are proposing a four foot chain link fence attached to the top of the masonry
and aten-foot chain link fence around the rest of the court. We are also requesting that
vines be planted on the chain link fence not only for noise reduction but also for cosmetic
reasons, as it will be viewable from our property.
We are also concerned with atwo-story structure being built. It is a matter of privacy
and precedence being set. At a meeting last month, Jim Morelan agreed to decrease the size
and location of the "second story viewing deck" so that it would not face any of the
neighbors. It was also agreed, that the two-story structure would never be expanded.
These concerns and request (with the exception of the six-foot masonry fence) were
discussed at Saratoga's Community Development Center last month with Alison Knapp,
Jim Morelan, Sarah Lichtman and myself. I spoke with Jim Morelan 9/12/01 about the six-
foot masonry fence and he indicated it would not pose a problem.
Sincerely,
Martha J. Costa
C.C. Alison Knapp
18603 RAVENWOOD DRIVE SARATOGA, CA 95070
PHONE: (408) 378-1898 FAX: (408) 378-5404 II,OOIZ^p
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
000050
•
C7
~E ~. "s ~t S 4 .,,:~ ~~Y~- ,"~
~~~-~ _~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,,,C+ ~ F'+ali,
..~ _ ~. M1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~K< ? 1 ~ - _
t ~ _ ~- ~ -
"' C
' o
~O I -_
___ , ~
~ ~~
~~`l.~} • r ND /' / _~f 1.,' `~ ilk. e~ \. 1 ®.t ~ '~
•~ . ~ I
w i
.,~ .C . ~
z I ~ _ ~
~_._
-:. ~
~ i ~- : 1 - - _- - I ~~
~~
~ .~
a ~
~$~~~~a~€ ~~~~ ~~~
x~
~,~
€ ~$ ~~~ ~ ~ i g ~
to
~j ~~ ~ jE~ ~~ ~ ;
0
'~- ~ ~
. ~ ~
~ ~ J
C~
~~ ~`t~~
~Q
~
~
~ w ~
1 +
cfr~C. ~ .. ~F !fi F
Y ~{`-G~ , ~ -- ~ a
~ c
~~ ~ ~ ~r~ ~ h ~~ ~.
.. n ... ~ i
~,1.;~~ ~~~~ Atli ~r~'~ i` ~9 ~_
~ ~~ ~~~ ifrl ~ r ~i
i=~ ~ ti ~i~'"fir ~~~r~t ~r~I{ I: I t I i f
s~;.~~ ;t ~ ~ ~ rr ~~ `~ t i~ ~ I I I I
° -~ - °~~ ~ t ~~ ~ i Fri f r~ r ~1tii ~ ~~ , ~ ~ ~ ~" =- ° ~ -- --- -~ ` --- ~
~" "'~I} ttl; ~ }; rr~~}~f} (}• ~ i} ~ ~- ~~ I~t- ~~ r it 0 rf
1 F { r i ~ ti .~ r
~ ~ ~. t t r}~~ ~ 1 r ~s t~ t ~ ~ j~~~ ~~ ~ ~1 j~gr ~<<~ ~ tr~~ l~•
® ~ ~~c i b f , ~ }r } } ~ ~~1 _ iS ~E;r f} fl f ~~ lj4 ~E
c n. ...c:~_ - = ~ 4 ,i iX~~: i~,r ., I12y `y_ O 'r'N~~ 'fir ~ '~ ~~~~
H y~-~~T~• 'a~~ ~ , h r~+, ' ~ ~~ f e+ri ~ 'S r v~ -•w}~{7 4 r" R~o~L~ - '~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
f
~;..
~ I r ~ ~ I r 1 ~ h h ~ ~• •. fr ..~ i ,t is Ii t~: * . ~ Z ~~0.~~ ~ ~` ~ ' ~
_~ - ~ T~ yt '''-ti ~~-?pp~.~ r
-• _ .. ~f
- t ~°~ I~ ' ~ J~ Tz T
ii 1 §i l4~~1 ~ i FI { . ~ '.
\~ ~ f irh~ r - I ~ ~~~. ~ a 3
x
'~~ } 4 l~r}rl ~ \
srrE vLAN - LocAnoN ~rAVS • DATA
ARCHffECTURE
MORELAN I
NEW RESIDENCE FOR ASSOCIATES, INC. coNSrnucnoN
ASHOK JAIN & SHIPRA JAIN _ ,,.,.,,~,,,,, .,,, ,
18630 ALLENDALE AVENUE no+s w-¢.E~sw eunom sw~ a as+asn
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA T~ j1°'="'~' `x"101 "'""10
~a
•
•
•
Irni inl
nnwrlr n. erMr
~~.u1n I o- rrd~
~~
~~~,~~
~..•Ir.•...
Inpu.Yrr.grl,.w
I l i Yw rrr Y •.r rl r.le r nr
Air Y
r~i•dr nr~ rr na
..1=wYryrrrrr nrr
Nrr., own al..a r rlmw
ar.Nr•rr'.. r •. W. rT ~..1
r n~ rlln i r+1 r>•nl rrvd r er
..,~
rMnn
i'NLA
Yrrs r.rY.w MrNN111
r11
~ I! 1
I'
:°iill~ilii:s;iiii~~
~~
L
1 ,L'~ua _
1
_ rw ~r w•Ir far•
~~~
!
I
~
r
,
`~
~'
{!
I
I
~l
~i
l
j=
it
i i
~t (
ll
~ ~
,:..
1UY11A11N0 A•YWSI NIf4N41N01 `-~ _.
.~~. ,~..~ .1
r1Ar O,CMn AM ASfO[N1L1
xe"wrrr c.•v1Y.Y
YwI/f11 fat
i (r 1111iN
!nn Srrl LL In Orw,fA (1011
_- IAnN
__- ur.lrNlcrrT
.............. hsreMN Priq
r~rmn
~~ =~
~l
l i
~~
~i~l
:
l'
`s
Il~I~
I~~I~j
liil t
lj
ii
j~
it ! !
~~
ij
f~
i
li
~
•~•
NN r~lr. r n.Nr rrw a rir. r.r• rrw r rnrl
.rYr •w'.r.•rr r Yrwr rrr+rrr.r
rrrYrr nlNrr.r.rrr.wrrrr
rrwrrr.r, r r ~YY.-.rrrrrr a
rrrYrrr.lYrrr
rY.rrrrr.r.wrrYy.rr .Ir~ r•
M1~Ir.r I••Yfw r. r r r r - rY.r.
rrrux rsmwr•rr-rr+•rrrYw
YNlrrr rrrrrr/rrrr.wrl
rrrl.r.rrl.ryrrY.rr arlrrr.rrr
Ar•Irr11A•lrrrrrN, Mr Il arrr•rrY
wrrr. rr rrrr:~.+Yrrr rr rrrr
.rrr•
rlrrrrYW rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
rrrrnrlrr
n~.rrrrrrrrr.l.Yyri: NNr
NN rL•Yrrra Nrrrr•rr•Ilrrrfr•
r i WIY. yr Ylirl Y rlArl rYr r r r r r
rrrrw111 Irrrwlrr)NYYYY~Irrf /rr
itlr rlel-rrr.rrYrlr YNlrrrr. •L
arwr.lyrr.r•r
it w rrp:r r. r r r w r r rNrYl y rNrl
...•. nrr.NYrrrrrr.rrrwrw
rrrrr 1rn~NrrYrr•rrrrr.r*•1
r.
nrYwrrY.rr.Yr.
rrn.f.• rrr.lu.rrr
lrn rr.rlsl...r.+•.I
1r1N. NI; II.IIJi rrrl(ra..fYrl
it l11, 11 rf/IrpnrYrrr
Tr 111 rr WYrPrr•Irl
lu1N rrrrwr.rr.)
lrn•x'. rMwrW.~ln
rr..rr..ar.r~rrrrw ....~
1rNrr~.4rrr°.. `wrr. 1
rrrrrgrrrYr /rwY•LLrrr.rfr•y
rrrrrr.
I TrrrrrrrYarrrrrrNrrrrr
.rrrr NY•Yrlr/rrrrYrrrr
•r/rr.rrrwYrrr•rrrYrrrl•r-f •rr
rrrrlw
2 I11rr1 r r r 1••4 ~. nr r. rrlNrr N f
rrrr/]rrrrrr r~rrrrYrrrr
YNrrf - r rrrr r r r r rr w. rr w rr r
rrrrNrrrrr.rrrr
1 trrrrrrEr.rnrrrrrrtl.nrYr
rlrY..rr r.r n r•YN Ir r .rrr r r
•rrr
l 1rrYrlrr•N•rrrr IY~rrrYYYwI-r
YYn11Y rrrrrrrrrr.Irlrlrrrrr
Y rrrlr•Ilrr NrrrrrrrrrrNr
. Nry.•~1r.Nlrrrrl.rl.yr.•rr+•r.r
/ AlYrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Irrrawrrrrn:rar•
arrYlrrrrrw..rnrrr I.vir
r rrrrl..lrwrr rrrrrf r.r
. YrYrrrr.lrrrs
1 n,rrN..r..rrrYilrrrr
/ n•rr.rlrrr~rrrr.lt+.r
YYrlr
1 lrrrrrrnl rrrr lr.rrrrryrr
r.~rlr r rrr rr Yr l r r.rl r r r Yrr r
y rr:rY- N rrrr Yryrrr.rrr
wrrrYrfrrrrrnrrwyrr
rIN NYrr,IrrNrrrrrr YrrNlr
rrlh•IN•Irrrrrrwrrlll rN rrrr
wnl rrlrrrr
I IY~IIrrrYrlr rrrYlrrrrrr
rrr rrrrrrr~Y•rrYylr/rrr.
rrrrr IYYrrrrr rrrrrYlrrrYr
.r rr r..r+ar~.l r r r. 11r r r
.rrr..rrr w.Errr•.2 nrlw rlyr.
N. rrrrrrrYlrrY.1lwY.rllrrrrtr
r r rrrrrlrlY W YI+Yn Ywrrrrr
rrr
II11arr1rYwrrrrrrrrrrf rrrr.r
rr4 rrw•YrrwlrrYrrrrrr
rrrYr•rrrya
N Ir1YIN'IrYYY Nrlr1 rrr r rr rYS sl r r r
rrrrrrrrr.rr.rrrrr
n Mrrrrr/r-rYW rYrrMrlr•rrrr
rrrr.rl•YNA YrraYlrYrrr
Iti~*rrrr.rrrrr Y~r~irrrr
rrrr Nrrr.rYYrrrrrrrrr.
r r 1 r r r rr Y r r •r r rr rr rr f
rl.r rrrr NrNrrrrrrrr rrN
N yYryrrrrrr.rYr..rrrrr
r) rrr rrrYllYr. YrYrYr rrNrrr r
a Ir.rlrrrrrrr.YrY.rrrrr.~rr
srrrrrr•rrrrrwrrr
rrrrrrrr
71. rlrrrFYrYrrWYrrrlNrrOrrr
W rrorrrrrr milni`^rYY1111YaY
ru r.rN,rlNrrl
II Iryrlrr11N1 r rr. r Is rY-al r r r
rq-rrrrrl•rrrrrrrr
II rrlrrrllr••yYrrrrrrrY•rrrtr
y ~ r~ YrrYrrYrl•rarr.f
^ YlraEr^rrrrrrrrrrrErrr rrlr.r
.,rrr.r N, ~r.YYN.Y..rrw,rr
rrrrlrrrrrr
a I~rrr rrrrrm rrrrrY•r. rYrr
rYrrr rrrYE.yrrr b r-ryrr
wrrrayrr.rrrrlr rrrl.i•
,,,' `._
.....~.1w-r-.:r-•
nrrrrswrrrrYr.frrl Y11rr8Y J'rI
rrYYYrrrNrrrrrNrlaY
irrllwrYr nrAr.ryY•.rYrrrrrrrr
NrlrrwrrrNrrrry.rrNNr
o.~rrfrr•r4.rwrYr Ar..rYr.
rrr A..rrr•rr.r•rrrry-rrrl
rY+r
r.r r r. rr. rrrr wr rr rrr
r.rulA rrrN rwr rr rr r rrrr
.wrrr4Y+rYr•Yr. ~~
ru11Yr ti N Irrr IY~
Iry`,N rl~ii xlxa I N
Ilulf NN2LN
r+•YNrI••rr rr rr r~ r r rrr rrr. rr
YrrYrrrrrr YwYr
IrNr.r rrrr Er.EYrrrr.4r.
wy.r.r•rrr•r wrrYra..rY..Nr
YNrr W:l•YrYr•r W
IrrrrrrrYYirrrrrrrYr}rr NNir
rrrrrr
1rl~rrrr.YElrirrry rrlrrrr.w/r
W rrr Yrlfrrrrrrrrlrr~rlrlr
r..
rrNrrrrrrYYw Y*w•~r/r hr rrr
rrr rrr rr Y YYrrl N r wrr ryr r r
rlrrafYrrl
nrrrrrmrilr.rr-r rrrrrr.
rrrrrr.rrYrrrrr .rrrrrr
rwYl r rr rrrrr rrr rr.r.. r
•I.r
~Ir~ IYprrrrrrrrlrrrr-rrr
1rr wNKrirYf Y/IrrrYrN. rr•cYrrr
arr.lrrrrrrrr.lwrr
....rr.rrw•r~.Y~rra 1
~ Yrrlrlr:Yrlllrrrr.rrr
r~Y•/rrrrrrlryllYr.f 4
• r1r.lrwrrrrrrrrsrlNY
rewNrbarrNr4YYYYYVr..rr11
NYrrrrr
1 rrrYrrrrrrrrrrrirrrr..rrr
rrrrr
wrirY~` rrrlrr•Nr .rrrr
Ir M rl r. yrr Y.r r r.r y pr/ rr Y nr.r
J rrrrrrlNY..r.rwrayrN.rr.r.
rrY.rrrrYilrrrr
T.IN.rit r~rlr'Irrr ryr•Yrr • rrNr
rr n~rNrrrrNr.rrrp.lYr
rY.r..nr..ll rrrrrr 1rrr...Nr
rN'1-rrrr.r•pY.rr ryrrrr
/~Ilrw~r~wri Yr~-i wr.i rr..r
I. nrlrrrrrr.rr~rrrr.rrrt
,. nYrrl.rr..rr.rlrbr.rr.rrrlrlr
rrNrrr..alrrrt
J nr.r.rAYrrlErrr.rrN.rrrrY:Y
rrr..arrrYwN.l.rrrt
1. orr•rrrrllrrwrrr,rlr•nplarr
.r.rrYplarrr.YN.rr
f nrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrN•YrYr
1 n•rirrrrwrrilrrrrl•NIYyYr
f. nr.rYrrr.rr•rYrrrrrrrrrrrr
1. y.rrrryrrlrrrrrrrryrrl.Yrr
r _
•. I.rrtar+yYIIrYY1rr•r N•rY
r r-rl., rr r rr. rw r ra rrYrr.r..
rr~`..ZE..YrYrrlErrrrrrW r
Yrrrir~ryY..r.l.r..rrr.rrrr.r.
Nr.rlr Yr,.r.rrrr~M rrrrrr
1
nrrrrrrrYrrrKrrrrrllYrr•aH11
Tirllx µar ArrrlrrrrTrr•rrN.r.rr
Yrrrrw 1•rrrrrNrrrr r~• Yrrr
.rYrrrlNr.r••rrllr r-~r~.Y11
Nrr, Nrrrrrrrrr Nrrryrrlrrr
•r-rrrrrrrr •rr rrrrr • rrrrr
r..r.I r~IrYrrrr •lrrrrrr rY
N4rrrrrr~rri Wrrrir 1rYrrf
~rrrrrrrlr.YrN.Y
Ir~r•rrrllYrrrr/rtl, ar4lpNlilygl
rr11r•rl'INlI /rrlr'rlEaiplrrl rr r
rr•NYWYYrr111Yr
orrr-p.w.Y•r
arr-p.rYr
rr•r~-r'rrlr
orrYlrr-rrrrrr
YW-rrrrT'Ir
,'"
Vr
drrf ITr
r.o.rrr•Or
r.N.rrlrA nrlr r Aron.
rrrrryrrtror.
Ylr W
...~-.
AYrrwr:rrNrrrf ^rrrrrr
~~ r.lrr N•nllrMrlrN.r lrYYrYrN
•/YrrNrrr Ar Yrrlrlr..rr.iyrr~
r Y rr r Y•rlr 41rr Y r r rr Rr r
r..wr.rrr.f.w Il~.rrr.Yrrrrrrr
r. rvr. Yr rr.r rrr r n. r r rr r r rr
Yrrr
N•µrrrrwrrrrrnrrNlr..rrY
~IErrr•wrrrr..rrlrrrlr•r. ~
r.-rr
rrN
: •r r.r r r 1•r+r: YYrrr-Ii r r. r r r
r N. r r rrr r r Tr.r r. YNllr r ti
r YrrYA~ay rr•r. rrryrr Nrrrr
rr NYKrrrN
1rN, NrlNr:rr rfrrarrrrrlrrr
..rrrr yl~rl~rl
Tlrr: • Nr rr lap r r r. rrr rr. n
YrwlyrrrlrnwrrrrpY
• lrrrrrWllrrrrwrrYr ra:
rrrrrryfrrr
• rrrr•rrrrlrrrr.rr..r
rYa
• 11 wrrrrYnrrrr.Y.. Y,irr-.r
r.rr;
l Ilrrlr•rrwaYlYrarrrrrr I.1tiY
rrrr
a Yrlr•-rrrrArrrir•rrr
NYrrr.r
nrrwrrrr rrrrrrr..r.Ar rr
r:rlwr.rrrr
Trauairrrrrr:rrr nrlr.rr
r.rrrrrrl rrrrrr.rrrrl~-
rrrrrrr.rYYwrrNrrr•rfrr YMY
r~lArwYIIN~i :=rrr rrre.rrrrM
krlrl.rYA.rr.I.LLrrYrirYl. rr
rrWr
f. lrrY.rrrrrrrr/., V rrrr
IrrrrrNrlrrrrrrrrr•rY~: W
,r.rq rrr.rrrr ryrrrrrwi
rrr
1 ANIrYrrrrrr NYrrrrrN•rrrrr
i.rr.rYrrrryrrr rrrrr-•rr
IrbM
• Trrrrwrryaw.Ir.lYrrri•rrYrrr
rrYr•rrrrrrl•rrrrl~rrrr fA N
. r rw r Y r rrr I rNw ~ T •Irr rrr r
= y~r~ry ~rwrryr.rr
1• YrrYrYrMrrrYlrrYrrrrr•rrrrilr
• r.YrlYlrrr.rrY.rrrrawrr
r
,yrlrrrrrrrlrrrr.r.rrrr
rrflr..Yr.r.rrr~
i Yrrr.rryr.rrrrw
~y ~~ rrrrrr.rrr
2 Ywrrl/rrrrir
11 rlrrlYyYrrrrwirlYrrrrnr NrYlr
.f.•rrTrr.Y~rr I YrrrYr ryr r N Nrr
r r rrr rrrr rrr r.~rrr.rrrr
nrrrryrrr•rprsrrrr
li yr•Y/rrfrrr}rrrrrrrrlr
ur Nr.r..rrr.ry.~r.•Yrl.lrr•Irr
ryr
Il Ar1Y.Y+rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrNrr
rnl.Il,r 4. A/irYirrrll YYrrrrr ~
Yrr rr Y r rrr Y Y T rY • rrrY-1
rlrrrYrrAwrrrrryrwry I r
i r.r• YrYrrlr~irr~rbT1Y Y
1r.rw rr..•.r r r rr..Yrr
I
wYr~riwr•rrcwrYq.r.. Mrr n..101rAMrr.w
' Ar1YAr~Yrrrrrr4 r,~rrrr.y
Irr.rr... wrrrr••'r' b rrrr I.wl
I1I nr.rr..rrrrrw..~rr.rrwrr.r.r
wa.rrr r+r'+.r.•r nr.I.ra.r
.rrrpl•1Tr.1 rYYrirrrr.ril•oN
r•rr irrl. Y.yr.lr.rerrr+r.r..r
r r.r r r: rlYr ti r rr. •r1Y r r
~ rrr•rrT;nnrr:.Nr.Yrliir V
rrrrr•ryra Y rNr:r• Yrrrrr.r.rr
rrrrrrrrrl ~w rrrrrr YrwlYr
y~•NrY•rrrrr.rNYrrrr.r
brrrYl•r1.r TyrirHlNrrrrr
rrrrrrrYrr-rr• r•rrr•rY•rrr
wrrrlr.rrrrr.r.r...Ir
~ralr NrrrrYrrri
U•rrrirYYrrrl
~ n.lNrrrr•r.rrrr.+rYrr.rrrrr+
rrlr.lrrrr.rrr
Arrrr.l~r~rrrrrr~+rrrr arN
TrY~rr.)rY r~r.l1N -ri rYr•Yr•
rrrrrrsrrrrr WYr.r•Nr-rir
rY•rrYrrr rr rr• rrrrNrr.rrrrr
=rr.r Yr.~Yr_.r1r.r.r_
..r~ryY~irr.~ilrrrrrr~r
rrrrrr.,rrlrrr
ti~
rr rrli
ruN
ww
>--•
IN.NIaw Alv
I ~
Sin
1
Z
¢ 0
H
U j
H ~ ~~
S O ~ stn
ZUQ U , i
~~
Z?~
gN o
W
W Q
0'oa~
~<'~~
'0~
~ 1
W
O~W2
Waao
Z ~JJa
~ W~Ou
JQ
u1?~p
W Q Q I-
~ 11°
Y'~
3i~~
W
2 l/)
Q
T
h>o$/a
,oYY~
2000. I3
SIEEi
A-1.1
a II ran
n
z{
m~
<~
r -~3
O
'tl a
~'1
uyy
C
V
~ A.
N ~iE
O
`~
OIiY111Y 121 hrE I1rYNpl .rr•I~
1 OrrYrMYlYrrlr•r•r
. Nrrrr
w rl~iyiyrYrrrr.wr.rrr.rrrwYwlrr.
1. rrrrrrrp
f. rrwrrrlr-Yr
• II~IrYrr
• rw•.rrrrr.r
er
•
•
~.
xf
f.
i
_;
-3
\ 1
i
'2
`I ._ _ _.._. _. _. ._
~ ~ ~~na et. ~ .. a ~s
( ~ ig ~ ,~ .:'_ ~ - .__ a s.. _.!. .~_.
6E0" To ¢ dEIIIfORY
~~ V ~ `~ w ~~ AtL~ORI~AVtf
b ~ ~ ~ x ! ~~
~~~~ r` ~' ~'~~" ~~ ~~ i _ ~I~
~ r o e,A '~ x ._ ~~n11~I ~'~° ~ rP.,s~~ ~_~_ r , ",3 ~r~"~ r1 ~n ESN
w t ~ ~ \
t
~`~^.~ -~ i yr ~ s, ,
~1. ~ ` f ~ ~ ~_~ ~' ,asr ~' ~}
. a '~
~~
i~ ti* ' s' b
f ! ~ 44
~; ~ Ewa
~'~, ~ ~ _
J IQ11 ~ ~] i ~GbI~ Vim. ! ~~ .¢ 4•
ar ~' ~~' ~ • ~ +
~ IC `
_..
;. / 0 ., .,
C `~ ~ ~ ~~~M1+"~'' f
f tip.,, i~ ~dv 1~-~~"'{ / ~~t' ~w I y 5 j
_ _- .~~ ~ ~ NWti,__ I
~V /1 ~I_ Ic 1~/ "` I II ~~/~ M.:rw /h.~l~hh ,Il ~,', J®'~ 1 l~~f~~. ~-'I
ac
M
t~ N
~,,~ c~p~Pril"~2o=f
~~
;LAtI ~~$ :~';
atitaslrfl. - " F1W
~05 -n
-
cN~lyatKt? 2a
'- ~C1C9fl~V(A~?P g
ttg
1/RL' A1o __~^/ _ .
~t~ N9!
¢ 2
0
U
F j
r R
~~
Z Z
o ~.
a4
~~
_. Z 7
g y
r
W W
a
U ~
~
fi ~
~ ii
k
~ a ~~
~~
e~
Z
~ 1
W
o
a>~
W.<0
UIW;
2 2~QQ
W~2U
OZJV
~ WQQO
~ 1m~
~ 30mv~i
W=
2 {/~
Q
oA+wi
m
n
~{ dG/s l
1'= o`
1000.13
9EEi
A-2
a Il san
•
•
a-,
Q ..__...
~FyyM9CM IY
1"T
W~ j n
~~
I ~+ y A
U Z ~$
K O
Q ~f
2?~~
gN ;
W~
Wa
~~,~
ON1m
~ a ~~
n~
e~
Z
Q2
.] ~ ~W
a oQ~Q
0 W~WZ
~ W~aO
J Z~JJ
W W ~1 0
2
O
rc ~ 2J' o
a
W p,^~K
W Y ~N
i 3~'
W W =
W 2 ~1
C
wwx
%t
I ~~
boo
2000.13
sx~r
A-3
a n .~
•
•
•
i~ ~~
i ~^.~
%~ ii" ~ .~
. ~~ ..
~' ~ ~~
!i ` ~:
\ \\
~~ ~~~~
j Q.r _
M/BATH
% ~\ 13'-I'r II'fi'
~ \/ ^ /,%~
~~
-...
~ ~~
~'cy i
~~
~~
)ITATION
I', If'~8' /
%~~ T~, •~~ ; ..r~xMrmc
\~~
~ ~ ~/~~
J~;'~.: .
~I
~-- ~ ' v r R~~r~,l
MASTER BDRM ~ ~~ ~ 4~
2J'9', N' 8'
~~ ~~
/ ~C
~~ l ~ 0
~~\ `c
y~
~~ ~
~L
Y \
~~` l
PLANTING
4-
_-_~ _.
(Z_MATCH LINE
PtaNnNL
a
STUDY
n•s•, Is r
TERRACE
/G+roroa 9
i
y~y
b
z
5
~'~~
~~
iii ~ ~~~
\ ~~ ~~ ~
~ \'>
~~
I
\1 \
rauAAL frorACe FufAOw
WING AYA
ipwn
~Y Id'. fYa• qwn
.IGO itl.'~rra•~fOwrt
«~r.r .•. rrr.rwwn
.ia.xa. ~fMwn
.w.u a•~~rc i•~~irru~
f~w,7 rr.rr.ri wn
Mr.x ra~,ri~.o~..twn
M[.Y xr..YC.trrf Nn
r'r •)frwrr
MGN f.wn
ro~ .own _
r iw~~
~ q' ,•bwn
Mf.}• ~Yp •.wn
MGT •Nwrt
.ra • i0wn
MGV Iwfr
uGV Mwn
~ro~".',M,wn FLOOR AREA
,`"7°'lor.` e10~( CALCULATIONS
ENTRY LEVEL FLOOR PLAN (AREA 'A' )
SCALE: I/1-I'-0'
__-__
LINNO AAU r,.o• -
hL4NL[VFI f889ff
UPRU fTAIA LIVFt if3 fE
fAI75f
GARAGEARU 1008 fi
TOUL AREA: 685051
-~
COVERED PORCH
I
ay
V n ~
~ = 1
~ ~ I
i "~. ~ ~ _.~.. I
~ ~ ~ _ °-_
LIGHT
HILL L___--
4~CAR GARAGE ~ _ ' - -
AI'-I',13' i'
wML rOexT
~\~~Ob 1FRRAff ~
ti` / ~
I
C
a
I
_. I
~ u,~r „ _..__.4 can -
o
I UTILHY
t-ra-~I ~ 9'.r,A'e'
n ~~~ ~-
I~'II F
u ~ - _ -
~ d ~ a ---
~~ ~~~ ~
i i ~I b
~ POWDER 4
i rs, re '°
~»~ ~ I ~
DINING (~ ~
le'~Ir•,Ir-s• ~ ~ ~ ~ i I q"~
A,~A~
~~~~ ~~ I[~, MECH
~ ~, ~ j ~ 110', S6'
I,I! II; Q ~~ /,
SERVKE ~ ra
E•~I•,a'~s' PANTRY
,i ~ e'~ r, r~r MATCN LINE n
S o LJ
Ma - -
ar
- - awe -
xa 1fd
TERRACE /
FAMILY J °
1rrA1o•r
rs• / KITCHEN
Irr,1Ar I
4I
AENGPR n
Z
C ~
F ~
U j
~ y a
Z ~ 8_
~ ~yy~
4~
W
gN~
W Q
a' ° + i
Oy1~~
~a
s~
Z
Q Q
~ 1w
Q O~w2
2 W ~ QO
d U=JJ
p w ~?~
O 0
~ h?QO
~ ~
~ w ~°~
3 ~~~
h W=
W 2 V1
Q
as
~ L c1
¢re
~ • ~! /I
1000.13
SHEET
A~4
a It tHHil
•
•
~~ MATCH LINE
8
~ __
Gr.
