The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-08-2002 Planning Commission Packet\` \ `\~ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, January 8, 2002 - 3:00 p.m. PLACE: City HaIl 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, JANUARY 9, 2002 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. DR-O1-031 &t UP-O1-017 - SAN FILIPPO Item 4 Sobey Road 2. DR-O1-043 - FITT Item 5 ~~ 20461 Walnut Avenue 3. UP-O1-018 - AUGUST PARTNERS II, LLC. Item 3 12132 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site ~~isits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site visits are held Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site visit to answer any questions which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. Please contact staff Tuesday morning for an estimated time of the site visit. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATi=: Wednesday, January 9, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL C ALL.: Commissioners Garakani, Jackman, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Barry PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINiJTES : Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of December 12, 2001. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of thePublicwill be allowed to address thePlanning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff: REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 3, 2001. CONSENT CALENDAR NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. GARROD FARMS, 22600 Mount Eden Road (503-10-028); -Request for General Plan clarification to allow three new dwelling units on one parcel of land where two dwelling units currently exist. The area is within the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County and is prezoned Hillside Residential. The County requires the project be consistent with the City of Saratoga's General Plan. (LIVII~TGSTONE) (CONTINUED FROM 11/14/01) 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 Monday, a week before the meeting. ~~ 2. DR-O1-021, V-010-012 ~ BSA-Ol-002 HUSTED, Kittridge Road; -Request for Design Review and Building Site Approval to construct atwo-story craftsman style, single-family residence on a vacant lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two-car garage is 4,810 square feet. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site is zoned Hillside Residential (H-R). A variance is requested in order to construct retaining walls in excess of five feet. An exception is also requested to exceed one thousand cubic yards of cut and fill allowed in the H-R Zone. (OOSTERHOUS) THIS ITEM IS REQUESTED TO BE CONTINUED 3. UP-O1-018 (381-O1-026) AUGUST PARTNERS II, LLC; DR. KATHLEEN BAN, DDS (tenant), 12132 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; -Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to establish a dental office in an existing 1,440 square foot office space in the Park Saratoga Center. The office space is located in the Visitor Commercial (C-V) zoning district. (VASUDEVAN) 4. DR-O1-031 ~St UP-O1-017 (397-05-091) -SAN FILIPPO, Sobey Road; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,981 square foot two- story residence with a 608 square foot basement and 528 square foot cabana on a vacant lot. The Use Permit approval is necessary to allow the cabana to be 15 feet in height. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site is 43,042 square feet and is located within a R-1-40,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE) DR-O1-043 (397-28-005) - FITT, 20461 Walnut Avenue; -Request for Design ~~ Review approval to add 360 square feet to the first floor, 334 square feet to the second floor and 360 square feet to the basement of the existing 1,800 square foot dwelling. Maximum height of the structure ~~ill be 24 feet. The 7,658 square foot parcel is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. (SULLIVAN) DIRECTOR ITEMS - Planning Commission Mission Statement COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, January 23, 2002, Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA ~~. i z • DATE: PLACE TYPE: o~ MINUTES UC/ d ;~~. SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ~ ~,~" 7'~ U U Wednesday, December 12, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi Absent: None Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone and Planner Christy Oosterhous APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of November 28, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the regular Planning Commission minutes of November 28, 2001, were approved as submitted. AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and~Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Barry, Jackman and Roupe APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Study Session of November 28, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Study Session minutes of November 28, 2001, were approved as submitted. AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Barry, Jackman and Roupe ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Forest Glen Durland, 14675 1/2 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Stated he was present to speak his opposition to the public access trail at 14645 Big Basin Way, saying that this access was angering nearby neighbors. • Pointed out that several years ago at a public hearing, loud opposition to this potential access was expressed. • Urged the abandonment of plans for this trail access. i~ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 2 Ms. Mary Boscoe, 14611 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: ~' • Stated that she learned about plans for the trail going in just yesterday. • Declared that she purchased her property in order to live within a quiet area and never envisioned the public being there. • Asked the City to reconsider the installation of this access. Chair Barry pointed out to Mr. Durland and Ms. Boscoe that as this item was not an agendized item the Commission is not at liberty to discuss this matter at length. Director Sullivan suggested that Chair Barry direct staff to place this item on a future agenda if it so wishes. Pointed out that the trial ;access was approved in 1998 and the easements required were accepted by the City Council. Therefore, any abandonment of these easements would also have to be executed by Council. Commissioner Roupe stated that staff should place this matter on a future agenda and provide the Planning Commission with any pertinent facts. Said that this is a subject worthy of future discussion. Commissioner Kurasch questioned what action the Commission could take as it has no authority over this matter. Director Sullivan replied that the Commission could simply make a recommendation of action to Council. Commissioner Roupe reiterated that the Commission must be provided with the complete facts to ,~ determine what course of action is appropriate. Chair Barry advised the two speakers that the only action that could be taken this evening is to agendize this matter for a future meeting. ' Mr. Forest Durland inquired whether the Commission could stop the developer from putting a sign on the street identifying the access. Director Sullivan replied that neither staff nor the Commission has the authority to do so. Commissioner Kurasch said that there is nothing that the Planning Commission can do and suggested that the speakers approach Council. ' Chair Barry suggested that they make a complaint to Director Sullivan to be forwarded to the appropriate body for consideration. Mr. Forest Durland promised to bring a letter of complaint to Director Sullivan the next day. Commissioner Garakani asked when the Council's next meeting will occur. Director Sullivan advised that the Council would meet next Wednesday. He cautioned that as this item ~~ has not been advertised -for that meeting, the Council would also be precluded from discussing it in any detail at that meeting. i ~ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 3 REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA - Director Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 6, 2001. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 DR-O1-019, V-O1-011, UP-O1-016, BSA-Ol-001 & ED-O1-001 (503-13-117) HUERTA, 22551 Mount Eden Road: Request for Design Review acid Building Site Approval to construct a 4,830 square foot two-story residence with garage on a vacant lot. A variance is requested in order to construct retaining walls in excess of five feet for geotechnical mitigation. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The 1.42-acre site is located within the Hillside Residential (HR) Zoning. District. (CONTINUED FROM 10/24/01) (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant seeks approval for a new single-family residence on a 1.42-acre lot. The 4,830 square foot home would include a 1,260 square foot basement and 504 square foot garage. The maximum height would be 26 feet, with the garage height at 14 feet. • Pointed out that two-thirds of the site will be undeveloped and that the property is zoned Hillside Residential. • Reminded that this project was originally considered by the Commission on October 24`h and continued to this meeting. • Said that the Commission had two concerns. The first is what would be involved to remediate the slide area. The second was whether redwood trees could be planted near the slide area without jeopardizing that slide area. • Pointed out that remediation of the slide area would involve construction on several adjacent properties and that there is no nexus for requiring that action. • Advised that it has been determined that trees can be planted in the slide area but with the warnings that trees not be placed too close to any other structures. • Added that the size of the structure was also reduced at the instruction of the Commission. The reductions include 403 square foot on the first floor with the elimination of a guest room and a family room. The kitchen nook and terrace were modified. The garage was moved up the hill by seven feet. There were no alterations to the basement or second floor. • Recommended that the Commission forward a recommendation to Council to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Tentative Subdivision, Variance, Use Permit and Design Review for this project. Advised that the Building Site Approval and Environmental Determination require final approval by Council. Commissioner Roupe asked if the tota14,830 square footage includes the garage. Director Sullivan replied yes. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 4 . Commissioner Roupe pointed out that with that reduction the application is now for an approximately 4,400 square foot structure. Commissioner Jackman inquired why Council must approve this building site. Director Sullivan pointed out that Building Site Approvals are handled like Parcel Maps and Final Subdivisions. The Planning Commission approves Tentative Subdivisions, while Council approves Final Subdivisions. Chair Barry asked if there are any open issues. Director Sullivan said he would defer to the Commission for that response. Chair Barry pointed out that this is a legal lot that was recorded quite a long time ago. Commissioner Kurasch inquired whether the variance for the retaining walls is only because of their height or due to their location within a setback. Director Sullivan replied some of both. Commissioner Jackman asked why this was going to Council. Director Sullivan replied because the lot was created more than 15 years ago. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:25 p.m. Mr. Charles Brown; Project Architect: • Said that they have reduced the size of this proposed home as required by the Commission. • Added that with their changes, the building has been pulled away from the bottom property line, through the elimination of both a guest and family room. The structure is 15 feet further up hill, with the garage being 6 feet further up hill. • Stated that articulation has been included to reduce the mass of the building. • Made himself available for any questions. Commissioner Kurasch: • Pointed out that the garage has been located at the most severe slope on the western edge of the site. • Questioned why the garage is detached and why a carport has been located on the slope site of the garage itself. Mr. Charles Brown replied that this carport is for emergency or guest parking. Added that the garage was originally attached to the house but they were required to detach it. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Brown for the width of the, parking area. • Mr. Charles Brown replied 22 feet, representing two parking space widths. This is required for ~' emergency access. Added that with the relocation of this garage further up hill, they also moved the retaining wall that will now become shortened in height. ~. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 5 Chair Barry asked Mr. Brown to describe the retaining walls. Mr. Charles Brown replied that in general terms they are installing minimal walls that step down the hill. There are wide enough separations between the walls to allow for planting areas to mitigate the height. Chair Barry asked for the approximate numbers. -- Mr. Charles Brown replied eight-foot maximum where prior the maximum was 12. There is between three to five feet between the walls. Commissioner Kurasch asked where the eight-foot walls are located. Chair Barry replied that the wall is three-feet high closest to the neighboring property. Five feet away, the wall is eight-feet high. Planting will be installed in between the two to providing screening. Commissioner Jackman pointed out that for the Hillside Residential District a landscaping plan is required. Mr. Charles Brown suggested that the Commission make that requirement a Condition of Approval at the time of building permit. Director Sullivan pointed out that this is the normal procedure. The Commission can elect to leave the review of the landscaping plan to staff or require review by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Jackman said that staff review would be quite adequate. Chair Barry pointed out that the house's orientation is not facing Mount Eden Road. Mr. Charles Brown said that this is an informal house with a central spine design. Added that the home features ari entry feature and that this is not a typical residential tract lot. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Brown why he has elected to design and orient a house using a north-east instead of a north-south orientation. Mr. Charles Brown replied the reason is views. The best views are to the southeast. The living room and dining room would be overlooking that side. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern about the encroachment on setbacks. Mr. Charles Brown opined that he felt this home fits the site nicely. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:37 p.m. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that this project requires extensive variances due to the slope and the retaining wall heights. • Added that the fact that the front door is not visible from the street frontage is also a concern. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 6 Commissioner Zutshi stated that while she realizes experts have reviewed this site, she has concerns ' about it even being a buildable lot. Commissioner Roupe: • Declared that this site has been deemed buildable when the subdivision was approved. • Added that upon careful geotechnical reviews, this lot has been deemed a buildable lot with necessary modification and mitigation. • Said that the Commission cannot second-guess that judgement. Commissioner Zutshi said that she is not sure it is buildable and is concerned about the potential for slides. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the Planning Commission is a community oversight committee. Said that she has concerns about a house hanging over a hill where the rear of the house is visible from the road. Commissioner Roupe asked Director Sullivan whether the Commission could decide this is not a buildable lot. Director Sullivan pointed out that the Commission has the authority to make decisions. If the Commission has questions, they need to articulate them so that experts can be brought in to provide the necessary response. Commissioner Kurasch said that there are always unknowns and that she does not question the experts. ~` Pointed out that there has been a 15-year wait on building on this lot and questioned whether this lot could be approved today. Director Sullivan pointed out that the purpose behind the Building Site Approval is to review any changes that might have occurred since the approval of the lot. Chair Barry said that many are uncomfortable with the perception that the properties do not look safe. This is a dilemma. Commissioner Hunter said that retaining walls become prevalent. Commissioner Garakani said that the issue is not whether; this is a buildable. Pointed out that this applicant came before the Commission several months ago and was given instructions. Now the applicant has come back with the requested changes to his project. Commissioner Kurasch said that she disagreed that approval was promised. Said that she had the same discussion and concerns at the last meeting. Commissioner Hunter added that she voted against this project at the last meeting. Chair Barry pointed out that the project was continued to allow full discussion at this meeting. Commissioner Jackman said that she has a couple of concerns. Stated that it does not appear as if this lot can hold a house this big. , R 1 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 7 Commissioner Gazakani asked what Commissioner Jackman is suggesting. Commissioner Jackman said that she would not approve this as it is. Chair Barry asked the Commission what it would like to do. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that she did not believe another Design Review would help unless the proposal is very different in orientation and design. • Pointed out that the carport and driveway on the west side necessitate the Variance for the retaining walls. This is imposing on the next door properties. • Said that she did not believe that extensive landscaping would mitigate these retaining walls. • Suggested that the orientation and design'as proposed aze poorly suited to the physical location and that she cannot support it. Chair Barry asked if there is any agreement with this position. Commissioners Hunter and Jackman replied yes. Commissioner Roupe replied no. Commissioner Garakani suggested that the Commission must tell the applicant what specific square footage it believes this site can accommodate. Commissioner Roupe stated that it does not make sense how the Planning Commission is proceeding on this application. Commissioner Garakani said that it is not just this application but lots of Hillside Residential lots. Commissioner Hunter said that it is very valid to state that a 4,800 square foot home is a very large house. Pointed out that she lives in a 3,000 squaze foot house with four kids and her husband and it is plenty big.. Said that she would go for a smaller house on this lot, considerably smaller. Chair Barry agreed that this configuration is imposing and may need to be redesigned. Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:58 p.m. Mr. Armando Huerta, Applicant and Property Owner, 14225 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga: ' • Described the sheer pin wall that has been recommended to provide long-term stability for this property. This wall will assure stability and will be installed underground at a cost of $200,000. • Assured that he wants this property to be safe and that he needs this large home for his nine children. • Pointed out that this project has been underway for two years during, which time he has been paying a mortgage, and that he has eliminated a family and guest room to reduce the size of his home. . • Said that his previous project planner even stated that project has been ongoing for a long time. