Loading...
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