PUNTING
BR t3
i
r -- --- ------_.~------
MATCH LINf 1~,~
f -
----
I
----~ 5`°', 9"- a uVTRY LEVEL FLOOR PLAN (AREA 'B' )
~ sr zcALE l/A-I'-o'
PLANTING ~j u ~~ N - --- - - -
~ (_~ I~ ~ I i ~ ~ Q
i
av r°roa ~ ~ - ~.
~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ I ~ ~
~ ~ -;--~-r-T~ POWDER ~
\~~ \ ~ DINING (~ i 1. ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~
\ ~ \ i e'~I1'a IT9' I i I ~ ~ ~~~ l
j ~. ~ i
~ ~' ~' AuUI.G
~~ ~ ~ T j fill rlo•.ss
Z
c ~ ~ _
Z ~ SERVKE ~ ANTRY--
i '~ 6,.~.x r..y. ( p rff
,,1. ~..r
V O 6
- Mil --
4
k ro~ _
. __-_ -xG0' -.._. _._.-... __ _- ._-_
~; ~ -_ ._~
%% TERRACE ~ ~ ~ °
i
FAMILY ~ °
i;' ir.rrw'.r
~~~ ra- A - KITCHEN
ie'rxzA,.1.
~/~ - I
j --
!~ j ~ I
_-_ -- - rv ------ ,F~ -- -
I
\\ .: 57IMAGE ,
PLANTING e
___._-__iS'-i1 N' _ __ _. r i
iA'~U•r u..~•
I IV I~'w
\ /',
~Iai2
~ I` earth n
- s' °' x 9'~A' CLOSET
I s'~0' 6'~f'
~~ j
i, I I
I ,T ~~~ TERRACE Q _ HALL
I ~ _ CLOSf7 ~
-11'd' -~rQ
rc o
U
U ~ 91q
I y ~58~7,
a o s.
a ~ SO
~#
2?
Vl d
W
W Q
c~ U d ~
i Q ~ ~~
~~
b~
Z
ro
~ 1W
0
i ~`~W2
z w~ao
a 2~~~
~ w~OS
~ ~2~u
w '^ ~ -+p
wQQ~
°CY~rc
J
ti wI~
W 2~
Q
~ ~~o~
tµr~ ~~
,ate
1000.13
SIFET
A•5
a u
•
•
%~
~ `
/
~
§ ~ /
'~ eArN,es
U
S'~0'. ff~1'
/i
~
~/ ~ ~~
~ ~ CYM RM
~
/ //~ II'~9'x IS'I'
~ja
/
/
/ ~~ ~/
~
BArN rY4
~~ S'~ I' x 9'-I i
i \
(~ ax
v a
BR >l4
rsa'xl/'o• '~
-- ~ „
~~~
a~,
r~a'o,
BR t!
IT I1'x I
% ~
// ~ / /,
SC.RN
i
~_
~: PORCH ABOVE
~~ ~
mu.s.uarc\
y
/ ~ /
~/~ /
MEOu
ROOM
H'~ 10'x 10',I
7p
WMf
30' 3'. I
CaMFS
~ WI a
~MA7CN
N'P
~_.__
URAGEI
SAUNA c
T~S'x 6'10'
O _. ._
~, ;
MECH to xnr
UNDINC!
11'~9'x 1'~I1'
sroRAGE
9'10'x I'
sranx
BASEMENT LEVEL PLAN (AREA ' A' )
SCALE: I/4'~I'0'
LIVING AREA 43915Q. FT
(~~s~,
?~
PORCH
\ ABOVE
no
rr. s'a•
MCF dRfCiVpi
~y
CL` ~~
~
r~~ll
M
S'1'
®~
l___
SERVICE BATNt6
S~9'x/1'9'
®~--- ~ g!
nosEr,
- i'd'x 6'~S' ~
i
e
~ SITTING RM '
le'd'.1o•Ir ,,,
I
nosfr
R
3•-r, s~s•~
~ 4
U
~ y d~
~ ~ 3~
~7
gN~b
~~~
U B ~
~~~~
:~
e~
Q
~ ~W
O~W2
2 W4i0
~ =~~J
g W~o~
~2~u
J N~rQ
W WQQM
~ ~MQ~
W 3Q4N
~ 2 V=j
Q
~ (r v I
I ka. ~ 1
xo.~a
?000.13
sNecr
A~6
a u .~,.
1
•
ra rnr
park
o-~~~
BONUS ROOM • IMIflNISHED
irr.:f'r ~ CRAWL SPACE k
N1URE s
anf
^64'r S•r~ .
CLOSET
' 1'~f'r S'~9'
~.__. --_ If~flK- -~
BASEMENT LEVEL PLAN
CRAWL SPACE
__ MATCFI UNE f.~l
'®
ra~sy e
p~-Wp r
zq
~ ~ ~~
BA
SY
U
~~
Z i
gN~°
~! U i ~
i < ~ k~
g~
;~ Z
m Q
a 1
~ 0 jQ
t 4~W2
2 W~QO
d V~rJ
~ w~Z~
O 02 Ju
,~ ~''0
W WQQ~
~ ~ ~M~
~ 3Qm~
O 2 V=1
J ~/
dm
k(~ol
JOIq
2000.13
9NEfT
A•7
ar II warn
C'
•
•
.
~Lr4--a1J-n ~•~~
,~-f
LN{~G F'd ~'CKii'
!"'^ ti
~ ~`
~( ~Y...
I Y
~~
1' \ ~ ~ -
- - -
-1 11 i ~ ll_ I I ~ ;i i ~~ ~n "~ `F'BI EI ,i ~iri ~ Imo.
1 ~, ~ GI t ~I i ~~ I, _~II ~~~ . h,
I~ ,~ ~L~
~_ I 7rr 'o}~+n
~ - --
~.
f~~ I ~ '
I RIGHT SIDE (NORTHWEST) ELEVA TION
[~~ 1 ,~.,~, ,,.,~a~
I~
~'`~~
i u ~' ~ ~° `~ ilk 1
f F
~ , ~ ri' ~ ,~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ '~ ~
~~~~~~ '~ ~~~~ _ ~I ~~~ ~ l ~~~ - ~ I ~~ ~ AIL
__ ~~.
,~~
~.
I _ _
'I lI ~Il~~_~ L~'
~ - ~ - -- ~ f~i,, ~ ~ ~,~V'"~
M i .J fi~i' __ _ .. .
z. ~ .3J• - -~~ t' fir. ~ ~ ~ ~
J __ -
~,
- - - - - --
k ay'v~cw Y ~ _ __ .
",:I ,_; ~ I ENTRY (NORTHEAST) ELEVATION
_h~{ i~~,t .„~.,o.
:~,
F_,
~>.
i1
~~~
(wµirc~ c~nv wxl~ow~ -_ ~ , . .
~.,.~-'-~---~-~^~-~. , " ~ - ~~~D~ G>,AY ~1~f% hoof e ~~w Piro~I -. ~ .. ~_,..~ ~ _~ _ yy
~' n T~ 1".
.sv~
Gi- ~ 14 ~"~~; - -
,, ~ WPIt6 G~f(EK ,~; . ~ vs - ,
..._~ ~ ''~, Tyr ~_ ~' ---- T ~ I ~1 ~~
~ ---
ff'~11 ~I----7t, ~ I r p l "J 1. _~ ~ I 1~{~yQI '~.~j My I~ ~ ~1
r
JCI _ (f ip, ~ ~ ~ 'ifln', ~ ~' I
_ _
_ ... ~ i. G ~ _ ~ ~i ~.
- - ~ - oF' AEI rL
4iP y~i ~~ -- ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ _ __ fit' 41v Fb ~ ~ _ ~ _~ _ ~~.- ~T,~
___ ~~/ K-/ ~-a11k.-...J.._1~^r.~~JW.-~J ~....~-. ~_ t
T ~1~KY I~ I1.. M-.a...~ ~y ~~11..WW
-- dAf'~'h'NN UJ%SYKbh~ ~ I~cVfiE!1 d~/
i''
~' `~~ -GARAGE REAR (WEST) ELEVATION ! ' GARAGE RIGHT SIDE (NORTH) ELEVATION
L
y~E~? .1 I" ~~
~ l,i' ~~* }k ~i'
-- - --Pty Gf.A~ ~ ~-~'~ . ,C
7v
t , ~ .~
~_ ~{ f ~,
_ ,
-• ~' ~.
- I '~ _ _ -- ~ _ - T - ~ _
1 I ~ ,
~~' ~ ~I 1 i f I, i ~ I '~ , ~ ~ n li r-I j I~i ~ j ~, ~ r _
~.
~1 +{ ~,
i n- { - I --1 i r ~ ~ 7Tr -' r~ ~ -1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ---- ~ I - _ { 1-_ _ -
II 1 __~ ~~ r I I ~
- - ~ „~' I ~II~~ l I ~~ I ; I ~ ~I~ U. I ~ I '~ I
'~ ~i~t~,w~~ -_ -- ~ ~
- -- -- --
GARAGE FRONT (EAST) ELEVATION
t~-" ~'
4, I~ "~ sc+ie iR.in
i ,:
RM~nNS By
.I ~f~A~tfL~ ~~ r
~o
~~
W = ~~
~~
= i
G :6
oe
au° ~~•
Z ° 1
Z ~
gW
0 ~ 4
~ a , M1
m~
~ 1
W
O~w2
W4Q0
U ~ J J
Wp~OU
~ZJU
WQQo
~l J
~°~
3YQ~~
W
2 l/~
Q
em
art
G, ~~
I J Ste[
-P>I'e'
zooo: i ~
SNEC7
A-8
a i i ~7,~
•
•
l
Ta' rn~b~F is
>~~~~
~1
i
f^' h ~'~ 111 ~+
~-.__~
iI'rr~4''~ i.kn~
p _
siJ+vL l~
__ vvat~.
r -'L
~~ 1 _
_.---- - -,, y
r,~~ ... 7
''ti
~~ '~` ~
` ~~
L. ~ \ ~/.. ~ L , ti
~ __ N' i'' '',
L L~~ ~; Iii ~~C~
_ i - j,
L_ r
T _~
`~ ~ .
~'~, t•;;.; LEFT SIDE (SOUTH) ELEVATION
~,~~E ~„~~~-0~
J ~~~~ ~., ~ - (RED TIDE f.OOF ~ '`~2 ~'if~~l
f
,~.. ~ 4R
-~ ,
~_
-_ ., _
{
..- _~ ~ _ __ .a.w~.".ro7_5L _ ..__ J ~ __ _
-, _. _ _ ~
i ~`ul}ifE~ r7fUGU1 ~ I ~ f i ~ ~ f ~ ~ -= r ~
,~ ~ ~ I
~,
1
i ~WV{If8GVA0~ WWDOW ' ~ L
~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~l ~-~ ~
pr>or i
,I
~L
~~ ~
ti~
,~-
:~~~ _ _
1
~~~ ~ °°'~' ~h ~l 'I~~~~'':'~-
- ~ - - --~ pl ~ ~ r~;al.'I
<.t .. .__ - ~ ~_~~ tq_.
~ . ~~ rrur
.~.~~ /~~~L;' ~. ' ~
~~--- i-a
~ ~ ti~w~ ~~~~~) yr
~.
~ ~cu+.> 1'i~~ze
w~
_ ~i_~ ~~~~~ 1~ ~1 ~~ ~1
~-'~ ~C~I i~ ll ~ ~_~~
l i I I! III I i
Fi ~
~" .7.
- ~ ~' ~ p ~ REAR (WEST) ELEVATION
t.
~.
f
1
~i~
I i
yt~ ~,e_'~~,, ~,r~~.
~ nor ~:.,r_ ; vul : vase
,~,.
.Y
MASTER BDRM. (SOUTH
- _ ,-._E-.~..r_rr~~_..._-. ,.._,~ _.. ~~__ ~,,,,_ I ~ EAST) ELEVATION
_ ~ :,,E. ,,,~, ~~,
,,t ` ,~
I.'
_ i~TOv_ ~-
~_
j
-- _-_ - _r ,-, ~ ~y - ~ -- -----
IL1i, VW TI ~ ~ i ] i.~i _~ ~ ~~'uJ i ~~_LJ _ .. ~ I~ ~ ~ N'rtf ( _ _ _ _ ~ „I
r 1~ 4" q ~ i
r _ o+ +lw ~ I
~~ ~I ~-' 1~'~ i F -~',i ~_
J ~~ II' ~ i;i ';~ ~ i ~ i~ i j ~ µ~/ ~~ i~IJI f
,~'
.. ~ - _ iL
---_-• of l'fr_ ~ 1 .~~._:~. ~AN ~...
-- 1_. _~_~ a1WW~ rb6 f.G n
~ _
_ _-~}} _ l ~.,~ 6'(+s~ 11I W -ter -+- _ - ---- - - - - _ .. _ _. _ ~
... r'1Y ~,~- r~ y 1.I- _- _._ _-___ _ - _114 ~.1 ~P ~, ~ Wi WuOsN 4 ' f - __. _ _.
-`f/'~ 44 REAR (SOUTHWEST) ELEVATION ~a ~C - „~ P,6,,,w F,,,1 '
~~ aFtt ~- - - ~t1 Il hFi~/'~Gt.:~ µeiJ'1.• µr~
_ ~ ~CJ ~ ~ i~~ EC11E 4'•~4' MN - .~.- ~__ _...__.
r_ ' I
--Lh
PENE~n~ Br
~Gl1.1 ~4111~~ ~ ~
~ o
~ ~
W ° „~
r ~ „°
x a g„
~ f ~$
~ oa
U ! ~
Z ? i c
gW~
W<
O F ¢
O N i nF
~ a °~
2
a 1
W
oQ~Q
2 ~ a>z
p W~aO
Q Z ~ W ~
~W~ZU
o ~2~0
~ wQoti
~ ~bK
3Q~°~
z~
Q
cwrm
~~~~ t
2000.13
$HFkI
A~9:~E,B
~J
•
~r ,~c'~o' uwE ~>~,u
~____ ,-~
rat ~ ~
~~~~ ~~
I ~ ENO '~I~.
~ ~~
~,~'~ ~' b~ ~'fS~~r I i~ t~ ~
H 1 ~ _ i4 ,
q ,~
\ *cf
~~ ~
~~ ~' ~h~~~!_ _-_ ~~~4 _-_- __. ~I
JJJ
- ~ __
~~ 0 t, - jl ~ Y.
t
J ~'~, ~~ i ~_ - '~~ -~'
'~L r
__
A
Iviy ~o(atw _ -- _rt- ~ -- -- - - --- ---
__.. _ ~~^'. 10~ r ._
M ._._ .. - - _- -
YI ~ in
-- 1
^Q 1' I - - - - ~.~I _ L
_ -__ _ - - -- ~ CAlIdN ~ L~'` _
----_ _-_ ____ _--_ ryiY
BUILDING SECTION A"
MA%Il4 4`;ti-0`I1~~ 6Yl't~i
r
d
-~ rM~Mr~
1~`
T ~ti
I -
_ __ .
- - t_
.,rt,
Nf
~_ _ _. .
_ .4
~~
~$ft
I,IYW6 RM
~L
G E N~'~
71/Kf~ ;
Ao ~
BUILDING SECTION "B'
SCALE: I/A'• 1'-0•
~~ ~
~~
4
~_ ~b~~ -1:_-~
~ i~av
~ ~a e
~~ _._ _. %y._c
- I - - -- r
I-
i
=i
b
Z
¢ 0
F
w ~ R~
S N ~~
o 3~
Z ~ ~
Z _
gN~
W ~
W
~c U 6 ~
G Q ~ kpppp~
1~
e~
2
~ 1w
OQ~a
2 ~`~'j2
W~¢0
h Z~QJQ
V W~OU
Q O~JV
J H ~ J
~ WQao
00 ~ 1m~
3 0 °"
W
2 V~
Q
ww
m
d a D1
y ~c ~'~~
nw
2000.13
sNEEr
A•10
a ~i .~,~
M
~ ITEM 2
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
I Application No. /Location: SD-99-003(A) and GPA-00-001(A);14800 Bohlman Road &r
14766 Oak Street
•
•
Applicant/Owner: SOBRATOS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Staff Planner: Thomas Sullivan, AICP
Community Development Director
Date: September 26, 2001
General Plan Designation: Quasi Public Facilities
Zoning: R1-40,000
APN: 517-13-018, 517-13-019 6x 517-12-001 Department Head:`
v T
T , ~ ~''
-- ~ ~ ~
~~C' ,
- ? rt z
~~ ~ - I r-i r• ~
--~~,-~ ~-'J
14800 Bohlman Road ~ 14766 Oak Street
~i7 TiTlTitil
Project Description
The Planning Commission has previously approved a Tentative Map for the subdivision of
a 23.5 acre site into 11 lots ranging in size from 40,913 squaze feet to 6.2 acres, this approval
is still valid. Minor road widening and the development of a pedestrian walkway along
Bohlman Road have been approved as part of the Tentative Map. Two acres (the 11`h lot of
the subdivision) will be transferred to the Saratoga Cemetery District for the expansion of
the Madronia Cemetery upon recordation of the Final Map. Use Permit approval was
granted to sanction the existing cemetery and to allow for the expansion of the cemetery.
The site is locatedwithin an R-1-40,000 zoning district and the General Plan designation is
Quasi Pubic Facilities. The Planning Commission included in the resolution approving
the Tentative Map a "Whereas" clause and a condition (#19) that indicated that the Ciry
Council needed to amend the Land Use Map from Quasi Public Facilities to Residential -
Very Low Density. An Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
have been adopted by the City; this Environmental Determination is still valid.
The matters before the Planning Commission in this advertised Public Hearing is very
narrow.
1. A resolution recommending that the City Council Amend the General Plan
Land Use Map by changing the designation on this property from Quasi
Public Facilities to Very Low Density Residential.
2. Revise language for Condition 24 of the previous approval related to grading
and fence enclosure.
3. Revise language and use for Condition 22, relating to the width of an
easement from 25 feet to 15 feet and eliminating the pedestrian access
easement.
4. Revise the language in the City Geologist conditions based on current
information.
Discussion
General Plan Amendment
The General Plan designation for the property is Quasi Public Facilities, which is not
typical for a single family residential development of this nature. The current General Plan
designation does not prohibit the proposed development, but the designation should be
changed to reflect the actual use. The applicant has requested and staff is recommending
that the General Plan designation be changed to Residential-Very Low Density. The
Planning Commission has previously determined that this site is physically suitable for this
type of development and that the proposed density is consistent with the General Plan
guidelines and policies for the Residential-Very Low Density designation.
The proposed General Plan Amendment is not subject to Measure G. Measure G only
limits the intensification of existing land use designations for lands designated Residential
or Outdoor Recreation. The current proposal is for the designation to change from Quasi
Public Facilities to a less intense use of Residential-Very Low Density.
~~~~~2
The City Council has the final authority to make the amendment to the General Plan.
Therefore, the Planning Commission is being requested to adopt a resolution
recommending that the City Council amend the General Plan Land Use Map. The
Tentative Map has been conditioned so that the Ciry Council must act in the positive in
order to validate the Tentative Map.
Condition 22
The language of Condition 22 from the previous resolution is proposed to be amended to
read: "The Final Map shall show a 1 S foot utility easement on lot 8, contiguous to lot 7. "
The previous resolution required an easement of 25 feet for both water and pedestrian
access. The applicant has requested that the pedestrian easement be eliminated and the
width of the easement be reduced. The pedestrian easement, as was previously conditioned,
would provide pedestrian access from a public street to the end of a cul-de-sac of a private
street that serves five dwellings. If this were a larger development which was connecting
two public streets, Staff would not consider recommending the elimination of such a
pedestrian easement.
Condition 24
The language of Condition 24 from the previous resolution needs to be amended to read:
"The Planning Commission shall review and approve all grading plans at the time of
Design Review. On Lots 1 and 4, the grading shall preserve and protect natural la~zd forms
and vegetation; it shall promote compatibility with the natural terrain; visible, flat pads
surrounding the main residential structure shall be avoided; and the grading shall assist in
the integration of the architectural design into the natural topography. At the time of
Design Review, the Planning Commission shall approve the design and locatio~i of all
fencing. On lots 1 and 4, a substantial area, outside of the building site area, shall be a
recorded as a Scenic Easement. The area to be included in the Scenic Easeme~it will be
determined at the time of Design Review. " Staff believes the above captures the intent of
the previous condition without tying the hands of the Commission.
Condition Geotechnical Review
The City's Geotechnical consultant has completed the Geotechnical Peer Review and has
recommended that the Planning Commission substitute the new conditions for the ones
pre~~iously adopted. As such, the new condition 39 should read, "The project shall comply with
the conditions set forth by the Ciry Geologist in the attached Exhibit A." Staff has attached a full set of
these conditions for the Commission's review. As you can see, these conditions represent
the Geotechnical Clearance for the project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached Resolutions; DR-99-003(A) and GPA-00-001(A)
_ ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolutions SD-99-003(A) with Exhibit A and GPA-00-001(A)
2. Revised Tentative Map
000003
•
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
•
•
000004
Attachment 1
•
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. SD-99-003(A)
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14800 Bohlman Road
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Planning Commission under the
Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the
City of Saratoga, to amend conditions 22, 24 and 39 of the Tentative Map approval of 11
lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD-99-003 of this City; and
WHEREAS, this Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed
amendments to conditions 22, 24 and 39 of the Tentative Map, 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 June 28, 2000 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 subdivision, and amendment to
conditions 22, 24, and 39 of Tentative Map approval should be granted; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public
hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to
present evidence; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the amendments to conditions 22,
24 and 39 of the approval of the Tentative Map SD-99-003, are as follows:
PLANNING
1. The language of Condition 22 of SD-99-003 is amended to read: "The Final
Map shall show a 1 S foot utility easement on lot 8, contiguous to lot 7. "
2. The language of Condition 24 of SD-99-003 is amended to read: "The Planning
Commission shall review and approve all grading plans at the time of Design
Review. On Lots 1 and 4, the grading shall preserve and protect natural land
forms and vegetation; it shall promote compatibility with the natural terrain;
visible, flat pads surrounding the main residential structure shall be avoided;
and the grading shall assist in the integration of the architectural design into
the natural topography. At the time of Design Review, the Planning
Commission shall approve the design and location of all fencing. On lots 1 and
4, a substantial area, outside of the building site area, shall be a recorded as a
Scenic Easement. The area to be included in the Scenic Easement will be
determined at the time of Design Review. "
~000~5
The language of Condition 39 of SD-99-003 is amended to read: "The project shall
comply with the conditions set forth by the City Geologist in the attached Exhibit A."
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of
California, and this 26`h day of September 2001 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
•
Secretary, Planning Commission
•
ooooos
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. GPA-OO-001(A)
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14800 Bohlman Road
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Planning Commission under the
Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdi~~ision Ordinance of the
City of Saratoga, to amend conditions 22, 24 and 39 of the Tentative Map approval of 11
lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD-99-003 of this City; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public
hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to
present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the General Plan Land
Use Map needs to reflect and be consistent with the R-1, 40,000 zoning and the land use
proposed in the 11-lot subdi~~ision.
_ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission,
consistent with action taken on September 13, 2000, by passage of Resolution SD-99-003,
does hereby recorrimend that the Ciry Council Amend to City of Saratoga General Plan
Land Use Map by changing the Land Use Designation of APN 517-13-018, 517-12-019 &r 517-
12-001 to Very Low Density Residential from Quasi Public Facilities:
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of
California, and this 26`h day of September 2001 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
•
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
~0000~
•
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
•
000008
, \\Mis ntsvr\Shared\IvetaHarvancik\GeotechClearance\SobratoSubd-clearance conditions.doc
Created on 8/1/01 10:50 AM
MEMORANDUM Exhibit A
TO: Tom Sullivan, Community Development Department Director
CC: Applicant
FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Clearance Conditions for for Sobrato Subdivision, SD-99-003, located at
14800 Bohlman Road
DATE: August 1, 2001
Geotechnical Clearance is approved for the above referenced project.
The conditions of approval based on attached review memo from City Geotechnical Consultant dated July
30, 2001 are:
r 1. Prior to Geotechnical Clearance for lot developments, site-specific geotechnical investigations shall be
performed. As part of these investigations, the applicants' geologic and geotechnical consultants shall: (1)
review the data presented in reports prepared by Lowney Associates, Inc. (i.e., dated June 27, 1999 and
December 18, 2000), (2) identify areas on the lots underlain by surficial materials (fill, colluvium, landslide
and fan deposits), (3) evaluate the long-term stability of slopes on the lots (including artificial and natural
slopes), and (4) provide supplemental geotechnical design recommendations, as needed, for the proposed
construction. The investigations should include, but not necessarily be limited to the following:
a. Grading be evaluated by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. The plans also shall clearly depict
building footprints, structures and foundations to be demolished and removed, and landslide
margins and Drainage Plans depicting proposed cuts, fills and drainage improvements shall be
submitted for each proposed residential development. All geotechnical aspects of proposed
development plans should and construction setbacks from landslide margins and potentially
unstable ravine slopes.
b. The geotechnical conditions in the building footprints on all lots should be explored, and
representative earth materials (i.e., bedrock, colluvium, artificial fill, etc.) should be sampled and
tested to provide engineering parameters for foundation and retaining wall design. The
geotechnical consultants should specifically: (1) determine the thickness of surficial materials
(artificial fill, colluvium and fan deposits) on the property, and (2) perform sufficient laboratory
testing to characterize the density, strength, expansivity and other pertinent physical properties of
000009
the subsurface materials to below the depths of basements and anticipated foundations.
Recommendations for drainage improvements should be provided, as well as specific
recommendations for structural foundations, as needed.
c. Specific geotechnical issues on Lots 3, 4 and 5 include: characterization of the area of thick
colluvium (and possible landslide deposits) in the upper (western) portion of Lot 3; more detailed
delineation of the Old landslide margin that crosses Lots 3 and 4; evaluation of the long-term
stability of proposed cut and fill slopes; and evaluation of the potential adverse impacts
associated with the drainage channel crossing the lots. In addition, geologic observations and
evaluations should be conducted during demolition and grading in order to ensure that structures
are not sited across fault traces associated with the Berrocal fault (see Item 3).
The results of the site-specific geotechnical investigations shall be summarized in written reports with
appropriate prior to illustrations, and submitted to the City to be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant Geotechnical Clearance of each lot.
2. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all
geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plans (i.e., building setbacks, site drainage
improvements and design parameters for roadways, foundations, retaining walls, etc.) to ensure that the
consultant's recommendations have been properly incorporated.
The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall confirm that the "shear zone
removal area" is adequately depicted on the final subdivision Grading and Drainage Plan.
The results of the plan review shall be summarized in a letter(s) by the Project Engineering Geologist
and Project Geotechnical Engineer and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City
Engineer prior to issuance of a Grading Permit for subdivision improvements.
3. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and
approve all geotechnical aspects of the project demolition and construction. These inspections should
include, but not necessarily be limited to: site surface and subsurface drainage improvements,
excavations for removal of foundations and structures, and excavations for roadway construction and
prior to the placement of steel, concrete and fill.
The Project Engineering Geologist shall ensure that structures are not sited over fault traces.
Excavations created during demolition and construction activities shall be inspected and logged by
the Project Engineering Geologist to document the presence or absence of fault-related features, ,
and to evaluate any new geologic information that may be revealed in the new exposures. Revised
~00~1~
eolo
g _c ma
i ps and cross sections shall be prepared and submitted to the City to document final "as-
built" geolog ic conditions.
The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described in a letter,
and on revised (final) geologic maps and cross sections, and submitted to the City Engineer for review
prior to finalization of Grading Permit for subdivision improvements.
4. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical
Consultant's review of the project prior to issuance of Grading Permit for subdivision improvements.
5. 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 prior to issuance of Grading Permit for subdivision improvements.
r
•
•
00001
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
000012
•
•
g~
6`"'~
-~
~~'
.~.~,.-.
~A ~
p:.~-n
~'M• ~
~~
11D9-LZL(W-) lIY! f40S6 olvblll~ bDI~ o1~S ~~ a~vasoc 'n rwa~ stw 3 'an ~ v~vavs
s9i~[z[(YO-) u 6uIVI1~8 'PAMI~B 115 rice 11/J11N18f1S drMl 311LLV1N31 lOl tl ~ ~ ! s
'~NI 'SLOA3A~1S ! Sti3~lI9I13 IIAI~ * 3MIV4 32IlON 30 Xf11131~Fp Sal ~ r r «
1Fp I21M 'P a3I ~ 8310N 8 NOLLVWdO~NI lVH3N30 r, ~ ~ ~ a ~ s
~ts~~~~~~~~ ~
~~~ ~~ ~~
YYSaO@ipOdS
~~~ ~~
~' II III
~.... ~~I ~lillll~
~~~ ~~ ~
~ ~~ ~~~~€~g~~ ~~~ ~~~~g~
3 i I E ii ~~ 2 Q ~E ~~~ i 4
1 1 ~ ¢ ~ ~€
q 1 ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ a
sus ~ ~~ ~ i i s ~jjr~ ~~~#" x :: ~~ ~~ ~. ~,~ '~~ ~' «!l~iti6 wR6tbb^ -ii1BfR
jj; !~ ~ ~1 ~ !~~ 13i~ A ~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ }~ ~ ~ «1!b!1! ~fi6lE° ~tril8r ~ ~~
E s ~ ~ ~~ t p1~ f ~! ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ y ~ a~~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ t -~xxx a 3~~exgs ~'.~'~~~ ~ ~ ~~
t ~ ~~ ~ ts_ st_ ss3 f
~~~~ ~ ~NMNNr ~~ ~~ •~ ~~ R~~ ~ii~~ ol~~~~ ~ ~ ¢ < r V ~ ~ i •• ! j! ~ ~ ~~ ! j~~ ~ a ~;
~ x x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~t
~~
~ ~~~
. ..