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 8 • Declared that he has met all previously stated criteria, reducing the house as asked and that it is ~r unfair now to simply say no. r • Reiterated that they have gone through extensive work in planning the proposal. Chair Barry expressed understanding of Mr. Huerta's concerns but cautioned that Design Review is the purview of this Commission. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Huerta why the entrance of his home is facing the hillside. Mr. Armando Huerta replied that he left the design to his architect and was pleased with what the architect came up with. Pointed out that he is a builder who has experience in hillside development. Said that he had hoped that all issues had been raised at the previous hearing. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that only four of the seven Commissioners was at that previous meeting. Chair Barry asked if there is any way to increase the curbside appeal of this project. Mr. Armando Huerta replied that this is essentially a flag lot hidden behind eucalyptus trees. Commissioner Kurasch said that she wants to see less need for retaining walls. Right now there are two to three walls in the most fragile area of the site. Commissioner Jackman pointed out that Mr. Huerta needs the square footage proposed to house his ~~ nine children. Agreed that the goal is a safe house but that the eight-foot retaining walls are of concern. Mr. Armando Huerta pointed out again that a sheer pin wall is being installed below ground throughout the site. Commissioner Jackman asked if this is in addition to the eight-foot retaining walls. Commissioner Roupe replied that the sheer pin walls will be what holds up the hillside. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Huerta if he would be willing to reorient the house to reduce the need for aneight-foot retaining wall. Mr. Armando Huerta replied that if he were to remove the carport, the retaining wall could be lowered considerably. Mr. Charles Brown said that removing the carport would remove 10 feet and take the garage away from the ravine area of the site. While a retaining wall will still be required, it would be of a height that would not require a variance. Chair Barry asked Mr. Huerta if this compromise is acceptable to him. Mr. Armando Huerta replied yes. ~~ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 9 Chair Barry stated that by giving up the carport the need for the eight-foot retaining wall disappears. She asked Mr. Huerta if he would support a requirement for indigenous landscaping and the addition of screening by the ravine and a reduction of square footage by eight percent. Director Sullivan reminded that the Geotechnical consultant cautioned on the careful placement of trees near the ravine. Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:15 p.m. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission voted to forward a recommendation of approval for DR-O1- 019, V-O1-011, UP-O1-016, BSA-Ol-001 and ED-O1-001 to allow the construction of anew residence on property located at 22551 Mount Eden Road with the added conditions: • That the applicant reduce the structure by an additional eight percent; ~ That the carport be eliminated; and • That a landscaping plan be submitted for staff approval prior to issuance of building permits. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Roupe NOES: Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Garakani suggested that in the future the Planning Commission be involved in a prof ect such as this one earlier in the process. Director Sullivan pointed out that the geotechnical review of this site took two years. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that this is only the second Public Hearing for this applicant. Commissioner Jackman pointed out-that this application was only filed in May 2001. Chair Barry said that Commissioner Garakani is simply suggesting a Study Session be held early on. Added that if she had her way, there would be no building on the hillsides at all. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that this is a relatively small house fora 1.4-acre lot. Commissioner Jackman extended congratulations to Mr. Huerta. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 *** UP-O1-007 SPRINT, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road & 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 10/24/01) (TO BE CONTINUED AND RE- ADVERTISED). Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 10 Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report: - ~` • Advised that the applicant is seeking a continuance on this application to a date uncertain. Staff ` will readvertise this project. The Planning Commission concurred with this continuance request. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 F-Ol-OOS (503-14-010) - PRIDHAM, 13651 Pierce Road: Legalize an as-built fence. The applicant requests an exception to the maximum area of enclosure permitted in the Hillside Residential zone district pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-29.020 (c ). (OOSTERHOUS) Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for an as-built fence. • Pointed out that the Ordinance requirements for the Hillside Residential Zoning District permit up to 4,000 square feet of fencing enclosure. The Commission can grant an exception if the conditions exist that the visibility of the fence is reduced by topography or if the fence is required for safety reasons. • Stated that conditions on this site meet both criteria. The fence has a reduced visibility from the public view and the fence is necessary for safety reasons. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Jackman asked how much area is enclosed with this fence. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied 57,064 square feet. Commissioner Kurasch inquired whether the wood fence along Pierce Road is conforming. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. This fence is set back 40 feet where a setback of 30 feet is required. The six-foot height is conforming. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the property is now completely enclosed. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:36 p.m. • Mr. Tom Pridham, Applicant and Owner, 13651 Pierce Road, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission and Planning Department. • Stated that the safety of his three small children is the reason for enclosing his property. Dangers include the busy Pierce Road, Calabasis Creek, and a cliff in the back of the property. • Added that the front wood fence was installed prior to his ownership. • Pointed out that drowning is the number one cause of death in youth according to his pediatrician. • Said that he spoke with both attached neighbors and one sent a letter of support. The other, who originally gave verbal agreement a year ago, appears to have changed her opinion. ~~ • Said that this fence is virtually invisible unless actually on his property. • Said that the fence has been acid etched so that it looks like wood. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 11 Commissioner Roupe: • Said that he visited the site and can appreciate the difficult topographical situation. • Added that the fence material is nice. • Stated that the Commission tries not to have wall-to-wall enclosure of the Hillside. This fence represents a complete enclosure of this property. • Questioned the need to enclose the triangle area due south of the property. This area is steep and wooded and could be cut off completely from the rest of the property and therefore not need to be fenced. Mr. Tom Pridham advised that his kids play in that area now. and he plans to -install a play structure there in the future for their use. This is an important part of their property and represents a flat area available for riding their bikes. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that this property is essentially 80 percent enclosed. The Ordinance permits 4,000 square feet of enclosed area, this property has more than 50,000 square feet. This is excessive and removing the fencing from this triangle area is one way of reducing that square footage. Mr. Tom Pridham reiterated that this is a desirable play area for his kids, one of only two flat areas available on this property. Commissioner Kurasch asked if it is acceptable to fence the area designated as a Water District Easement. Director Sullivan said that no structures are permitted. Commissioner. Kurasch asked Mr. Pridham for clarification that the pool area is not used unsupervised. Mr. Tom Pridham replied yes. Added that a manual cover is over the pool, one that only he can manage to open. There is a wood fence around the pool area. Commissioner Kurasch- pointed out that since the children would never be in the pool area unattended, they cannot access the triangle area from the pool area. Mr. Tom Pridham pointed out that the access to the triangle area comes from a path to the left of the driveway. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Pridham how long he has owned this property. Mr. Tom Pridham replied since October 1999. Commissioner Hunter asked if there is access to the triangle area directly from the home. Mr. Tom. Pridham replied that one must walk into the field area to access the triangle. i Chair Barry said that the neighbor raised the issue of deer access. Added that it seems that the fencing around this triangle serves as an impediment to deer, interrupting their natural path. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 12 Mr. Tom Pridham said he understood that concern. Added that it is not his intent to impede the natural paths for deer. Pointed out that he has blazed a path along the fence edge to accommodate deer. Additionally, there is a 40-foot path between the road and the front fence. Chair Barry pointed out to Mr. Pridham that the intent of the Ordinance is that folks in the Hillside Residential Zoning District gives up the fenced-in aspect of properties. Mr. Tom Pridham said that he thought he had done all necessary due diligence prior to installing this fencing. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the letter from the neighbor indicates that the fence has not been installed as agreed upon. Mr. Tom Pridham said that he is actually offended by her letter. Said that he had met with her on three occasions and had obtained her agreement. Commissioner Zutshi said it might be better having a proper survey. Mr. Tom Pridham replied that this survey is a legal survey prepared for the prior owner. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:58 p.m. Commissioner Zutshi said that she could agree with some of the fencing due to the children but that she ~~ did not feel the fencing of the triangle is necessary. Commissioner Roupe stated that the intent of the Hillside Ordinance is not to have totally enclosed properties. Said that this applicant can eliminate the fencing of the triangle area and still have a large totally enclosed place. Commissioner Kurasch said that she does not like big fences or enclosures. While there are real concerns for safety, this factor should be taken into consideration when purchasing such a property. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that when one buys a property, one does not always understand the rules. Commissioner Kurasch said that a reasonable compromise is the way to go. Said that she cannot support all of the fencing. The elimination of the triangle will go a long way. Disagreed that enough room has been left for deer and their fawns to pass. Said that the applicant has done a nice job to try to tie in the fencing but it is excessive. ~ - Commissioner Hunter agreed with.Commissioner Kurasch and said that the triangle should be left open. Chair Barry asked Director Sullivan if it might be possible to condition the fence exception so that it does not outlast the current owner. Director Sullivan replied that a deed restriction would have to be recorded. However, enforcement is !, nearly impossible. It is better to meet the intent of the Ordinance and make a final decision. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 13 Chair Barry stated her agreement that the triangle area should not be fenced. Added that she could not see a way to reduce the rest of the fencing due to the site's topography. Said that the Commission would be basing its exception on the unusual topography of this property. Commissioner Kurasch proposed removing the northeast corner of the house's fencing (another triangle area) on the other side of the creekside. Director Sullivan said that the plans show that this area has a brick and concrete area. Commissioner Garakani said that the safety of children is the issue as well as the enjoyment of this area of the property near the creek. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Planning Commission proposed approval of an as-built fence (F-O1-005) on property located at 13651 Pierce Road except for the enclosed triangle which is to be opened up with the removal of the fencing, Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the original motion was amended to include the requirement to remove the chain link fence on the northeast side from the end of the wooden fence across to the new fence, thereby eliminating another triangle area of approximately 40 feet by 60 feet; Commissioner Roupe expressed concern that this fencing may be part of the neighbor's enclosure. Commissioner Garakani said that he did not find the second fence removal to be necessary. Chair Sullivan suggested that the Commission vote on the proposed amendment and than vote on the main motion. Added that the second fence portion is clearly on the inside of the property line. VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION AYES:Barry, Hunter and Kurasch NOES: Garakani, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The amendment failed. VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe &Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Director Sullivan advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. Commissioner Jackman pointed out that lots of fences are built without permits and that she wants to advise the public that they have to get permits before installing fences. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 14 Commissioner Kurasch agreed that work getting the word out needs to occur. Commissioner Hunter endorsed that statement. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 DR-00-059 (397-17-012) - KALKUNTE, 14625 Fruitvale Avenue: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,048 square foot two-story residence and demolish an existing 2,000 square -foot residence and 2,400 square feet of accessory structures. Maximum height of the structure will be 26 feet. The 42,011 square foot parcel is located in the R-1-40,000 Zoning District. (LIVINGSTONE) ' Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to allow the construction of a new 6,000 square foot two-story residence and the demolition of an existing 2,000 square foot structure and 2,400 square foot accessory buildings. The proposed maximum height is 26 feet. The parcel is 42,000 square feet within an R-1-40, 000 Zoning District. • Informed that the existing house is included on the City's Historic Resources Inventory. There were initial concerns over the potential demolition. Staff hired a Historic Architect to prepare an extensive report. The conclusion of this report was that this house was not of significance. It is not qualified for the National Register or the California Register. The Heritage Preservation Commission approved the removal of the structure from the Inventory. • Stated that this applicant has contact each of his neighbors to show the plans. There have been no negative reports from the neighbors. • Said that staff finds the design consistent, using slate roofing, stucco and stone accents. The home has a unique semi-circular design around a large oak tree. They are working with an Arborist to work around this tree safely. The project meets the policies of the design guidelines. The home will be painted light beige with olive window trim and a gray slate roof. • Pointed out that the new home will be located at the same place as the existing home. • Added that mature trees reduce the visibility from -the public right-of--way. The tree canopies surround and will maintain the privacy of the adjacent neighbors. No tree removals are proposed. The applicant has worked with the City Arborist to ensure the safety of the trees. Additionally, the applicant will take steps to preserve an existing herb garden. A turf block material is proposed that will allow water to reach the trees: • Said that the structure has a varied roof line and change of elevations. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that oaks do not require a lot of water but rather oxygen. Commissioner Kurasch asked why a .landscape plan has not been submitted. Inquired if one is in the works. Director Sullivan advised that this application was received a year ago, prior to the requirement for the submittal of a landscape plan with the- original application packet. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:35 p.m. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 15 Mr. Kalkunte, Applicant, 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga: • Thanked John Livingstone. • Advised that the oak around which his home has been designed is 300 years old. • Assured that he has done everything to protect it and all trees on the site. • Stated that he is incorporated energy saving provisions, a solar material, as much as they can into the design of this home. • Said that he has spoken with his neighbors and agreed to the removal of an old fence. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Kalkunte if he would be able to meet all the requirements set forth by the Arborist. Mr. Kalkunte replied yes. He assured that he has considered all the requirements and the tree is being well protected and will continue to be so. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Kalkunte if he plans to retain the herb gardens. Mr. Kalkunte clarified that he will preserve all the specimens. He added that they plan to save as much as they can. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Kalkunte what his landscaping concept is for the property. Mr. Kalkunte replied that they would maintain existing pathways, not altering anything significantly. In the front yard, they will install a lawn. Commissioner Kurasch asked where the neighbors wanted more screening. Mr. Kalkunte said that they have requested additional trees at Fruitvale Avenue. Commissioner Roupe declared that he is pleased with the efforts Mr. Kalkunte undertook to work with his neighbors. He added that Mr. Kalkunte has gone the extra mile. Commissioner Hunter advised that the Heritage Preservation Commission visited this site twice and Mr. Kalkunte was very accommodating. Agreed that he has worked beautifully with his neighbors. Commissioner Jackman pointed out the nice letter of support from the Sassos. Mr. Kalkunte informed that he remains in touch with them. Chair Barry said that she is very comfortable with the decision to allow the demolition of the old house: Stated that the herb garden on this site is very special. Wished Mr. Kalkunte luck with his new home. Mr. Wendell Roscoe, Project Designer, 25431 Adobe Lane, Los Altos: • Declared that he has an exceptional client. • Said that his design originally incorporated a standing seam roof, which has been changed to slate as requested. • Made himself available for questions. Commissioner Zutshi asked which roof would hold the photoelectric system. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Mr. Wendell Roscoe replied primarily the garage. Commissioner Zutshi stated that this is an interesting and unusual house concept. Mr. Wendell Roscoe said that this project is close to his heart. Added that he has designed many homes around oak trees. Commissioner Kurasch asked if there would be any objection to the requirement to have a Supervising Arborist at critical times of construction. Mr. Wendell Roscoe replied no. Added that they would actually appreciate it. Said that it was their suggestion to change the grade for the garage to, protect this tree and the neighbor's tree. Chair Barry cautioned that the Supervising Arborist would be at Mr. Kalkunte's expense. Mr. Kalkunte said that he is open to that requirement. Director Sullivan pointed out Condition 15 in the Arborist's report. He suggested that the Condition be strengthened to require the Arborist on site at all critical points of construction as well as to have plans submitted which outline how materials and equipment will. be stored on site so as not to adversely impact the trees. Mr. Wendell Roscoe advised that they plan to store construction materials and equipment on the ~~ potential pool area, where the barn is now located. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:55 p.m. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission approved DR-00-059 to allow the construction of a new single family residence at 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, with the added Conditions to: - 1. Have a supervising Arborist on site during critical points of construction; and 2. Require a plan to detail where construction materials and equipment will be store on the site so as not to impact the trees. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Barry advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** DIRECTOR ITEMS Page 16 Planning Commission Mission Statement: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 17 Director Sullivan provided a draft mission statement for the Commission's review. Offered that this draft is simply intended to serve as a starting point in the development of a final mission statement for the Planning Commission. Chair Barry stressed the importance of ensuring the physical development of the City. Commissioner Roupe asked that "property and business owners" be added and that the end of the statement should read "as set forth in the intent of the General Plan and Ordinances of the City." Commissioner Kurasch said that the statement should express values rather than goals. Suggested language that states that "the mission of the Saratoga Planning Commission is to foster/steward the physical development.... Codes and charters and that supports the shared environmental, social and economic segments." Added that the mission is to encourage participation by the public. Commissioner Roupe stated a set of goals and purposes would also need to be developed. Director Sullivan advised that this mission statement is but a part of a strategic plan. Chair Barry asked Director Sullivan what the intent of the City is with this mission statement. Director Sullivan suggested that this should be discussed at the Commission's joint meeting with Council that will occur at the beginning of the year. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that she has some experience in developing mission statements while serving on the School Board and finds that they must be succinct. Commissioner Kurasch provided a mission statement that she heard when attended the League of California Cities Planners Institute. That statement simply said, "I am the steward of the shared vision of the community." Reminder to Commissioners that December 26, 2001, meeting is cancelled. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the next meeting would be cancelled in light of the holiday. Commissioner Kurasch advised that she would be absent from the January 9, 2002, meeting. Commissioner Hunter advised that she would be absent from the January 23, 2002, meeting. COMMISSION ITEMS Planning Commission Subcommittees Director Sullivan advised he would keep this item on the agenda in case issues come up. Commissioner Jackman advised that her subcommittee has been working on specifications and definitions for basements. Reminded that presently, light wells are permitted to be no more than three feed wide. The Commission may want to consider extended that to four feet. C. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 18 c Director Sullivan said that the determination needs to be clear as to when a basement becomes a daylight basement, which is countable as square footage. It is important to determine at what point a basement becomes floor area. Commissioner Jackman said that the basement should be located beneath the footprint of the house and not extend beyond. It would be important to establish a maximum size of basement, located completely beneath the footprint. Additionally, light wells should not encroach into setbacks. Geotechnical reports should be provided at the beginning of an application with the original plans. Under consideration should be the distance of excavation from property lines. Finally, only a single story basement depth should be allowed. Chair Barry added that the viability of allowing second units in basement space should be considered. Resolution of Intent to Amend Zoning Ordinance Re: Rear Yard Setbacks: Director Sullivan advised that this Resolution of Intent is the first step in the process. Following authorization to proceed, staff will begin to draft the Amendment to the Ordinance. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that there is a 10-foot difference in rear setbacks between single and two-story structures, which seems inconsistent with the design guidelines. Director Sullivan pointed out that the setbacks are different in R-1-10,000 and R-1-40,000 Zoning Districts. Commissioner Kurasch offered that this new proposal takes flexibility away. The interpretation now being used is better for smaller lots. Chair Barry stated that this step of adopting a Resolution of Intent is the way to go forward in a formal way. Director Sullivan agreed that the determination by the Commission of interest in moving forward with preparation of language and sketches is required. Chair Barry asked if the Commission will have the option to change the numbers. Director Sullivan replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch questioned the advantage of changing what is currently used. Wondered what the pros and cons might be. . Director Sullivan replied that both methods have similar pros and cons and that there is discretion in the design guidelines. There would be different minimum_ setbacks. Less with the riew proposal for the first story. Chair Barry said that there is good reason to go forward. Pointed out that there has been some disagreement on how the Ordinance is normally interpreted. ~~ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 19 Director Sullivan said that it is important to clean up the language of the existing Ordinance so no interpretation conflicts arise. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Commission adopted a Resolution of Intent to Amend the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to Rear Yard Setbacks. (7-0) COMMUNICATIONS Minutes from City Council Meeting of October 17, 2001. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 10:47 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, January 9, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk i• ~ __ ITEM 1 city of saracoga Community Development Depamnent MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION ~~~ FROM: John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner DATE: January 9, 2001 RE: 22600 Mount Eden Road, GARROD/COOPER VINEYARDS This project first came before the Planning Commission October 24, 2001. During this meeting, the project was continued to November 14, 2001 to allow staff additional time to reseazch various options for the Planning Commission to review. At the November meeting the applicant requested a continuance to January 9, 2002 to allow additional tune to review the alternatives outlined by staff. BACKGROUND The applicant's property is located in an unincorporated azea of Santa Claza County. The applicant has applied for an Architectural and Site Approval through the County to add three residences to the existing property. In order for the County to process the application, they require that the proposed plan meet the General Plan Policies of the Ciry of Saratoga. Staff did not recommend the project because the density of the proposed plan is higher than the density specified in the Hillside Specific Plan. The applicant is asking for an interpretation from the Planning Commission as to whether or not the General Plan policies stated below justify the increased density. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to build three new homes on an existing I0.7-Acre parcel on Mount Eden Road. The pazcel has two existing homes on the site. Two of the proposed homes would have 3,000 squaze feet for floor area with an additional 840 square foot three-caz garage. The third proposed home would be 2,595 square feet with a 546 squaze foot two- car gazage. The proposed , , project would require approximately 1,575 cubic yards of cut and 1,295 cubic yards of fill material , with 280 cubic yards of material being exported off the site. DISCUSSION Ciry staff has reviewed the proposed plans and determined that the density of the proposed project is in conflict with the policy stated in the Hillside Specific Plan which states the following: nnnnn.~ Planning Commission Memo RE: 22600 Mount Eden Road January 9, 2001 Paget _ - COUNTY LANDS/SECONDARYSPECIFICPLANAREA City should control the development of adjacent lands (developed and undeveloped) with a preferred density of 20-160 acres/unit depending on slope However, a second policy that may be applicable to the proposal is located in the Open Space Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan that states the following: INCENTIVE TO ARGRICLILTLIRAL LAND OWNERS Residential density bonuses for significant investment in agricultural improvement (cg., vineyards, wood lots or orchards) or open space dedications. Allowing additional dwellings on family farm operations when such additional dwellings will permit continuance of inter-generational agricultural uses consistent with Williamson Act provisions. This will not constitute a residential subdivision of the land under the Williamson AcG These are listed the Open Space Element of the General Plan as incentives that the City should offer to encourage continued agricultural uses in the hillsides. The applicant has prepared materials (Attachment 1) explaining how it believes the proposed use would encourage continued agricultural use and open space protection in the hillsides. In addition, the applicant has revised its application to include an offer to dedicate an easement over a portion of segment 45 of the proposed trail system improvements listed in the 1991 Parks and Trails Master Plan. A memorandum from the City Attorney is attached (Attachment 3) which discusses the relevant General Plan and Specific Plan policies and describes the legal requirements governing the Planning Commission's consideration of the applicant's request. The memorandum concludes that because the General Plan contemplates that determinations regarding density and preservation of agriculture and open space in the hillsides will be made on a case-by-case basis the Planning Commission has discretion to determine whether the balance between the agriculturaUopen space preservation component and the increased residential use component of the Garrod/Cooper application conforms to the goals and objectives of the General Plan. ALTERNATIVES i,, 1. The Planning Commission could find the proposed project to be consistent with the Hillside Specific Plan and General Plan and direct that staff come back to the Planning Commission on consent calendar with a resolution of approval. The Commission could also recommend acceptance of the proposed trail easement and direct staff to work with Santa Clara County and the applicant to secure the easement. 000002 - Planning Commission Memo RE: 22600 Mount Eden Road January 9, 2001 Page3 2. The Planning Commission could find the density of the proposed homes to be inconsistent with the City of Saratoga's Hillside Specific Plan and recommend that staff forward this information to the County of Santa Clara. 3. The Commission could ask the applicant to explore additional revisions to the proposed project that would further enhance the agricultural and open space protections offered by the project in order to justify offering the increased density incentives described in the General Plan. 4. The Hillside Specific Plan could be amended to allow for the proposed development. The City will be updating the Land Use portion of the General Plan that includes the Hillside Specific Plan once the Housing Element is completed. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the proposed project and provide the applicant and staff with direction consistent with one of the alternatives described above. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letters from Neighbors 2. Letter from the City Attorney 3. Letter from Santa Clara County 4. Applicant's Package including letters and colored maps 5. Plans "Exhibit A" • nnnnn~ THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK :; • ~v~~~l~g Attachment 1 PETITION TO THE SAR.ATOGA PLANNING CONA~IISSION VVe the undersigned residents of the area adjoining or close to Garrod Farms are familiar with the Gazrod Trust's plan to build three homes on the 11 acre parcel 22701 Mt. Eden Rd for family members who arc employees of either the Stables and Equestrian Corner or Cooper-Gatrod Vineyazds and Winery.- This proposal conforms with the Saratoga Open Space Plan adopted by the Saratoga City Council in November, 1~3. This area along Init. Eden Road is now completely built up lcavin~ the Garrod property as a pocket of agriculture and open space. We strongly recommend approval of this application as we firmly believe these activities contribute favorably in ma~+ ways to the Community. Name Address Telephone ~~,~ ~~x~~_a a187~mt~ ~.n tel. ~~o ~ ~~ 7-~ • ~ti ¢3~ 9 7y~-os~ ~+~~OOS PETITION TO THE SARATOGA PLANNING COMivIISSION We the undersigned residents of the area adjoining or close to Crarrod Farms are familiar with the Gairod Trust's plan to bu~1d three homes on the 11 acre parcel # 503-10-28 for family members who are employees of either the Stables and Equestrian Center or Cooper-Ganrod Vineyards and Winery. We strongly recommend approval of this application as we famly believe these activities contribute favorably in many ways to the Community. In addition, they are preserving as open space and agriculture in a large area which is now bordered by large expensive homes. 5 7'"~ ~~. 8: 7L`7~ ~r ~I 000000 Name ~ _ Address Telephone pETITIQN TO Tf~ SARATOGA PLANNING COMIvIISSION We the undersigned residents of the area adjoining or close to Garrod Farms are familiar with the Gamod Trust's plan to build three homes on the I 1 acre parcel # 503-IO-28 for family members who are employees of either the Stables and Equestrian Center or Cooper-Garrod Vineyards and Winery. We strongly recommend approval of this application as we firmly believe these activities contnbute favorably in many ways to the Community. In addition, they are preserving as open space and agriculture in a large area which is now bordered by large expensive homes. • ZiIZ~ 1 ~~L 7l ~I L 7a • 00000'7 PETITION TO THE SARATOGA PL~,NNING COMI~~IISSION .` We the undersigned residents of the area adjoining or close to Garrod Farms are familiar with the Garrod Trust's plan to build three homes on the 11 acre parcel # 503-10-28 for family members who are employees of either the Stables and Equestrian Center or Cooper-Gairod Vineyards and Winery. We strongly recommend approval of this application as we firmly believe these activities contn~ute favorably in many ways to the Community. In addition, they are preserving as open space and agriculture in a large area which is now bordered by large expensive homes. Name Address Telephone nnnnn~ i • PETITION TO THE SARATOGA PLANNING COMIvIISSION We the undersigned residents of the area adjoining or close to Gatrod Farms are familiar with the Garrod Trust's plan to build three homes on the 11 acre parcel # 503-10-28 for family members who are employees of either the Stables and Equestrian Center or Cooper-Garrod Vineyards and Winery. We strongly recommend approval of this application as we firmly believe these activities contribute favorably in many ways to the Community. In addition, they are preserving as open space and agriculture in a large area which is now bordered by large expensive homes. Name Address Telephone l • c./ ~ ~~ v `~°.80o r4rro+~o pt ~FrgueUo sarat:oga, c~9~o~0 _ (408) 56~--~03 • ~` October 19, 2001 Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Garrod Trust Hearing of October 24, 2001 To Whom !t May Concern: We are familiar with the Garrod Trust's plan to build three homes on the 11 acre parcel next to 22600 Mt. Eden Road for family members who are employees of either the Stables and Equestrian Center or Cooper-Garrod Vineyards and Winery. With the popularity of the Equestrian center and expansion of the Vineyards and Winery operation more of the work must be bom by the younger generation of Garrods and Coopers and three of these need housing. At present two of the #amily employees must live with parents or commute long distances of up to 70 miles one way. This land has been famed by the Garrod Family since 1893. They have been strong supporters of the policy to preserve their land for farming, open space, recreation and related activities. There are few such unique parcels left within the County or Saratoga. The Garrod's plan would further this policy by preserving as open space and agriculture a Large area which is now bordered by large homes. We have been residents of Saratoga for more than 30 years and are long time friends of the Garrod family and strongly support their plan to keep tha family together and their businesses in operation. We would appreciate your strong recommendation for the approval of the Garrod's application as we firmly believe these activities are an asset, which contribute favorably in many ways to the community. Sincerely, . ~ ,' r, ~ ~.- ~ ~~~ ,/ \ ' -~ Lw ~ ~_, C ~ Christin Sandahl Miller - OCT 2 2 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMIMITY DEVELOPME Linda Cato Sandahl ~- ~~~n.~ ~, S C' of Sarato a rty g Planning Commission 13777 Fraitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 To Whom rt May Concern, Having been a resident of Santa Clara Valley for over 18 years, a close neighbor of the Cooper-Gaffod's for several years, and a avid lover of the Saratoga foothitls, we would like to offer our support for the Garrod's Trust plan to but~d three new homes on their parcel next to 22600 Mt. Eden Road. This land has been farmed continuously by the Carrod family since the late 1800's and they have a proven commitment to preserving the land for Farming, equestrian activities, recreational use and maintaining open space. They have a unigae parcel of land, which has been maintained inspite of the encroachment of residential development. The proposed new homes would allow for Cooper- Garrod family members to Iive on the property and continue to support the growth of the Cooper-Garnod Vineyards and Winery as well as the Equestrian center and Stables. These fac~ities have a historical basis in the Saratoga Foothills, make a positive contnbution to the Saratoga cx>munmity, and should be supported by the current Planning Commission. Sincerely, Kent l:.ittlehale DVM ~~ ~~~~~ `~ _. (Kimberley Littlehale ~-'i 20040 Orchard Meadow Drive Saratoga, Ca. 95070 • nn(1(1.1 ~1 Thursday, October 18, 2001 Saratoga Planning Commission, My property DIRECTLY looks at and borders the Cooper- Garrod vines and some of their residences. So I feel future home sites being developed would directly impact me. I would like to lend my unequivocal support to these families. I strongly feel that these home sites should be approved I am aware that the plan is to have 3 homes on an 11-acre parcel. But all of the other acreage is devoted to agriculture. And I have the direct benefit of: 1. The green beautiful vines which enhances the landscape 2. Erosion control 3. Stability of mud slides areas due to the planting of these grapes. Thank .You in advance for considering this matter. I would greatly appreciate a positive outcome. ,' t ~~ nnnn'i2 Pam and Jay Shepard ~, .