~~~~~
~~
N M 'I N r
a
~ ~ 16w ~~ „ N ~~ i~ •~ ~r ! ~ N ~~f ~~ N . " s,~~ ~~ i • s s N ~~ ~ ~ i s ! ~ # ~ +~~$ ~~~~ ~ i1 ~ ~ ~~ ~~~8~~ ,~! j
...• ~ s s 1 s ~ ~~ ~a ~~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ a~ ~~~~•~ ~~ ~ II s~ i~ ~ r ~~~ ~• 'tj a ~ sss ~~~+ '~•~
f ;~;_ ~ a~ s a ~~ ~ ~~I~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ Ott ~a ~~~ a ~~ ~ ~~,~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ a ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~a~ ~j ~~~ ~l~~~ ~~ alp ~ ! ~~~~~ ~~~'~~~~ ~~~~ a: # ,~
.+ ~ N N M N i • r d r r w N r r r i a d~ ~ - N~ N ~ tl tl . r =~ .~ ~{ r i
rrrro~esorsr
~Ea~MA^^^•••
t ~x xxxxxxxxxxx
i iiiiitiiiii
.Y ...........
f ~
#~~~ ~~'~ ibblbi!!9!!I
~(w'Nw'N .+
~~~~ ~ irRArrriirr
9 •N.+w.+.+.+.+r.+N
x ~ ~ ua~~os~~e~
~ ~~r~rtssrro
~ ~ x 5 «....,.w..aa
s s s s
$ ~ 9
E A i i ~
! h A R E R
h M
sF ~ ~ ~ E~
~s ~ ~
l~q~ ~ ~~ ~ a~ ~ ~~ ..
Es~~s~s l ~~s s ~~s i ~~~, i
~e tutu ~ eruru ~ iruru ~e ruru
9 ~ ~ ~
aN6
~ ~ i ~ ~ 9 ~
Z
c5
c~1
a~
c~ ~'~
`~
~^
p
~ $ ~ 9 s ~
r r r r ~ ,~
i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
R R R Y Y A $
h h \ h 4
., ~ ~ ., ..
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~spp~~....i,,,,,, ~~s1' ~s1= ~~sf+ ~~sfs ~~E i ~~E
~ja~Fq ~jiY Y ~ii~~ ~jiY~Y ~j~Y~ ~ia~~ ~sa0~p
~~l. ~~~:
~~~~s ~~;1~1cc~$E y~~;~~E y~~;~~E y~~a~= ~~;1~t~1 ~~;l~t~_
r" ~~N~ ~ ~ ~~N2 i ~ •sN~ ~ ~ t M~ ~ ¢"¢ ! s^ ~ rp ~s M• ~ s_ ~i M!
7 lruru ~ NrtfrN ~ 1rurN ~ trurhl 7 trurW ~ <rtfrhl ~ lrurN
$ $ 6
~ • •
~ x1 -_ _~ ~? ,f"-~ ~-sll
",-~~.-:= c, ~~ '. -- ~~ ~.` ~±~ /fj',. i j;C ill,
_ • ,~~
-_ III _ ~ ~ y _ t .' J ~ ~ i ~' I } ~~ it li'' ~ ...
_ _- _ __ _-x ~ i' I II
_. - ~ ~I i - I IJ A}1 `l - [~' -'~)'-- ~-+ 'SI + I 1 1. l ~ h
~~ - y t
II N y ` `SY. ; I y~ 1 ~t ~''~ 4
_.. V -. _ II I I ~ 1~ ~r`~-t ~:~{ `~ 1 'ti , ~ . 1 1 '~ I II 1 ti ~ti
_ --- --_... .'~1 is r. + 3.. ~ ~ ~ .f,. ~.^ j, II l'1 I f I ,`~.
~f 1 ~ ~ } f _ YS;
~ +- ~ ~~l ~ -_ V
' ~._, ,..,,~ 4 , ; I t ; ~ ail ti~ '', 11 ~ i :.~ ~,,'.
~~ 1~ \It ti ~ 1;~~
v ~ti,''-5 r a~ ~ ii f f
~~ ;~ ~ \
y t q I t,
{ fl I III I I -.1 .:~i tt t, 1 } ~ \ ~,i ,``, _~ . ``, •``~\
~~. ~~ `~ r 1 t ~ 1 \ \\ \ \ ~ \ } .~ 1 1 ..... ..u
~ ~~ ~!}I'll ~ i ~~- ~ ~,\ r \ ~, i t 1 ~ ~1. ~ ~ W tJ~~
it ~~t ' 1 .} / ',1 • S~ ~ ~ ~. ~~ +~~, \ t, 11 \~
*- ~~ `fit ~ ';44 ~~ ~ ~ I . ~ ~ ~. ~ ' ~ ~ ~` ~v ,~ f ~ /~~t\ ti ` ~~~y
c_ ''~ ,_ J ~ I ', 1 h 1 ~ t / +r t v
1~i~ ,S '_\~ -{,} _ i ,, 1 r `~, ` ,l ~ l ,sue,, , `1,.
III I .,~ , '~ i ~ ~. ^i ' ~ n _ `~ ,~ 1
... ~z_ I ~~ ~ ~~
- ~ •y ~ ~c ~ ~ ~~~.
~~__ '
rr _ ~. ~. ~•
rte` - -~ /, ~1 ~
44 ~ L /f
} ~ t i •..
~! 3 I ~ 1 ' ~ ~`~ t ~~
'~1tiy L \ '
t ,1 ~ 1t I /~ j uYk
\ ~ I . i I is ,t ` ~~\~ . ~ ~ .~ } x, ,'~r : ~ ,;
~. `' ~ ~I} it ` Y ~~ ~ \~ ' it
-FlJ-til ~~ ~ Yi^ ~ ly~y'~'~ ~.~ A ~~ ~^' r ~ ~-
t
I ~ ~ , r'~ o
,I ev ri ~'`' I ~ a`,-` :i ~,~,~ I ~ ~xai
I ~ ~I~-- $
t ~ ~ ~ -t I' ~ 'I 4R+lR ~ 1
' .i ` ~
-- --~--t~-~~~-~`~ a
'~~ '~~ ' '~ ` `V ~, ~ I ~nRA ~ b
I
~~~ I I , ,, ;-. ' ~ v ~1 --~ 11, I rn>SR ~ a
y ~ I I ~ ds ,~ .. ~ ~l . I I, ~
~ ~
- - n ~ , ~~,. ~ ~, r ~::~~ t 1
,~ ~_ _
I i I '~, vI~: j~'~i T ~ ~~,~~~~ ~'- ~ 1~ ~I
I i I I ~ ~~ ~~ ~ F ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ I I
~_ t
I I ~ ~~ ~ t ~~ r ~ i,~! --~-' ,! ,
I' fl .. ~ I, - i
,, t'_ i,, `, I i_t_ of c~ f, ,`} ~ ;~ •,~ 1, 1,a~tt~'t
I I I , ~~, ~ ~ oy ~ _ ~ ~ ~, .,;.
} ~ ,.L
~p~ l 1 it ~~ ~ - ~ ~ '>',.
t
_~ I ~,: v It .- '~
1 ~ ~
'• R ~ I ~, ~ ~ } , t ~ - a--~- ~1~~ ,y} III I .}
_ _ ~ _ 4/_ {{-- ~_
by ~ J 1(~~d _ ~~ ~,0, -i` " ___i ~ _._ -~ 1 1
° ~ ~ ~ ~ TENTA~7vE MAP KIER & WRIGHT
N LES CHATEAUX OE NOTRE CAME '~ CIVIL ENGINEERS 3 SURVEYORS INC.
A r s . e 11 LOT TENTATIVE IdAP SUBIrgTTAL 3350 Scott Boul°vad, Building 22 {408)727-8665
1/99-[iC(60/) 1!Y! 190!6 o1~~/I1~ ti~l~ %~9 ~
9990-cu(ao-) as ~mt~e ro+~»iMe »ws o9cc lYJ1M18f1S ~ 3ALLV1N31 Ol 11 ~~ 1 ~
'9NI 'Sa0A3AWIS ! SimlION3 lIAI9 * ~l1I4 ~,pN 30 XA113LVFp S3'1 ~ ` ! ~ •
1FgIZIM R ?l3I~l 83~liL ONLL91X7 / N117d All'ALf1 OM/ E~NMOVl~E) AllV1~11~3dd ~ . ~
• • •
1/n~(EL(90Y) xvi 190Y6 •I~~11Iq y~r~ ol~s ~ auvwos T -NOr saP s ~ aw voo~vm
n~tu(oa) s: wrnrM 'v~rw ups once 1r11N"18nS drMl 3ALLV1N31 !Ol tt ~ ~
'9NI 'SlpA3Atl1S ! sa~ISro IIAI~ • 3twa 3tLLOPt 3G Xrnr3trfq sal r ` ~ ~t
1H9IbM ~ b3I~ 83~d10NLL81Xi / MI'1d J11.11LLt1 OMI ONIOV~A JldV1~NNN~3Hd e ~
- .. -
-~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~
.,
,s,.
~~
_ _
7 ~ ~.~
~,, ,- - ~ i ---~---
a ~
/
' ~
~
. _~-_~._
,. ~ 4 ..
~
~ $
~
Q ~A
'
P!' _ ti R ZS a
`
a _...
t ~ ~ 0
_.._ ~
;+Y _
. t.
- i1+t
.; N
~ .,~g f~ ---
--
'ai'" s.
e
~ g
i'
.
~
'
p ~ ` ~
p
4!ry.: ~ tia \ ii. ~ ~ II b
... -M1L~ ----
a
_.. __
i F
y
1 O
. ` ~1 ar ' ~~ L ~ ~ • J
~},~ ' ~~ 1; <s _ ~y,~" -art. _ I+Y. ~~ ~ ';~ ' t"Y. ,~ ,!
1_ f ~
I ~' rr ,y ~ .~ r A ~ ~ ~
r. ,~ e -.~; ~ ,~ I f , ~,, ~ ~.~,e ~ ~;; ~ jj
'i'~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ n ,,77
- I
~I ~~ 'i ,. - ~~I. ~ `` i ~ ' Vv ~ 'Y~~ . ti,
s ~ ~ `.'~ \ ~ 1 1
~, ~ ~. A ~I ~--- 1i $ .~~ y. (1 Vvv ~ `~ I
I ~, ~ ~ ~.,
~ ~ it I ~ ~ , ~ , ~ w, " "~ , ~ a. E~, p ~\ \ R ~`
ICI i ~ b,~ ...e f ~ L .';,. ei' gF§ Y i ti Pr, ••., \ \ f~
4 ~ ~ ~ ~ .; - fT ;cam. p~ ir,_, ~~ \ ~ \ 1
¢f _4a > . \
ICI i a y, o y y. f ~.~ r ~'t ,~.. / / a.
I r f t ~ ~,~ ~~ ,~ I~ ~'
0
a,~ ti i
1 ' ~ ~ ~~-~ A \ ~' :~ r :~' r I
., III I i ~ \ \ \ .,~•.. 1{ x\ ~ ~ ~4 ,. ~ `'.,
i J I I ~ t ~- `• I~ 1\ w, 1 "yam ~ \ ` ~ ~. , ~ w:~1 ~ ~ -~
Y r ~ 1 l
• ~ I i t ; I I ~ - } ~ II4J ` ,k ~ ~` ~, ~.'Wy~ ~ - k sj ~ i~ I Ir .I i-
1+ ~ ~I I ,,e~Ra ~~,,~~ case ~`- _.,` \ ~~\ yy~ `,.~ '''.-'J i 1 ~ f I
jl / /I J d` ~ 'R~~,+f~s ~}',C ~r ~~ \ ~~\ •fd'l`I i/r` A ~~ I '.
'~r 1'I~ 1 t ~ ~ I S ~• / '' t~ 1 ~~ \ ~6\ ~\ 1~ ~ \'•' i P i~ II
s 1~~;~ _ 'C. Y~ 1 ?~;1 ~ ~v tt ~ti ~i it ~ ~ ~I I
~ ';. , r
~~ _ ~f ~ ~ 1 ~ ~., 1t 41 { I 3 //1 ` 1 1 \I rt i - 4 ~f I /'..
~,: ' ` ~, I , A>
Il -1N- }i ~~ II t., 1 t I ~ ~ I v ! ` I ` •!.. ~~ fi it ~ I - --- - - -
' ~ ~ ~ •rt.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ,, . ~ ~ .~ ~ i c V 1 la i ~ ~ '~ i ~ j
~ {{
I ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ I C I ~ ?~ ~i II i I i
~~ f s` ,~ ~ ~ 1 , ,
>~ ~ ,; ~ h
,~;~~ s' ~ I ~ i I ~ti i1 I , i 1 v ~ I~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ 111+~ •.F: -.'~g:.~1 f ~ f~ ~~ ' ~ . } I I •~ . e ~~~~~~~ ~~~
.zl I
1 ~ ~ ~, 1 I ~ ~'~ ~ ~~ :~' 1
~~ i ~ a
I ~f* ,, ' ; ~ ~ yyLL,~~~~'~', ry r +
1~1'i f ,.. ~~+ N,` ,t 71~- .1 ~ 1•~F /J ~ r~ y, l~n'. ,~~~RI I'~i _-~.~i~ 'r, /~ r~,r i1,~rr 41 ~~
~ r~...~5y ..~ J~'. ~ 4. ~~1.1 I IF~~•l ~J'. d .t~ {i•siL -_ ~ T~ ~ ~~ ~r~,+' IJ . ~ ~~J I~ 4 _ _- _-
i
_...__ _...- __.-..-_..__.____~___. _______._. __...-.. ___._. _.. _- _.. _ __. _.. _. .I
•
•
•
llp Ml~ VY~ !•r~O I~~Y~1 YIM1~ M/:.`I1t
~~~
'" ~
~~~
W ~ ~`
_~'~
~~~~
d
~WWW~~
Z~~
~~~ g
a'~~~
_W °
Y~~~
~~
J
W<
~~~
~~~
z ~'~
~~~
xF~
]~
~2~'
°~ ~ o~
NJ
~N
F
w r.•
Iww r1
rm r
~ ~n
6
v 1 sae
~ %[]:'~
• • •
~~~~
\ .,, ,l ,
~~~~
~ i! i! ~ ~ ~~~ - '~`~~ ~~
~, ~ -~
~~
~ ~~
> i ~ ~ ' z.1~~( -
.~~~
__
~~ \ , , .,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
s - _ ~ ,> ~.
~:
~~
. ~ ~ ~~~ ~ o~,:~)
~•~ ~,
' `wll~~~` ~ ~ ~,~~ ~ .
,~-~
.~.
' 8UPPL.EMENT/11. DATA KIER do NRIGFIT
LES CHATEAUX OE NOTRE DAVE ~ CIY1L ENGINEERS !SURVEYORS, INC.
~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 11 LOT TENTATIVE MIAP SUBwNTTAL ago seen BwlwQd, byuel~ 22 (106)727~l666
~T~ Fna: ~w. • -MS yaw ~ ~oen~m cusoa~ Smla Claa Calitarnla ~ Fpl! (10!)727-0641
ITEM 3
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
pplication No./Location: DR-O1-026 BSE-O1-027;14320 Lutheria Way
Applicant/Owner: SPAULDING/ SPARACHINO
J
Staff Planner: Christy Oosterhous, Associate Planner
Date: September 26, 2001
APN: 397-24-017 Department Head ---_ - "-~
•
14320 Lutheria Way
•
000001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY
Application filed:
Application complete:
Notice published:
Mailing completed:
Posting completed:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
6/7/01
8/2/01
9/12/01
9/12/01
9/20/01
The applicant requests design review approval to construct a 4,378 square foot, one-story
residence including an attached four-car garage and a basement. The project includes
demolition of an existing 2,628 square foot, one-story residence. The maximum height of the
proposed residence would be 20 feet. The site is 20,690 square feet and is located within an R-1-
20,000 zone district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-Ol-
026/BSE-O1-027.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Analysis
2. Draft Resolution DR-O1-026/BSE-O1-027
3. Arborist Report, date stamped and received by the Community Development
Department 7/31/01
4. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A", date stamped and received by the Community
Development Department 9/14/01
•
•
000002
File No. DR-O1-026/BSE01-027; 14320 Lutheria Way Attachment 1
•
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R-1-20,000
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Low Density: RLD
MEASURE G: Not applicable
PARCEL SIZE: 20,690 square feet
SLOPE: 2.5% Average Site Slope
1.5% Slope at Building Site
GRADING REQUIRED: The proposed project requires grading a total of 737 cubic yards of cut
and 8 cubic yards of fill. The 1,568 square foot basement requires 625 cubic yards of cut to a
maximum depth of 10 feet. The house pad requires 87 cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of
24 inches and the driveway and site require 25 cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of 10
inches. All excess material is proposed to be exported off-site.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project which includes construction
of a new single-family residence is categorically exempt from the Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to section 15302~f the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This
Class 2 exemption applies to the replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and
facilities where the ne~v structure will be located on the same site as the original one and will
have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the original.
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The proposed materials and colors include: a gray
plaster exterior finish, white trim wood windows, carriage style garage doors, and black accents
for the front door.
000003
File No. DR-O1-026/BSE01-027; 14320 Lutheria Way
Proposed Code Requirements
Maximum Allowable
Lot Coverage: 36% 45%
Building Footprint 4,533 sq. ft.
Driveway bz Walkways 2,900 sq. ft.
TOTAL (Impervious Surface) 7,433 sq. ft.
Floor Area: Maximum Allowable
First Floor 3,442 sq. ft.
Second Floor 0
Garage 936 sq. ft.
(Basement) (1,568 sq. ft.)
TOTAL 4,378 sq. ft. 4,382 sq. ft.'
Setbacks: Minimum Requirement
Front 30 ft. 30 ft.
Rear 8 ft. 8 ft.
Left Side (Northeast) 11 ft. 8 ft.
Right side (Southwest) 82 ft. 35 ft.
Height: Maximum Allowable
Residence and attached garage 20 ft. 26 ft.
'Maximum allowable floor area reflects a reduction for building height. (Municipal Code
Section 15-45.030(f))
•
•
•
000004
File No. DR-O1-026/BSE01-027; 14320 Lutheria Way
•
PROJECT DISCUSSION
Design Review
The applicant requests design review approval to construct a 4,378 square foot, one-story single-
family dwelling to maximum height of 20 feet. The project includes an attached four-car garage,
abasement, and the demolition of the existing 2,628 square foot, one-story residence. The site is
approximately 20,690 square feet and is located within the R-1-20,000 zone district.
The applicant has proposed a Tudor style residence. Identifying architectural features of Tudor
style residences, which are present in the proposed project, include: steep pitched gable
rooflines, tall narrow windows in multiple groups with divided lights, chimneys and arches
around the door or entry porch.
Architectural styles in the vicinity of the project vary. Craftsman, Ranch, and Spanish styles are
present throughout the neighborhood. The proposed Tudor style architecture is in keeping
with the eclectic architectural style of the neighborhood.
The homes in the vicinity of the project site are a mixture of newly constructed homes and older
residences. The proposed one-story residence is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of
t proportion, size, mass, and height because there is a mixture of one and two-story homes in the
vicinity of the project.
The proposed attic space and overall height of the residence (20') are necessary to create a steep
roof pitch which is a defining architectural element of Tudor style homes. The proposed project
utilizes underground spaces to reduce bulk by incorporating a basement into the design which
retains the existing one-story character of the site.
No garage doors are proposed on the street elevation. Due to the placement of the proposed
attached garage on the site no garage doors will front on Lutheria Way; instead, the side
elevation of the garage which includes a gable roofline and narrow divided light windows will
present itself to the street.
The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies:
Policy #1: Minimize perception of bulk:
The proposed one-story residence is modest in its appearance with varying architectural
elements including roof lines under 20 feet, window treatments, a chimney, and an entry-way
approximately 14 feet in height.
Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment:
Few trees are proposed for removal and replacement trees are required. The proposed colors
and materials are of an earth tonality.
0~~005
File No. DR-O1-026/BSE01-027; 14320 Lutheria Way
Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy:
While the proposed residence will be located closer to the side property lines than the existing
residence it is important to note the lot size is narrow and nonconforming in width (80 ft). The
proposed residence meet the required setbacks and the number of stories proposed for the
residence is one.
Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views:
The project site is not located in a hillside area. The average slope of the site is 2%. The subject
parcel and parcels immediately adjacent to the site are relatively flat; however, the residences
across from Lutheria Way are located on substantially lower terrain. The proposed one-story
residence has been set back thirty feet from Lutheria Way protecting the privacy of surrounding
neighbors who reside across the street from the project site.
Policy #5 Design for Energy Efficiency:
The Sparachino Residence has been design for energy efficiency. The main living areas are facing
east and south for solar access in the mornings, and in the morning and mid-day in the winter
months. Furthermore, the house will be very well insulated with high-efficiency equipment.
Parking
The Saratoga City code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces
within a garage. The proposed project includes construction of a four-car garage with carriage
style garage doors.
Grading
The proposed project requires grading a total of 737 cubic yards of cut and 8 cubic yards of fill.
The 1,568 square foot basement requires 625 cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of 10 feet.
The house pad requires 87 cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of 24 inches and the driveway
and site require 25 cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of 10 inches. All excess material is to
be exported off-site.
Trees
Tree number seven and eight (per the City Arborist Report date stamped and received by the
Community Development Department on July 31, 2001) are in conflict with the development
application and are proposed for removal. Tree number seven is a Juniper tree. The diameter
of tree number seven is not specified in the Arborist Report. The condition of the Junipero tree
is categorized as "Fine". Tree number eight is a Pine tree with a 12 inch diameter. Its condition
is categorized as "exceptional". Two 36 inch boxed native replacement trees are required for the
removal of trees seven and eight.
ConclUSion
The proposed residence is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential
Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Municipal Code Section 15-
45.080. The residence does not interfere with view sheds or privacy, it preserves the natural
landscape to the extent feasible, and minimizes the perception of bulk so that is compatible
with the neighborhood.
000006
File No. DR-O1-026/BSE01-027; 14320 Lutheria Way
•
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the design review application with conditions by adopting
Resolution DR-O1-026/BSE-O1-027.
•
•
0~00~~
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
•
000008
•
File No. DR-O1-026/BSE01-027; 14320 Lutheria Way
Attachment 2
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-O1-026/BSE-O1-027
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SPARACIN0;14320 Lutheria Way
•
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for
Design Re«ew approval for the construction of a new 4,378 square foot residence on a 20,690
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 to section 15302 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This
Class 2 exemption applies to the replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and
facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the original one and will
have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the original.
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:
Avoid unreasonable interference-with views andprivacy: The height, elevations and placement
on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i)
the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods;
and (ii) community ~~ievv sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy.
While the proposed residence will be located closer to the side property lines than the
existing residence it is important to note the lot size is narrow and nonconforming in
width (80 ft). The proposed residence meet the required setbacks and the number of
stories proposed for the residence is one.
The project site is not located in a hillside area. The average slope of the site is 2%. The
subject parcel and parcels immediately adjacent to the site are relatively flat; however,
the residences across from Lutheria Way sit on substantially lower terrain. The
proposed one-story residence has been set back thirty feet from Lutheria Way protecting
the privacy of surrounding neighbors who reside across the street from the project site.
•
Preserve natural landscape: 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.
000009
File No. DR-O1-026/BSE01-027; 14320 Lutheria Way
Few trees are proposed for removal and replacement trees are required. The proposed
colors and materials are of an earth tonality. Proposed grade changes to the site will be
minimal at a maximum of 10".
Minimizeperception ofexcessive bulk: 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.
The proposed one-story residence is modest in its appearance with varying architectural
elements including roof lines under 20 feet, window treatments, a chimney, and an entry-
way approximately 14 feet in height.
Compatible bulk and height: The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in
terms of bulk and height with existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within
the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and the natural environment;
and shall not unreasonable impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor unreasonable
impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy:
Architectural styles in the vicinity of the project vary. Craftsman, Ranch, and Spanish
architectural styles are present throughout the neighborhood. The proposed Tudor
style architecture is in keeping with the eclectic architectural style of the neighborhood.
The homes in the vicinity of the project site are a mixture of newly constructed homes
and older residences. The proposed one-story residence is compatible with the
neighborhood in terms of proportion, size, mass, and height because there is a mixture of
one and two-story homes in the vicinity of the project.
Currentgrading and erosion control methods: The proposed site development or grading plan
incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City:
Prior to issuance of building permit the project will be reviewed by the public works
department to ensure current grading and erosion control standards used by the City are
incorporated into the project.
Design policies and techniques: The proposed main structure will conform to each of the
applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as
required by Section 15-45.0055.
The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies:
Policy #l: Minimize perception of bulk:
The proposed one-story residence is modest in its appearance with varying architectural
elements including roof lines under 20 feet, window treatments, a chimney, and an entry-way
approximately 14 feet in height.
000010
File No. DR-O1-026/BSE01-027; 14320 Lutheria Way
Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment:
Few trees are proposed for removal and replacement trees are required. The proposed colors
and materials are of an earth tonality.
Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy:
While the proposed residence will be located closer to the side property lines than the existing
residence it is important to note the lot size is narrow and nonconforming in width (80 ft) and
the number of stories proposed for the residence is one.
Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views:
The project site is not located in a hillside area. The subject parcel and parcels immediately
adjacent to the site are relatively flat; however, the residences across from Lutheria Way sit on
substantially lower terrain. The proposed one-story residence has been set back thirty feet
from Lutheria Way protecting surrounding neighbors privacy across the street from the project
site.
Policy #S Design for Energy Efficiency:
The Sparachino residence has been design for energy efficiency. The main living areas are facing
east and south for solar access in the mornings, and in the morning and midday in the winter
months. Furthermore, the house will be very well insulated with high-efficiency equipment.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as
follows:
Section I. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other
exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Charlotte and Michael
Sparacino for design review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated
by reference.
2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the City
Arborist Report as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division prior
to submittal for building permits.
3. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed
Land Surveyor.
4. 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."
•
000011
File No. DR-O1-026/BSE01-027; 14320 Lutheria Way
5. No ordinance size trees shall be removed without review by the City Arborist with the
exception of trees number seven and eight which received approval for removal by the
City Arborist per the Arborist report date stamped and received by Community
Development on July 31, 2001.
6. Submit grading and drainage plans to the public works department for re~~iew.
7. Encroachment permit shall be issued by the public works department for the swale
repair and for the installation of new driveway approach.
8. Asphalt drainage Swale along front property line shall be repaired.
9. 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.
10. Landscape plans which include replacement tree locations shall be submitted for
administrative review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Prior to
granting final occupancy approval all approved landscaping must be installed.
CITY ARBORIST
11. All recommendations in the Ciry Arborist's Report date stamped and received by the
Community Development Department on July 31, 2001 shall be followed and
incorporated into the plans.
12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit to the planning
department, security in the amount of $6,793 pursuant to the report and
recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of
trees on the subject site.
13. Prior to granting final occupancy approval. The City Arborist shall inspect the site to
verify compliance with tree protection measures.
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
14. Roof covering shall be fire retardant.
15. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with
the provisions, city of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler
systems, l6-60-E.)
•
16. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed
installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval.
000012
File No. DR-O1-026/BSE01-027; 14320 Lutheria Way
17. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detachedgarages
(2heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas which are not constructed as habitable
space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat
horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect is to contact 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])
18. Automatic sprinklers are required for the new 5,945 square feet residential dwelling. A
4-head calculated sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed
installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. The
sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor.
19. All driveways shall have a 14' minimum width plus one foot shoulders. The driveway
shall have a minimum inside radius of 21'.
CITY ATTORNEY
20. Applicant agrees to hold Ciry harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's
fees, incurred by the Ciry of held to be liability of City in connection with City's defense
of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State 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 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 City
Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen days from the date of adoption
PASSES AND ADOPTED by the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, the
26th day of September 2001 by the following roll call vote:
000013
File No. DR-O1-026/BSE01-027; 14320 Lutheria Way
•
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
•
00(!014
•
BARRIE D. G...~TE AND ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
(408) 353-1052
Fax (408) 353-1238
23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033
Attachment 3
TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT
THE SPARACINO PROPERTY
14320 LUTHERIA WAY
SARATOGA
Prepared at the Request of:
Community Planning Dept.
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
t
•
Site Visit by:
Michael L. Bench
Consulting Arborist
June 30, 2001
Job # 06-01-133
•
~~~~o~~~
JUL 3 1 2001
CITY OF gA[ZATOGA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
000015
"rRIiE SUKVEY AND PRESEF 10N RF,COMMENDATIONS AT
TFiE SPARACINO PROPERTY 14320 LUTHERIA WAY SARATCXiA
Assignment
At the request of the Community Planning Department, City of Saratoga, this report
reviews the proposal to demolish an existing home and to construct a new home with a
basement 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 to prevent
significant decline.
Comments and suggestions contained in this report presume that the locations of trees in
relation to proposed construction are accurately presented on the plans provided.
Summary
This proposal exposes eight trees to some level of risk by construction.
Tree #8 is to be removed by implementation of this design, but it may be transplanted as
an alternative.
Replacement trees, which equal the values of the trees removed, are suggested.
Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected to the retained
trees.
A bond equal to 25% the value of the retained trees is suggested in accordance with the
levels of the expected risks.
Observations
There are sixteen trees on this site but only eight trees are large enough to be governed by
city ordinance. All eight trees would probably be exposed to some level of risk of damage
by proposed construction.
The attached map shows the locations of these trees and their approximate canopy
dimensions. Each tree has been tagged with a metallic label indicating its assigned
number.
The eight trees are classified as follows:
Tree # l southern magnolia (Magnolia grundiflnra)
Tree #2 purple plum (Prunus cerusifera)
Tree #3 coast live oak (Quercuc a~rifolia)
Trees #4, 5 coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)
Tree #6 Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara)
Tree #7 Hollywood juniper (,Iuniperus chinensis'Kaizuka')
Tree #8 Tanyosho pine (Pinuc densiflora'Umbraculifera')
The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent -Poor)
on the data sheets that follow this text. Please note that each trees structure is
distinguished from health. The structure rating is a visual evaluation of each tree's ability
PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSUi,TING ARBORIST JUNE ?0.2001
TREI: SIIRVF:Y AND PRESF,R ION RECOMMENDATIONS AT
TFIE SPARACINO PROPERTY ~a320 LUTHF.RIA WAY SARATOGA
to remain standing and to maintain its branching without breaking or splitting apart.
Damage of this nature can occur despite exceptional health. Also, structure is not an
aesthetic focus. A tree that has an excellent structure may not necessarily be aesthetically
pleasing.
Because the various combinations of health and structure sometimes require
interpretation, the combination of health and structure ratings for the trees are converted
to individual descriptive ratings as follows:
Exceptional
S ecimens Fine
S ecimens Fair
S ecimens
3,8 1,2,4,6,7 5
Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are 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 are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation
must prevent further decline.
Trees #2 and 3 appear to be located on the property boundary between this lot and the
adjacent property located toward the north, or these trees may actually be on the
neighboring property.
Impacts of Proposed Construction
Tree #8 is in conflict with the proposed footprint of the new house. This tree is
Exceptional and is well worth transplanting. However, the cost of transplanting this
specimen is likely greater than the assessed value shown in the accompanying chart.
Tanyosho pines of this age and size are, however, extremely expensive if purchased from
a nursery supplying Japanese gardens. If this tree is to be removed, I suggest a Japanese
garden designer be contacted (Katoscapes 408-353-2805).
Trees # l , 2, 3, 4, and 7 would be exposed to significant risks as a result of proposed
construction. The primary risks to these trees are as follows:
A drain line is proposed approximately 4 feet from the property boundary on the
north side of the proposed new house. The root damage to trees #2 and 3 would be so
severe that they would not be expected to survive. It appears that two alternatives
may be considered: (1) either the drain line be rerouted or (2) this line be installed by
tunneling at 3 feet below grade.
•
PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST .TUNE 3U, 2001
~OQ~g~
TREE SURVEY AND PRESER ION RECOMMITTIDATIONS AT
THE SPARACINO PROPERTY 14320 LLiTi-~RIA WAY SARATOGA
-,
2. Grading of the surface soil on the north side of the new house to create a s~vale
toward the proposed catch basins would result in significant absorbing root loss to
trees #2 and 3, because the majority of absorbing roots are located in the top
12 inches of soil. An alternative is to raise the elevation of the foundation (if
necessary) so that fill soil may be added adjacent to the footing in order to shed
surface water away from the house.
3. Trenching for the footing of the foundation of the new house is at the absolute limit of
root loss that tree #3 would be expected to tolerate and survive in good condition.
However, this implies that no other root damage would be allowed to occur to tree #3
on the north side of the new house. This means that:
a. the proposed drain must not be allowed even if it were to be relocated adjacent to
the foundation of the new house;
b. the grading of the existing soil surface involving a soil cut of even a few inches to
create a Swale must not be allowed;
c. construction foot traffic must be buffered from crushing shallow absorbing roots
and from compacting the soil;
d. there must not be trenches (for landscape irrigation or other purposes) on the
north side of the house between the new house foundation and the property
boundary either during construction or after construction;
e. the tree must receive cultural support (mulching and irrigation) during the
construction period; and
f. If a pathway on the north side of the house between the new house foundation and
the property boundary must be constructed, it must be completely on existing
grade without a soil cut.
Tree #7 is in an awkward location for protection during both demolition and construction.
It is presently surrounded by concrete, which would require a layer of root protecting
mulch and irrigation immediately following demolition of the existing concrete. During
construction, this tree would require a platform buffer, fencing, and irrigation. There must
be no trenching or excavation within 10 feet of the trunk except for the new house
footing, which is approximately 8 feet from the trunk.
This lot is deep and narrow. One of the short sides face Lutheria Way. In addition, this
immediate area of Lutheria Way is very narrow. These conditions typically put a
premium on the spaces for parking of construction vehicles, for the stockpiling of
materials, and for the storage of equipment. This circumstance often results in serious
root damage to trees that are located adjacent to the open spaces. It is often this type of
site that prompts workers to move or to remove protective fencing that is located to
preserve the root systems of retained trees. Relocation or removal of protective fencing
must not be done under any circumstances.
Excavated soil for the basement, for the foundation, or for any other purpose must not be
piled even temporarily under the canopies of existing trees.
PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST .ILJN6~ 30, 2001
V 0008
"IRI:f: tiURVEY AND PRESEk 7ON RECOMMENDATIONS AT [l
THE SYARACINO PROPERTY 14320 LUTHERIA WAY SARATOGA
In addition to the specific risks noted, the retained trees may be subjected to one or more
of the following damaging events that are common to construction sites:
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. Demolition of the existing buildings, driveway, and pathways adjacent to trees
resulting in bark injuries, broken branches, or root loss.
4. The excavations for foundation or for other construction adjacent to trees.
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.
S. 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 to these plans occur during construction, the following
may require alteration.
1. I recommend that the proposed drain line on the north side of the proposed new house
be either rerouted as noted on the plans attached or the drain line be tunneled. In the
event of the latter, the city arborist must approve the locations of the access pits at the
ends of the tunnel.
2. No grading cuts whatsoever is allowed on the north side of the proposed new house.
To prevent this, I recommend that the elevation of the foundation be raised, if
necessary, so that fill soil may be added adjacent to the footing in order to shed
surface water away from the house.
3. A platform buffer must be placed between construction of the footing of the proposed
house and the property boundary for root protection of tree #3. A platform buffer
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 area adjacent to
construction.
• 4. 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
PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JANE 30, 2001
00009
TREE SURVEY AND PRESFJ2 ,ION RECOMMII~IDATIONS AT
THE SPARACINO PROPERTY 14320 LUTHERIA WAY SARATOGA
S
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.
5. I recommend that the applicant be given the option of transplanting tree #8.
6. If tree #7 is retained, the exposed soil within 10 feet of the trunk following demolition
of the existing sun ounding concrete must be covered with 3 inches of wood chips in
order to prevent desiccation of the absorbing roots. The wood chips must be spread
immediately following demolition (i.e. within 1-2 hours), the spreading must be by
hand, and the area thoroughly wet down with 2 inches of water.
7. 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 consulted.
8. 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
c any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest a project arborist 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.
9. Any old irrigation lines, sewer lines, drain lines, etc., under the canopies of the
existing trees, if unused, must be cut off at grade and left in the ground.
10. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to retained trees #2, 3, 4, 5, 7 (if retained)
and #8 (if retained) during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of
rainfall). Imgate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every two weeks
throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by the use of a simple
soaker hose for each tree laid 6 feet from the trunk.
11. Excavated soil may not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of
trees.
12. Any pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboricultural certified
arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards, 1988.
13. Landscape pathways and other amenities that are constructed under the canopies of
trees must be constructed completely on-grade without excavation.
14. There must be no irrigation trenches on the north side of the proposed new house.
Otherwise, the 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
PKIPAREll BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST .rtJNE 30, 200 l
. 000020
TREE SURVEY AND PRESER .'ION RECOMIvIEI~IDATIONS AT
TIII: SPARACINO PROPERTY 14320 LUTHERIA WAY SARATOGA
6
times the trunk diameter from tree trunks. However, radial trenches 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 are no closer than 10 feet apart at the perimeter of the
canopy.
15. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed so that it does not strike the trunks of trees.
Only drip or soaker hose irrigation is allowed beneath the canopies of oak trees.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
r 19. 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.
20. 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.
21. if tree #8 is transplanted, it must receive supplemental watering regularly without
significant time lapses like any other new containerized nursery plant. The rootball
must be kept thoroughly damp but not saturated at all times before transplant, during
transplant, and after transplant for at least one year.
Value Assessment
The value of the trees are addressed according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition, 1992.
If tree #7 is replaced, it has a value of $1,336, which is equivalent to one 36-inch boxed
native tree. In this event, its replacement is suggested.
[f tree #8 is replaced, it has a value of $1,026, which is also equivalent to one 36-inch
boxed native tree. In this event, its replacement is suggested.
_ 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, CONSiJLTING ARBORIST JUNE 30, 2001
000021
TREE SURVEY AND PRESEI< .PION RECOMtvi)yTIDATIONS AT
THE SPARACINO PROPERTY 14320 LUTHERIA WAY SARATOCiA
Acceptable native tree replacements are:
Coast live oak -Quercus ugrifolia
Valley oak -Quercus lobata
Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum
California buckeye - Aesculus californica
Coast Redwood - .Sequoia sempervirens
The combined value of the other trees $27,171. I suggest a bond equal to 25% ($6,793) of
the total value of the trees that will be retained to assure their protection.
Respectfully submi ,
><c ae Ben ~ , cI e
Bame D. Coate, Principal
MLB/sl
Enclosures:
Glossary of Terms
Tree Data Accumulation Charts
Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction
Protective Fencing
Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies
Platform Buffer
Map
PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JiJNE 30, 2001
7
•
C7
•
000022
Q
0
W
job ~: Sparacino
R
Job Address:l~0 Lutheria Wa
y
Measurements Con ditbn Pru ninq/Cabll Needs PesGDisaase Problems R ecommend .
1 i I 1 i f ; i I I i t i I I ; ;
BARRIE D
COATS
~ i
i ~
~ 1
~
s '
i ~ 1 ~
~ ; 1
~ i ~ 1
' ~ ~ { 1
o I ~
~
. m z 1 ; F ~ ~ i w 1 t w w
and ASSOCIATES ~ i ~
'_ ' ~
j ~ ~ ~ i ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ }v ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ 7
~3~1~~ ~ i i 1
i ,
i LL i ,.,
~~ !t~
~ F i
~ I (~ ~
Z i Z i
i ~ i C7 i w i ~ I t I N i~ ~ I U i 0
} I~ _~ ~ i
W w l w
G
0
Y959SfisuiAal
LaC~s
CA!l030 ~ i W
1~ i
i I I~
1 I
I W `
a
1~ 2 ~ H
~ Z
~
~ z y; (B
w I
4 Z i W l~
f
;wja v~
~ i Z j ~
3 I1,0 i
icy ~~ Ig ~ ~ F I
x
~ ~
, ~ 1> 1 i ~
I w I
o ~ 1~
~ O I U~ H a
~ 1 w
I Z 1 c7
w --
rn f O l O
o: w O~ O
o 3 I LL
~ J
i
® ~
I F- i
i i iii ~
x
~~ =
F i U
~~ ~
t l
o ~ z~ z
3 i 3 z~ z
3 i 3 >~~ Z
1'~ i z H
v I U i 3 i Y U U
z ~
~
o
0 0
>
x ~
p l~ x x
I~ O o:
a x
~ z i
o ~ O 1 0
1 O i 0 ~
; 1~
~ w w i o
E
w
1 !~ I
I
~ ~ w w U
Key N
Plant Name
p l p
= I v
i
i~
c
i l
U
v
U 1 v
~ i
a
?
~ = o
i~
i ~
i
~
1 Southern fMa nolia 15.01 1 i 18 30 i 25 1 2 3 I ~ I
AAa nolia randiflora
~ 1
1 1 1 1
, ;
;
!
1 ~
~ 1 ~
; I ~
I ~
I i ,
i
s . in 177 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,789 X sp. Gass 90% _ $4,292 X cond. 90% _ $ 3,883 X loc. 80% _ $ 3,090
Total Value
2 Pur le Plum 9.0 X 17.0 ' 1 12 25 30 1 3 4 1
' 1 1 1
i I
I ,
Prunus cerasifera J
I 1
i ~ ; 1
~ ; ; i 1
I 1
I i
' 1 I I
1 I
;
. in 83 X S27/sq. in. = S 2,241 X sp. class 70% _ $1,589 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,177 X loc. 80% _
$ 708
Total Value
3 Coast Uve Oak 22.0 ~ i ~ ~ 24 i 40 55 1 I 2 i 3 I 1 i 1
Quercua a rifolia f
1
1 ;
1
~ i I
i
i i
i
. in 380 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 10,258 X sp. class 100% _ $10,258 X cond. 100% _ $ 10,258 X loc. 85% _ $ 8,720
Total Value
4 Coast Redwood 28.0 i X i 24.0 ~ 52 ~ 80 80 1 3 4 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ i 1
uoia sem rvirena ~ i i i I 1 ~ 1 i I I I
' 1 ;
s . in 757 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 20,439 X sp. class 90% _ $18,395 X cond. 75% _ $ 13,798 X loc. 70% _ $ 9,857
Total Value
5 Coast Redwood 20.0 I ! 22 50 i 30 2 3 1 5
i 1 I I I 1 i ,
i i i
i
I f ~ ~ I
i i i
i
1
. in 314 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 8,478 X sp. Class 90% _ $7,830 X cond. BQ% - $ 4,578 X loc! BO% _ $ 2,747
Total Value
8 Deodar Cedar 17.0 ~ i { 18 50 j 40 1 t 3 1 4 ~ ; ~ i
Cedrus deodara I I ~ { ~
~ _ ~
~ ~ ~
1
i
s . in 227 X S27/aq. in. _ $ 6,125 X ap. class 70% _ $4,288 X cond. 75% _ $ 3,218 X loc. 70% - $ 2,251
Total Value
REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES
5-gal =536 15-gal =$120
24"box ~ $420 36"box =51,320
48"box =5,5.000 52"box ~ $7,000
72"box ~ 515,000
ob #0~-133
J
1 =BEST', 5 =WORST
Pave 1 of 7
6/3001
Job Title: Sparacino
n
Job Addresa:14320 Lutheria Way
Job #06-01-133
! i i ! i i I I i ; I i ,. i~ I
BARRIE D. COATS ; ; i ~ s ° ~ z I I ! '~ ' W ~ ` W i W I ~ n
I I : !" I cn I i i ! L
and ASSOCIATES ~ i . ! ~ t i ! ~, I ~ Q I ~ I I ~ i , ~ '~
~ I i Z ~~~ ~i ~~?;# ;~! i~ ,~ gib ~
Noe)~1o5z ~ i ! ILL i i ~ I~ ~, z z o I C9 3 iW E ~ ~ o ! ~ ~ ~_ I° i ~ ~ (~ iu~
49l7Sfra~RRo~d ~ w ! i !~ ! ~ !w I~ ~ ~ i y IN 4d io! ~ ~'z ij' i~ !~ w ~~ ~
La Ga1~, U lS030 ~ v~i I i i m i ~ m t z aq ~ = t w I~ 1 w I W a C I O ;$ I~ i~ I g a ~ I~
~ }I w ;~ ..i~~o ~ ~~o:~ ~ izic~ ~,'~l to too 3 LL=~ ~
~ ~ I ! ! ~ I ~ l ~ t ~ z i z z z ~ ;Wiz H U i~ l Y t V ~ y ~, ,
x J i x i V' i m J! m z O I O O O i -~ I Z V W ~ I Z t~ t-
~i w! i 7 t ~ O i (~
y m ~ ~ Im 3 w is u~ ~~ ~o "~ ~ o: ~o: ~ ~~ 1~i ~a ? ~~ !o i~ OO: !°a: i ~z ~
Ce S Plant Name p i o p p x v~ x t ~n O v I v U U~ tY 1
7 H II ood Juni r 8.0 ~ I
= X i 5.0 ! 4.0 !multi! 20 ! 10 1! 1 i 2 i i I ~ ! i ~ i i ! i i i I
Juni ruschinensis'Kaizuka' 1 iX2 'X5 ~ i I ; ; i 1 ; ;
s . in 101 X S27/sq. in. = S 2,727 X sp. Gass 70% = 51,909 X cond. 100% - 3 1,909 X loc. 70°/u - 3 1,338
Total Value
8 Tan ho Pine 11.0 i ~ 12 ! 10 i 12 1 ! 1 I 2 ( , i !
; ~ ~ I f
Pinusdensiflora'Umbraculifera' i i I i i ! i !
. in 95 X S27/sq. in. _ $ 2,585 X sp. class 50% _ $1,282 X cond. 100% = S 1,282 X loc. BO°h = S 1,028
Total Value
i
Q REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES
Q 5-gal ° $36 15-gal= $120
(~ 24"box = 36"box ~ $1,320
48"box 52"box = $7,000
~ 1 =BEST, 5 = RST
72"box .000 of 2
BARRIE D. C TE AND ASSOCIATES
` Horticultural Consultants
(408) 353-1052
Fax (408) 353-1238
23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033
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.
Cultrvar - A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be
produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning.
Recurrent - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking a central
leader resulting in around-headed tree.
Eacurrent - A term used to describe a tree crown in 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.
Girdling root - A root that partially or entirely encircles the trunk and/or large buttress 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,
t 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 rnllar -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.
DeSnition of Woody Parts
Trunk -The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch.
Scaffold breaches - In decunent 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.
Branc6let - A small part, attached to a branch.
Twig -Avery small part attached to a branchlet.
Leaf- The main photosynthetic organ of most plants.
fl(ln~l?~
;~
BARRIE D..,OATE AND ASSOCIATES
Horficultural Consultants
(408) 353-1052
Fax (408) 353-1238
23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033
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 T'V and roof drains.
Plan construction period fence locations which will prevent equipment travel or material storage
beneath tree canopies.
Install fences before any construction related equipment is allowed on site. This includes pickup
trucks.
Inform subcontractors in writing that they must read this document. Require return of signed
copies to demonstrate that they have read the document.
Prune any tree parts, which conflict with construction between August and January. Except for
pines which may be pruned between October-January. Only an ISA certified arborist, using
ISA pruning instructions maybe used for his work. If limbs are in conflict with the
construction equipment before the certified arborist is ~-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 S-6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from
the trunk.
Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hat months (June-October). Apply 10
gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter (measured at 4.'/:') once per 2 week period ~y
soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, or adjacent to construction not around the trunk.
Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any
organic material which is non toxic may be used.
AFTER
Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just
inside the dripline. Continue until 8" of rain has fallen.
Avoid cutting irrigation trenches beneath tree canopies.
Avoid rototilling beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which
absorb water.
Avoid installation of turf or other frequently irrigated plants beneath tree canopies.
•
•
000026 31
Barrie D. Coate
~ Associates
(408) 353-1052
23535 Summit Road
Los Gatos, CA 95033
HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANTS
Certified Consulting Arborist
Radial Trenching
The Do's and Don'ts of Irrigation
Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies
Root Protection Zone
1 %2 times the Dripline
Diameter --
Mash/
j8i he
~~h
es
aee
P
n
- ~-
~~- :~r~
-~ ~~
~~-
_"
-3-
;
~,
~~
.:/
j Nit -Ov ~ f; -
'; >.; day O
a .t. 1.
Irrigation lateral lines may be installed
(12-inches deep) in hand dug trenches in areas
containing shallow absorbing roots if
the trenches are at right angles to the trunk,
as opposed to cutting across the root mass area.
Mainlines (18-inches deep) must be installed outside
Of the root protection zone. In no case may sprinklers wet
the area within 5 times the trunk diameter of the trunk.
0
0
0
0
N
!'`-
~~t .1~~
o~.a
~ ~~_; ~~~
f mes trunk diameter Vii;,,;; :`--~-
.~ ~ ~ =- _ =
`~=~~--
~`--. i % r ~ -.- -- -
~-""~ ' / Lateral line 12-inches dee,
'-j~. .' Okay
~~ ~` - ~/
Shallow
absorbing
root ti s -~
~~^ =~~~,
In
A 1-inch h~ywood and Wood Chips Plat~orm Buffer
for Areas Beneath A Tree Canopy
which Must Be Used for
Foot Traffic
•
•
Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate £~ Associates
Horticultural Consultants
(408) 353-1052
23535 Summit Road
Los Gatos, CA 95033
000028
•
i ~~ i i i i
Irec Sunry anJ Prescnatiun RrcununenJatirxrs
Barrie D Coate _- _ _
fr Associates At Ihr Sparacino I?opcrly, Id320 LuthcTia Way -_--
(40ri) 353 1052 - _ - __ _ ____ ___
23535 Summit Road PrcpareJ for:
Los Gatos, CA 95033 -- - -----
CityufSaratoga, Cummtutity Planning Uept.
HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT Date: une 30, 2001_
CONSULTING ARBORIST Scale: Ma s Reduced Job #06-01-133
7~rec numbers correspond to evaluation charts.
All dimensions and tree locations
are approximate.
°Y ~. ~ ~~ ~~ °'r'~~~'~x'~ ~ .unz
__eL _ rD
y _ _
s _- o `-
i~
r Y ~ -_ _.
~. Y~- w~~V4f13 I ~ ~J t ~ ` ~ ~ - C 6;
C +~ • `
sip, 'r+,~ rj~q. Q ~ d ~...,.-•:
I ' ~n~
-- -
~ ~~~
~'J f+ 3 1 ~1 l5 ~ / ] -
W `b1~JZ o ~.S~~eW Hd
C3'~~ V(7K~114J .?~, S"b ~ °~, °i - ~ i £S
.... ~ ~ _
1 dM
BARRIE D. COATE AND ASSOCIATESA:
Horticultural Consultants ~`~[
(408) 353-1052 0
Fax (408) 353-1238 0
23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 9503
0
LeEend
- Drip Line of Tree Canopy
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -Protective Fencing
a
i
-~ ~
~,
.~' ~
3
;3 -z .
s . ,~ _z'
~r
m
\\
~\
n
-~
Y
. • .• •
t
Trce Survey and Preservation Recommend s
Barrie D. Coate
& Associates At The Sparacino Property, 14320 Lutheria Wav
(408)353-1052
23535 Summit Road Prepared for:
Los Gatos, CA 95033
City of Saratoga, Community Planning Dept.
HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT Date: une 30, 2001
CONSULTING ARBORIST Scale: Ma s Reduced ob #06-01-133
Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts.
All dimensions and tree locations
are approximate.
d
}1
J 4
d C1
~~
v. N
~ d
,ooo o.
'~ s i
„,~
~~
}~ ~
t't` A
I ,...
+"c
Ralocota
Cotch
Bosi~
r J ~~
3 ~
,u
RaIOCOta
D~oin
v i tp
Q
~~~ ~
I
`~
G
t
•
r ~~
c ' n ~
.; i ~
~.~ ~ ~ Ralocota
D~oin to Hasa 2
i' ~ ~ ~ \ I ti
+ `I
~ t ~ ...`Ili l7 ~ I o
~ PlotFo~~n`- ~` ~7a,J ;~ ~ , J
~ I ~?
y R ~
v 8uffa~ ~ ~~ J
~. x
G ~~,~
~~~ ~ h
~~~' ~- 1,
~ ,
_..
....... I
..
/ v ~ t
'~ ~ Plotf o~~n ~ ~ i ~"'' r
r'
Buf f a~ J ~ ~
i
z ~~
And P~otactiva ~ ~ ~
f aocinQ if ~,, ~~ ~" ~r
•
ROOF DIAGRAM I/li's I' e`
FLOOR ARPJ1 aAGRAM ~~'s ~~•'
•
I 21 %10 420
2 sl•axz4 5w
3 9.5%~ 16
4 5X4 12
5 rsxl9 zz9
6 0X10 OO
7 o%IGt19 B6
d A25x ID HAS
9 4a75%~1.75 1764.0
to xxz9.75 47.9
II bX6 ~
12 2.251ct254zz9xa941.9x8 Zb9
13 N.T6%1225 241.9
14 7X 24.9 171.9
15 R1x 10 924
16 IIx 14.75 IG2.25
17 L7lYb
~--• X7:9 ........_
TOTAL 49119
6A9eMeNT AREA DIAGRAM
I axzl 4e6
2 Ix47XIp15 991.9
~ nxn.t:l 9za7
4 ux l9 _ rrs
------
roTAl, ixe
1~ ~
11
i
W
2
~ ~
I
r~-
1
I
I
/!.d
SITE DATA
A1101Mitll PAR two.7EK1-asieptinprM rIDUCrgq-~]62~
A
h
nooR
a
i5rnooelrYPa 3wts1
f~ip8 93L
Tara -" -ims ~
eA9nap ISi6-0 4
aa0tIG6. PGRG~ 4fb'i ~ ' xe M
-rock T4H!~`f~7.(45~AtwuA~)
I
~ WN. PjStp[Ntt 'P K plNs~Sa~o • 2~t6*!
~ n Nttr+f
„,~ +a , ccxK hlm
~
_ _ _r _
M+ _ ie
• ..4M ~ ` ~ ~_~~ I
Arx: 997-z4on
ONMBL: MICrIAa AND CIIARLOTiE SPARIGINO
Exlsnlt6 usE: SnrW.[-PAAIEr ~sloc4ltc
LOT 5¢t 20690 4
AVERAGE SLOPE: 6.447106.5'-2.AE~
SIDPE H EADG. SrtE: I.s~.•
!M1(• 4•h~4
------ ~~
1 ~°
I
r~~ = = - --- ;. ~-~ - - -f--
~
-F---- t ~ -- -~t
--- --
+ tip v{'' , ~ \ i r
Ii
~ , ,
~ u rw. I ~ Rta'e k4
~ n.c~
.
. ....
+
r ~
.....•~...,u, r J ~
~ \
~I .
----
fers~ut
ARiA
I ! ~ Mi
T~V
• - ..
._.~ ._'~ ._.._.:
`p~4^usN frnT. pS~:Ylrri ~ I \ df
I l~1~
u~ i
_
r~
~
I „
LNrrF
i
iARMU ~ k
MMd PtoaR LtA{. ~ ry
R~ft•ILrR !LK ~ t
-
~ ~
t ~
,
..6e -
:.. ~! AGnIAt
!lryAq ..
~ a. ~
-
. ~
f....-.... __. _ r
r_ ! ~ ~
H •~ ~ t i
1 ~
~• ~
_ I
1('' ~ ~ ------- ---- i ---- ~---- /
-_r_. __-_ __--_.
rM/4NM ~ `~ H •S bIP kA~n.r. t ' tf Y[.(
1
~'rn'T v ~ o ~v..'1i >b r>
517E PLAN
GRADI~~T, ? D2AINA~IE NOTES
- At>.6uo~d~ i DRAu1M,E 1b man-~ To RlquIREMt~1T1
e( 4fo1fWIJ1r A~. REPoRT
- ARAptaG poAaTl7ttS:
IOGATio nl 4aAN11rr µAa, uioTd
• ~trE i pRWEPIA'1 Urt xf wYPS ! 10„
FtU. D w `IK ! 8'I
- Ho~'+E PAD GdT~ 01 cu yds *_ 24'
Fitt. ~
• 6hS~M<NT rru< Cr2$co yAS! lo~~'t
r~VV
E><PoRT Au. 6xcE5~ MATERIAL
pRA~rJAr~E N~TtS~
DAJktIA{ b DI.ANI UrW ~TrrPaAlt{ Yo 'irR.EET
- DAUVSPo~' t'wu1 T OE roLuc.76p W 4'P~IG n6Hf-.Wt.S
L ytA+lcp ro yttET.T
- cMVr f~aA~ GIA0CS ro SwPC A~'M fNl-0 Bat:~IN6. 5aRPAc.e
ILJrbff To 86 DtREC.Tfp IN SoNAU `laAI.ES nR TIaNr•iwa3
ARax+p ~tLOtay { INN FrtvA( OIL, (tEAR '(ARp3
~.. _
r
i
;i
i
0RA~N01lt~AR®BY
HRIS SPAULDAIG
pARCHTTECTo
MI GimAS1fUIBI Rmax
ester cu.aanu xru
p M s iT,tf It P A 7I p r w Rt-7f f f
~~~A
MBL\0RAlY4T
DEfldl ttYlEMSrr
PLAN L7NQL78I
PEt1Qr4T
C0t0TRICTIDNSiT
0
U
w~ 5
z '~ ~ °~
~V ~~
HrI 0
r~
wA a~
M
Pr ~ N 0
f•1 ..+
a ~ ~
d~
U
p ~~~~~'
SEP 14 2
CITY OF SARAT
COMMUNITY DEVEI
_,...