~-~-~~ ~- ~ S~,a ~,~,-U,.. lam. ~~ ~.~~~~~ ~~ a~~~ ~-~~ ~o ,ca-~-e_ mac; ~-.~, • 000013 ~ ~ ~,. ~~ ~ ..-~-- ~ j}- .1.~+ ~~ ~` 4 i -- -- .. ~~ 22700 Mt Eden Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 October 17, 2001 Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA-95070 Dear Saratoga Planning Commission I, Arturo G. Fallico am quite familiar with -the Garrod Trust plan to build three homes on the 11 acre parcel, next to 22600 Mt. Eden Road, for family members who are employees of either, the Stables and Equestrian Center or Cooper-Garrod Vineyards and Winery. With the growth of the Equestrian activities and ex- pansion of the Vineyards and Winery operation, more of the work must be designated to the `younger' generation of family members (Garrods and Coopers), and the need of of three of these members need for housing. ~ ; I know from discusssions with family members, since I was 8 or 9 years. of age, that the Garrod land has been farm- ed since the 1890's. Their policy I believe is to perserve the the land for farming, 'open space', recreation and other related activities. • • nnnn~ I would appreciate your strong recommendation and consideration for approval of this `application' to build, as 1 firmly believe these activities are an assert, and contribute in a favorable `manner'to our community. Respectfully, • Arturo G. ~allico. :/j J i~ nnn~~ S 18/ 22/ 2881 12: 84 14dliLy Iy 7 7 ~ tf1.-ts Robert and Julie Riccomini 20180 Orchard Meadow D~. Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-868-9533 . Saturday, October 20, 20fl1 Saratoga Planning ~.+vc ui Our home is in the Orchazd Meadow's subdivision that borders the Cooper-Garrod farm. We ~~.te able to view the vineyards and many of the family residences from our home. -Any building in that area would have an impact on us. But we feel that the vineyards, farms, and the families that support it are vital to our neighborhood to help it retain the special charm we havc here. We would like to lend our unequivocal suppcnt to these families. We feel strongly that these home sites should be approved. We are aware that the plan is to have 3 homes on an 11-acre parcel. But all of the other acreage is devoted to agri~t~re. Please support these families in their endeavor to maixit~~in(a Sarato a tradition. ~ g Thank you in advance for~considering this mattes. 'We would eatl ate a ~osltlwe outcome. 1~ Y _aPP~ P Sincerely, ~ ~. B b Riccominit ~ i i ~~ ~ J e Riccomini ;' • nnnn~ c • _ i ro: Saratoga Plannimg Commission DATE: October 22, 2001 FROM: David Lempett / Leslie Eya 13921 Damon Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJECT: Garrvd's Building Application We are famliar with the Gatmd Trust's plan to build tlnte homes vn the I l acre parcel next to 22600 Mt. Eden Road for their family members who are employees of either the Stables and Equestriaa Center or Cooper-Garmd Vineyards and Winery. This laud has been fannod by the Gatrods since 1893. ~Iheir policy has been to preserve the land for farming, open space, recreation and relatod activities. There are few such unique parcels left within the County or Saratoga. We would a your shvnE recotnmetldation for approval of their application as wr ~4' believe these activities art as assn and cor~tdbute favovrab~y~ia many ways to the Community. Most importantly, they enable the preservation as open space and agriculture a large area that is now borderod by large homes. ,, ,, ;; • 00001'7 Attn: Saratoga Planning COmmiceion Re: Gan od Family Trust parcel plan 1 am writing in regards to the hearing scheduled for October 24~' for the Garrod's Trust plea to build three homes on the I 1 acre parcel next to 22600 Mt Eden Rd for family members who are employees of either the Stables and Equestrian Center or Cooper-Ganrod Vineyards and Winery. With the growth of the equas4rian activities and the expansion of the vineyards and winery operation more of the work must be done by the younger generation of Garrods and Coopers cad three houses are desperately needed. Family member are forced to live with their families or drive long distances to get to work, up to 70 miles one way. This is incredibly difficult and this family deserves to be able to support each other with homcs that will benefit the entire community. This famil y does so many wonderful things for the entire community and there is ample space to build three homcs on the 11 acres. They are an asset to this community with their Equestrian Center and with the Winery and deserve to be able to do this. DeNicolo Family 14171 Teerlink Way Saratoga, Ca 95070 ,, s 000018 Tom Sullivan .From: Ann Sullivan Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 4:30 PM To: Kristin Borel; Tom Sullivan Subject: FW: Attn: Planning Commission, Re: Cooper-Garrod request for 3 homes Tom; Kristen: Please note the enclosed email message from Barbara Voester. Please provide Planning Commission members with a copy of this email concern as the writer has requested. I will also provide you with a printed copy attached to the Citizen Concern/Complaint Form. (of which I will need a copy of your follow-up response) Thank you..... Ann -----Original Message----- From: Ann Sullivan [mailto:asullivan@saratoga.ca.us] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 4:26 PM To: 'Barbara Voester' Subject: RE: Attn: Planning Commission, Re: Cooper-Garrod request for 3 homes Barbara: Thank you for your email correspondence to the City. I will forward this message to Community Development Director Tom Sullivan as well as to the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Ann Sullivan Secretary to City Manager/Deputy City Clerk Original Message----- From: Barbara Voester [mailto:wildflower.barb@juno.com] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 3.:15 PM To: cityhall@saratoga.ca.us Subject: Attn: Planning Commission, Re: Cooper-Garrod request for 3 homes Attention Planning Commissioners I am requesting that you "bend the rules" or do whatever is necessary so that the Cooper- Garrod family can build the three homes for family members on their property where they want. I have lived in Saratoga for nearly 34 years. During that time there have been many instances that these families have enhanced our lovely city, and our community with their generosity. And if you go back in history even further the Garrods were instrumental in the development of our Santa Clara valley, and in particular, Saratoga. Perhaps it is time for us to do whatever is necessary to help the Coopers families. They have enriched all of our lives over the years. Planning Commission members, please find a way to make this happen. ";' Sincerely, / Barbara Voester 14251 Burns Way Saratoga CA 95070 408 867-2422 GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: 1 less! http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. 000019 SARATOGA TRAIL ENTHUSIASTS 19830 Via Escuela Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070 408 741-0954 faz 408 867-6100 e-mail teri@seanconnery.com December 20, 2001 John Livingston, Planner City of Sazatoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: 22600 Mt. Eden Rd., Pazcel #503-10-028, Garrod-Cooper Dear John: It has come to my attention that the Garrod-Cooper family is filing for some additional housing units on the above- mentioned property. This housing would be located on a 10- acre parcel surrounded by the vineyazds that are currently there and will remain. I am in full support of this project. The proposed housing would not impact the azea neaz as much as some of what is, akeady there i.e.; mega houses located un mostly pazcels of one acre or less. In addition, I understand that to mitigate impacts, the Garrod-Cooper family is willing to dedicate a pedestrian and equestrian trail easement on the Southern and Eastern boundaries of this pazcel. This easement is already in informal use, so to have them dedicate it in a permanent state would be an invaluable asset to the community. I could not possibly explain to you in words what the Garrod-Cooper family has meant to me personally in my quest for trails in Saratoga. They have been incredibly supportive and- always willing to do what L`~ey can. While this project does not fit the "norm", it is just common sense to approve this project and there is no one more deserving of it than the Garrod-Cooper family. Sincere ..~_, Ten Lynn Bazon Cc: Ann Waltonsmith, City Council Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director •' ~~ 000020 '• THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ,, • 000021 01/02/02 10:27 $` SHUTE.MIHALY Attachment 2 SHUTS, ~ZHALY f~ WEI1\T$ERG$R LLP E. CLEMENT SHUTS, JR- MARK 1. wEINBERGER MARC B• MIHALY, P.C. FRAN M. LAYTON RAGNEL6.HOOPER ELLEN J• GAR9ER CHRISTY M. TAYLOR TAMARA S. GALANTER ELLISON FOLK RICHARD S• TAYLOR SUSANNAM T. FRENCH WILLIAM J. WHITE ROBERT 5. PERLMUTTER OSA L. ARMI ATTORNEYS AT LAW 39S HAVES STREET SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94102 TELEPHONE t4 15) 552.7272 FACSIMILE c41.5) 552-58 16 wwW.SMWLAW.GOM MEMORANDUM BRIAN J. JOHNSON JANETTE E. SCHUE JEFI'REY M. DRAX MARLENA G. DYRNE JOHN A. HICKEY MATTHEW D. 21NN IAUREL L_ IMPETT, AICP URBAN PLANNER ELIZABETH M. DOOD DAVID NAWI OF COUN3E~ • Nor Llccns¢v ro PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA T0: Tom Sullivan Community Development Director FROM: Richard Taylor, City Attorne Sohn Hickey DATE: January 2, 2002 RE: 22600 Mount Eden Road, Garrod/Cooper Estate Vineyards Xou have asked that we describe the law regarding General Plan consistency in light of the Garrod/Cooper request for a General Plan conformitydetennination. The General Plan policies relevant to the Garrod/Cooper application call for maintaining low densities in the hillside regions around the City and also contemplate higher densities where the City finds it appropriate to advance General. Plan objectives such as preservation of aaiculture and open space. The General Plan contemplates that determinations regarding density and preservation of agriculture and open space will be made on acase-by--case basis. Thus, the Planning Commission has discretion to determine whether the balance between the agriculturaUopen space preservation component and the increased residential use component of the Garrod/Cooper application conforms to the gals and objectives of the General Plan. Back ound The applicant is proposing to build three new homes on an existing 11-acre parcel on Mount Eden Road. Two homes currently exist on the property and would continue to exist following construction of the three new homes. The property and adjoining land owned by the applicant is currently planted with vineyards. According to the applicant, the proposed homes are needed to provide housing for several members of the Garrod/Cooper family who work with the vineyards_ The applicant has offered to dedicate to the City a public trail easement across the property. The land lies beyond the City limits and thus is not formally subject to the City's planning and zoning rules. Because the land lies within the City's sphere of influence and could ultimatelybe annexed to the City, however, the County has asked that the City make a determination as to whether the proposed use would be consistent with the General Plan if the land was within the City limits. • CJ 000022 01/02/02 10:27 ~ SHLiTE.MI&1LY I~j003/005 Tom Sullivan January 2, 2002 Page 2 There aze a number of General Plan and Specific Plan policies relevant to the conformity determination. With respect to density, the Land Use Element of General Plan indicates that land in the unincorporated hillsides, if annexed, should be designated "Hillside Open Space" with lot sizes ranging from 20 to 160 acres. (General Plan Land Use Element, p. 3-4.) The property that is the subject ~of the application is shown on the General Plan land use map as Hillside Conservation Singe Family which allows a maximum density of .S dwelling units per acre. (General Plan Land Use Element, p. 3-1.) The property has also been prezoned by the City with a designation of Hillside Residential. Lot size in this zoning district depends on slope and other factors and can be as small as 3.42 acres on lands with no slope ar other environmental constraints. In addition to the General Plan and prezoning, the City has developed a Hillside Specific Plan which establishes additional policies for residential development of the hillside areas of the City and adjacent Santa Clara County lands. With regard to the Santa Clara County lands; including the area in which the GarrodlCooper parcel is located, the Specific Plan states that the City "should control the development of adjacent lands {developed and undeveloped) with a preferred density of 20=160 acreslunit depending on slope." (~Tillside Specific Plan at p.8.) In addition to the various density policies described above, the City has adopted various policies to encourage preservation of agriculture and open space in the City_ The Open Space Element of the General Plan establishes a policy of preserving open space in the unincorporated hillside areas adjacent to the City and a policy of maintaining agricultural lands as a component of that open space. (General Plan Open Space Element, p.12.) The General Plan sets forth several progams that the City may implement to preserve open space in the unincorporated hillside areas adjacent to the Citx including the area where the Garrod/Cooper parcel is located. lu particular, the General Plan states that the City should offer incentives to agricultural owners and operators to continue the use of land for agriculture. Such incentives may include (1) offering residential densitybonuses in return for significant investments in agricultural improvement or dedications of open space; and (2) allowing additional dwellings on family farm operations when the additional dwellings would permit the continuation of inter-generational agricultural activities consistent with the Williamson Act.' (General Plan Open Space Element, p.14.) One of the ways that the Hillside Specific Plea contemplates enhancing the City's open space resources is by promoting the development of trails and pathways in the hillside areas. The Specific Plan states that the City shall "[d]evelop [an] equestrian/pedestrian trail system for access to County recreation areas and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District concurrently, or prior to, the development of each lot " (Hillside Specific Plan at p.12.) The residential land uses contemplated by the Garrod/Cooper application would exceed . the densities contemplated bythe density policies described above. However, the General Plan indicates that those policies are not absolutes and that higher densities maybe permitted in some circtunstances. In this case the applicants are requesting that the Planning Commission determine whether the proposed higher density conforms with the General Plan due to its contribution to promoting continued ' The 'W'illiamson_ Act is a state Iaw which seeks to protect agricultural land by allowing property owners to ensure that their land is assessed for tax purposes at its agricultural value rather than its development value if the property owner has entered as ageement to retain the land in agricultural use for at least the next ten years. The Garrod/Cooper propertyis the subject of a Williamson Act agreement. nnnn~~ 01/02/02 10:28 ~` SHUTE.MIHALY f~j004/005 Tom Sullivan January 2, 2002 Page 3 agricultural use and public access to open space. The next section of this memorandum discusses the legal requirements applicable to this determination. Consistency with General and Specific Plans Conditional use permits, variances, zoning ordinances, and other land use determinations made by the City must be consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the City's General Plan-and Specific Plans. -(See Gov. Code § 65860(a);.Citizens of Goleta Palley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Ca1.3d 553, 570 (1990); Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras, 156 Cal. App. 3d 1176, 1184 (1984).) The General Plan Guidelines prepared bythe Governor's Office of Planning and Research provide that "an action, program or project is consistent with the General Plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment." (See Guidelines at p.128 (1998).) The courts have indicated that althou~ a precise match between the action in question and General Plan policies is not required, the Citymust rely on reasonable judgment in concluding that the action in question is consistent with the plan as a whole. Thus, in upholding a consistency determination notwithstanding an apparent inconsistency between a project and three specific General Plan policies, the Court of Appeal recentlyexplained that: "no project could completely satisfy every policy stated in the General Plan, and that state law does not impose such a requirement. A General Plan must tryto accommodate a wide range of competing interests - - including those of developers, neighboring homeowners, prospective homebuyers, environmentalists, current and prospective business owners, job seekers, taxpayers, and providers and recipients of all types ofcity-provided services -- aztd to present a clear and comprehensive set of principles to guide development decisions. Once a General Plan is in place, it is the province of elected officials to examine the specifics of a proposed project to determine whether it would be `in harmony' with the policies stated in the plan. It is emphatically not the. role of the courts to micro mana~ these decisions_ Our function is simply to decide whether the city officials considered the applicable policies and the extent to which the proposed project conforms with those policies, whether the cityofficials made appropriate findings on this issue and whether those findings are supported by substantial evidence." (Sequoyah Hills lYorneowners Association v City of Oakland, 23 Cal. App. 4th 704, 719-720 {1993).) $ased on the foregoing principles, the Plannang Commission and City Council have considerable discretion in interpreting the provisions of the General Plan and the Hillside Specific Place. Determvnations as to whether a particular action is consistent with the General Plan must be made with regard to the General Plan as a whole and not with respect to: any single provision of the General Plan. The policies in the General Plan and the Hillside Specific Plan recognize and batance multiple objectives with regard to residential development of unincorporated hillside areas. The Planning Commission has the authority to interpret and implement these policies and to determine, based on the particulaz facts of each application, whether the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the Hillside Specific Plan as a whole. In reviewing the Garrod/Cooper application, nnnn~rt - __ 01_/02/02 10:28 $ SHUTE.I[IHALY X1005/005 Tom Sullivan _ _ - January 2, 2002 Page 4 as well as other applications that require the Planning Commission to consider and balance multiple planning objectives, the Planning Commission should take care to acknowledge the various specific facts that it has determined are relcvant to its decision. Please do not hesitate to call me with any questions concerning this matter. • • ,rITIZIZIY•~ n. Sen By: SANTA CLARA COUNTY PLANNING; County of Santa Clay Lnvironmernal ltesourc:es Agency Planning U(licc Ccxrnty Grr~'r'rnnrcru Cc•ntcr. P.~-st wing. 7th Fkwr .o ~wesr Hed~iing ~trrct time ~c~se. ~ali(omia JS t 14 170. (40$) 29~~-i1;,a F':1a ia08) 288-91cJ8 w~tiw.sc:cpl<innin~;.org August 21, 2001 Garrod Trust 22600 Mt. Eden Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 408288 9198 ; Aug-30-J1 Attachment 3 ~ . - .. ~ .~ -~., - S7 rn,~o'~~ ~~ ~~ rA C `-~ FILE NUMBER: 8060 - 19 - 59 - O1P - OlA SUBJECT: Use Permit; Architectural and Site Approval SITE LOCATION: Mt. Eden Road DATE RECEIVED: 7/3/20.01 This letter is written to inform you that your application as submitted on the above referenced date, is incomplete. In order to complete this application, you must sutmit the following information and an application for the re-submittal to the County Planning Office counter: Planning Office 1. Section 37-11.7 (3j of the County Zoning Ordinance requites that there is a "demonstrated need to provide permanent residences for bonafide agricultural workers based on the nature and intensity of the agricultural operation." Section 37-11.7 (2) requires the "occupants of such homes shall be engaged in an agricultural pursuit on land owned, leased or rented by the operator." Section 37-11.7 (40 requires the "occupants of such units shall be individuals engaged in significant agricultural pursuit from actual farming practices..." Explain why 3 additional agricultural worker residences are needed, based on the acr-eage and scope of the agricultural operation, noting who will -occupy the residences, their occupation, and number of hours per week they work in the agricultural operation, in sufficient detail to address the required finding. 2. Section 37-11.7 (5) requires that the "units shall be of an appropriate size and design for the intended use." Two houses are proposed to be 3,400 sq. ft. with an 840 sq. ft. garage, and one is proposed to be 2,595 sq. ft. with a 546 sq. ft. garage. Explain why the proposed size of houses is needed and meets this ~ , requirement. % 3. The property is located in the Urban Service Area of the City of Saratoga. Conformance with Lhe City of Saratoga General Plan is required. .The form that you submitted, signed by Senior Planner Bob Schubert, did not address General Plan conformance.- Take the enclosed form to the City of Saratoga Planning Office for completion, for both General Plan Conformance and Contiguity/Annexation. t~rkuCl ~~( yutn~n'iti~)I:S: Cx_~nalcl F. Gt11;C. 1~12nICA :\tt'i;r2t(iU. F^c''rr R1CHU~;iI .):mrrti 1'. l:r.;ll .!r L.iZ }:uix, (:rxnuv f-.xcx:utiv~~: Richard ~~'iuenberg • .... 000026 Y Sen B}~: SANTA f'LARA COUNTY PLANNING; 408 288 9198 ; Aug-30-01 7:50AM; Pale 3/3 ~4. File for an Environmental Assessment or Categorical Exemption and pay the associated fee. 5. There are two existing residences on the property. Explain who resides in those residences and their relationshig to the agricultural use. Land Development Engineering 6. Proposed grading includes 1,575 cubic yards of cut, 1,295 cubic yards of fill. File for a grading permit, including the grading design standards form and seven (7) preliminary grading plans (as defined by the County Grading Ordinance, copy enclosed). include on the grading plans the quantity of grading for the house pad, and for areas outside the house pads (for access road, driveway, landscaping area etc.) The current fee for a grading permit is $617.00. 7. Provide a copy of the deed recorded pursuant to lot line adjustment file nuaber 650b-97LA, for this parcel. Northwest Information Center 8. The proposed prc+ject area has the possibility of containing unrecorded archaeological sites. Submit 3 copies of an archaeological report prepared try a qualified consultant (list enclosed). For more information, contact Leigh Jordan, Coordinator, Northwest Information Center, at (707) 664-2494 or (;07) 664-0880. If the requested information is not submitted within 180 days, you will be requirec to pay a fee of 10 percent of the current application fee at the time the requested information is submitted. Any resubmittal after 1 year will be processed as a new application, subject to new fees and requirements. PARTIAL RESUHMITTALS WILL NOT HE PROCESSED. Please note that fees required at the time of resubmittal will be in accordance with the most recently adopted Board of Supervisors fee schedule. If you have any additional questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call me at (408) 299-2454 ext. 229. Sincerely, G~~~~~ Gary Rudholm, Secretary Architectural and Site Approval cc: Carolyn Walsh, Jia; Sirr, Zachary Goldberg George E. Cooper :22701 Mt. Eden Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 enclosed: General Plan conformance Contiguity/Annexation form, Referral List for Historical Resources Consultants, County Grading Ordinance. nnnn~~ :- ~~ THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • ,; • 000028 • Matteoni ~ Saxe ~ Lau hlin g A W Y E R December 19, 2001 ~c~c~~~~e~c ~--_-=~ --~ 174C Technology Drive Suite lS0 San Jose, CA 95I 10 4C8 441-7800 Fax 408 441-7302 Dr. Cynthia Barry (Chair) and Members of the Planning Commission 2898 Joseph Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 Re: The Garrod/Cooper's Request for Determination of General Plan Conformance Dear Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission: This firm represents the Garrod and Cooper families ("Garrods") in their request to obtain from the City of Saratoga a determination that their proposal with the County of Santa Clara to build three homes for family members and employees of the Garrod Trust conforms to Saratoga's General Plan policies and objectives. The eleven-acre property where the Garrods propose to build the three homes is part of a larger 120-acre land holding of the Garrod Trust. The entire 120 acres is under the Williamson Act. Since 1892, the Garrods have used their land for a family farm. While the orchards of old are gone, the Garrods continue the agricultural use of their property, for open space, vineyards, winery and equestrian use. To continue and preserve the agricultural use of the land the Garrods need to provide housing on the property for the family members and employees responsible for keeping this modern-day family farm going. The Garrods' proposal conforms with one of the primary objectives and policies of Saratoga's General Plan which is to preserve and protect agricultural land and open space. • This letter focuses on the issue of general plan conformity and consistency and the reasons to support a finding by the Planning Commission that the Garrods' proposal conforms to Saratoga's General Plan. W ith this letter we are also providing to the Commission backup material, which includes a Norman E. Matteoni Peggy M. O'I-aughlin Bradley M. Matteoni Barton G. Hechtman A11an Robert Saxe Of Counsel Dr. Cynthia Barry (Chair} and Members of the Planning Commission December 19, 2001 Page 2 detailed history of the Garrods' property, the present agricultural uses and the need for the homes. CONFORMITY TO THE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES TO PRESERVE OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURAL LAND One of the primary policies and objectives of Saratoga's General Plan, particularly as to land located in the City's sphere of influence, is the preservation of agricultural and open space land through the Williamson Act. The Garrod's property of 120 acres is under the Williamson Act (the Williamson Act contracts are with both the County of Santa Clara and the City of Saratoga). General Plan policy number 7 in the Open Space Element for the Unincorporated Hillside Areas speaks directly to the Garrods' farm. It states: "A significant component of the open space value in the foothill area comes from agricultural uses which have a long - history of existence tied to the heritage of Saratoga. In evaluating future land uses, efforts shall be made to maintain agricultural lands as a component of open space and to preserve the rural and agricultural heritage of Saratoga. The City shall discourage the early cancellation of Williamson Act contracts." (Open Space Element at page 12). A Commission finding of conformity would also support one of the policy implementations of the Open Space Element which provides for: "Allowing additional dwellings on family farm operations when such additional dwellings will permit continuance of inter- generationat agricultural uses consistent with Williamson Act provisions. This wilt not constitute a residential subdivision of the land under the Williamson Act." (Open Space Element at page 14). The Open Space Element also recommends that the City give incentives to agricultural land owners by offering: • • Dr. Cynthia Barry (Chair) and Members of the Planning Commission December 19, 2001 Page 3 "Residential density bonuses for significant investment in agricultural improvement (e.g., vineyards, wood lots, or orchards) or open space dedications." (Open Space Element at page 14). The economic viability and existence of the Garrods' farm which is comprised of open space, vineyard, equestrian use, winery, and residential is dependent on meeting the housing needs of the family members and employees of the Garrod Trust through the building of these three homes. The Garrods may well be the only remnant of Saratoga's agricultural past. The Garrods have demonstrated their commitment to preserving open space and agricultural use by the operation of their own family farm for over the past 100 years. Their commitment is also evidenced by their deeding and gifting toMid-Peninsula Open Space District approximately 120 acres, one- half of their original 240-acre holding. As part of this proposal, the Garrods wish to further promote Saratoga's open space policy and its master trail plan by offering to dedicate to Saratoga for public use a trail easement. The offered trail easement is on the southern and partial eastern border of the 11-acre parcel (APN 503-10-28). It is referred to as Segment 45 in Saratoga's Parks and Trails Master Plan (November, 1991). Teri Baron, Saratoga's Trail Liaison, supports the proffered trail easement. Amore completed description of the easement is provided in the backup material. THE GARRODS' PROPOSAL CONFORMS TO THE GENERAL PLAN WITHOUT MEETING THE HILLSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN'S DENSITY POLICY There is a question whetherthe Garrods' proposal conforms to the density policy of the Hillside Specific Plan. The policy states: "The City should control the development of adjacent lands (developed and undeveloped) with a preferred density of 20 to 160 acres/units depending on slope density." (County Lands/Secondary Specific Plan Area Policy 1, at page 8). • First, the density policy is not mandated as evidenced by the use of the word "preferred." Second, it is not clear if the policy was intended to apply to Williamson Act land. Thus, the City has the discretion to vary from the 20 to 160 acres/unit density policy if the General Plan objectives and policies are being served as well or better by the variation. The Garrods' family-run farm is • Dr. Cynthia Bar (Chair) ry and Members of the Planning Commission December 19, 2001 Page 4 on Williamson Act land, and as explained above, the ability of the Garrods to maintain and preserve their farm operation is dependent on providing the proposed three homes fortheirfamily members and employees. We believe the general plan policies and objectives are better served by varying from this preferred density. Under State law a project is consistent with the General Plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment. The Garrods' proposal not only conforms to the General Plan, but supports its open space policies. It is important to note that State law does not require a precise match between a project and the General Plan. The requirement is that the project be in agreement or in harmony with the general or specific plan. The project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every genera! plan policy. Included in the backup material is a letter to Saratoga's City Attorney, Richard S. Taylor, outlining the legal basis for our position that the proposal conforms with the City of Saratoga General Plan policies and objectives; and, accordingly, meets the State law General Plan consistency requirements. CONCLUSION The Garrods' farm is one of Saratoga's last surviving link to its agricultural heritage. Times change and family farms in particular need to adapt to remain viable and productive in our modern day economy. The Garrods' proposal to build the three homes for family members and employees is necessary to keep their 120-acre farm alive and to preserve the open space and agricultural uses on this Williamson Act land. In addition, the Garrods' offer of a trail easement further promotes and fosters Saratoga's open space policies and objectives. The Garrods respectfully request that the Planning Commission find that their proposal to build three homes conforms with Saratoga's General Plan. Yours truly, ~~ ~ ~~ PE O'LA GHLIN cc: Vince Garrod George Cooper Supplemental Information Cooper-Garrod Family and Employee Housing Saratoga, California This package summarizes important information regarding the Cooper and Garrod families' proposal to construct three family or employee housing units on their property on Mt. Eden Road. The houses are for use by family beneficiaries or employees in support of the family equestrian, vineyard, and winery businesses that are sited on the 120-acre property, all of which is under Williamson Act contract. The site is an 11-acre parcel bordering and west and bordering Mt. Eden Road near the intersection of Garrod Road. Because the parcel lies outside of the City of Saratoga, the proposal is being processed as a land use permit in Santa Clara County. The proposal has been referred to the City of Saratoga to determine conformance with the City's General Plan because it lies within Saratoga's sphere of influence. All of the property has been under Williamson agriculture conservation contract since 1972. This information was put together with the intent to supplement the application before the County (portions of which have been transmitted to the City) and to provide additional information for the City about the proposal regarding the following: • Project Description • Project Justification ~~ Land Use and Physical Context • Site Selection and Analysis • Legal Commentary 2. Project Description The proposal is to construct three new residences on the 11-acre parcel for family members and employees. Currently there is a farmhouse builtin the 1870-80s and a grandmother's cottage, both of which are occupied by family members. The location of the proposed houses is shown on the site plan. They are arranged in a cluster around a common driveway from an existing access point on Mt. Eden Road. This arrangement minimizes property disturbance and maximizes the area for vineyards. The vineyards on this parcel were planted three years ago in anticipation of new houses and current vineyard maintenance practices can be continued with the proposed houses in place. The existing houses are approximately 2,700 SF and 1,800 SF. The proposed houses would be single story ranch-style plans, ranging form 2,500 to 3,400 SF in floor area plus garages. This size would allow 3-4 bedrooms each with a traditional arrangement of internal rooms. The exterior design is envisioned to be architecturally compatible with the existing houses on the site -sloping, shingled roofs with wood siding designed in a "farmhouse/cottage" style. Modular construction may be used for the houses if costs warrant it, however, even if this is the case the exterior materials will be in the compatible architectural style described above. S:1Cooper\Personal\GFT\11 acreslPC Draft 12-26-01.doc The landscape treatment of the 11-acre site is important to maintaining the open space . and agricultural character of the area. With this in mind, the site is divided into the following landscape zones, which are indicated on the Landscape Plan (Sheet 2) that was included in the County submittal. The basic characteristics of each of these zones are summarized below: Landscape Zone 7: Existing Residential Area This is the area along Mt. Eden Road and includes the original farmhouses, garage and outbuildings. The landscape is low -water use turf and plantings around the buildings, large deciduous and evergreen trees, seasonal vegetable gardens, fruit trees and grapevines. There are also low-maintenance native grass areas (which are mowed regularly to minimize face hazards). No changes are anticipated in this landscape zone -existing trees and landscaping and trees will be preserved. Landscape Zone 2: New Residential Area This is the area immediately around the proposed houses. This zone also includes a small frontage along Mt. Eden Road to allow access. Zone 2 is contiguous with both Zone 1 and the vineyard. Zone 2 includes a yard area around each house that will be landscaped in a manner similar to the yard areas in Landscape Zone 1, although the general intent is that the vineyards areas to the west and south will provide most of the landscaping. Water-conserving landscape methods will be employed in Landscape Zone 2. Landscape Zone 3: Vineyard Area This is the area to the south and west of Zone 1 and 2 that is being developed as a vineyard for Cooper-Garrod Vineyards. In general, vineyard rows run north/south and follow existing contours. On the western perimeter of Landscape Zone 3, existing native trees (live oak, white oak, walnut, laurel, buckeye, for example), which border a small drainage ravine, are being preserved. A vineyard "alleyway" has been delineated around the perimeter of the vineyard to aid in the movement of vineyard equipment. Some existing non-native pine trees within Zone 3 may be removed and replaced with vineyard. The perimeter of Landscape Zone 3 has been fenced to keep animals and unauthorized people out of the vineyard. In addition, an equestrian trail was constructed around the south and east sides of the vineyard. As a general guideline, the boundary of Zone 3 should be no closer than 25 feet from the future residences in Zone 2, to allow for a transition from the building to the vineyard. 