,~~..t,~
A
pMEN~
ors
1
axt~rs
i'
• • •
x-a
D
N
rn
rn
z
r
D
Z
1
i
i
0
v
0
u
i
}
i
t
W
Q1
~~
i
N
(~
R M
a
N
A PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOR
CHARLOTTE AND MICHAEL SPARACINO
14320 LUTHERIA WAY
SARATOGA o CALIFORNIA
~~~
~~
~ ~~~
._~ A
' ~ '
~~ ~y ~
x y
i7 ~~ y 9 q
~ `~
~~~ o ~ ~
•
• •
xa
D
Z
r
0
70
r
D
z
k
h
Iti
~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~
~
~~
' r
o
~ I ,
~ W
0
N
o~
_I
u
4
iW
I§
b
a
q
Asa I s'-0
i0I
i co I
ir-0
I
I ~,b
+,-0 14
~ _ ~ 4 ~'N~
~41
~ ~ n I I
II ~ 1 '~a
.I ~I
~~ ~
II I ~
II I I
ii I. ~
,.. o
~ ~ ` b
I
I
I
J
= W ~ .
F
z-0 ~ ~ _ ~ ~ 4
I I ~
~ I I
~ I I
I ~~~~ 4+
I
~ i \ /
r-Y
r~
~ i ~
~ ~
-~ ..p N
--
~--~ ~
I I
r N
~'
;.
,,_,.
UJ
~ ~
u
i ~
2-0
A PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOR ~ ~ ~
CHARLOTTE AND MICHAEL SPARACINO ~ ~ ~
14320 LUTHERIA WAY ~ ~
SARATOGA ~ CALIFORNIA
- ~ I
I
I~
ira
~~
D
r
~
~ -_n
'~ $
~ ~
~ y
n
~ =a
~ ~
~
III 14
1r 1
\~
•
l
~J
tlxflN6 6xA11 /"~-, ~.
iMA
GARAGE PRO^tE
M FsR` s4RDU~~------,
I
~imicu
N iox- w-e..
L^II. )NkGuf
i Ha`+N GtAx/
REAR (SOUTHEAST) ELEVATION 3/ 16'= I'-0' FRONT (NORTHWEST) ELEVATION 3! 16'= I'-0' STRPET ELEVATION 3I 16`= I'-0'
.. r-_. .. . _._........-
[~Il3~Lrl~ ~T[]ItF1~ 1'-Ll3f~i! if~~~-L~
I
I~ ~~ ~
__._ _. ' ! U L L1
I IF-~Ir 91 IF-~F 91 I I
I IN IN MI II III 11 I 4~"P0I
I IP IN NI II III 11 I I
I IN III NI IN III 11 I I
I III III 11 III III NI I I
I I~~.-...~as~ ..~I I I
I I
LEFT-SIDE (NORTHEAST) ELEVATION I
L..---------------~------------------------~
_
3/I 6'= I'-0'
~ S 10 IS ~ zs
I I II m ix m xll I
1 I IN III Ip III NII I
I I IN III III NI 11 I I
I I IN III III III MI I
I I IP III III ql MII
I I I~ ~L JL JLL ~I
I I I I
t~
Eu>PEgsrels~uPnsr
HRIS SPAULDDVG
xARCHITBCTo
MI CAIBIA S!lEBf SIRIEE
EBRM- GUdfRNA N7N
aIq mf In ruc alEl msr»
MA.RONAtYlQ
OFAWI EEVE77ET
PLANC76iC1LSLR
rEMQIPEI
OJNEfRULTpN4T
0
U
~
o
U
w
l.a
d
~
~ d
a
a
d
rn V
~ ~
(A
v~
~
a
o D
d
0
W M
~ H
~
a ~
FI
a F ~
d ~
U
DATI¢ 5•tl•.I
lCAL& 3'IC~I'-0'
ERAtllk lLC3
10E: SrIR/C71q
SNI~I
~ s
4
>~
RIGHT-SIDE (SOUTHWEST? ELEVATION ___ -____ __ _ 3/16'= I'-0`
f
~~ BRAMIdBSTIBAB®BY
CHRIS SPAULDIIQG
oARCN17ECio
•
q_f~_~-~~_-_ Try
0 5 10 IS 20 25
IN CAMBJAS@Bhi JOIIEE
B~RFlBY CAVgNA 9q1~
oMm-smrucaMSn•~
1 BBVISIOIO I BY I
~J
•
s.. ~,
,•:~ ~,,v,>n
LONGITUDINAL SECTION B-B __ __ 114"= 1'-0"
JBN 6U9C
nflnmutrsr
~~~
nAJJama~
roum~fi
oaJalRUCIRnsEr
0
U
0 ~
w ~
w
W
a
~
~
~
~ ~
V
~ ~
~
W `'~
Pd
~A
~
a ° '
di
~ N
0 rI E''
W ~ ~
~
a ~ ~'
d ~
U
oAir• 5•tl•~I
9CAL& I/P~1'-0'
DMMk N(a
JOB: SP~RIGIIO
91EBr
as
5
~,s
~+~%A fXYaT. GEAR[
CROSS-SECTION A-A _ __ I14'= I'-0'
1
•
a
•
ITEM 4
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No./Location: UP-O1-011;18832 Cox Avenue
Applicant/Owner: Mike Labarbera
~;~, J
Staff Planner: John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner ~~.`.
Date: September 26, 2001
APN: 389-12-019 Department Heap
~b~ A ~~ ~~ ~/~ y~\~y I I 1 ~I~I~J $ ~W`~
_'~f ~
,~. enaDUac
P~
' _
L,
D !IlMA ~
~ ~
a
Fy ~rrc
~° a
\/]/ r
Y~ ,( / ~ /DYIf ~ AM.
v\
j\ / j Ctll~ AK.
S \ `~\\\~\\ wusc uoD
~~ AK.
VAI[rMILf
~'
MD AItLMD AVi.
~D
CLiW.M
w
~ ~.
70YIR11/iDK
MC
A
18832 Cox Avenue
000001
CASE HISTORY
e
Application filed:
Application complete:
Notice published:
Mailing completed:
Posting completed:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to add seating for the on-site
consumption of food at the existing bakery. A conditional use permit is required to change
the existing retail use to a restaurant use. The site is a 2,600 square foot commercial space
located in the Quito Village Shopping Center and is within a Neighborhood Commercial
zoning district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Conditional Use Permit application with conditions by adopting Resolution
UP-O1-011.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution UP-O1-011
2. Plans, FXlllblt °A°
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
7/3/01
8/3/01
9/12/01
9/12/01
9/20/01
~~
L__~
•
•
~00~02
File No. UP-O1-011;18832 Cox Avenue
S STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: C-N, Neighborhood Commercial
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail-Commercial
MEASURE G: Not applicable
PARCEL SIZE: 6.24 acre (Quito Village Shopping Center)
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Less than 3%
GRADING REQUIRED: None proposed
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: No exterior changes are proposed.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of the
conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another is Categorically Exempt
from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction
or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (c) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA).
PROJECT DISCUSSION
The Prolific Oven Bakery and Coffee House has been in operation at their current location
in the Quito Village Shopping Center for two years. The bakery went into the tenant space
as a retail use. After two years of operation, the owner is proposing to expand the operation
by allowing the on-site consumption of food. The existing menu includes primarily baked
goods such as breads, cakes, cookies and pastries to be consumed off-site. The applicant is
proposing to increase the menu items to include ice cream, yogurt, candies, potpies and
quiches, which maybe consumed at the proposed restaurant.
Currently the tenant space has some tables and chairs located both inside and outside of
the bakery. The applicant is proposing to increase the number of tables to provide 26 seats
inside and 26 seats outside as shown on the attached plan. The proposed chairs and tables
would be of the same design as the type currently in use. The chairs and tables are made
from an attractive sturdy wrought iron design.
Restaurant as Conditionally Permitted Use
Establishing and operating a restaurant in any of Saratoga's commercial zoning districts
requires the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. This process allows the Planning
Commission to impose conditions on a project to ensure its compatibility with adjacent
land uses. In this case, the addition of seating to the existing bakery is an appropriate use
for this tenant space and is consistent with the Commercial-Neighborhood zoning
P.\Plannin~~ohn L\Cox 1B602Bakery [ use Petmit.doc
000003
File No. UP-O1-011;18832 Cox Avenue
designation for this shopping center. There are currently three other restaurants in the
Center.
Parkingand Circulation
Parking for the proposed restaurant is provided in the Quito Village Shopping Center. At
the time the Center was permitted, studies anticipated a mix of retail. and restaurant uses,
with a parking requirement of one-space/200 square feet and one-space/75 square feet
respectively. Thus, more parking has been provided in the Center's parking lot than is
needed for just retail and is anticipated to be sufficient for the proposed restaurant.
Economic Development Analyses
The Prolific Oven Bakery is a high-end cafe and bakery serving the residents of Saratoga.
The Prolific Oven Bakery's request for outdoor dining creates a greater business presence in
the Quito Village Shopping Center. The location of the store is recessed in comparison
with its neighbors allowing the outdoor seating to be non-intrusive to the center. There is
also a large open kiosk area located close to the potential outdoor seating, giving the
outdoor dining experience a quaint ambiance. Prolific Oven Bakery's expansion will
increase foot traffic in the plaza and will compliment the center's overall appearance, thus
creating more potential customers for the entire center.
Hours of Operation
The applicant is proposing the following hours of operation:
Monday through Saturday: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Sunday: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The center allows earlier and later hours of operation than that proposed by the applicant.
Staff has not placed a condition of approval limiting the hours of operation to those stated
above, to allow the owner greater flexibility for any future adjustments to the hours of
operation.
Signage
No signage is proposed at this time. The applicant is subject to the Quito Village sign
program. Staff has included as a condition of approval that all proposed signage conforms to
that program.
Correspondence
No correspondence regarding this application has been received to date.
•
P \Planning\John L\Cox 18802Bakery Use Permi[ doc
File No. UP-O1-011;18832 Cox Avenue
Conclusion
Staff feels that all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code can be
made in the affirmative in that:
The proposed restaurant meets the objectives of the Saratoga General Plan and the
Saratoga Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the
site is located, in that the proposed establishment is appropriately located to
provide a service required by the residents of Saratoga and it promotes a stable,
attractive environment which compliments the Quito Village Shopping Center and
the adjacent residential neighborhood; and
• The proposed restaurant will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in
that appropriate conditions have been placed on the project to minimize potential
impacts; and
• The proposed restaurant will comply with all other applicable pro~~isions of the
Saratoga Municipal Code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Conditional Use Permit application with conditions by adopting UP-O1-Oil.
•
P \Plannm~~ohn L\Cox Id8028akeryUse Pernn[doc
VOOOOC
•
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
000006
C,
J
•
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. UP-OI-Oll
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The Prolific Oven Bakery ~ Coffeehouse
Labarbera;18832 Cox Avenue (Quito Village Shopping Center)
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application
for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a restaurant in an existing tenant
space in the Quito Village Shopping Center; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed Public
Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard
and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the proposed project consisting of the
conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another is Categorically
Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New'
c Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (c) of the Public Resources
Code (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that all of the findings required
within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code can be made in the affirmative in that:
The proposed restaurant meets the objectives of the Saratoga General Plan and
the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which
the site is located, in that the proposed establishment is appropriately located to
provide a service required by the residents of Saratoga and it promotes a stable,
attractive environment which compliments the Quito Village Shopping Center
and the adjacent residential neighborhood; and
• The proposed restaurant will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in
that appropriate conditions have been placed on the project to minimize
potential impacts; and
• The proposed restaurant will comply with all other applicable provisions of the
Saratoga Municipal Code.
Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby
resolve as follows:
•
DO~OU~
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan and other exhibits
submitted in connection with this matter, the application for a Conditional Use Permit
approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions:
PLANNING
1. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the
Conditional Use Permit and may, at any time, modify, delete or impose any new
conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare.
The restaurant shall operate as represented on the plans marked Exhibit "A".
3. Any intensification of this use shall require an amended Conditional Use Permit.
4. Prior to issuance of Building Permits for internal tenant improvements for the
restaurant facility, detailed construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Planning Division for Zoning Clearance to verify consistency with the
approved Exhibit "A" plans. The construction drawings shall incorporate a copy
of this Resolution as a separate plan page.
5. Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for the proposed tenant improvements, the
owner/applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department
verification from the Santa Clara County Health Department showing proof of
compliance of the proposed facility with the Health Department's requirements.
6. The proposed use shall at all times operate in compliance with all regulations of
the City and/or other agencies having jurisdictional authority over the use
pertaining to, but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety, and water quality
issues.
7. Deliveries shall take place only during normal business hours.
8. Any signage shall conform to the Quito Village Sign Program.
9. The applicant shall obtain a Business License from the City of Saratoga within
two weeks form the date of project approval.
10. The applicant shall be required to maintain all areas around the outside eating
area free of trash. The applicant shall also be required to maintain the cement
patio around the eating area free of spills and dirt.
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
11. At time of Building Permit, the applicant and architect shall show compliance
with the 1998 California Building Code relative to exiting and any occupancy
separation requirements for an assembly occupancy, per the recommendation of
the Santa Clara County Fire District.
00008
CITY ATTORNEY
12. 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.
13. 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. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within
24 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution 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 (IS) days from the date
of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission, State
of California, this 26th day of September 2001 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
~~
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
000009
This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall
have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and
Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the
approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said
terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City
Planning Commission.
Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date
•
00000
t~ 2
w. ._._.-_ __.__. JO."O- _ _.
J % 7 -
PNF[ MAPDM
~ ~
s R ~~
~ ~ ~ >F D ~
5/NK ~
~ .• D ~ i
3
---_-- A~
`' ~
Noy A /~i0,~'1
(E) ELECT IC oOM
FINISH SCHEDULE
~~ I NaT A f~~ier
~PNL "B"' -~ -- -
I
_ ~ 24_ - - -- - - --- - -- - - - - --
- ~ _-~NL-A- _ __
- STAINLESS STEEL PARTITION
yN '
®30 ~, 2 ~
, ~ S/niK !~( 1
~~~sJ
o s,z,~ o~~N
~~ ~~ I I
3 9 A KITCHEN ~A~ i i
,~~ o C~ )B f0} I I
14 1 3
31 44
2~ ~ ~ uc w•Nr LMD - ,on/zoo . s 3 ~~
t %rt IS AfDUIRED
12
_ _ A- I wta 4
- ----- -. ,.-- ----'------- '--'---. ------ I - -5 -- - --1Abri~
C: o o~ER - _ L. -- 6 - -- _----- - - I
~ ORICE
-1 e!
~ ~ ,S s J7
SERVICE - 'I ~ 4 t~
t0J I~
,~ 3 A-
It ~~ ~y.~
~9~~f - ~21 I ~~g-~ A
(~.,, ~. o~R6AXIS. wws
~ n~~
SNYaG
,cttOJ~ TO/tom ~J
~ ~ ~~ E
WOMEN
G 105
Q 1~ .i
- ~ --- ~ ~ -- -- vvCONOIMtEN ~ `i,45
~ \ W .t / - - --~-~
DiSYLN _
_ ~~s~ - ~ ~~LMHWN ~`/ -~
~ /~ / ~~ 1~1~ ~C ~ ~11x MEN
W X X/ ~ \ \ ~ ~+ / i,
-.~~~ ~ ~ ,~ %' ;~' `. 1 ~`' ' / jam,
Q~7 ~ ' ~f l
, ~ i `% \ ~ I
['~
r1
Qoo aoo aoo
a ~ b Qo
QQ~ aQD
b ~
S rRBt~s~~
PAn o
~~'~ro SFJkTS = ~6
FLOOR PLAN
a FLOOR
i 11. EXISTING QUARRY TILE TO REMAIN
12. CERAMIC TILE
13. NEW QUARRY TO MATCH EXISTING
N. ITEMS ilAr13
15. VCT
i BASE
-~/ 21. 6" COVED TILE BASE
22. 4' RUBBER i0P SET BASE
WALLS
31. EXISTING WALLS, SMOOTH FINISH PAINT
WITH SEMI-GLOSS ENAMEL PAINT
LIGHT COLOk WITH UGHT REFLECTANCE
OF 70S OR GREATER
~ 32. GYP BD. SMOOTH FINISH PAINT W'I1N
0 SEMI-GLOSS ENAMEL PAINT
33. 4' HIGH CFRAMIC TILE WAINSCOT SMOOTH FINISH
ABOVE, PAINT WITH SCMI-GLOSS ENAMEL PMNT
34. ITEMS 314!32
I
CEILING
41. EYISTING TO REMAIN CIEM TILE AS REQUIRED
/ Cam` 47. 7. %e' SUSPEND ACOUSTIC CE 41N(. TILC WITH
y ~ v.vn FUCK .E!cNG ^LE
43. OPEN TO ROOF FRAMING ABOVE FRONDE R-1y
BATT 'NSUUTION WOH TIRE RATED FOIL CAP
SHEEP PLANT WITH SEMI-GLOSS ENAMEL PAINT
44. ITEMS •l4'42
45. GYP. BD SMQOTH FMISH FAINTED SEMI-GLOSS
~ NAM
PAI
E
EL
NT
~
9 pp
~
~
y
~ ~
'.JWTI JN"1Y~WL.C
A ?'-OYT'-D'xt-3/t' SOLID COPE WOOD DOOR W/ FREFIR;SNED
C'AK VENEER SET IN ~ALLIIMIIIUM FRAME
S. A PAIR Of 3'-0'% b'-0'%1 -3/4' ALUMXJW DOOR N/ CLCAF CUSS
HARDWARE SCFEDEUI.F
CROUP 1
11/2 PAIA BUTTS FB 175Xt-1,2%4-,/2 $TA
/--~ I LOCGSEi (LEVEa. TYPE) OSOPD PNODES x t06 SfH
--~- --`--- 'J D I StOP W30218 S 1OB QA
~~ , CLOSER P75O.' Y STA' % $NB NOP
i G?OllP 2
I i '< P?1R 6l11TS TE i7c % t-1,: Y 4-I/i NRP !'.'A
I LACK SE1 (!EVER T1 F'[~ ~SnFi. FH.~_•E ~ 'C.P
• 1 crpP N''~..'c v !02
I J CI OSEP ET•?D ( c7gT w E.NC' NCF
I ri, ,R[:INA:OA
EI ~ 1 ~. i~~gAl
'2" HA^rr.AR '~ei.;NOLO
G SEE SHEET A-6 FCR EQUIPMENT SCHEDULES
C
E
/ i
'
LEGEND
- EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN
3 5/B" % 23 GA STEEL STUDS AT 24" O.C.
WITH 5/8" G,P. BD ON 80TH SIDES TO ROOF
FRAMING (USE WATER RESISTANT CYP.BO
AT KITCHEN MID RESTROOMS)
E EXISTING
H HANDICAP ACCESS/BRAILLE Sif•N
® FIRE EXTINGUISHER
FLOOR
ROOM NUMBER
BASE
CEILING
WALL
DOOR NUMBER
HARDWARE CROUP
t DOOR TYPE
~ i4" 12
• ~
•
•
ITEM 5
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
pplication No./Location: DR-O1-029 BSE-O1-029;14440 Esterlee Avenue
Applicant/Owner: DORCICH/ COUCH
Staff Planner: Christy Oosterhous, Associate Planner
Date: September 26, 2001
APN: 503-26-040 Department Hea
;~ ~.~
~ ~ ~4 ~
w aQ i
CANYON VIEW ,ty'
'Q' /
~-A '~/
- ~,
i
W ~~~
~ ~~~~~ ~
w ~ s.T
~~~4 N
~ti
Q
~ ~'r~ b y W _ E
sT
pR. ~N
V'
0
~= r
14440 Esterlee Avenue
•
000001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY
Application filed:
Application complete:
Notice published:
Mailing completed:
Posting completed:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
6/29/01
7/31/01
9/12/01
9/12/01
9/20/01
The applicant requests design review approval to construct a 3, 290 square foot, two-story
residence including an attached two-car garage, and a basement. The project includes
demolition of an approximately 968 square foot existing residence. The maximum height of the
proposed residence is 24 feet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Planning Commission consider the concerns identified in the staff report
regarding privacy and view shed, also taking into account any evidence or lack thereof
submitted in opposition to the project by neighboring property owners, as well as, the
mitigation measures offered by staff and contained in the staff report.
Staff had difficulty providing evidence to support all of the findings required within Municipal
Code Section 15-45.080. Should Planning Commission determine the project meets the required
findings staff recommends the Commission adopt Resolution DR-O1-029BSE-O1-029 with
conditions.
ATTACHMENTS
1. ~ Staff Analysis
2. Draft Resolution DR-O1-029BSE-O1-029
3. Arborist Report, date stamped and received by the Community Development
Department 7/5/01
4. Reduced plans, Exhibit "A", date stamped and received by the Community Development
Department 9/7/01
•
•
•
000002
•
File No. DR-O1-029/BSE-O1-029;14440 EsterleeAvenue
STAFF ANALYSIS
r~
U
ZONING: R-1-10,000
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential, M-10
MEASURE G: Not applicable
PARCEL SIZE: 12,448 square feet
SLOPE: 11% Average Site Slope
10% Slope at Building Site
Attachment 1
GRADING REQUIRED: The proposed project requires grading a total of 490 cubic yards of
cut and 90 cubic yards of fill. The 1,377 square foot basement requires a total of 420 cubic yards
to a maximum depth of 11 feet. The driveway requires 30 cubic yards of cut and the garage
requires 40 cubic yards of cut. 400 cubic yards are to be exported from the site.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project which includes construction
of a new single-family residence is categorically exempt from the Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to section 15302 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This
Class 2 exemption applies to the replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and
facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the original one and will
have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the original.
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The proposed materials and colors include sage
green horizontal wood siding, light green fish scale shingles, and white eaves and trim.
Windows with snap-on grids are proposed. The snap-on grids will provide additional texture
to the windows and will enhance the appearance of the residence. The proposed composition
roof will be a shadow gray. .
000003
File No. DR-O1-029/BSE-O1-029;14440 EsterleeAvenue
•
Lot Coverage:
Building Footprint
Driveway &r Walkways
TOTAL (Impervious Surface)
Floor Area:
First Floor
Second Floor
t Garage
(Basement)
TOTAL
Setbacks:
Front
Rear
Left Side (East)
Right side (West)
Height:
Residence and attached garage
Proposed
49%
3,290 sq. ft.
z,8oo sq. ft.
6,090 sq. ft.
x,006.58 sq. ft.
684.12 sq. ft.
599.94 sq. ft.
(1,3~.0o sq. ft.)
3,290.44 sq. ft.
40 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
25 ft.
24 ft
Code Requirements
Maximum Allo~~able
60%
Maximum Allowable
3,290.6 sq. ft.'
Minimum Requirement
25 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
35 ft.
Maximum Allowable
26 ft.
1 Maximum allowable floor area reflects a reduction for building height. (Municipal Code
Section 15-45.030(f))
•
•
OOU004
File No. DR-O1-029/BSE-O1-029;14440 Esterlee Avenue
PROJECT DISCUSSION
Design Review
The applicant requests design review approval to construct a 3, 290 square foot, two-story
residence including an attached two-car garage, and a basement. The project includes
demolition of an approximately 968 square foot existing residence. The maximum height of the
proposed residence is 24 feet.
The applicant has proposed asingle-family residence with Prairie style architecture. Identifying
architectural features of a Prairie style residence, which are present in the proposed project
include: a lovz~-pitch hipped roof, with overhanging eaves, two-stories, with one-story wings or
porches, cornices, and facade detailing which emphasizes horizontal lines. The proposed
residence also incorporates Colonial and Victorian elements. Colonial elements include semi-
circular orelliptical fanlight top windows. Victorian influences include fish-scale shingles.
Residences immediately adjacent to the project~site are one-story. In the surrounding areas,
there is a scattering of two-story homes and newly constructed residences.
The proposed project implements some, but not all, of the Residential Design Policies:
Policy #I: Minimize perception of bulk:
The use of dormers, modulated roof lines, and variation in exterior siding materials including
fish-scale shingles, and horizontal wood siding minimize the perception of bulk.
Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment:
No trees are proposed for removal. The proposed colors and materials will blend with the
natural environment.
Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy:
Staff has concerns that the proposed second-story may adversely affect the privacy of residents
in the immediately adjacent one-story homes. The floor plan of the proposed second-story
includes three bedrooms, a bathroom, and a sitting area. A balcony is proposed, above the
garage, as indicated on the elevations. To avoid interference with privacy staff suggests the
Planning Commission consider referring the application back to the applicant to consider the
following mitigation measures: trees and other landscape screening, placement of the residence
on the lot, and the location the proposed balcony.
Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views:
The project site has a slope of 10% and is located near the base of steep hillside. Many
surrounding residences are located above the project site; however, some one-story residences
are located at and below the project site. Without story poles it is hard to accurately assess the
- impacts of the second story on the view shed of surrounding parcels. In order to preserve views
and access to views staff suggests the Planning
UUUUUS
File No. DR-OI-OZ9/BSE-O1-029;14440 Esterlee Avenue
Commission consider referring the application back to the applicant to consider the follovt~ing
mitigation measures: reduce the height of the proposed residence and/or reduce the size of the
second-story addition. Lastly, staff suggests the planning commission consider requiring the
applicant to install story poles to better assess the visual impacts and privacy issues.
Policy #5 Design for Energy Efficiency:
The common living areas of the Couch Residence are orientated to the south to maximize
exposure to the sun. Large overhanging porches are designed to break storm winds at the
entryways in winter months. Semi-circular or elliptical fanlight top windows will reduce the
need for electrical lighting.
Parking
The zoning ordinance requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces
within a garage. The proposed project includes construction of a two-car garage.
Grading
The proposed project requires grading a total of 490 cubic yards of cut and 90 cubic yards of fill.
The 1.377 square foot basement requires a total of 420 cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of
11 feet. The driveway requires 30 cubic yards of cut and the garage requires 40 cubic yards of
cut. 400 cubic yards are proposed to be exported from the site. A grading permit will be
required as part of the conditions of approval. Prior to grading permit issuance the project will
incorporate current grading and erosion control standards used by the city.
Trees
I\TO trees are proposed for removal. The City Arborist observed only one tree on the property
large enough to be controlled by city ordinance, an Italian stone pine. The Arborist concluded
that the pine will be unaffected by the proposed construction due to its location on the site. No
tree protective devices or bonds for preservation of existing trees are required. The Arborist
noted there are numerous European olive trees and one oak tree on the property none of which
are large enough to by controlled by city ordinance.
Conclusion
The topography in the vicinity of the project site and immediately adjacent one-story residences
pose some difficult constraints to the applicants who have proposed asecond-story addition.
Sloping terrain presents potential v~ie~v shed issues for residences located in the vicinity of the
project site and surrounding one-story residences present potential privacy issues related to the
proposed second-story.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Planning Commission consider the concerns identified in the staff report
regarding privacy and view shed, also taking into account any evidence or lack thereof
submitted in opposition to the project by neighboring property owners, as well as, the
mitigation measures offered by staff and contained in the staff report.
•
OOU006
File No. DR-O1-029/BSE-O1-029;14440 Esterlee Avenue
•
Staff had difficulty pro~~iding evidence to support all of the findings required within Municipal
Code Section 15-45.080. Should Planning Commission determine the project meets the required
findings staff recommends the Commission adopt Resolution DR-O1-029/BSE-O1-029 with
conditions.
•
•
00000
•
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
•
•
OOOOUB
File No. DR-O1-029/BSE-O1-029;14440 EsterleeAvenue Attachment 2
i APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-O1-029/BSE-O1-029
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUCH;14440 Esterlee Avenue
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for
Design Review approval for the construction of a new 3,290 square foot residence on a 12,448
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 Em~ironmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to section 15302 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This
Class 2 exemption applies to the replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and
facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the original one and will
have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the original.
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application
for Design Reviev,~ approval, and the following findings have been determined:
Preserve natural landscape: 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.
The proposed colors and materials will blend with the natural environment.
Current grading and erosion control methods: The proposed site development or grading
plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City.
Prior to grading permit issuance the project will incorporate current grading
and erosion control standards used by the city. The proposed project requires grading a total of
490 cubic yards of cut and 90 cubic yards of fill. The 1.377 square foot basement requires a total
of 420 cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of 11 feet. The driveway requires 30 cubic yards of
cut and the garage requires 40 cubic yards of cut. 400 cubic yards are proposed to be exported
from the site. A grading permit will be required as part of the conditions of approval.