3. Project Justification Existing Businesses Currently, the Cooper and Garrod families operate two agricultural and recreational businesses on the property -consistent with the provisions of the Williamson Act. The Garrod family has farmed the 120-acre property continuously since 1893. In the mid- S:\Cooper\Personal\GFT111 acres\PC Draft 12-26-01.doc 2 1960's the orchards were no longer profitable and a plan was initiated to replace the orchards with an Equestrian Center. Garrod Farms Riding Stables was established in 1966 and is an equestrian center that offers boarding, rentals, a riding academy, youth programs and special events. The Stables also sponsors an internationally recognized vaulting team that competes throughout the United States and annually in Europe. In a continuing effort to diversify the agriculture uses of the property, the first, one-acre vineyard was planted in 1972. Although Cooper-Garrod Estate Vineyards was formally established in 1991, grapes have been grown on the property since the 1880s and a non-commercial winery has operated since 1976. The winery just completed the initial phase of a three-phase expansion from 21 to 40 acres of premium varietal grapes. Cooper-Garrod wines enjoy national reputation and have received numerous awards and state, national and international competitions and fairs. Cooper-Garrod is one of 49 wineries in the Santa Cruz Mountains appellation, which extends from San Mateo to Aptos. Typical events held at the facilities include barbeques/wine tastings for local organizations (such as the Saratoga Historical Society), weddings, equestrian events (regular horse shows and special events such as the 2001 Concours Voltige Competition with 7 countries represented) and community fund-raising events such as a 2001 benefit for the Easter Seals organization. Over the past 10 years, the Garrod Stables has responded to increased interest in community and youth programs that allow local residents to learn more about and experience equestrian activities. Staffing and Housing Requirements =i Both of these businesses are labor-intensive and rely upon on-site management and local labor. Most management positions are held by family members and are key to the future continuance of the businesses and maintenance of the property in agriculture and open space. Key full-time employees receive housing on site as part of their compensation because the agricultural wages that they receive are insufficient to obtain housing in the area. Currently the Garrod Stables has five full-time management positions, in addition to maintenance support staff and part-time instructors. All five positions are provided housing on-site. Future plans for the stables include an expanded children's program, which will also require on-site housing. The winery currently has three full time positions plus cellar staff and part#ime tasting room help. Existing houses provide housing for two of the full-time positions, but one family staff member must commute from the East Bay. In addition and as part of the phased expansion of the vineyards, the vineyard manger position will become full time and require additional on-site housing. Existing Housing Currently there are eight houses on the 120-acre property. Three of these are occupied by senior family members (Trustors) who are the original owners -Vince and Jane Garrod, George and Louise Cooper, and Edna May Garrod. The other five houses are assigned as follows: S:\Cooper\Personal\GFT\11 acres\PC Draft 12-26-01.doc • Garrod Farms Operations Manager • Winery Marketing Director & Assistant Winemaker • Stables Vaulting Director • Riding Academy Director • Stables Manager 8~ Office Manager Housing Shortage and Need for Additional Housing Based on the current operations, there is a deficit of one house (for the Tasting Room Manager) and in the near future at least two additional houses are required (Vineyard Manager and Special Events and Programs Director). 4. Land Use and Physical Context The property originally comprised 240 acres. In 1971, the property was placed under the V~Iliamson Act to enable its continued use in agriculture, related uses and open space. In 1980, approximately one-half (1210 acres) was deeded and gifted to the Mid- Peninsula Open Space District. The Garrods have also demonstrated their commitment to preserving open space and public use of the area by providing trails on their property that link to existing and proposed trails in the City of Saratoga trail master plan. They have also offered a trail easement on the southern and partial eastern border of the 11-acre parcel (AN 503-10- 28) that is referred to as Segment 45 in Saratoga's Parks and Trails Master Plan (November, 1991). `~ The attached map illustrates that boundaries of the current holding and land that was conveyed to the Mid-Peninsula Open Space District. Land Use Current land use includes open space, vineyards, pasture, main yard area (including barns, arenas, maintenance areas, parking areas, stables and winery offices, winery barrel room ,production area and tasting room) and residential areas around the existing houses. These land uses are summarized in the table below and illustrated on the attached map: Existing Land Use Summary Description Open Space Vineyard Equestrian Main Yard Residential Total Area Acres 27.77 30.00 36.88 15.00 9.52 120.21 TOtal 23% 25% 31 % 13% 8% • 100% S:\Cooper\Personal\GFT111 acres\PC Draft 12-26-01.doc 4 . 5. Site Selection and Analysis The site was selected for these additional houses for a number of reasons reflecting geologic conditions, impact on agricultural operations, access to existing roads, available infrastructure and reduced visual impact. These are described below: Geologic Conditions Pacific Geotechnical Engineering of Morgan Hill were hired to prepare a geological feasibility evaluation of the parcel in order to determine whether it was suitable for additional houses, from a geological perspective. Their conclusions are documented in their report dated January 2000, which has been provided to the County. Based on City geologic hazard maps and a survey of the property, the consultants determined that a portion of the 11-acre site had minimal geologic hazards and was suitable for construction. They delineated a geologically stable zone of approximately three acres in the central eastern portion of the site. This is shown on the site plan and is the area within which all proposed construction is to be located. Agricultural Operations The existing vineyards were planted in 1998 in anticipation of houses being located in the east-central portion of the parcel. The rows are laid out north-south with alleyways for access of mechanized equipment. Because of this arrangement, the proposed houses will have minimal impact on the existing vineyard and vineyard maintenance will not be adversely affected. Available Utilities Mt. Eden Mutual Water Company has a water line in Mt. Eden Road that can serve the site, which is included in the water company service area. The property has been annexed into the Cupertino Sewer District and taps are available to serve the site. Natural gas provided by PG&E is also available in Mt. Eden Road. Visual Impact The site is located on the down slope from Mt. Eden Road and as a result does not affect the viewshed from the road. Buildings will be one story or one story with a walkout and hence low scale. Buildings will be set back from Mt Eden and screened by the vineyard and existing trees. The site is not located on a ridgeline visible from Saratoga. 6. Legal Commentary Please refer to the attached letter to Richard Taylor from Peggy O'Laughlin (November 30, 2001). • S:1Cooper~PersonallGF'i111 acres~PC Draft 12-26-01.doc 5 -`)" `.~'_ , ~ • " -ter--- -- ° -; • ~~.. 3' .. r ~ . .....:. .. . . . ~ ._- --.. .. - I ~,..• _ r •r ~ j' I • ~'~- r t -/'f•~• i ~A l /` ~ • f ,.~ _ :~- ._. ~ '~.. ~.. .. .. - - w f• / %..- _ _ eon ~ ` ~ ' _ ~,~. _ ~'- ; ~' _.--. ' , - - Q- ~..~ ,. • ,.~ - ~, ` : ~;', r ~,_ __ - - ~--•:.: t - ~ "~:~ _ - .. ~% fir'- • . -.~; ; ' r' , .--_::~,~~~ i a 0 } Q p ~~ N ~ J ~ y y' Y. o a s,a O ~ = ~ d ~ ++ J112~1~d021d QO~I?lb~J a z~a ..~~d o ~, ~ Q ~ °' ~ o ~ ~w ~ ~ 'x ea ~ ~ z aoo~ w -~ A cn ~; i t • November 30, 2001 Mr. Richard S. Taylor Shute Mihaly & Weinberger, LLP Attorney, City of Saratoga 396 Hayes Street San Francisco, CA 94102-4421 Re: The Garrod/Cooper Request for Determination of Conformance with General Plan Policies and Objective Dear Mr_ Taylor: Prior to our December 5 meeting with you and Planning staff to discuss the Garrod/Cooper ("Garrod°) proposal to build three homes on their property in the County and whether that proposal conforms to the City of Saratoga's General Plan policies and objectives, I thought it would be helpful to share with you my position and supporting legal research on the issue of the general plan consistency requirement. The Garrod's proposal is before the City of Saratoga as a result of both a County and City of Saratoga policy requiring development proposals in the unincorporated (ands and within the city's sphere of influence to conform to the city's general plan policies. As we will discuss in more detail at our upcoming meeting, we believe that the Garrod's proposal conforms with the city's general plan policies and objectives. n One of the primary policies of Saratoga's General Plan is the preservation of agricultural and open space land through the Williamson Act. There are numerous policies and objectives in the general plan supporting the use of the Williamson Act contract to preserve agricultural land and open space and encouraging renewals of the Williamson Act contract. In recognition of the importance of Williamson Act, the Open Space Element provides as part of its policy implementation an incentive to allow °additions! dwellings on family farm operations when such additional dwellings will permit continuance of inter-generational agricultural uses consistent with ~Iliamson Act provisions. This will not constitute a residential subdivision of the land under the Williamson Act." The Garrod's property consisting of approximately 123 acres is under the Williamson Act. The Garrod's proposal is to build three homes on eleven-acre parcel for members of the Garrod and Cooper families who are also employed by the Garrod Trust, which owns the land and is responsible for the agricu[tura( operations including the vineyard, the winery, the recreations! (equestrian) use and open space. The economic viability and existence of the Garrod farm are dependent on meeting the housing needs of these family members employed in the family's agricultural operation. THE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY REQUIREfl/IEN7 • Mr. Richard S. Taylor November 30, 2001 Page 3 Every city and county must adopt "a comprehensive long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city ..." (Government Code Section 65300). The general plan has been described as the constitution for atl future developments within the city or a county. A project is consistent with the General Pian "if considering all its aspects it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment." (Corona-Norco Unwed School District v. City of Corona (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 985 at p. 994 quoting an advisory General Plan Guideline from the State Office of Planning and Research.) State law does not require a precise match between the project and the general plan. The court in Greenebaum v. Gity of Los Angeles (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 391, 407 in determining a tentative map's consistency with the general plan, agreed with the city that "_ ..the requirement is only that the tentative map be in agreement or harmony with the general or specific plan.n !n the case Sequoyah Hills Nome Owners Association v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, also involving a challenge to a tentative map, the court held that ~ be consistent, a subdivision development must be "compatible" with the objective policies, general land uses and programs specified in the • • Mr_ Richard S. Taylor November 30, 2001 Page 4 General Plan. (!d. at p. 717 - 718.) In Sequoyah Hi!!s, the city of Oakland argued that none of the general plan policies on which the challenging homeowners rely are mandatory and that a given project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every general plan policy_ The court agreed and stated: "indeed, it is beyond cavil that no project could completely satisfy every policy stated in the OCP and that state law does not impose such a requirement." As explained by the court: "A general plan must try to accommodate a wide • range of competing interests, including those of developers, neighboring homeowners, prospective home buyers, environmentalists, current and prospective business owners, job seekers, tax payers, and providers and recipients of al! types of city-provided services and to present a clear and comprehensive set of principles to guide development decisions. Once a general plan is in place, it is the province of elected city officials to examine the specifrc set of proposed projects to determine whether it would be "in harmony" with • • Mr. Richard S. Taylor November 30, 2001 Page 5 the policy stated in the plan (Greenebaum supra 153 Cal.App.3d at p. 406)." While the cases of Sequoyah Hills and Gr~eenebaum concerned the issue of a subdivision map's consistency with general p{an policies, the principles on determining general plan consistency apply to all general plan project and permit consistency determinations including the Garrod's consistency determination before Saratoga. Other pertinent cases on the issue of general plan consistency include No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 223; Cadiz Land Co., Inc. v. Rail Cycle LLP (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 113-115; and Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural EI Dorado County v_ EI Dorado County (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332. Planning Staff has raised the issue of whether the Garrod's proposal conforms to a policy of the Hillside Specific Plan, which states: "The city should control the development of adjacent lands (developed and undeveloped) with a preferred density of 20-160 acres/units depending on slope density." It is our position that this policy is not mandatory as evidenced by the use of the word "preferred" which gives discretion to the city to vary from the 20-160 acre density policy if the plan's objectives and policies are • • Mr. Richard S. Taylor November 30, 2001 Page 6 being served as well or better by the variation. Given that the property at issue is part of a 123-acre landholding subject to the Williamson Act and is presently and since 18y3 been afamily-run farm and that the proposed three homes are for family members working to continue and preserve this agricultural use, we believe the proposal conforms with the primary objectives and policies of Saratoga's General Plan to preserve and protect agricultural land and open space in the city's sphere of influence. Moreover, the city in making this determination of conformance can invoke its implementation objective of allowing additional dwellings on family farm operations to continue inter-generational agricultural uses. i look forward to our meeting with you and planning staff to further discuss the matter and hear the City's thoughts and position. Yours truly, PEGGY O'LAUGHLIN • PMOtm cc_ John Livingstone, Associate Planner David Cooper, Garrod/Cooper • ~ I~.~~. .~ VICNTY MAP N,~ ~ )))wi f~ • R a o ~ ~~ a u b n$ gxb~ • /~ ~Ory~ I.I~~fl <~ ~~o 0 ~aa~ ~~ / 100 b~ ra¢ ~ N N 0 1~ n i ._ ~~ LEGEND ~ ~_~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ,j ~.. s~ Parcel eamder,, t:xisthiq water Lhre ' - - - - Proposed water Lateral ~ -...- Exlath~g SaNtery Sewer Line ;~ -...- proposed Ssratary Lateral ~i i Npfh U ~ i Q o 6AAaaD i m~ °a Ita A 21Yr y ~IP O~ f® Plan re conceptual and subject tc rekrement 3 '' PLOT DATE: OS-08~ Tq d1AYYq b a,001T OAR AID WY t Y[CT A 01MIQ ~ °N R ~! ~ ~ D Wm °~ m o ~ a 0 z ~ ° y R N ~ -v am ' °° m m a -~ 0 z ~ ° ~ R N a~ . m b r a 'o z W ~ I e o GARROD FARMS FAMILY HOUSING ~ $ ~ ~ ., ~. ~ SARATOOA, CALIFORNIA ~ ~ r q N ~ ~ o °' HOUSE B $ C FLOOR PLAN/ELEVATIONS l °N N _ ~. m ' ~m g o z 0 Ky ~ a Ri ~ am c 0 z ~ ' '° ~ ~~ ~, R 41 o ap, /~ ;. m o ~ 0 z N _~ , 0 ~~~ ~ .~ 1 11 a ~I ~ .... ~ ~~ "I ~ ° ~ s 1 =li 1 ~ ' ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ;C ~ ~ o ~ ~ R ~ 1 ~ N ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 a a a w •I ` ~ ~ !~~ 1 ~ Z ~ z ooa oa i ®~~ ~.-_ - - - - - ~ !~ - - ~-- - - - - - --i~---_ - --~-~--- -_ - - - -'- - -- - - -- -- - -_- -- -- _ - -- ~_ ~ ~ e ~ ~ GARROD FARMS FAMILY HOUSING ~ ! ~ ~. W o ^~ CALIFORNIA SARATOGA , ~ '• h h ~ W °~ HOUSE A FLOOR PLAN/ELEVATIONS ~ • City of Saratoga Community Development Department MEMORANDUM ITEM 2 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Christy Oosterhous, Associate Planner DATE: January 9, 2002 RE: Continuance Request, Kittridge Road (APN 517-14-080), HUSTED The applicant requests a continuance to allow additional time to address the concerns and comments raised by the Planning Commission at the public hearing held on December 12, 2001 regarding residential development on vacant hillside lots. Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue Application No. DR-O1-021, BSA-Ol-002, V-O1-012. • • • • ITEM 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: UP-O1-018;12132 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: Dr. Kathleen Ban, DDS (tenant); August Partners II, LLC . Lata Vasudevan, Assistant Planner W January 9, 2002 386-01-026 Department Head: ~ ` -1 ~~J ~-~ a I i ~ i i ~ ~ 1 ij I ,I ,I _ I ~ I i i j I ~; J~ ~ I ~,.~~~ w ~ i ; ~.a: 'z~ '~ I ~o. ~`xi I WAY i i ~/ ^{~ ~~oVV\ \ RI ~, /~/~- 4' ~~ , J~ ti~ ~ ~ ~ G~~ o A" /~I ~ ~~ ~ A A LIE LN.~ .I. i i ~~ I ~ I BRISBANE ' T. I~~I RUTNERFORD OR. ~ I l I i it ROAD i 12132 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road nnnnn~ e CASE HISTORY Application filed Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11/16/01 12/14/01 12/26/01 12/26/01 12/2U01 The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to establish a general dental practice in an office space at the Pazk Sazatoga Center, located at the corner of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road. The Pazk Saratoga Center is located within the C-V zoning district. The vacant 1,440 square foot office space was occupied by a hair salon, which is a permitted use in the C-V zoning district. Establishment of a dental office at this location requires a Conditional Use Permit per Section 15-19.040 of the Municipal Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit application with conditions by adopting Resolution UP-O1-018. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution UP-O1-018 2. Plans, Exhibit "A" • • 000002 File No. UP-O1-018;12132 Sazatoga-Sunnyvale Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: C-V, Visitor Commercial GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Planned Development MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 2.4 acres for commercial area (Pazk Saratoga Center) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Not applicable GRADING REQUIRED: Not applicable MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSID: No exterior changes aze 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). PRO ECT DISCUSSION J The applicant Dr. Kathleen Ban, DDS proposes to open a general dental practice in a vacant 1,440 square foot office space at the Pazk Saratoga Center. This office space was previously occupied by a hair salon. The office will have 5 dental chairs for patients and approximately 5 full-time employees. The Pazk Saratoga Center, which includes several buildings, was approved in 1978 as part of a 11.7 acre mixed -use project .that also includes 65 residential units. These residential units are located behind the Park Saratoga Center. The current types of uses adjacent to the proposed dental office include a bank, two title companies, a French restaurant, two professional- offices and a small Chinese restaurant. Across the street aze a bank, restaurants and an office. Dental Office as a ConditionallyPermitted Use Establishing a dental office in the C-V district 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 proposed dental office will be in a convenient location, potentially serving neazby residents and the employees of the surrounding offices and restaurants. The proposed dental office will be easily accessible from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and will have no negative impacts on the surrounding uses. ;' ~~~~n.3 File No. UP-O1-018;12132 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Parking and Circulation Parking for the proposed dental office will be provided at the Park Saratoga Center, which has 195 parking spaces. The Park Saratoga Center was approved with a parking ratio of 1 space per 157 sq. ft. which was below ordinance requirements. Approval was granted because the applicant for the project provided charts to show that there will be ample parking during peak times. Staff has observed the site at different times of the day and has determined that there is sufficient parking. Moreover, the proposed dental office will not be further intensifying the use of the office space from a parking ratio standpoint, since the previous use of the office space as a hair salon and the new dental office have the same parking requirements of 1 space per 200 sq. ft. of floor area. Economic Development Analysis The proposed dental office will occupy a space that is easily visible and close to the main entrance to the Center. This office space has been vacant for more than a year. Establishment of the new dental office will increase the number of people who will frequent the Park Saratoga Center and. will be beneficial to all businesses located at and near the Center. Hours of Operation The applicant is proposing the following hours of operation: Monday through Saturday: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Sunday: CLOSED The Park Saratoga Center does not have any restrictions on the hours of operation. 