Design policies and techniques: The proposed main structure will conform to each of the
applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as
required by Section 15-45.0055.
The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies:
OOODU9
File No. DR-O1-029/BSE-O1-029;14440 Esterlee Avenue
Policy #1: Minimize perception of bulk:
The use of dormers, modulated rooflines, and variation in exterior siding materials including
fish-scale shingles, and horizontal wood siding minimize the perception of bulk.
Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment:
No trees are proposed for removal. The proposed colors and materials will blend vt~ith the
natural environment.
Policy #S Design for Energy Efficiency:
The common li~~ing areas of the Couch Residence are orientated to the south to maximize
exposure to the sun. Large overhanging porches are designed to break storm winds at the
entryways in winter months. Semi-circular or elliptical fanlight top windows will reduce the
need for electrical lighting.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as
follows:
Section I. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other
exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Sheila and Mike Couch for
design review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated
by reference.
2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the City
Arborist comments as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division
prior to submittal for building permits.
3. No ordinance size trees shall be removed without approval from the City Arborist.
4. Submit grading and drainage plan to the public works for permit.
5. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed
Land Surveyor.
6. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation
inspection by the Ciry, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification
that all building setbacks are per the approved plans."
7. The applicant shall submit a written agreement from the owner of the property adjacent
to the north regarding the construction of a new driveway in the easement.
8. An encroachment permit shall be issued for the construction of a new driveway in the
public right-of-way.
000010
File No. DR-O1-029/BSE-O1-029;14440 EsterleeAvenue
S 9. 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.
10. Landscape plans which include replacement tree locations shall be submitted for
administrative review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Prior to
granting final occupancy approval all approved landscaping must be installed.
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
11. Roof covering shall be fire retardant.
12. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with
the provisions, city of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler
systems, l6-60-E.)
13. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed
installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval.
14. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages
(2heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas which are not constructed as habitable
space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat
horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect is to contact 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 fire hydrants shall be located within 500' from the residence and deliver no less than
1000 gallons/minute of water for a sustained period of two hours. (City of Saratoga Code
14-30.040 [C])
16. Automatic sprinklers are required for the new 4,667 square feet residential dwelling. A
4-head calculated sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed
installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. The
sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor.
17. Install one fire hydrant that meets the fire district's specifications. The hydrant shall be
installed and accepted prior to construction of any building.
18. All driveways shall have a 14' minimum width plus one foot shoulders. The driveway
shall have a minimum inside radius of 21'.
19. Construct aturn-around at the proposed dwelling site having a 33' outside radius. Other
approved types must meet the requirement of the fire district. Details shall be shown on
the building plans and approved by the fire district.
000011
File No. DR-O1-029/BSE-O1-029;14440 EsterleeAvenue
20. Provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as
required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on building plans.
21. Security gate width shall not be less than 14'. Gate shall be controlled by a remote digital
transmitter. Details shall be shown on building plans.
22. All bridges and roadways shall be designed to sustain 3,000 pounds dynamic loading.
CITY ATTORNEY
23. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorne}~'s
fees, incurred by the City of held to be liability of City in connection with City's defense
of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the
City's action with respect to the applicant's project.
24. 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 City
Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen days from the date of adoption
PASSES AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, the
26th day of September 2001 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
•
0000,2
•
File No. DR-O1-029/BSE-O1-029; 1440 Esterlee Avenue
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
000013
•
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
000014
•
•
a
BARRIE D. C~ . ATE AND ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
(408) 353-1052
Fax (408) 353-1238
23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033
Attachment 3
AN ANALYSIS OF THE TREES ON THE COUCH PROPERTY
1444 ESTERLEE AVENUE
SARATOGA
Prepared at the Request of:
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
C
•
Site Visit by:
Barrie D. Coate
Consulting Arborist
July 5, 200 ]
Job #07-01-151
Plan Received: 7/5
Plan Due: 8/6
•
~~~~~~~D
~UL 13 2001
Mlv1UN1[Y D ~ ~ M~
CO
OOOO~S
AN ANALYSIS Uf THE TRF.F-.: THE COUCH PROPERTY. 1444 F,STERLEE AVENUE ~RATOGA
Assignment
I was asked to review the trees on the Couch Property toward the goal of evaluating the
effects the proposed demolition and construction on the site will have on trees large
enough to be controlled by city ordinance.
Summary
There is only one tree on the property large enough to be controlled by city ordinance, an
Italian stone pine (Prnus pineu).
This tree is sited 2 feet from the east property line and would be essentially unaffected by
proposed construction.
There are numerous European olive (Olea europea) on the property but none of them are
large enough to be controlled by city ordinance.
A 9'/z-inch diameter oak is seen near the west property line but would be essentially
unaffected by proposed construction as well, and in any case is smaller than the size
controlled by city ordinance.
Under the circumstances, I see no reason to ask for a bond for preservation of these trees
and since the proposed masonry retaining wall will essentially protect the pine tree, I see
no reason to require protective devices either.
Respectfully submitted,
Ll, C o-~~
Ba D. Coate •4~
BDC/sl
PRF:PARI:I) BY [3AI2RIE D. COATS. CONSULTING ARI3ORIST JULY ~, 2001
~DDD~V
• J
•
•
1 j
/ ,~
a~ ~
~~ ~ 1R O6
O~ ~ 44: d
Ilh t
rl ~
~ ~
r ~ 1 ~ e
ri ~
'~ X1)0
2 D/ ~ ~
a
~ 3
3 '~
N ~
°INlv6~ PN+~r~ ~I
P,ESIDEMct ~
i
~~0"
.p
N
T
z
oPf,N SPAGB ~Pf-Etlb-Li F~l
4AAnTnfn cw4.1 N~,FAVrrrbts ~~.
t•P•
(A) lfDllQ-~
- ---tai,
9
~N4~E
t
~~l Y
'~fS~D
~~
• ~ ..
i ~~
i
r.
~( J
P ~
F.t ~ Ilk.m ~ ~
~). y:~~
,I ~
4.67 / /~ I
N
517E PLAN
.._7 '~~
~~.
. L 4 o s USNED
~,~W°~1
~~I~~ ~ ~
J .~ ~
y" ~u"' 6UILbIN4 SEfBAU( Y&~iFIGl11oN ATE.'
•
\. ,,, (NEGfffl
I'kpR To roUNalTwrl itJSpECTION 6(
Q
~
' THE ROE oti LLS 0~ RSGORD SHALL PPPVID~
n WRIjTEH cetilltlcnTlo TrN1 ALL sETDAcKs
~
~ ARt PER NPROVED PIAN
•
a.
~~ (SGOr Top ELEINA'(~ONS EHp'IJN 1At NtltaN'15
'
~
p.
pt,IOYE NAT~IJ.. 4RApt r6N jAk. uYV~
~ etlow NIWI PowT
W
.~
.
v
NCgr~
iN
SEP ~ 7 ?001
clrY
COMMNNITYDE~~O MENT
'4. _ 4i i
~~ ~~,~
/ i
4!' pl '~linwaxaeO,Aa Rt
,~ Fn !'~ , , f i rater attW~~~!
IR ~, •.,wu .w. ~, i - ~ -~ Q~3 ~~ i 0
f'•{ Mf I `~t +~ ~ i
~; ~ ~~ ~ ~
~, ,~ S ~ me/o ~tcM
n
0
I Tim ~ YIEM, I ~ I c'>~~~ ~ ,~~1~
I ~rW~ y 3' ~ ,
1u 1`" 4"~ ~~ v ~~ n a ~ A S
I a ~ ~ n'4IPj+s 9 • ro
,~? '~
( °y. ° ~ 617E `~~ r A ~''~ r"' ~, ~+Y "~
I` ..~ ~ SPRING ~Y,: -G .:~ ~~~.~ I ~ ~ +r
+, _ ,0
VICINITY MAP H l
PROJEG7 ADDRESS l4ri+t0E5:,EflLEf.Wt
~ wtaw,xK,v~ixow,xw„wurr,rrne„woiu
i tw aeelrr roar, a nE ua w~uaexe AIO ,
ASSE55ok'S PARCEL N4 503--21.040
,. m rwlu axnucrol 0uu r rxarars ra >r
AcalAnnwcawraluxwaanllm
MAC ~ SNEIIA GOUGH
> mmiuuwnwarwuvwrrurwrarwom
A
ar
l OWNERS 14440 ESTERLEE AVt.
Vx
aea
OOIw110w IxOr pARIM YAIK xau0
AnwMMwprAllelrlA.waAaMMxawa,r
n onlea wal 1111 axnaer loaewn/ aMi urr, AM'
Ma111'MAICenCr ATONQ /0111/Illlaleeal NOM'TO
rRlxf EXISTING USE. Slf{4LE fi"MlC(
a ~
,
MOClIQ rM40e1xC1a1NgC®IWMMMaet"Nrir ~ IDtNGt
3 ~Z
wrtau, xMxaror rau n~ rllolrlct m wxrewlr
IIN1A x11a aa00 "Mr IraM Orwr Oe a01tr ro ru
EONIN4 DI SiRILT R- I- IG~000 11~
w
rwAmwaT111u1axecr. exaAOAaaw,orawlrxa
M1'AHx owwxar Ar r/aranalx. r vHN o1rAA
1x1
rw a•r,r
L ~
`Y
,
wxrca Oe GON,A,Gf OrA1.Ue1 1MM
,
Oalrrwcrall r aMO ro wn rlrAVO n~ war evwrve
51 E•
L . ~ 3
"'j
?
~
wirWlAgOOwaUCiIr IIIIIIO/eACVA lxIIr AYM,1B1
GRD55 I 6 5,P (J
leaxr aau AAamla ws s mulr w«rl
aw.wr/xlnlr~iinw,laoxaawlwlu
NE7 2'}46 SF •`
72
.. lwmwu~axnueaewuea~lwlwamlwrlalr ~~
mroAlwrwrrlmemawr.lwnaxxwArrr
larxawwxcr.rwm
xkallxxawnlArnr.~lews
ALlOV1At~L% F~_~
(~
,
"ronllovnlvsrmarm.>I~ia/mrrurw.rtAxm
x A aWl aoxar aeartax wr a Ilal Ala 1mr Ar/
wuxrcru~xlrwarraxlolrwlxunwlaeu~r
eAalwoanrumolwrMmrvaa°wnarl
rxr } 4tAP : 4448`.f.
f ~~ ;~. Z~ ~ ~5
5y4C(12AR~S.f. tT~(448~f~s~l(~S.F. W
a
~.
.
laxl
AaiA~wu"rara/~,cx~ryaAwA,wwNloorxl ~4y~yT f,Ep,1G*lDP) FO~Il 44' DUIL NEU~I('
°
~
'
3
r /15.,51
'`w1.4.91rt9+olro•
'24
-I6
AC+wAr
/. Aawlaerartllratrmxwtrrrrlwr/
reorlcnl ro nrwrt a.uae AW enwawnox urtA Iql JwpXIMUM Al1~WAb1. ~ ry,QglPF1A. h1290.6 st ~ ~
ruuerl ro rra,rt wrelw~wr r oww ra wrlax a ,
:$[ZE DF $71t1)G1DKt
/. nrcanwe,rwuroAUanna.mmrrrArowaw
raw lwr wr r raello ro rw m rww Aum M
iprMrrMIrLYAr W4LXaBaxaRAMM axrraxlr BXI3TINC~ RE51vENGE 9i,ats~
an,xa owvanxa r olxatrwwr Knw M roULlgw a
rn rAer a rt. Au rAmwa IeAlxa Ar IunAal a
a~W
'
w,owuAlclwAarwrawAamxwcunoxaworoc
xru r Dale x,11 Arruew wrxew r nxr eurKr
llrl
x wl
I Kn~OSEb
I
IsT STORY DOfa.
r
rxACr au, oral caruno
a lueloaaa
eu1"ACr Zwc STORY GA 4. K
,.
~
a
~
~
"
M
a
~ UARAGE. 599. °M•
„
,,.
~
wl
ewl.alr
«u
m
«~wl
w
f0x°"
i
iu
w
Z
"~''
~
~ 4fs
TOTAL 32?0
io
alnu
wr
n
i
~lo
IIwA
A
a
eww ,
.
.
r.
~0M~0w
o
ueolrOWU
AU
EASEMENT 1377.4 5.F
A
A<.
l
~a~aK
e.
ore 11oua1 aeew onlanlw
~
c aexowortaewwtirlArnallneana,ewro IMPERVIOUS GOVERAyE. Z
nrxnueaaua
F,~...owA9~E ~ /~ '~
1. rwM11AU11ewwraa+aa,lraallxonurworau.rt
aaliwow~c ~' AC lawrar rll ILL onwl nw P~'Pasco 49,5 ~;
". ,wrl urw null r rulrw "" raeso n oa.1
aannxo AIO alame
>H waw Ina xn a wxwl SLOPE (~ 6LDl~. 517E 14.5 ~, IIj W
,
ewu tmro nr rw 1u1rAx a nll wu rrnl w01ew111
n 1-
~
wele
llnruwloaa AVERA[~E SITE SLOPE, 9,(03 /,
n. vrn a rw rwn xrx awi11 eoia noc~lxo. Au
~ ~
N
OaCeI,IRLOrIBICi®IY.ONrAI
IL ALL G1rlI/ TO r rx7l1 M N1lr. eml NC rrxs ww
Y.
exemreraAra/.
~n~
M
~
1EfR~UR[CIrMO/Ml
/Eg1101r/AloliCllll'AL
/w ~~ ~n~
eaw I°_IG'
~ x~ ~
x1 0^"I~
x»x
~'ol: GENERAL NOTES PROJECT DATA a s
•
•
•
_.- ------ -~-- - ~EraHHn n
$(~ ELE~TI~ DMCNSIDNAL lAN/OSITION sNw<,le ~ -PAINIEL tNIMNEY
__ - 'FISMSGAIC~ iNINGtb SIDIN4
I1 WNERG SNOWH .F(
v. 4~ s ~'
~f(.e a li _
- 5
- _ - SxINGtC SIDING N ~At*E S
---~ -- ~ STDR{ 1 RLGtNT AREAS L t)
11 ~ f ~~ \ ~ _ Il _ - ~~ '~ - li I! a
' I -- _ --..-_-~~- -- -- - ~~
I -" _- ~ _ ~ - - --- -- a~ ~
/~Rar 1 I =( _ NF ii
\ ~
I \ d11 ~ ~~E Y~4tmVC SIDING __ ___ ~ _ ~ 3
I I \ r~ / m i rAINTw (TYr. _.__ -_ ~ ;
I I 1 `^ ~ ~ GLAD WODD FRAM! - -- -- - _ r ~ -- ~ d
__ _ `
_ I 1 I i WINDOWS (ttt.) - -- - - ---- - o ~ ~ ~pp
~' (I I~ 51~~45\ S~ `d5 I ~ I I t~SwATER 1Atl! OVGC --------_-____: - -- __-_._ ~ I, _ 6
c
I~ ~ ~ Ij~ I Y { I dd ~ ~~ I tea SKIRT - - - -- _- ~ -
I~,
I N• NAl'u~4 ~~ q
I~ ..J RIG/C ! S I - .1JILIIT~.-.._ OF HORTN h61LL F•
' I Wtu WW. ~ I - a -
I I ~~~~-~
t•4 OR t+4 TRIM ~ WDWS., O ~ ?
' , DOORS ~ CORNERS (~11
-- --- NNRLL Bp1U1~
,I Ul.- GUt1URCD STONC JENEER~_
ILI, ~ ~ ~ 4 RIVlRDC•K' OR MttERN
R ~I SELt~TED DY OwNERs (Y{r) ---~-
j~„ _-
._
~~~
~
p.
}, I
;,,
~~.
NORTH SIDE ELEVATION ~ i
~ ~~
W
Z U
-_ O ~ 6
- ~ _ ___ ~ W
~PNI SCALC SXINGL[ SIDING F
wuERE sNnwN f~LV. ~y~
-SKYII4NT /tR YLAN `~ -- Tr (~i WNtS
_. _ ~ _--=_ ~ ~ ~~__ __= Z .
_- li
as
FINISH .rt - - -
~," ~ ~~., HgT~ROI, GRADE LONIOUR
xx' ~ ~ TEST SICE WAIL -
~*, .
~5T SIDE ELEVATION
EXiER10R ELEVATIONS
Z
4
N
TOP OE RAILING SLIEGTtD 6Y OWNERS
-
rI' '
4 ~~~ I~'i
r ; N~~,qu
~ I, ~i ~~MD[ fANTOUR~
MTIO WALL
~~
N
Z
W~
J
W
Q
AC
ow kS.i Mj ~I
bo 0~ 4
eM.l 9
i
DI $ en«n
1
,~.
;`;;.:~;
7; ;,.
=.~n ;
';~•
,~9, ,.
2 i'A' ,
~'i
j~{i+" ~
t ~..
~'~:~;~'
.'i!~,a~~~ f ,
S
V '~
~ )..
~., al•
~~, 7
k' ,~
~~:"~.{~
v. ~ 4~
~e cs
50UtH 51DE ELEYAtION
FXtEK101~ ELEVATIONS
g;~v. r;~s ~. y~
,,t~r~~s
z
Q
~"
d1
lv
u~iE
i~~, ~;~'
EAR .S~InE EL~YA1lON.
E 101
ScxiTH SIDE El. VAT
I
i
I°
~ ~ ~
zz~e-aesnse s~crea9nse dIN?JOdI"id~ `df.?Old?JdS o
64i! fiL056 V7lanbo5 64U xa9'Od •Yaj 4 0 ~ ~
= 3f1N3Hd 33'Rl31S3 Ot-irVt =
_.._
Nb''ld ~I~d'I~-3Jf/~Ib'rJ/1N~W3SdS ~ q
0 o v o i l- ;~ ~ o _~ ~
Q ~? ~Od 3~N341532! M3N ~ __- - -.. -.--- __...-_...-- .._.._. ~ ;
a ~S
0
m ZZL9-8@9/l£@ 5{L9-BB9/N£8
'
~ dIN2iOdf'id~ `dE~Old?JdS -
~
'
eau £aoss v~ w~
~s svu *ae
oe • rj
3f1N3/1d H3'1213
83 Oirb4~ o
=
~ Z
~, 1
_ .-.__....-. ~: ;
° ~ „
~ N~d ~007~ J121O15 1Sl ~ 4 o
a 4 ~ ~ 12104 3~N34IS321 M3N
o -
~
0
• WO
• Q~
~`'
h-
~ .
1 _
• ~ -I ,~',OI --- ,4;51 - •~~-,bl _._ _ ,O;°J Z
.. I
~
i
1 „Z;£ „7;6 ~ O;~
I ~
I ' I i G
i I ~ ~ ~
1
~ - ' - - I ~ 1 I ,. - _
I~ I ~ I ~ I
i I ~ I i ___
___.~-_ ~
--~
_
NI
N~
1
`~ ~ I ~ i I ~
_
____- --__.._.___~...._-.-~__-. _._ __..-`__._ ._-__~_.__
d~ I I - I i .~I
N~ f _- ---777 N
i ' ~ __ __ _-~_ f
I i - - ~~ I~
~ ~
I ~
~
~7 _ I ~1 ~ ~ (. 1 p ~~I
i I I
II
~ ~
_
_
o J
~
~ ~
{
~
I
~
j
OI
W W ~ I
I + ~ n
Oi ~ _ ~ ... --- ~
N'
- ~
f
i ~J
~ ~ ~ ~ 1
f ~~ ~
~
i a
I ~ z ~ - ~ .
r I ~ _~- - --'--
~
1- ~ ~ i i __ ~ _- I I .
Q'.
I
~ ~ ~~
I I N
\~.~
_ Q00
.
I O~
_
i ,~.~
f I
..~.'.
I ~ ^ ~ g ~ .Q
~-~ ~ 1 ~ r'1 0 "~ \\ ~
~ a
~, ~ ~
~~ i ~ ~_ ~I i t Q
I r ( ~ I 1 q ~~ ?~I I
I
~
-
I F..
H.
~ ~
I ~ ~
,~
~~
I
, o
A ~ .i.
~
1
Y
I -
I ~ i
w _
~ _ I -~,
~ - --
_
~ ~ ~
- i
~ i
io-,5b '
__ .-.._ -. .
i ,
r'*- I ; ~-~ ~ - -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -
f ~x
I ~ ~ ~
~ I N~ I ~~
~~ - "MM ~ O
~ bswac - ~~ ~
~ i "Ei3„Ty ~ --- o~d
~ ~ ~ ~ .
~
~'
.
_
'i~llt '~3iv
I
z
~_I1 i
(
°
J
~
..
.1 i
rte, a ~ ~ v
~f/7 I
-~
~
~V v i ti
9 '~ ~
Q ~v~~oµ~~ ~n~m~
^y,
~ W. O d' N1 ~ r M h W N
_ ~I
~, _
r3 2 n ~/j . . '~ J
.I•li'I I I ~ ~ Cp i ~ O M ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ S I1 '~ J H
VI
I
.•,
~I1 _y ___ --
11 J O µ
9 O
__ I ~
O
r
'II'
y P
_
w
.µ N
Q
O q ~ LL
~ i
~
- Q NI d ~ U ~ d d .'f x - ~ ~L rI
- _ 1 _1-I ~ - I _
.i.
_
_
-.
qq , QS _ .
s
• • •
o ZZL9-889/t£B - 9tL9.889/Lg8
•
~
~/~N~0~~1d~ fH~Ol
dZJdCJ'
Q
•
6Vtl :xy
pd
gLOS6 Vp lanbo564tt xog .
~ g °
° ~nN3nd a~-~~.s3 o~da
NNId 2i001
~ :l2l
IS _
'~
~ s
o
~ q
O
dNZ ~
a Q ~ ~210d H~N34183?J M3N - .a a cA
o ~ o
0
J
~ ~.
N
..0 ;~~ _-____~ ~
i ,ii1' -,y I
i i
~ ~
I
I
~
m m
I
I
/_
O
~. , .~ .
- I
I ~
i '
i
- - - ~
- -- - -
- ~
i
I
~ ~
~
~
,! j
~ i
i i
I
~
~
- 2,
-
-
-
i
i
~ ( I
~
j ~
~
~_
`- j ~
~ i
I ~
I `
I
~. r
`
~`
.`
~\ V ' i i ~O
~
1 \
2.
-~ \
TJ
~
___
~- ~ I
- - .. ~
N
a3
~ .'t
~ 'a ~ ~
I
~ :.
' 7'
_ a as - ~ ___ ~ i
~ - Q
-~ ° ~~Q~ o -- --- ~i ~
~ I .
~
w
~
c
~
w
~
~
I _
Q
I i V..`
`ri H YL'.
N: ~
I
I ~,'.,
_____~_ h
~
/
O _. .. i YI oC S I ~
•
m ~ ~ ~ O ~ Z,
m~ I _ ~
-
~-
_~
a I
o ;
~
'HI
_~
~
~
i I
~ ~
{
~
I
~ (~
~
I 1
I
'
i
Zo
I
~;
~.
w
O
~_
-
O ~ 0-, 6E 9;1i
OL vt
~.
,;
--_ _-- -
~
T - "'~ 5
' 4 -------T
~
_
~,
~~ ~ ~~
__ _.
g~ - - - ~o
~
~i ,; ~
~~ ~~
' I _ ~~
~ ~
o
l~ - Y
~;
+~
-
~
~
'
y
~
I . . ~ j
' ~ N~~ Y
~`
~`~~
~0t
~~ `~ ~
y
2{-~
V I
~ I ~
? 3 I `1
-~
~ ~
~
j
I u ~
v
H
Q
~
~
4~ m"~l++s
~~et~~p~~
~ m-63m ~
s4/
~ ~
~
2
~
I I
~ ~ , .
~ r°S~Ir
I F~ '~`Y ~ ~ -~ ~ r ~
N
- - --
' _ is
U ..
a
M ~' t-
-~ ~ ~
3I Ir~ i~ _
r7 _- --~ ' ~ • ~ ~ oC
~ _
-~
-- ~ V _
_
~
_
a
o~`s~° oQo
~
r
~ i ' \
~ ~~ ~ ~ .
o
I'i \
i zl
III') ~ _ --
_
~ I ~' ~
__ _. __. ..___. _.. ..
' ~ -.-
q
- - ;r ~ 5 ___ __ _.p.
-
_--
~; -_
-- - _
- -
t
i
• • •
Z ~`
O ~ IN ~o~l
y N
m
W
r.. U .+ Q~ '°~ ~
~~~
05 ~ r ~ ~~ i ~ ~~ -~~
ql F ~F ~ K v0 ~0 /WC/ `
Ci (+zi qqU UE~F o. ~F ~ ~(// O
O ~q.+ \
F~ FF E .,l d .' /
oi( t~iU~F W oi~ h/
s
R
;o N
_Q
O `
~0~ \
/ `,\
,I rd
/ r ~\
// <,
~ ~~ a.
~, ~ ~~~ ~
//
_. •-„o
~ _.. - ,
/ / ~ .I
a?:"! "',
~ ~' ~^`
P~ ,$q:. 1~ ~~e 3s ~
ti/ ~ { I ~ ~~ I ~ ~
0 ~ ,
- 5%~ \ / o
~. i ~, ~~
/ \ Z6 'a oil ~: ~ `S.°,_~~. I
/ i i ~ o~_.~ . '~
V \ ~ ~
`~~ r~
~ y ro ai ~ \ ~~ ~a
^Q/ S/sJ-f 0~ J aiOg V
/ O
. ~'V_ , ~ ~ ~ ~I
' a I
/' h
,I ~ / I & ~ /~ a ( '
x~
~ 7 ~ ~ ~~~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
cV_ iw ~ a ~ ~~/ ~ ° _ i" ~/~
~ _ i ro ~
;/ '~
- ~, _ ~ 1
%~ ~ i _ ~ 8~ ~ wi i. 3
.~oa7a[%6 ~ ~ I ~ I ~. d
i _
~ -~-- r/~ ~ I I ~ I
~~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~--~~
• \ o . ~ ~ ~ i
I s/0 B4/' 1 ~~ O~ ~--i f• e M1
1\ ~ .~ ~ea~l._
l ~\. I p~2~' ui•C~v.9 o I ~~' I
~. _ ._ ~ i ~~I 1 /
~~_
f g Wry°~
~ ~g~ m3'~~ Fm~~
~ ~~= ~ ~_~ 0~3
~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~s
s " am ~°~" $~~s
~~` _ ~C~ ~
~ $ "~ ~ 03~~ bo
~grQ ~3 ~"-. 7m~~
$ ~ ~~ ~a~~~ . ~
~ x~~"s ~~~~4~ ~~~~
~~ a
b 5 5~ ~ ~ _ -
~_ ~4~~ ~~~g ~~~~e
. •a `~m~ .~~ ~s ._o~s
E° °€~eia8e~~~ge_ ~a a°~c e~ ( sco ~~
4~p+.C T W
~ < ggg a`
e ~° ~g era aa~z ~ . ~° f:.
° '~ ~r a 'B i.aai: .;3'80 .C2E`F° I"a
I[,~li+
~,
~~ ~~i~
F
O F
F 2>
2N ~O
OOZZ UFWW~W
v aazo~+
~m~amm
P~'a~F t]c9
WWF WZ
v~maWm~
FOOWgOF
g! ~oooWO~
al ~aaa~aw
~~
,~~
34
. ~/
z
Q
N 0
.~.. EI
W 0'
Q ~
Z
G
zy
_¢ ~---
z~
~~
Q o
x '~
v?
Z
(/~ o
~.~..~ `
W °
0
Z
W
J '
J
z
Q ,
i.i~ i
~,.. m
u
W m
3 V
i
~~I
o ~~~
D ~
W r l t ~ t ~~ i
° o'er
z; .. WSW
~~~
wo
G (ul~ IOIO aia
<~ .gym s = _~ . °
` < .~ E
Ks" m .n
ism ~ ~ ~m e~z :~~~ ~s~x ~~s~p a~ ~~ ~~~ a~ ~~ s 8~n;.~ " s R ~~~ ~ z
ig ~3 ~ -~ E~ -~E~ $'.. ~ ~~ tip. ~~t~3 S`~ ~: E a ~ .
8s~ ~~ ~~ 9~~ a s ~s- 9 ^~~~s ~~~ ~:s a€Pe sa Est ~ ~~gz~ ~~~ ~° ~€ ~ W w
;~ ~ ~z ~o ` ~Q3g ~,,,,aE. say €a ~ -~ _s: ~ ~s. a ,m
°aW s~~ fi~~ ee €€ ~~~ s~ . n~~ ~°;=gag a~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ oa? ~ r~3~e ~~~ ~g g~ ~ a
• • •
0
A
r
d
r
0 1~
•
CROSS SE(
ica1~: Ueu=IL
GALE : I/d~: ~'
CROSS. SECtIONS
W
~ S
S ~o
W ~~
u
z
~ u~~
3
i d-
Z
O
W
th
N
N
oat
U
ow J~xk ~
e~w iµ.~ ~, 0.,
a..~ GK
Joe 00014
aeon A
yt~~G a
r~•~ i:o• o~ g ee~«o
MINUTES
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION
CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 18, 2001
The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in a scheduled Study Session on July 18,
2001 at the Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue.
Vice Mayor Streit called the Adjourned City Council meeting to order at 4:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councihnembers Evan Baker, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Nick
ABSENT: Councihnember Stan Bogosian, Mayor John Mehaffey
ALSO Dave Anderson, City Manager
'~ PRESENT: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
Tom Sullivan, Director of Community Development
The following Planning Commissioners were present:
PRESENT Cynthia Barry, Mike Garakani, Jill Hunter, Erna Jackman,
Lisa Kurasch, George Roupe, Ruchi Zutshi
ABSENT: None
Mayor Mehaffey welcomed the Planning Commission.
1. HOUSING ELEMENT
Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report.
Director Sullivan explained that Jeff Goldman, Consultant/Parsons Harland Bartholomew
& Associates Inc, would present the Administrative Draft of the Housing Element.
Director Sullivan pointed out that Mr. Goldman would address the following topics:
• Approval process that the Housing and Community Development Department will
use to review the Housing Element.
State of California mandates and regulations.
Issues related to timing, the "numbers" and public participation.
•
City Council Minutes July 18, 2001
Director Sullivan noted that the Administrative Draft of the Housing Element contain the
methodology of how the City can meet the "Fair Share" assigned to it from Association of
Bay Area Governments(ABAG).
Jeff Goldman, Consultant/Parsons Harland Bartholomew & Associates Inc, summarized
the purpose of a Housing Element and the issues he is attempting to address. Mr. Goldman
explained that State Law requires that a housing element identify adequate sites that will be
made available through appropriate zoning and development standards for a variety of
housing types meet the community's housing goals. Where the inventory of sites does not
identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income levels
the City Housing Element must contain a program to show how the City will provide for
sufficient sites with zoning that permits owner-occupied and rental multifamily residential
use by right, including density and development standards that could accommodate and
facilitate the feasibility of housing for very low and low-income households.
Mr. Goldman explained that some communities with conditions similar to Saratoga have
successfully used residential-commercial mixed-use programs to show how adequate sites
will be made available at suitable densities to meet low and moderate-income housing
needs. Under amixed-use strategy, residential projects are permitted in specified
commercial zones, either independently or in conjunction with commercial development,
at sufficiently high densities to meet the "adequate sites" provision of state law.
Mr. Goldman explained that there are two approaches to a mixed-use strategy: 1) designate
specific commercial zones or sites on which residential uses are permitted with appropriate
development standards, and 2) designate amixed-use or residential overlay zone, with
separate development standards, that can be applied to commercial zones throughout the
jurisdiction.
Mr. Goldman explained that the Saratoga Housing Element is based on five strategic goals:
1) accommodating the City's fair share of the region's housing needs, 2) promoting the
construction of housing affordable to low and moderate-income households, 3)assisting
low-income property owners in improving substandard dwelling units, 4)preserving the
current stock of affordable housing in the City, and 5) assuring non-discrimination in
housing.
Mr. Goldman explained that once the draft Housing Element has identified all of the City's
needs it is sent to the Housing and Community Development Department for review. The
HCDD will in turn issue an Advisory Opinion Letter whether the Element does or does not
comply with state law. The HCDD has 60 days by law to respond. The final step is to
adopt the Housing Element, send it back to the HCDD who will issue a final opinion.
•
2
Mr. Goldman briefly explained the five goals of the Housing Element and how the city
would achieve each one.
Goal 1 - To accommodate the City's fair share of the Bay Area Regional Housing
Needs for all income groups. This goal can be achieved by designating sufficient vacant
land and/or sites with re-use potential to accommodate the City's allocation under the
Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) adopted by the Association of Bay Area
Governments. The City can accommodate the total number of dwelling units allocated by
ABAG under the RHND through a combination of vacant residential land, residential or
mixed-use projects on vacant commercial land, addition of dwelling units over or behind
existing commercial uses throughout commercial districts in Saratoga, approval of second
units, and dwelling units constructed or approved by permit since January 1, 1999. To
meet the needs of the very low-, low-, and moderate-income households, however, several
zoning changes will needed to encourage the production of affordable housing.
Councihnember Baker pointed out that the original Measure G prohibits increasing the
density on a particular piece of land.
Mr. Goldman responded that according to state law allowing new secondary units is not a
zoning change; furthermore state law may overrule Measure G.
City Attorney Taylor commented that Measure G did not change any of the existing
provisions in the City's General Plan, it just reaffirmed and readopted those provisions, so
any place that secondary units were allowed under the General Plan they could continue to
be allowed, there is nothing m the language m Measure G that would preclude the City
from implementing the General Plan in a manner that allowed there to be secondary units.
Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Goldman how he would define a secondary unit.
Mr. Goldman responded that under state law it is defined as any separate habitable space
that would meet the definition of a dwelling unit. A secondary unit typically has a cooking
facility, a separate entrance, and physically separates from main residence.
Commissioner Kurasch questioned how the City would make sure that these secondary
units are used as rentals.
Mr. Goldman noted that the City would have to set up a monitoring system.
Muriel Mahrer, 13577 Myren Drive, questioned if existing illegal secondary units would be
made legal.
Mr. Goldman responded that there is nothing to prevent an illegal unit obtaining a permit to
legalize the unit.
Director Sullivan added that at a Council retreat in May 2001, there were discussions
regarding an amnesty program for secondary units. There would be minimal inspections;
just to make sure the unit is safe to live in and trade the owner would have to make it a
low-income rental unit.
3
Vic Monia, 14665 Granite Way, expressed concern that if secondary units are legalized
would it affect the homeowners tax base, would their property value go up increasing their
property tax.
Mr. Goldman responded that the County Assessors Office would have to determine if a
reassessment is needed.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if the of the property had to live on the property.
Mr. Goldman responded that state law and the City's ordnance on secondary units states
that one of the units has to be owner occupied.
Meg Caldwell, Saratoga Resident, noted that she supports an amnesty program but must be
careful on how the City frames the program. Property owners will be hesitant to come
forward for permits if their units are labeled illegal.
Betty Feldhym, 20841 Franklin Avenue, suggested the City of Saratoga contact the Town
of Los Gatos because a few years ago they had a successful amnesty program.
Ms. Caldwell asked if residential overlay was consider in other zoning districts such as
r institutional and quasi public property, for example Civic Center West Valley College
Churches etc., perhaps these places could be used as employee living.
Mr. Goldman res onded that in then ou could a 1 this conc t t th s
p ry y pp y ep o o e types of
properties but it would be up to the Council to consider that option.
Mr. Goldman continued to explain Goal 2.
Goal 2 -Encourage the construction of housing and affordable to lower and
moderate-income households and increase affordable housing options. This goal can
be achieved by increasing the supply if affordable housing and housing options in Saratoga
to house additional households and families earning less than 120% of the Santa Clara
County median income. The City will amend the Zoning Code to implement state law
requirements at least 25 percent density bonus for any residential project in which at least
10 percent of the units are affordable to very low-income household or 20 percent of the
units are affordable to low-income households or 50 percent of the units are designed for
seniors.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested an additional incentive, to offer inclusionary zoning.
Commissioner Kurasch explained the City could require a minimum percent of low and
moderate-income housing in all new housing developments or subdivisions or require a
percent fee in lieu of building affordable units. This in turn would not require a density
percent increase on projects and would allow flexibility in building a fund or making sure
there are definitive number of low income units for the future.
4
Mr. Goldman responded that many communities have adopted inclusinary-zoning
ordinances, which goes hand in hand with density bonuses and other incentives programs.
In addition, Director Sullivan explained that with the completion of the Odd Fellows
expansion project the City will be able negotiate with the owners in order to count a small
number of units within Phase I and in Phase II all of the single unit apartments will be
counted towards meeting the numbers of the Regional Housing Needs Determination.
Vice Mayor Streit asked if whether or not the ten artist studios at Villa Montalvo would
count towards the City's RHND number.
Director Sullivan responded that there are ten artist units and a caretaker's cottage; all
eleven should qualify towards the RHND.
Mr. Goldman continued to explain Goa13.
Goal 3 -Assist lower-income homeowners in maintaining their homes. This goal can
be achieved by eliminating substandard housing conditions in Saratoga through financial
assistance to low-income homeowners who are unable to properly maintain or repair their
homes. The City will also continue to provide housing rehabilitation assistance to
homeowners earning 80 percent or less than the Santa Clara County median income
through the Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program (SHARP).
Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if within this program could the City provide
financial support to nonprofit groups who provide affordable housing.
Mr. Goldman responded yes.
For example, Director Sullivan noted that Council would be considering making a
contribution to the Housing Trust Fund later this evening.
Mr. Goldman continued to explain Goa14.
Goa14 -Preserve existing affordable rental housing. This goal can be achieved by: a)
monitoring compliance with state and federal tenant and public notice requirements prior to
any change in funding or ownership status, b) provide financial assistance for property
maintenance and improvements, or provide assistance in obtaining state and/or federal
funding for property maintenance and improvements, c) identify one or more non-profit
entities interested in the right of refusal should one or more of the properties become
available for sale. Provide financial assistance, or assist the non-profit in obtaining state or
federal funds for acquisition and preservation as affordable rental housing, d) require that
any financial assistance is tied to a minimum 30-year affordability covenant binding on all
current and future property owners during the effective time period.
Cynthia Berry, Chair/Planning Commission, noted that recently an application came before
the Commission where there were two structures on the property, both were rental units
and the applicant wanted to make it into a single-family house. Chair Berry asked m such
conversions, should the City require a property owner keep a secondary unit on the
5
property.
Mr. Goldman responded that the primary intent of this program was to preserve existing
rental development that were subsidized by state and federal funds in order to keep them
affordable.
Goal 5 -Promote equal housing opportunity for all Saratoga residents. The City
encouraging fair housing practices by cooperating with non-profit housing and citizen
organizations can achieve this goal. The City will designate a Fair Housing Coordinator to
monitor and coordinate fair housing activities in the City. The City will also amend the
Zoning Code to designate appropriate zones for the location of homeless and transitional
housing facilities.
John Mallory, Sazatoga resident, asked if at the end of five years will the City have another
requirement from the state to comply with.
Mr. Goldman responded that Housing Elements have to be updated every five years.
Mazge Bunyazd, President/ League of Women Voters, thanked the Council and Mr.
Goldman for their efforts to designate affordable housing.
Vice Mayor Streit thanked Mr. Goldman for his presentation.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION AT 6:00 P.M IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE
CONFERENCE ROOM,13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE.
The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room,
13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 6:00 p.m.
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(b):
(2 potential cases.)
MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:05 p.m.
Vice Mayor Streit reported there was Council discussion but no reportable action was taken.
Vice Mayor Streit called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. and requested Lorie
Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, to lead the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Evan Baker, Ann Waltonsmith,
Vice Mayor Nick Streit
ABSENT: Councihnember Stan Bogosian, Mayor John Mehaffey
ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager
Richazd Taylor, City Attorney
6
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager
John Cherbone, Director of Public Works
Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst
Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst
Ray Galindo, Accounting Supervisor
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR JULY 18, 2001.
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the
agenda for the meeting of July 18, 2001 was properly posted on July 13, 2001.
Vice Mayor Streit announced that with the consensus of the City Council he would like to add an
emergency item to tonight's agenda. Vice Mayor Streit reported that Don Whetstone recently sent
the City Council a letter suggesting that the City consider a Sazatoga Safety Plaza Center, which
would consist of the Sheriff's Department, Sazatoga Fire District, and a park.
WALTONSMITH/BAKER MOVED TO ADD AN AGENDA ITEM IN ORDER TO DISCUSS
A CITY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND
MEHAFFEY ABSENT.
t COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC
None
COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
The following person spoke at tonight's meeting:
Ed Farrell, 20877 Kittridge Road, commended City Manager Anderson for his efforts in the recent
approval of the Saratoga Fire District Boundary Drop agreement. Mr. Farrell explained the
Sazatoga Fire Districts second alarm fire response and pointed out the inadequacies. Mr. Farrell
noted that he has heazd that the City Council has been lobbied about a Saratoga Safety Plaza Center.
Mr. Farrell noted he fully supports the concept and suggested the Council put an advisory measure
on the ballot to see if all residents of Sazatoga agree on such a center.
COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF
None
Vice Mayor Streit noted that it was not the appropriate time to begin the public hearing.
Vice Mayor Streit requested that the Council move to Item 8.
Consensus of the City Council to move to Item 8.
7
OLD BUSINESS
8. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report and authorize execution of contract.
Jon Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report.
Director Cherbone noted that the report the City Council received consist of two
parts. First, are the result of the pavement survey conducted by the City's
consulting contractor, Hams & Associates and the second is the Cooperative
Agreement with the City of Cupertino.
Director Cherbone explained that the survey result provides information on the
City's current pavement network inventory; current network conditions,
maintenance recommendations, and budget scenarios.
Director Cherbone reported that the current overall condition of the City's streets
are rated "Very Good" corresponding to an average Pavement Condition Index of
70 out of 100-point scale.
Director Cherbone explained that the agreement with the City of Cupertino is for
Prospect Road Paving from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to Union pacific Railroad
crossing. The estimate fro this work is $125,150.00. The City of Cupertino is in
the process of bidding this work, and the work should begin in August 2001.
Director Cherbone noted that Mark Martin/Harris & Associates was here tonight to
give the Council a brief summary of the survey and a ten year budget and
conditions scenarios on the City's street system.
Mark Martin/Harris & Associates, briefly explained the reason behind a pavement
management program and what pavement management is.
• Pavement Inventory
• Surface Inspections
• Condition Calculation/Score
• Treatment Decision Tree
• Needs Analysis
• Budget Scenario Analysis
• Historical Treatments
Mr. Martin explained the composition of the City's street mileage as follows:
• Network - 135
• Arterial - 19
• Collector - 23
• Residential - 93
8
Mr. Martin reported that 86% of the City's streets are in "very good" or "good"
range.
Mr. Martin reviewed the budget needs for the City at $26 million 10-year need,
which is about $2.6 million per year. Mr. Martin explained that if this budget need
were followed it would address backlog and average condition to 86 PCI.
Vice Mayor Streit thanked Mr. Martin for coming tonight.
BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ACCEPT CITYWIDE PAVEMENT
MANAGEMENT REPORT AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF CUPERTINO.
MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. APPROVE RESOLUTION OF CONFIRMATION OF REPORT AND
ASSESSMENT OF WEEDS AND BRUSH ABATEMENT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Open public hearing; close public hearing; adopt resolution.
TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-047
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
CONFIRMING REPORT AND ASSESSMENT OF WEED AND BRUSH
ABATEMENT CHARGES
Marty Hicks, County Fire Marshall's Office, presented staff report.
Mr. Hicks explained that 36 properties in Saratoga were issued weed abatement
notices in November 2000. Mr. Hicks noted that twelve property owners
requested that the County provide abatement. The total cost for the County to
abate these parcel this year totaled $29,555.27. Mr. Hicks explained that in order
for the County to recover this cost, it is necessary for the City to adopt a resolution
confirming the assessments and directing the County Auditor to enter and collect
the assessments on the property tax bill.
Vice Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m.
Vice Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 7:34 p.m.
• BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION
CONFIRMING REPORT AND ASSESSMENT OF WEED AND BRUSH
ABATEMENT CHARGES MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND
MEHAFFEY ABSENT.
9
4. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF LL-00-005 (517-23- ,
021AND517-22-11115480 PEACH HILL ROAD; APPLICANT:
HUSAIN/KHAN APPELLANT: HUSAIN/I~IAN/GIBERSON
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision.
Richazd Taylor, City Attorney, announced that he must recused himself from this
public hearing due to a conflict of interest.
Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report.
Director Sullivan explained that the Planning Commission granted a Negative
Declaration for the lot Line Adjustment on a 6-0 vote and denied the Lot Line
Adjustment on a tie vote of 3 to 3. The City code requires that in the case of split
vote the matter shall be agendized and voted upon at the next regulaz meeting of the
Planning Commission at which a quorum is present, unless, within ten days after the
date on which the split vote is taken, the applicant files an appeal to the City Council,
in which event, the split vote shall be deemed a final denial by the Planning
Commission of the motion.
Director Sullivan explained that the Applicant has appealed the denial of the Lot Line
Adjustment. In a sepazate action, neighbors, Alan and Meg Giberson appealed the
Planning Commission action, which granted the Negative Declazation.
Director Sullivan noted that staff recommends conducting the public hearing and
grant the appeal which will overturn the Planning Commission action denying the
Lot Line Adjustment and deny the appeal of the Planning Commission action
granting the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
Director Sullivan explained that at the May 9, 2001 Planning Commission meeting
the Applicant requested a Lot Line Adjustment to allow an existing lot line to
move approximately 295 feet northerly between two existing pazcels with a slope
greater that 20%. An existing dwelling located at 15480 peach Hill Road straddles
the lot line. The purpose of the lot line adjustment is to place existing dwelling on
a single pazcel. As long as the existing dwelling is located on both parcels, no
additional dwellings can be approved for construction. The lot line adjustment
will result in the capability of allowing one additional dwelling to be constructed.
The numbers of pazcels remain the same. The allowable density under the General
Plan remains the same.
Director Sullivan noted that the Giberson's are appealing the decision of the
Negative Declazation because of their concern about any access from Willow
Creek Canyon. They indicated that access should be from Peach Hill Road.
Director Sullivan noted that as an alternative action the Council ma den the
Y Y
appeal of the Lot Line Adjustment denial and grant the appeal of the Negative
10
Declaration.
Jonathan Wittwer Cit Attorne ex lained that Lot Line Aduustments brin u
Y Y~ P J g P
many legal issues. Attorney Wittwer noted that provisions have been added to the
Subdivision Act Map that take precedence over the City's ordinances. The City
has to apply the state law, and if the state law does not address something, the City
can apply some of it's own ordinance that cover lot line adjustments.
City Attorney Wittwer briefly described the findings of the state law.
Vice Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m.
Norm Matteoni, 1740 Technology Drive, San Jose, noted that he represents the
property owners. Mr. Matteoni noted that the existing Pazcel A is the smallest
parcel (1.8 acres), has an average slope of 49%, and has a house that straddles the
northerly property line. Pazcel B is the lazger parcel (5.7 acres) average slope of
29%. Mr. Matteoni explained that what is being proposed is moving the line
northerly between the two pazcels is that the southerly Parcel A would grow in size
to 4.6 acres and it's slope would go on average to 29% from 49%. Pazcel B comes
down in size to 2.45 acres and the slope becomes an average of 30% instead of
29%. The engineers for the property encourage the owners to take advantage of
the flattest portions of the overall properties.
Mr. Matteoni addressed Mrs. Giberson's concerns regazding the creek habitat and
the watershed area. He explained that the northerly portion of the proposed
building site would be at a minimum of 150 feet away from the creek and the new
building site on the southerly portion of the property would be 250-300 feet away
from the creek.
In regards to the Giberson's concerns regarding to the properties access, the
property owners have agreed, as part of the conditions of the property, that there
would be no access through Sunset Drive.
Alan Giberson, 15561 Glen Una Drive, provided some background on the project
before them tonight. Mr. Giberson noted that this piece of property has been
undergoing changes for at least 30-40 yeazs. Mr. Giberson noted that they were
first involved with the property 15 years ago when sewer systems were installed, a
few years after later a 12 inch water main was placed along Willow Creek, and
then ten years ago a development was proposed. Mr. Giberson noted that they
protested the development but the City approved it and guazanteed that they would
make sure the creek would not be damaged and the project would be mitigated.
Mr. Giberson referred to photos showing that the development was not mitigated
and the creek and the surrounding vegetation were damaged.
Meg Giberson, 15561 Glen Una Drive, explained the disrupted events they
experienced when the Kennedy sewer line was installed at Willow Creek Canyon.
Mrs. Giberson pointed out all of the destruction that has occurred at Willow Creek
Canyon. Mrs. Giberson noted that according to Mr. Matteoni the primary part of
11
the house is on Pazcel A, from her reseazch she believes the primary part of the
house is actually on pazcel B.
In regazds to her concerns of the access of the proposed project, Mrs. Giberson
referred to a parcel map that was filed when the sewer was put in. Mrs. Giberson
noted that this map was from 1985 when an agreement between Kennedy
(applicants predecessor) and neighboring landowner Cazey, recorded as a "Lot
Line Adjustment Pazcel Map, which implies an intent to use streets, Sunset Court
and Sunset Avenue, for access to the canyon properties, use of which streets have
not received any environmental analysis for this project. The map granted a 1.52-
acre parcel of land, at the northern tip of the applicant's property, to neighbor
Carey. This agreement between Kennedy and Cazey memorialized a contract for
improvements of access roads: Sunset Avenue and Sunset Court. These two
streets do not exist on publicly available maps. Mrs. Giberson suggested that all of
these past agreements be discussed and investigated.
Mrs. Giberson noted that there aze many problems with this project. This project
is creating a nonconforming, substandazd lot with no street frontage. In order to
do that the applicant must apply for a variance, which they have not done. Mrs.
Giberson noted that if the City Council would be violating the City code if the Lot
Line Adjustment were approved.
Darrell Dukes, 15329 Peach Hill Road, noted that he lives two lots north of the
proposed project. Mr. Dukes stated that he has lived there for 35 yeazs. Mr.
Dukes commented that Peach Hill Road does not need another home, due to the
fact that the road only has one lane. Mr. Duke suggested that if this property is
developed the road should be widened. Mr. Duke presented a letter signed by six
other property owners on Peach Hill Road, all opposing this project.
Cynthia Barry, Chair/Planning Commission, noted that the Planning Commission
was split, half of the Commission looked at this project as a lot split, which could
have been done administratively. The Commission participated in the discussion
of how two better lots could be made. The totality of that discussion was based on
the premise that the Commission was talking about two buildable lots. The
Applicant's architect explained to the Commission that they preceded by first
locating where they would like the building envelopes and then figuring out the
terrain and how they would get the lot split they were requesting.
. Chair Barry explained that the three Commissioners that were against the lot line
adjustment essentially took the position that while there were two legal lots of
record that is not equal to two buildable lots. By supporting this lot split moving
from a situation that would increase the buildability of these two lots.
Chair Barry noted that the two new houses would have to meet the current Hillside
Standazd, which means two homes could not be built here.
Chair Barry noted that in re azds to the a royal of the Ne ative Declazation the
g PP g ,
Commission had to make a substantial amount of changes to the language
12
Councilmember Baker asked what types of changes were made to the Negative
Declaration.
Chair Barry responded that the majority of the issues were that two buildings on
this site are not feasible. Also, the geological report shows that there are no major
faults within the boundary lines of this property, however there is a major fault 600
feet away from the property line and was not reflected in the Negative Declaration.
Mr. Matteoni noted that there are a few issues that have not been addressed. In
regards to Mrs. Giberson's concerns of access off of Sunset Drive -the City is not
bound by any of the agreements that she refer ed to. Those agreements were made
between the property's predecessors and neighbors. Mr. Matteoni noted that he
has not seen any of those records that Mrs. Giberson mentioned. Mr. Matteoni
noted that he does not deny that the past events on the property have had an impact
on the Giberson's but history cannot be changed. In regards to the fault line on
the property, Mr. Matteoni explained it is on southwest portion of the property and
zero fault hazards were identified.
Mr. Matteoni requested that the City Council deny the appeal and approve the
Negative Declaration and grant the appeal and approve the Lot Line Adjustment.
Mrs. Giberson noted that she thinks more time should be taken considering this
project. The issues regarding the access of the property should be investigated.
Mrs. Giberson questioned why the Applicant wants to create the second lot; if the
City allows that lot to be created it would allow a future owner to build on it.
Mr. Duke requested that the Council send the project to the Building Department.
Vice Mayor closed the public hearing at 8:37 p.m.
Councilmember Baker noted that he agrees with Mrs. Giberson that the only
reason why the Applicant wants the Lot Line Adjustment is to allow a second
house to be built. Councilmember Baker noted that he completely objects to the
lot adjustment because he does not want a future house to be built on a substandard
lot in the hillside. Councilmember Baker noted that he disagrees with Mr. Duke;
one more house would not be a catastrophe on Peach Hill Road, however, if the
road is that unsafe than perhaps everyone on Peach Hill Road should consider
having the road widened.
Councilmember Baker stated that he would vote no on the Lot Line Adjustment
and vote against the Negative Declaration on the principal that it is not required.
• Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she visited the property yesterday and
realized that the owner bought the property with the intentions of dividing it and
building two houses. If the property was a flat piece of property she might support
a Lot Line Adjustment, but unfortunately it is an extremely rugged, hilly piece of
property. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she opposes building on
13
substandard pieces of property. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted she is against
the Lot Line Adjustment and does not feel she needs to vote for the Negative
Declazation.
Vice Mayor Streit noted that he could support the development of Pazcel A as a
buildable lot but does not support creating Pazcel B as a separate buildable lot.
Vice Mayor Streit explained that Parcel B's slope is too great from the top to the
bottom. Vice Mayor Streit stated he would deny the appeal.
BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED ADOPT RESOLUTION ON AUGUST
15, 2001 DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND
GRANTING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION ON THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15480 PEACH HILL ROAD. MOTION PASSED
3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT.
5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF DR-O1-005 (386-
06-017) - PALUMBO, 19208 BROOKVIEW DRIVE; APPLICANT:
PALUMBO APPELLANT: ESCOLA, KARREN, GROSS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision.
Allison Knapp, Contract Planner, presented staffreport.
Planner Knapp explained that the applicant has requested Design Review approval to
construct a 65 square foot addition to the ground floor of the existing single-story
home and a 636 square foot second story addition for a total of 701 squaze feet. The
existing one-story home would then be a two-story home consisting of 3,049 squaze
feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 21'-2". The site is 9,376 gross
and net square feet and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. The General
Plan Designation is Residential -Medium Density. The average slope of the lot is
less than one percent. No grading or tree removal is proposed and the proposed
colors and material match with the existing house.
Planner Knapp explained that on June 13, 2001 the Planning Commission approved
the project 4-1 subject to the conditions of approval outlined in the resolution written
by staff and four additional conditions added by the Commission which are as
follows: 1) that the condition of approval be strengthened to prohibit any future
change out of windows on the right elevation in order to protect privacy, 2) that the
reaz balcony either be reduced in size or eliminated, 3) that the windows on the
second-story reaz elevation be reduced in size, 4) that the applicant provide additional
landscape screening to provide yeaz-round privacy screening.
Planner Knapp noted that the Applicant revised the project drawings as follows:
• Reduced the balcony to 53 squaze feet.
• Reduced the window slider from eight to six feet.
14
• Reduced the number of bathroom windows to one window.
• Raised the sill height of the right side of the bedroom windows to 5.5 feet.
• Placed cabinetry in front of both windows to reduce the angle view.
• Added trelliswork on the right side of the balcony to further screen for
privacy.
Planner Knapp reported on June 21, 2001 the Escolas, the Karrens, and the Gorses
filed an appeal to the Planning Commission decision. In summary, the letter states
that the Applicant's design fails to address privacy issues that the immediate
neighbors identified at the public hearing.
Planner Knapp explained that on July 3, 2001 a meeting was conducted at City Hall
to discuss the issues. The Community Development Director facilitated the meeting
and all parties were present. It was the consensus of the Appellants that no second
story with or without a balcony was acceptable.
Vice Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 8:47 p.m.
Eric Escola, 19224 Brookview Drive, noted his house is immediately adjacent to the
project. Mr. Escola stated that tonight he is representing not only his family but also
the other two families on the appeal letter. Mr. Escola explained that at the June 13`h
r Planning Commission meeting, the second story addition was approved at 19208
Brook View Drive and because of this decision they filed an appeal. Mr. Escola
briefly described the chazacteristics of the Brookview neighborhood. Mr. Escola
noted that it consists of 326 single family, single story, ranch style homes built in the
1950's and 1960's. Since that time 15-second stories have been added to the
neighborhood. 84% of the neighborhood is in favor of keeping the homes single
story, ranch style houses. Mr. Escola noted that his group walked the neighborhood
and talked to the majority of the property owners. The majority of property owners
feel that second story additions change the character of the neighborhood. Currently
94.5% of the existing homes aze single story.
Mr. Escola noted the there aze two points in their appeal:
1. The loss of privacy to the immediate neighbors. They oppose any second
story having windows and a deck. Mr. Escola showed a sight map of the
views from the Palumbo's proposed second story and also pictures of the
current landscaping between the proposed project and surrounding houses.
Mr. Escola stated that most of the trees are deciduous.
2. The property owners concern about changes in the character of the
neighborhood. After surveying 199/326 property owners surveyed, the
majority singed a petition to keep second stories out of this neighborhood.
Mr. Escola suggested the Council consider a single story overlay in the Brookview
neighborhood.
Cynthia Eikhorn, Project Designer/Interhouse Design, noted that she began working
with the Palumbo's in eazly October, with the intention at that time, to design aone-
story addition. After extensive design exploration it was concluded that aone-story
15
design would not meet the needs of her clients. Ms. Eikhorn explained the reason
why the design was changed from a single story addition to a second story addition:
I) An existing large tree with a broad canopy that provides privacy and shade to the
backyard would have to be removed, 2) Extending their home with a single story
addition would of extended the rear yard set back, which currently is 25 feet. The
reaz property adjacent to the Palumbo's is the Karren's, which is located 16 feet from
that property line. Ms. Eikhorn explained that the Karren's recently received a small
variance to extend the existing nonconformity and the new roofline is an eye sore to
the Palumbo's. The privacy offered by every property, to maintain a 25-foot reaz
yard setback, is not available to the Palumbo's. For these reasons, Ms. Eikhorn stated
that this is why they designed a a story and a half design, which met the Palumbo's
needs and afforded privacy to both the neighbors and the Palumbo's.
Ms. Eikhorn referred to a letter the Appellants used to rally the neighborhood into
signing a petition against her clients project. Ms. Eikhorn noted that several
statements in the letter were inaccurate and misleading in regazds to the Appellants
concerns of privacy. Ms. Eikhorn explained some of the inaccuracies of the
statements to the Council and explained how she and her client have compromised on
the design in order to remedied the concerns of the neighbors:
• Balcony -reduced the balcony to 20 squaze feet, which is a reduction of 80%
reduction. Ms. Eikhorn noted that at this point in time her clients aze willing
to forgo the balcony in order to satisfy the neighbors concerns of privacy.
Although, Ms. Eikhorn explained that at a meeting with the neighbors
regazding the privacy issues, the reaz neighbor stated that they had no
objection to an adjacent property that had a small balcony, because the size
inhibited the use of it.
• Reduced the size of the sliding glass door from 8 feet to 6 feet wide.
• Reduced the bathroom windows from to two to one.
• Improved the evergreen landscaping
Ms. Eikhorn also noted that the petition stated that this project would accelerate
change to the Brookview neighborhood. Responding to that statement, Ms. Eikorn
said it is a "subjective interpretive comment".
Ms. Eikhorn explained that her client has proposed a design using a one and one half
story, which is alternative for design concerns for adding a second story, using
architectural elements to keep in the character of the neighborhood.
Councilmember Waltonsmith asked Ms. Eikhorn if the Palumbo's met with the
neighborhood.
Ms. Eikhorn responded that she and her clients met at the City's Planning
Department.
Vice Mayor Streit asked why all of the issues were not worked out as "good
neighbors" before it came to the City Council.
16
Ms. Eikhorn responded she tried to work this out with the neighbors at the Planning
Department. Unfortunately, some of the neighbors expressed that they did not want
second story additions at all and a few neighbors said that they do not mmd a second
story as long as it doe not have windows. Ms. Eikhorn noted that designing a second
story without windows was not an option, because of the egress requirement. The
balcony was redesigned making it lazge enough so the door could be opened..
Nan Dole, Brookview Drive, noted that she was not part of the survey because she is
putting on a second story. Ms. Dole noted that does not support banning second story
additions.
Eugene Craig, Titus Avenue, noted that he has lived in the Brookview neighborhood
since 1971. Mr. Craig stated that a property owner has a right to build a second story
only if it does not impose on the neighbors. In regazds to this particular project he
does not support it.
Allan Lynn, 12271 Country Squaze Lane, noted that although he is not personally
affected by this particulaz request for a second story addition, his concern is future
applications of the same request.
Betty Joe Stewart, 12517 Palm Tag Drive, noted that she opposes this project.
Melanie Karren, 12515 Woodside Court stated that she is against the entire project.
Mrs. Kamen noted that she lives directly behind the proposed project. Mrs. Karren
noted that she opposes the 16-foot deck and balcony because it would intrude on her
family's privacy.
Marvin Becker, 12120 Mellowood Drive, noted that he is the president of the
Brookview Homeowners Association and has lived there since 1963. Mr. Becker
noted that there are 326 homes in this neighborhood. Mr. Becker noted that he
reviewed the plans presented by the Palumbo's and it doe not match the description
presented by Ms. Eikhorn tonight.
Bill Gross, 12508 Woodside Court, note that he is not directly behind the Palumbos
house but, he can see the roof line. Mr. Gross noted that his concern is the president
the Council would be setting if this project were approved.
Dan Rose, 12250 Titus Avenue, noted that he has lived there for 15 years and
opposes this project.
Mitch Kane, 12418 Palmtag Drive, requested that the existing character of the
Brookview neighborhood be preserved. Mr. Kane requested that the City Council
direct the Planning Commission to investigate implementing a single story overlay.
Bob Bowe 12475 Woodside Court, noted that he has lived there for 19 years. Mr.
Bowe noted that he recently appealed a similar project behind his house because it
intruded on his privacy.
17
Ruth Welch, 19131 Bellwood Drive, noted that although this project does not directly
affect her home, but wanted to come to tonight's meeting to show support for the
appellants. Mrs. Welch noted that when she remolded her home she went to
surrounding neighbors and
Gordon Cameron, 12517 Brook Glen Drive, noted that he does not support the
proposed project.
Cynthia Berry, Chair/Planning Commission, noted that the Planning Commission
would like direction from the Council to investigate the development of
neighborhood overlays. In regards to this project, the Planning Commission
approved it because the design is only a one and one half story addition, increasing
the total square footage of the house by only 636 square feet and only a 21 foot
height increase. Chair Berry noted that unfortunately the privacy issues couldn't be
adequately addressed. In regards to the balcony, the planning Commission stated in
the Conditions of Approval that the balcony must be reduced or eliminated.
Councilmember Waltonsmith asked the •number of people opposing this project
attended the Planning Commission meeting.
Chair Barry responded no, only the immediate neighbors expressing privacy
concerns.
Mr. Escola noted that Ms. Eikhorn was incorrect when she stated that his group only
collected 191 signatures, actually they collected 194 signatures. Mr. Escola also
thanked Chair Berry for explaining to them that they could appeal the Planning
Commission's decision to the City Council.
Ms. Eikhorn noted that her client is not in favor of developing two story additions in
the Brookview neighborhood. Ms. Eikhorn noted their design is a very modest
addition and it keeps the neighborhood character.
Lisa Palumbo, 19208 Brookview Drive, noted that she met with the neighbors
several times trying to change the plans to accommodate her neighbors concerns.
Mrs. Palumbo noted that she would also support banning second stories in the
Brookview neighborhood. Mrs. Palumbo noted that she has done everything to
design a nonintrusive addition. Mrs. Palumbo stated that when the Escola's began
remodeling their house they never consulted her in the planning stages. Mrs.
Palumbo noted that he team has designed a low profile addition.
Vice Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 9:52 p.m.
Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that because the lot is small and many of the
neighbors expressed their opposition, she cannot support the project.
Councilmember Baker noted that he is basing his decision on neighborhood
compatibly, privacy, view intrusion, and sunlight intrusion. Councihnember Baker
noted that second story additions not only impact immediate neighbors but also the
18
entire neighborhood. Although the Palumbo's have designed a very nice addition he
cannot support the project.
Vice Mayor Streit noted that he visited the property twice and his main concern are
the privacy issues expressed by the immediate neighbors, the bulk in the back of the
house, and the balcony. Vice Mayor Streit noted that the-overall design is good.
Vice Mayor Streit noted that he would vote to grant the appeal and deny the second
story addition. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he would be willing to send this project
back to the Planning Commission if the neighborhood issues can be resolved
Director Sullivan noted that the he has heard nothing tonight that would indicate any
compromise on either side.
BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO GRANT THE APPEAL AND DENY
THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 19208 BROOKVIEW DRIVE. MOTION
PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT.
Vice Mayor Streit declared a 15-minute recess at 10:00 p.m.
Vice Mayor Streit reconvened the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
r
6. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM (DBE)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Open public hearing; close public hearing; adopt resolution.
TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-048
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
CONCERNING DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS PROGRAMS
John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report.
Director Cherbone noted that the U.S DOT requires any agency that requests
Federal Aid for transportation improvements to implement and maintain a
Disadvantage Business Program. This program established an Overall Goal that
provides, as a percentage of overall cost for a particular project, an amount that
should be paid to contractors and service/material providers listed as Disadvantage
Business Enterprises (DBE).
Director Cherbone noted that the Overall Goal is computed by considering the
proportional availability of DBE's in relation to the total amount of able and
• qualified firms for the local geographic area. Once this goal is established, it is
incorporated into the DBE Program text and presented to Caltrans for approval.
Following approval, the Draft DBE Program is made available to the public
notices in the local newspapers. Approval by the City Council is the final step
before the DBE program is officially adopted. Once adopted. The DBE Program
19
is implemented and maintained through good faith effort by designated City staff.
The overall Goal is updated every yeaz, per Caltrans requirements. Sazatoga's
Overall Goal is 8.3% for the 2000/2001 fiscal yeaz.
Vice Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 10:19 p.m.
7
Vice Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 10:19 p.m.
BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION
CONCERNING DISADVANTAGE BUSINESS PROGRAMS. MOTION
PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT.
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Open public hearing; close public hearing; adopt resolution.
TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-051
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SARATOGA MAKING APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENTS
TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2001/2002 BUDGET
Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report.
underwrite projects, reduce crimes, and improve public safety.
Analyst Reeve explained that the City has been awarded $8,820.00 for FY 1999,
and $7878.00 for FY 2000, in Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program
(LLEGB) funds from the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice
Assistance. This program provides funds to state and local governments to
Analyst Reeve noted that the deadline for the FY 1999 and the FY 2000, is July 31,
2001. An advisory boazd comprised of the City Manager's Staff, Captain Bacon
and Lieutenant Smedlund met to prioritize the Sheriffs Department's desires for
additional programs and services. The recommendations aze as follows:
1. Expend FY 1999 funds on overtime pay to provide a Deputy on bicycle to
patrol Big Basin Way, Wildwood Park, and trails throughout the summer.
2. Expend FY 2000 funds on two Talon moving mode handheld radars, and
various videos, books, literature, and equipment to assist the Student
Resource Officer to present training at Sazatoga schools.
Captain Kevin Bacon, Santa Clara County Sheriff s Department, explained the FY
1999 funds would help pay overtime fees that have accumulated due to the extra
patrol placed in the downtown azea.
Captain Bacon explained that the FY 2000 funds would be used to purchase two
Talon radars, which will enable the traffic patrol officers to monitor traffic as they
approach the moving vehicle in the opposite direction. With the leftover funds
•
•
•
20
videos, books, and literature would be purchased to assist the School Resource
Officer.
Vice Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 10:26 p.m.
Vice Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 10:26 p.m.
BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ACCEPT THE GRANT AND
ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING THE FUNDS. MOTION
PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT.
Vice Mayor Streit requested that the City Council move to Item 10.
Consensus of the City Council to move to Item 10.
NEW BUSINESS
10. HOUSING TRUST FUND CONTRIBUTION
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution; execute agreement; make pledge.
TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-052
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MAKING APPROPRIATE
ADJUSTMENT TO FY 2001-02 AND CONTRIBUTING $25, 000 HOUSING
TRUST FUND
Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report.
Director Sullivan explained that the trust has set a goal of $20 million in voluntary
contributions with the possibility of looking at long term permanent funding if this
initial effort is successful. As of June 25, 2001, contributions to the Housing Trust
Fund total $19.3 million, so the Trust is now only$700,000.00 short of their goal.
Several surrounding cities have made donations to the Trust. Within Santa Clara
County, the Cities of Saratoga, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Gilroy have not yet
committed to making any contribution to the Trust.
Director Sullivan noted that staff recommends that the City Council make a pledge to
contribute $25,000.00 in fiscal year 2001-02 to the Trust and authorize the execution
of a n agreement with the Trust for the City's contribution.
Chris Block, Executive Director/Housing Trust Fund, noted that the Housing Trust
Fund is almost at it's $20 million dollar goal and 100% of city and county
participation. Mr. Block encouraged the City Council to approve the contribution.
21
Jan Birenbaum, Chair/Teacher Housing Initiative Committee, 20052 Sunset Drive,
encouraged the City Council to approve the contribution to the Housing Trust Fund,
and urged the placement of additional funding on the CIP program.
Lisa Liu, 20291 Memck Drive, encouraged the City Council to approve the
contribution to the Housing Trust Fund. Ms. Liu thanked the Council for agreeing to
the placement of an article in the next issue of the Saratogan requesting low-income
housing for teachers.
Muriel Mahrer, 13577 Myren Drive, noted that the City has taken steps in the right
direction but what are still needed are regional answers to Saratoga's needs.
Betty Feldhym, 20184 Franklin Avenue, thanked the City Council for having the
Housing Element study session and encouraged the contribution to the Housing Trust
Fund.
Marjory Bunyard, President/League of Women Voters, encouraged the City Council
to approve the contribution to the Housing Trust Fund.
Bob Hinz, Saratoga resident, encouraged the Council to support the Housing Trust
Fund.
Dan Stone, Saratoga resident, noted he came to tonight's meeting to encouraged the
City Council to approve the contribution to the Housing Trust Fund for all of his
Ann Danner, 14190 Woodview Lane, Board President/HIP, noted that her group
provides housing to people with disabilities. Ms. Danner encouraged the City to
approve the contribution to the Housing Trust Fund.
Shiloh Ballard, Grace United Methodist Church, encouraged the City Council to
approve the contribution to the Housing Trust Fund.
Beth Wyman, 12231 Fredericksburg Drive, suggested that the City Council double
the donation to $50,000.00.
Carl Gardino, CEO/Silicon Valley manufacturing Group, encouraged the City
Council to approve the contribution to the Housing Trust Fund.
BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONTRIBUTION OF
$25,000 TO THE HOUSING TRUST FUND AND ADOPT RESOLUTION
MAKING APPROPRIATE BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS. MOTION PASSED 3-
0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT.
BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF
AGREEMENT. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY
ABSENT.
22
Vice Mayor Streit noted that the Council would now here the emergency item regarding the
letter received from the Fire District.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Vice Mayor Streit noted that the City Council received a letter from the Fire District dated July
16, 2001responding to the program Don Whetstone put together to implement a Public Safety
Center. Vice Mayor Streit noted that it would be appropriate that tonight the City Council make a
motion to authorize the Mayor to form an ad hoc committee to investigate the ideas of
developing a Public Safety Center in Saratoga.
Don Whetstone, Vickery Avenue, noted that the letter sent by the Fire District responding to his
proposed program has many inaccuracies. Mr. Whetstone thanked the Council for taking action
on this subject.
Dave Dolloff, 20685 Sigal Drive commend the Council for taking action on the letter sent by the
Fire Commission. Mr. Dolloff noted that he feels the Fire District violated the brown act.
Hugh Hexamer/Saratoga Fire Commissioner, 20367 Glen Brae Drive, noted that Mr. Whetstone
does not understand the urgent need to start construction on the new facility. The Planning
r Commission already approved the plans and the District will be going out to bid in the near
future. Mr. Hexamer commented that to delay the project is going against the 2,000 plus voters
who approved the bond to build the new facility.
Jeff Schwartz encouraged the City Council to go forward with the course of action outlined by
Vice Mayor Streit. Mr. Swartz supports a Public Safety Center in Saratoga.
BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO FORM AN AD
HOC COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE A PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER. MOTION
PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2A. APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING -JUNE 6, 2001
SPECIAL MEETING -JULY 10, 2001
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve minutes.
Councilmember Baker pulled item 2A from the Consent Calendar.
• Councilmember Baker requested that on page 5, of the minutes of June 6, 2001
during the discussion by the City Attorney. City Attorney Taylor stated that the
septic abatement ordinance states that the City Council makes hardship
determinations for an unlimited time -not five years.
23
WALTONSMITH/BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF JUNE 6,
2001 AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND
MEHAFFEY ABSENT.
WALTONSMITHlBAKER MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF JULY 10,
2001. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY
ABSENT.
2B. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve check register.
BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE CHECK REGISTER.
MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT.
2C. APPROVE TREASURER'S REPORT FOR MONTH ENDED JUNE 30,
2001
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Treasurer's Report.
r
BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE TREASURER'S
REPORT. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY
ABSENT.
2D. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING -JUNE 27, 2001
REGULAR MEETING -JULY 11, 2001
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Note and file.
BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE PLANNING
ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND
MEHAFFEY ABSENT.
2E. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT
WITH MELISSA EDDY FOR INTERIM FINANCE DIRECTOR
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve authorization to execute contract.
BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF
AGREEMENT WITH MELISSA EDDY. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH
BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT.
24
2F. CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT COMMITTEE CITY
COUNCIL LIAISON
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Make appointment.
BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPOINT COUNCILMEMBER
WALTONSMITH TO THE CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT
COMMITTEE. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND
MEHAFFEY ABSENT.
2G. PROPERTY TAX LEVY TO SERVICE THE DEBT ON THE LIBRARY
BOND
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution.
TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-044
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA APPROVING AN INCREASE IN THE CITY'S PROPERTY
TAX RATE TO FUND DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS ON THE LIBRARY
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-02
BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION
APPROVING THE INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAX RATES FOR DEBT
SERVICE PAYMENTS ON THE LIBRARY GENERAL BONDS. MOTION
PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT.
2H. RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
DR-O1-01400-013 - 13921 LOQUAT COURT- APPLICANT/APPELLANT:
ADLPARVAR
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution.
TITLE OF RESOLUTION: Ol- 045
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION; APPLICANT/APPELLANT-ADLPARVAR; 13921
• LOQUAT COURT; DR-O1-014
BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION DENYING
AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DR-O1-014-13921 LOQUAT COURT; DR-O1-014. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2
25
WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT.
2I. RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION UP-00-013- COX AVENUE AND
CUMBERLAND DRIVE - APPLICANT: NEXTEL APPELLANT:
MAROLDA
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution.
TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-046
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SARATOGA UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENYING THE APPEAL
OF USE PERMIT APPLICATION UP-00-013
BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION DENYING
AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
UP-00-013-COX AVENUE AND CUMBERLAND DRIVE. MOTION PASSED
3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT.
2J. COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORDS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Note and file.
Councilmember Baker pulled Item 2J form the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Baker requested that if a person is serving on one of the City's
commissions, try and make the meetings.
BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORDS. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN
AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT.
OLD BUSINESS
9. SARATOGA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report.
City Attorney Taylor explained that at its meeting of February 27, 2001, the City
Council reviewed draft bylaws for a Saratoga Community Foundation to support a
broad range of community interests in the City of Saratoga. Council directed that
26
the Foundation be organized and supported initially by the City in a manner that
would facilitate its ultimate transition into an independent entity. Staff has revised
the bylaws to respond to Council direction. The pnmary changes are: (1) the
Foundation will be a membership organization that allows members (Saratoga
residents only) to elect Directors and make other policy decisions for the
Foundation; (2) the Foundation will become completely independent of the City
government on June 30, 2003; and (3) the Foundation will be required to prepare a
five year plan with fundraising goals and a plan for building an endowment and
making grants to meet current community needs. As requested by the Council, a
copy of the draft bylaws has been posted on the City's web site and copies have
been made available in the Community Library.
City Attorney Taylor briefly explained that the following are the revisions that
were made to the bylaws during the February 27, 2001:
Membership
• The Foundation will be established as a "membership" organization. The
day-to-day activities of the foundation would be administered by the Board
of Directors and the Executive Director, but the members of the foundation
would have the ultimate authority to select Board members and to set
foundation policy.
• Any Saratoga resident who pays the minimum annual dues is a
member of the foundation. The minimum dues must be between
$100 and $250 per year as determined by the Board of Directors.
Because the Council emphasized that it wants to encourage
participation by both members and non-members of the foundation,
section 3.12(a) makes clear that the foundation encourages the
involvement of local civic groups, businesses, and non-residents.
• Annual meetings will be held in May. These meetings will be used
to receive reports on the foundation's operations and to elect
members to the Board of Directors. Members are allowed to vote by
proxy and the bylaws also allow the membership to act by mail ballot
rather than at a meeting. The bylaws allow the Board of Directors to
call special meetings of the members and also allow the members
themselves to initiate action. This structure allows the members to
maintain oversight of Board actions.
•
Sunset on City Involvement
• The foundation will become independent of the City government by
June 30, 2003. The initial Board of Directors will be appointed by
the City Council and will include two members of the City Council.
Five Year Plan
• The foundation's Executive Committee must develop afive-year
strategic plan by the end of the year. (See section 8.03.) The plan
27
must include a vision statement, year-by-year fundraising goals, and
an investment plan that allows the foundation to respond to current
needs while at the same time building an endowment.
Other Revisions
• Expanding the purposes of the foundation to include all activities and
programs that enhance the quality of life in the city and to include
encouraging widespread community participation in foundation
programs. (Section 2.01.)
• Requiring annual recognition of foundation supporters. (Section
3.12(a).)
• Defining a quorum of the Board of Directors as 51 % of the Board or
as 34% of the Board if the Board has 15 or more members. (Section
5.04(e).)
• Clarifying that no director may serve more than two consecutive
terms but that former Directors may serve on committees and may be
reappointed as directors after afour-year hiatus. (Section 5.02.)
• Clarifying that the Brown Act governs all meetings of the Board only
as long as the terms of the Act require it to apply. Once the City is
no longer funding the foundation and appointing board members the
Brown Act will not apply. (Section 5.04(a).)
• Renaming the "Education Committee" as the Development
Committee and deleting the "Associate Relations Committee" since
its functions can be served by the Community Relations committee.
(Section 8.02.)
The City Council thanked City Attorney Taylor for all of his works on the
Saratoga Community Foundation.
BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO RECRUIT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH $OGOSIAN AND
MEHAFFEY ABSENT.
NEW BUSINESS
11. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT
TO THE CONTRACT WITH GREG ING & ASSOCIATES
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize execution of contract.
Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report.
Director Sullivan explained the previously the City Council a contract with Greg ing
& Associates for the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road improvement Project. At that time
the City Council expressed concern that the Street Improvement Project and the
28
Gateway Design Project be integrated so that time is not lost on one project waiting
for the other to be completed. Director Sullivan noted that staff recommends that
Council approve a proposal from Greg G. Ing & Associates m the amount of
$39,680.99 for the preparation of Design Guidelines for the Gateway Project which
will complement the Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Improvement Project.
BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ACCEPT PROPOSAL FROM GREG
ING & ASSOCIATES IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,6580 FOR PREPARATION
OF THE SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD CORRIDOR DESIGN
GUIDELINES AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT.
MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT.
12. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO AWARD CONTRACT TO
GEN-CON FOR PHASE I LIBRARY
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize execution of contract.
Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report.
Assistant Manager Tinfow explained that sealed bids for the Saratoga Public
r Library Project Phase I were due and opened on July 12, 2001. Three bids were
received: 1) Gen-Con Inc - $1,697,000 2) McCrary Construction CO. -
$2, 061,000 3) HRB Construction - $2,305,420. The cost estimate provided by
Field Paoli Architecture for~hase I was $1,532 million.
Assistant Manager Tinfow noted that Gilbane has worked with Gen-Con in the
past and their experience has been positive.
BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AWARD CONTRACT TO GEN-CON
INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,697,000 FOR PHASE I OF THE LIBRARY
RENOVATION PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF
CONTRACT. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY
ABSENT.
13. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO AWARD CONTRACT TO
BARBARA SPECTOR AND CHARLES KILLIAN FOR HEARING
OFFICER SERVICES
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize execution of contract.
TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-049
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SARATOGA APPOINTING
A HEARING OFFICER AND ALTERNATE
29
Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staffreport. S
City Attorney Taylor explained that at its meeting of February 21, 2001 the City
council approved an ordinance amending the City Code pertaining to code
enforcement. The ordinance established the position of Hearing Officer to hear
and decide appeals of the City's code enforcement decisions. Staff distributed a
request for proposals to more than 200 potential candidates. Three applications
were received and are attached for your information. Each of the applicants would
be qualified to serve as a hearing officer.
City Attorney Taylor stated that he attached resolution formally designates
Barbara Spector as the hearing officer and Charles Killian as the alternate to serve
in the event that the primary hearing officer has a conflict of interest or is not
available. The resolution specifies that the term of the hearing officers would be
until September 20, 2002. Staff will enter an independent contractor agreement
with each of the hearing officers.
City Attorney noted that all of the applicants proposed $175.00 an hour, which is a
good rate for this type of service.
BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AWARD CONTRACT TO BARBARA
r SPECTOR AND CHARLES KILLIAN FOR HEARING OFFICER
SERVICES. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY
ABSENT.
14. CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS ORDINANCE
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
Cary Bloomquist, administrative Analyst, presented staffreport.
Analyst Bloomquist explained that the purpose for this report was to introduce the
City Council to the proposed Construction and Debris Recycling Ordinance. The
California Integrated Waste management Act was passed by the State Assembly in
1989 to divert materials from landfills in order to preserve decreasing landfill
capacity and diminishing natural resources. The bill mandates each California city
and county to divert 50% of all solid waste from landfill or transformation facilities
trough source reduction, recycling and composting activities by January 2, 2000.
Analyst Bloomquist pointed out the City of Saratoga has achieved a 56% diversion
rate based upon the present level of source reduction and recycling participation by
Saratoga Residents and business owners. Many programs have been implemented to
avoid the statutory penalties associated with noncompliance. The only program that
has not been implemented is the non-residential -construction and demolition debris-
recycling programs.
Analyst Bloomquist explained that most contractor already recycle concrete and
30
asphalt for reuse on site because it is less expensive than disposal. The County has
prepared a Builder's Reuse and Recycling Guide for local contractors that list firms
that assist with deconstruction and reuse of building material and fixtures. Many of
these materials can be recovered at little or no cost to the contractor, but because
deconstruction and recycling can take more time, it is important to notify contractors
early in the permit process of the requirement to recycle. - As a condition precedent to
issuance of any permit for a building or demolition project that involves the
production of solid waste destined to be delivered to landfill, the applicant would pay
an administrative fee of $200.00. This fee would compensate the City for. all
expenses incurred in administering the permit.
Analyst Bloomquist noted that the Board of the West Valley Solid Waste
Management Authority, of which the City is a member, recommends that a recycling
ordinance be approved by the City Council for inclusion in its permit conditions.
Analyst Bloomquist noted that tonight is an initial introduction of this concept to
Council and he will bring this back in September.
Councilmember Baker noted that he has great concerns regarding this proposed
ordinance; although he stated he knows the City needs to do it. Councilmember
Baker commented that he is uncomfortable moving forward without full Council to
hear and discuss this issues and suggested that the City invite three of the most
prominent and most active general contractors who deal in Saratoga to come and tell
the City Council how they currently deal with recycling and what is the potential
impact. Councilmember Baker noted that following these new guidelines makes the
cost of demolishing a house much more expensive. Councilmember Baker noted that
he supports the overall concept but requested more data on it.
Vice Mayor Streit noted that the West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority
JPA has gone over this proposal for the past year and are still waiting for Waste
Management to come back with a full program. Vice Mayor Streit commented that
the City must get this program started although there are a few issues regarding cost
and revenue that have not been decided.
Vice Mayor Streit thanked. Analyst Bloomquist and noted that after Scott
Hobson/Green Valley reviews the guidelines and the JPA makes a few financial
decisions this should come back to Council.
15. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES VOTING DELEGATE
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Appoint voting delegate.
• Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, presented staff report.
City Clerk Boyer noted that on September 12, 2001 through September 15, 2001
the League of California Cities would hold their annual conference. One very
important aspect of the annual conference is the annual business meeting when the
31
membership takes action on conference resolutions. To expedite the conduct of
business at this policy-making meeting each city council should designate a voting
representative and an alternate who will be present at the annual business meeting.
The League bylaws provide that each city is entitled to one vote in matters effecting
municipal or League policy. The deadline to return the "Voting Delegate Form" to
the League of California Cities is August 17, 2001.
Councilmember Baker asked if the voting delegate is restricted to elected officials.
Director Sullivan responded that Council could appoint a staffmember.
WALTONSMITH/BAKER MOVED TO APPOINT TOM SULLIVAN,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR VOTING DELEGATE AND
DAVE ANDERSON, CITY MANAGER AS THE ALTERNATE VOTING
DELEGATE. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY
ABSENT.
COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS
No reportable information.
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she encourages the Planning Commission to look into
two story overlays.
Councilmember Waltonsmith reported that the Chamber of Commerce has recently reorganized,
due to the fact that they lost their president and director. Councilmember Waltonsmith suggested
that the Chamber meet with the City Council to discuss their future.
Councilmember Baker referred to a letter he received from the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District discussing wood burning fireplaces. Councilmember Baker noted that he
feels the ordinance that the Air District is trying to encourage cities to adopt is too strict.
Councilmember Baker suggested that the City encourage the citizens of Saratoga to write letters
to our local legislators opposing SB910.
OTHER
None
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
None
C~
32
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Vice Mayor Streit declared the meeting adjourned at
11:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathleen Boyer, CMC
City Clerk
•
•
33