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 The applicant is proposing a "DENTIST" sign. The applicant is aware that the signage shall comply with the sign program approved by the Planning Commission for the Park Saratoga Center. The applicant will submit a sign permit application for review and approval by Staff. Correspondence _.. No correspondence regarding this application has been received to date. • • • 000004 File No. UP-O1-018;12132 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Conclusion - - Staff feels that all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the Ciry Code can be made in the affirmative in that: • The proposed dental office 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 will be mutually beneficial to the surrounding uses, and will be conveniently located to provide a service required by the residents and employees of Saratoga; and • The proposed dental office 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 ninimi~e potential impacts; and • The proposed dental office will comply with all other applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit application with conditions by adopting UP-O1-018. • ~~~~~5 Y C • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ,, • ~n~~~~ Attachment 1 • RESOLUTION NO. UP-O1-018 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNI-A Dental Office of Dr. Kathleen Ban, DDS August Partners II, LLC;12132 Sazatoga-Sunnyvale Road (Pazk Saratoga Center) WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a dental office in an existing tenant space at the Park Saratoga 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 Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (c) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that all of ttie 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 will be appropriately located to provide a service required by the residents of Saratoga_ and will result in more visitors to the Park Saratoga Center; and • The proposed dental office 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 minimise potential impacts; and .: , • The proposed dental office will comply with all other applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. • ~~~~~~ - i. Now, TxEFtEFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby - resolve as follows: 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. 2. The dental office 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 proposed dental office, 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. ~ Applicant shall submit a Sign Permit Application and shall comply with the sign program adopted for the Pazk Saratoga Center. 8. The applicant shall obtain a Business License, from the City of Saratoga within two weeks form the date of project approval. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 9. At time of Building Permit application, the azchitect shall show how the existing exiting requirements aze maintained within the new proposed floor plan. 00000lR 10. IF the existing building is equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system, the existing system shall be modified to accommodate the new design. A State of California licensed fire protection contractor shall submit plans and a completed permit application to the Santa Claza County Fire Depamnent for review and approval prior to beginning work. 11. Any installation of hazardous materials, piping or storage facilities shall be permitted separately by the Hazazdous Materials Division of the Santa Claza County Fire Department. At the time of Building Permit application, the developer shall submit to the Santa Clara County Fire Department all appropriate plans for review and permit issuance. Cin ArrORly~ 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 $2~0 shall be payable to this Ciry 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, Ciry and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolurion shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. ";' • (lnnnr~r~ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 9th day of January 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission I 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 Ciry Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date ,, ,, • ~~~~10 Q o n ~ ~ o a o < v~ r/~ N r- ~~ A ~ ~ ~- ~i U W LuJ~ ~ r ~ ~ f n ~ °.> bA U ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ O ~~i N M ~ ~ ~ ~~I~a 1NOW~1~11~1 a ^ r~~ G z a U 4 Z i ~ i ~ i ~w ZF F U r awe ~ aaw ~ ~o~ I ~~~ f-1 ~' 0 Y H U d N O U ~~ vF c S--" avo~ i~3dsoad • 1--1 a c~~ rn ~ ° V ~ m n ~,o..~b ~ ~~~ a ~~~~ r--1 Q ('O 1__L W Q z z ~ -- - -- Q O Q /Q V / w U Q U Z_ Y Q ~ W U J m Z ~ F- ~ ~ W X U w U Q ~ ~ ~.. ,~ A A /~~ 11 ~L/ '. .. , a ~_ O Q, s~ U c~1 M O .N-~ ~ _' - - _, a a o a ~ ~~ a ~~ ~ (^ , 0 ~ U ~ w m ~ i` 1~1 ~ q~ ~ ~ ~ II e°~'cn~~ ~n °° ~ a ~' O N 1 1~ ~j ~ V ~~ , w A , C/1 M/~ O ~ ITEM 4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Sobey Road/DR-O1-031 ~ UP-O1-017 Applicant/Owner: Rick Zea/Grace Sanfi]ippo Staff Planner: John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner ~~~ • Date: January 9, 2002 APl\T: 397-OS-091 Department Head: ~ ~~~ • .,~ Sobey Koad 000001 STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 (Single Family Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 43,042 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 11% GRADING REQUIRED: The applicant is proposing 793 cubic yards of cut and 578 cubic yards of fill. Of the 793 cubic yards of cut, 185 cubic yards will from the basement. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of construction of a new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. CASE HISTORY Application filed: 7/18/01 Application complete: 1UOU01 Notice published: 12/26!01 Mailing completed: 12/26/01 Posting completed: 12/28/01 PROJECT HISTORY The project first came before the Planning Commission in January 2001. The project was continued by the Planning Commission to allow the applicant time to modify the design. The applicant then returned to the Commission with only minor changes to the proposed new house and the Commission denied the project. The applicant then appealed the project to the Ciry Council where the Planning Commission's decision was upheld. The applicant has now substantially changed the project and has reapplied to the Planning ; Commission as a new project. To highlight the changes to the project the applicant has ' provided existing elevations of the previous project along side the new proposed elevations to illustrate the changes from last project. L • • 000002 File No. DR-01-031 E¢' UP-01-017,' SobeyRoad • • r ~ Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable 34.6% 35% Based on Net Building Footprint 3,688 sq. ft. Site Area of Driveway/Parking 3,153 sq. ft. 37,877 due to a Patios, Pool_and reduction for Walkways .5,792 sq. ft. the lot slope Cabana 489 sq. ft. TOTAL (Impervious 13,122 sq. ft. 13,256 sq. ft. Surface) Floor Area: Maximum Allowable Based on Net First Floor 3,165 sq. ft. Site Area of Second Floor 1,292 sq. ft. 37,877 due to a Garage 525 sq. ft. reduction for Cabana 528 sq. ft. the lot slope (Basement) 608 sq. ft. Basement is not included as FAR TOTAL 5,510 sq. ft. 5,844 sq. ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirement Front (To building face) 110 ft. 62 ft. Rear 100 ft. 74 ft. Left Side (closest point) 30 ft. 20 ft. Right Side (closest point) 25 ft. 20 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 26 ft. 26 ft. Detached Garage N/A 12 ft. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The proposed exterior finish will be tan color stucco. The window trim will be painted an olive color. The roof will be a dark gray color. The base of the building will be finished with a light tan stone material. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. PROJECT DISCUSSION .• , Design Review The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a new 4,456 square foot two-story residence with a 608 square foot basement, a 525 square foot two car garage, and a 528 square foot cabana on a vacant lot. The Use Permit approval is necessary to allow the cabana to be 15-feet in height. The maximum height allowed without Commission review is 12-feet. C:Vvty Documcnrs\Jo6n L~Sobey Rd SR San Filippo.doc 000003 File No. DR-01-0316r UP-01-017,• SobeyRoad The neighborhood consists of both one andtwo-story residences with varying architectural ~~ styles. The proposed design of the home is consistent with other new homes being built throughout the community with the dark gray roof, stucco exterior with stone accents. The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Guidelines policies. • Policy 1,"Minimize Perception of Bulh" The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will follow the contours of the slope using horizontal elements. The applicant has proposed an extensive conceptual landscape plan that will surround the house with trees and bushes that will reduce the visibility of the home from the public right-of-way and adjacent neighbors. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines that will break up the elevation of the building. The roof will be a dark material that will blend in with the landscaping and the large existing Oak tree that is being maintained at the front of the property. Various materials are proposed to soften the building elevations including stone, fireplaces, wood corbels and a wood trellis. • Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed house meets this policy in that the applicant has chosen a dark tan color palette which will help the proposed structure blend in with the hillside and proposed trees around the site. The applicant has also proposed an extensive landscape plan using native trees and shrubs to integrate the structure will the environment. ~~ • Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy" The project will protect the privacy of the adjacent properties by riLnin,;~;ng the direct line-of-site to the nearest neighbor. The landscape plan calls for extensive use of native evergreen trees and shrubs to provide year -round privacy for the property owner and adjacent neighbors. • Policy 4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views" The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbors views. The proposed home will be located in approximately the center of the lot surrounded by landscaping. • Polity 5, "Design for Energy Efficiency" The project meets this policy in that the location of the proposed house has not altered the solar access of adjacent properties. The structure is fitted to the grade to reduce, wall exposure and provide wind protection. The existing Pine trees on the south property line will be maintained as a wind block. The landscape plan also uses appropriate species of trees to control ~ ' winter and summer exposure to the proposed house. Covered terraces and overhangs have been incorporated into the plan to provide shade. The house will also meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation andhigh- energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. The applicant is also proposing the use of solar panels as an alternate source of electricity for the home. The solar collectors will be used to assist with pool heating and the radiant floor heating system. ~. c:vKy ~~~s~Jot~ t~b<y xd sR s~ .a« 000004 File No. DR-01-031 ~ UP-01-017,• SobeyRoad Cabana ..._. The applicant is proposing a cabana with a height of approximately 15-feet. The Zoning Ordinance allows a height of 12-feet, or up to 15-feet with Planning Commission approval if the following findings can be made: 1. The additional height is necessary in order to establish azchitectural compatibility with the main structure on the site; and 2. The accessory structure will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff feels the proposed accessory structure meets the above findings in that the proposed style and pitch of the roof will help it relate to the main structure. The hip roof design with generous overhangs will also reduce the bulk of the structure and help it blend in with the surrounding landscaping. The structure will not be visible from the public right-of-way and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Parking The Saratoga Ciry Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a gazage. The residence would have an attached two-car 525 sq. ft. garage. • Trees The City Arborist Report contains recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site. There aze 37 trees potentially at risk from the proposed construction: The applicant is proposing to remove 15 trees. The Arborist Report contains recommendations for the restoration and protection of the health of all trees on site, as well as suggested mitigation measures for the trees to be removed. All of the Arborist recommendations made in the report dated September 1, 2000 have been made a condition of project approval. Fireplaces The plans indicate two gas-burning fireplaces and one wood-burning fireplace in the living room. Correspondence A meeting with the neighbors was facilitated by City staff at City Hall. No correspondence ,' was received on this application at the date that the staff report was distributed to the Planning Commission. 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 Section 15- 45.080 of the City Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves CVNy Documrncc\John L~Sobry Rd SR San Filippodoc File No. DR-DI-031 ~ UP-01-017 SobeyRoad the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will mnim»e 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, maximum height and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Commission approve the Design Review and Conditional Use Permit applications with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-O1-038 / UP-O1-017. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution DR-O1-031 / UP-O1-017 with conditions 2. City Arborist Report 3. Applicant's Letters to Planning Commission 4. Plans, Exhibit 'A' • • C:Uviy Documents\John L~Sobry Rd SRSan Filippodoc O U0o~6 Attachment 1 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-O1-031/UP-O1-017 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Grace Sanfilippo; Sobey Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 4,456 square foot two-story residence with a 608 square foot basement, a 525 square foot two car garage, and 528_ square foot cabana on a vacant lot. The Use Permit approval is necessary to allow the cabana to be 15-feet in height; 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 proposed project- consisting of construction of a new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences; and WHEREAS, the a licant has met the burden of proof required to su ort said PP PP application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: Policy 1,"Minimize Perception of Bulh" The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will follow the contours of the slope using horizontal elements. The applicant has proposed an extensive conceptual landscape plan that will surround the house with trees and bushes that will reduce the visibility of the home from the public right-of-way and adjacent neighbors. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines that will breakup the elevation of the building. The roof will be a dark material that will blend in with the landscaping and the large existing Oak tree that is being maintained at the front of the property. Various materials are proposed to soften the building elevations including stone, fireplaces, wood corbels and a wood trellis. • Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed house meets this policy in that the applicant has chosen a dark tan color palette which will help the proposed ; , structure blend in with the hillside and proposed trees around the site. The applicant , has also proposed an extensive landscape plan using native trees and shrubs to integrate the structure will the environment. • Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy" The project will protect the privacy of the adjacent properties by minimizing the direct line-of-site to the nearest neighbor. The landscape plan calls for extensive use of native evergreen trees and shrubs to provide year -round privacy for the property owner and adjacent neighbors. nri(11~(i'7 • Policy 4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views" The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbors views: The proposed home will be located in approximately the center. of the lot surrounded by landscaping. • Policy ~, "Design for Energy Efficiency" The project meets this policy in that the location of the proposed house has not altered the solaz access of adjacent properties. The structure is fitted to the grade to reduce wall exposure and provide wind protection. The existing Pine trees on the south property line will be maintained as a wind block. The landscape plan also uses appropriate species of trees to control winter and summer exposure to the proposed house. Covered terraces and overhangs have been incorporated into the plan to provide shade. The house will also meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high-energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. The applicant is also proposing the use of solaz panels as an alternate source of electricity for the home. The solaz collectors will be used to assist with pool heating and the radiant floor heating system. WHEREAS, the applicant has .met the burden of proof required to support said application for Use Permit approval, and the following findings have been determined: The applicant is proposing a cabana with a height of approximately 15-feet. The Zoning Ordinance allows a height of 12-feet, or up to 15-feet with Planning Commission approval if the i following findings can be made: 1. The additional height is necessary in order to establish architectural compatibility with the main structure on the site; and 2. The accessory structure will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff feels the proposed accessory structure meets the above findings in that the proposed -style and pitch of the roof will help it relate to the main structure. The hip roof design with generous overhangs will also reduce the bulk of the structure and help it blend in with the surrounding landscaping. The structure will not be visible from the public right-of-way and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: ~, Section 1. After cazeful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Gzace Sanfilippo for Design Review and Use Permit approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: • ©Q~0®8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit 'A' date stamped December 3, 2001, incorporated by reference. 2. The following shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building permit plan check review process: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: b. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted and it shall be equipped with a gas starter. All other fireplaces shall be gas burning. c. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor and identify the construction staging area on the plan. d. 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. The final landscape plan submitted during the building permit plan check review will need to meet all of the requirements outlined in Section 15-47 of the City Zoning Ordinance. 4. The maximum height of the cabana shall not exceed 15-feet as measured from the natural grade per Section 15-06.340. 5. The maximum height of the house shall not exceed 26-feet.as measured from the natural grade per Section 15-06.340. 6. Prior to issuance of the building permit or demolition permit the grading and construction drawings shall be reviewed by the City Arborist. 7. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 8. .During all critical points of construction and grading that may have an impact on an existing tree, a certified Arborist shall be present on site to oversee the process. " 9. No kitchen or cooking facility will be allowed in the cabana unless a Conditional Use Permit for a secondary dwelling unit is approved. • 000009 PUBLIC WORKS 10. The applicant or its designated representative shall apply for and secure a grading permit if deemed necessary. CITY ARBORIST 11. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report dated September 1, 2000 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 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. 12. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community ~ Development Director, security in the amount recommended by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 13. Prior to Final Occupancy .approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 14. The roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class "A" prepared or built-up roofing. (Reference Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Saratoga Code 16- 20:210). 15. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garage (2 heads per, `; stall), workshops, or storage areas; which are not, constructed as habitable space. To insure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.090[I]). Automatic sprinklers are also required for the residential dwelling (including the square footage of the basement) or provide an on-site fire hydrant. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be ~ ~nnn~ n submitted to the fire. district for approval. A four head calculated sprinkler system is required. The sprinkler shall be installed by a licensed contractor. 16. 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.) 17. Provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface a minimum unobstructed width of 14 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minunum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside with a maximum slope of 15%. Installation shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and specifications sheet D-1. 18. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. CITY ATTORNEY 19. 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. 20. 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 Ciry per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • 000011 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, if this 9th day of January 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission ~J 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 ~J oooos~ - ~-., • _ r-.. .: BARRIE D. SATE - and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants _ - 408-353-1052 -- -- - Fax 408-353-1238 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95033 Attachment 2 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT BETWEEN TREE PRESERVATION AND CONSTRUCTION AT TTY SAN FILIPPO SITE, SOBEY ROAD SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Mark Connelly Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 • Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist September 1, 2000 Plan Received: 8/10/00 Plan Due: 9/8/00 Job #08-00-201 • 000013 ,r-. ~? E: ,:_ - `_. . fA _; _ ANALYSIS OF POTEN'T'IAL l' -"` ~LICI' BE7'iYEEN TREElREBERVATION MID C tR11C170N AT TiIB SAN Fnil'PO SI'!Z. SvdEY ROAD, SARATOGA ASS[ - ~' At the request of Mark Connelly Planner, City of Saratoga, this report nwiews the proposal to construct a ~ home $nd a pool with a cabana on a vacant lot, in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report further provides information about the condition ofthe trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to the remised trees can be minimized to prevent dxline. - The plans reviewed for this report are: (1) the Floor Plans prepared by Camargo and Associates, San Jose, Sheets T, A1.0-A3.0, dated July 25, 2000, (2) the Topography and the Grading and llrainage Plans prepared by Michael Rosenberg. Landscape Architect, and by TS Civil Engineering, Sheets C1-C3, dated 5-22-00, hevised 7 26-00. Ssimmary - This proposal exposes 37 trees to some level of risk by comstruction Seventeen trees are to be removed by implementation of this design. Replacemerrts, which equal their value, are suggested Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected A combination bond equal to 30°/. the value of trees #2 and #27 and a bond of .l O% the value of all other trees is s~~;gested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. Ob~serNatiorrs There are approximately 21 tines on this site and 161ocated on adjacent properties that are large enough to be controlled by the City Ordinance and are at risk of damage by proposed construction The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Frach_tree has~been tagged with a metallic label indicating its assigned number. Tree #5 is slightly smaller than the size controlled by the City Ordinancx. This was discovered after the labels were attached. Thus, tree #S is omitted from the value assessment. ' The 37 trees are classified as follows: Tree # 1 Trees #2, 4,12,18-27, 37, 38 Tree #3 Trees #6-l 1, 31 Trees #13,15 Trees #14,16, 17, 33-36 Trees #28, 29; 32 . -Tree #30 Valley Oak (Querces lobata) Coast Live Oak (Qrrercus agrifolio) Big Leaf Maple (Auer macrophyl/wn) California Black Walnut (Juglans hindsii~ ,' .Aleppo Pine (Pines halepensis) Monterey Pine (Pines radrata) Plum (Prunes cerarsiferar) . Bailey's Acacia (Acacia baileyana} The health and structiue of each specimen is rated on a scale 1 m 5 (Exaelletrt-Extt~emely Poor) on the data sheen that follow this text -This information is converted to a single descriptive Hating intended to aid with planning as follows: P.e~n+ed b~ - ilgei.ei L. 8e.er. C....i~i~s A~i.~t S.Ne.~ie* t, ~ 000014 • • t rte. t: =::. _ . ~- ANALYSIS OFPOTEI~TrUL t LICr 11ETWEEN TREE PRfBSRVATtON Alm C TRUCrION AT THE SAN FILiPPO SITE, SOBEY ROAD. BARATOGA 2 Exceptional Fine Specimens Fair Specimens Marginal Poor Specimens S imens S 2, 3, 27, 37 1, 4, 6,10,12, 7,11, 20 8, 9,14, 30, 31, 28, 29, 32 . 13, 15-19, 21, 34 22 26, 33, 35, 36 38 Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their cunrerrt 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 sped®ens are worth retairring but again without major design revisions. 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 significantly improve regardless of care. For any which sr~e considered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not be typically requested Trees located oe adj4eent properties which would be affected by this activity must be treated as Exceptional regardless of condition. ttttp~ad of ConsrrucYioR With the exception of trees # 15 and I7, the plan proposes to remove all of the trces inside the boundaries of this property. These proposed removals included two Exceptional specimens: tree #27 a moderately large coast live oak, and tree #3, a young big leaf maple. Although tree #3 is rated as exceptional, it can be easily replaced, which I recommend However, tree #2? cannot be replaced, and because of its size, it is not an acceptable candidate for transplant. This is not to say that it could not be transplanted, but should it be transplanted, it would no doubt decline, and its life span would in all Probability be greatly reduced. The proposed grading and drainage work inside the dripline of tree #27 would be severe. Revisions of the grading and drainage plan and of the landscaping plan would be required to prevent decline of this tree. Tree # l S would suffer severe root damage if the.drainline on tlm na~th side of its trunk is trenched as proposed. The minimal expected resuh would be canopy decline, which may recover after a few years if environmental conditions were optimal. However, if the tree ;, ., i-~.~a rr• lra~.a L. >a-~, t«..W.s Ar~«iit s.*~~ r, ~ ~_ AIYALYSIB t~ PO?ICNr1AL t 'frLT BLTWEQ~i TREE PRLrStRVATION MID C rRUCrrON 3 AT THE SAPI FILIP'P'O 9rTF., ea.aEY ROAD, SAW-TOGA were to become infcstod by insects, the tree may die after a few yearn of decline. Weakened treres are targets for insect infestation. The neighboring trees (#l6, 35, and 36) adjacent to the south sick property boundary would be exposed to the same risk. Tree # 17 would be minimally affected by the trenching to construct the adjacent drain, but maybe severely affected by surface goading, should it be n~acassaiy to grade inside the dripline to assure surface dntina®e toward the existing catch basin. Proposed surface grading would expose all of the neighboring trees adjacent to the south property boundary to the same risk. A wall is proposed on the south side adjacent to the property boundary. If this wall were to be constructed using a typical footing, tnxs #15-17 and #33-36 would be rendered unstable, because buttress roots would no doubt be severed. If this wall were to be constructed by a pier and beam design without a footing, the same trees would likely suffer only minor mot damage provided piers wet+e to be relocated a minimum of 8 feet from the trunk of arty of these individuals trees, and provided the bottom of the proposed wall is constructed on top of or slightly above the existing grade. A large and relatively level open space is seen north of trees # 15-17, 35, 36, east of trees # 18-21, and south of trees #22-27. Because of the size and the complexity of this project all of these trees would be subjected to one or more of the following damaging events ,~ that are common to constnu~tion 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. Soil compaction as a result of oonstniction naffc, including foot traffic across the . root systems, and the parking of vehicles or construction equipment under the canopies under the canopies. . 4. The tr+enchirig across mot zones for new utilities or for landscape irrigation. 5. The grading of the surface soil resulting in the removal of quantities of absorbing soot tips. %. 6. Broken branches or ba>`k injuries as a resuh of construction equipment passing too close. There is a large open space adjacent to Sobey Road between trees #I and #38, which would expose tree #38 to most of these same risks. ~' If the junction pole marks the property as noted on sheet C2, it appears that the wooden fence between tines #37 and 38 extends onto this site by approximately 5 feet. If this Pre~rei bT Mlebel L ~ ~i AeM~t 8~t~ 1. X000 nnn~1 ~ ANAt~s of ~rnw. a T.tcr ~v~ar TRas vArtox w~ c rnucnoN 4 AT'/'BE SAN FILrPPO STIE, St.~Y ROAD, BAItATOCA fence must be relocated, tree #37 may be exposed tD at least minor mot damage if a new fence is not immediately t+econstructed after demolition of this existing fence. Aiso, tree #37 must not be exposed to any risk during n~constrvaion of the fence, however minimal. Trees #1 and # 2 are located in the public right-of-way. However the canopy of tree #2, an Exceptional 49-inch diameter DBH coast live oak (Quenctrs agrifalia}, extends onto this property by approximately 35 feet. The root zorre in all Idcelibood eaetends outside the canopy perimeter by an additional 40 feet. The Grading Plan proposes to change contours 112, 114, and 118 inside the perimeter of the canopy. This would adversely a$'ect as much as40'/0 of the root zone. Bear in mind that mature specimens such as this one is more sensitive and much less tolenint to changes in its environment than young specimens of the same species. Even 20'/. mot damage in the root zone of this tree would be significant, probably severe. The open space on the south, east and west sides of this tree has been disked to control annual weeds. Because of this, the majority of the absorbing roots have been destroyed to a depth of 4-6 inches in the area of more than 50% of the root zone. As a result, tree #2 is considered to be in a stressed condition and must not be subjected to airy additional mot damage from grading, from trenching for landscape irrigatioq from a dense landscape pleating, from trenching for utilities, or from excavations for arty purpose, Temporarily, this can be a~ddnssed by providing 3-inches of mulch and supplemental irrigation. f Tree #2 is one of a hand foil of unusually fine large mature coast live oaks in this area. Recommea~ations The following mitigation suggestions are intended to t~educe the extent ofeonstruction damage to acceptable levels, so that retained trees can reasonably be assured of survival without decline. These suggestions are based on the constr~tion plans provided. if any changes to these plans occur during constructioq the following may require alteration. I. Temporary constr~tion fencing must 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 1 &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 locatied exactly as shown on the attached map. I suggest that permission be obtained from the neighbor at 18470 Sobey Road to provide a protective fence adjacent to the curb of Sobey Road as noted on the attached map. 2. I suggest that the grading. plan be revised so that no grading wouM occur within the following distances from trunks of tares noted: Tree #1 18 feet Tree #2 35 feet Trees # 15-17 15 feet Tree #27 18 feet Prepeiei y: b63~d L Ba~ei, C~witl~ ArM~i~t Steer r, 20N ,, ;' >- --- ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL C LrCT H~,7'q-~f'IftEE PRT.9ERVATION AND C TRACTION S - AT THL $ANI FILI}'PO alit. jtOAD, SARATOGA -- - If the plans must be revised to achieve to these clearances, the plan must be revised 3. I suggest that the drain proposed on the north side of trees # 1 S, 16 and #33 36 be relocated a minimum of 1 S feet from the tnmks of any of these trees. 4. I suggest that the landscape plan and the landscape irrigation plan be reviewed by the City Arborist for the protection of trees #1, 2, 27,15-17, and #33-3b. 5. Trendies for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the dripIines of retained trees, unless specifically indicated on the enclosed plan. For any flee where this cannot be achieved, I suggest a project arborist - be retained to debermirle acceptable locations. A 2 foot section of each trench adjacent to ally tree must be left exposed for inspections by the city arborist. 6. Supplemental irrigation must be provided for Trees #1 and 2 during the dry months (any month receiving lei than 1 inch of rainfall) starting immedistely. Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every two -weeks throughout the construction period 7. I suggest .that the wall on the south boundary be constructed on a pier and on-grade beam design and flat the piers be located between the trunks of existing trees at a minimum distance of 8 feet from the trunk of any of the trees adjacent to the south boundary. In the event that piers must be dug during the wet season of the year, such that tires of an auger rig would create ruts of any depth, the hole must be dug by hand. The bottom of the span sections of the wall must be constructed on top of the existing grade or above. ~ . 8. Excavated 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. If this occurs, the soil must be excavated by hand to the original grade and may require a retaini>tg wa11(dried laid stones, such as cobbles or rip rap set without a footing).to prevent filrther.soil encroachmetrt. 9. t.andscape irrigation trenches, which cross a root mne, and/or excavations for any other landscape features must be >m closer to a trunk than 15 times the trunk diameter ~ . fmm tree trunks. However, radial trenches maybe made if the trenches Leach no ~, closer than 5 times fire tnmk diameter to any tree's trunk, if the spokes of such a ~ . design are no closer than 10 feat apart at the perimeter of the canopy. l0. Lawn or other plarrts that require frequent irrigation trust 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. Pei <R: Midnel L ~~. C~ii~E Awl Sq~ 41aM ~- . ~_. _. ANALYSES of PorrxrrrW.. ?LiCT strwaErr 7itZE ~vATiON AND c ~: ` ~ 'rRiKTtON 6 AT 77n: SAN Fn~PO ~'n. &,BLY RQAD4 BAftATOGA 11. Bender board or similar material must ~t be used inside the cano 'es of ~n8 Pr existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-b inches, which may result in significant root damage. 12. The species of plants used within the root mne of an oak tree must be only with compatible plants. A publication about compatible plants can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation,-1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. 13. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed so that it does not strike the trunks of trees. It is strongly suggested that spray irrigation not be allowed to strike beneath the canopies of oak trees. l4. 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. 15. Any prating must be done by an ISA certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards. l b. Landscape pathways and other amenities that are constructed under the canopies of trees must be done completely on-grade without excavation. 17. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed 5om site. Va1ae Assessment The value of the trees are addressed according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition. The plan proposes to remove seventeen tr+ces (#3-14 and #28-32), which-have a total value of S 12,513. This value is equivalent to six 36-inch boxed and eleven 24-inch boxed native specimens. Replacements are suggested. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Qr~~er~rs agrtfolia Valleyoak - Qvercus lobato Big leaf maple - Acer nwcrophyll:an California buckeye -Aescwlus colifornica - ~ , Coast Redwood - Sequola sempervirerrs How+ever, 36-inch boxed specimens and sometimes 24-inch boxed specimens may not be available at the end of a project unless the trees are secured with a grower at the onset of construction. I nocommend that it be r+equirod that replacement trees be secured within 60 .days of the issuance of permits and evidencx of that be provided to the planning department. nr1f1(11 q ~- 1 `_• ANALYSIS of Po~rerrrrAL. 1r.rCT ~7~vraN TRt~ P~VA1'ION Alm c 17tDCr'rOft 7 AT'I~lt 5AN!'ILTiTO SrrE. ~Y ROAD. Qd-1lATOGA " . Tree #2 has a value of 543,261 and the vah~ of fret #27 is 56,394. The neighboring trees #37 and #38 have values of 510,606 and $34,308 respectively. I suggest a combination. bond equal to 30°6 of the fatal value of the trees #2 and 27 and a bond equal to 10% the value of all ofthe other trees to assure that adequate protection is provided Refund of these hoods should be prodicatad upon in.~tallation aad maintenance of the fences. ~ . RespectfuUy~ submi ~~-... ..a.~.. _ Michael L. Bench, Associate Barn , MLB/sl : Enclosures: Tree Data Accumulation Charts Map of Tree locations and Protective Fencing Tree Protection Before, During and Afler Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies ,; • • • ~ -7: lYBdnd L. ~ cw1~ A~i.eit 841erier 1, Z/M ~-~ -_ (~ ~N N 0 O r: ao ~; n ~ ~ O as O ~A N O ~l a v Q O a a 0 trL) uwonLa iv~ow~a v '11/A0113~i GN31q~36F $ ~ ~ $ O r>$ o ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ ~ ~ .~, `~ 2Qa~la3i SQ33N ' $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - w C (~L) a31VM S033N • ^ ^ ^ ^ s ^ (S-t) 35V3S10 aM'i'10~ loon $ ~ ~ y ~ A ° ~ ' K ~ y IO~ 100a (4-L) ~3a3A0~ aKi X X X d l4-L)AVJ30 SNnal e (4-t) DOOM Otl3~ oo ~ a~ ~!"i ~ o m s A A ~ ~ ~ ~ (S'L) 3S'V3S10 NMOa~ H3a1 „^ „^ .,, o. (~L) illlaOlad tNrlNnad ~ ~ X o - A r r O ~ # a3d33N 331flY9 ~ e ~ o = 1H`JI3M-aN3 3AOw3a ~ e `JNISIVa NMOaJ Nouvaols3a NMOa~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~uNlIIHl NMOa~ a~ ~° $ N o ~ ~ JNINM31~ NM02l~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ (8-E) ~JNI1Va OaV2VL1 $ $ ~ °o w o c ~° (OL-Z) ~JNLLVlI NOI.LJaNWJ ~ ~ ~" ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ N ~ ~ .~ '168 '~' e ° V t9-L) 3anlanass N X ' X r X N X - X N X ~ . X (S-L) H17V3H ~ ~ y av3ads ~_ ~ m m ~ m q ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~~p' !n a ~ O LFL~JI3N n O ~ ~ r N y n N W o- ~ ~ A - 1331 b~ a313w1A0 n ^ m. ^ ~ ^ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ r Heo z M ~ Hfla ~ N A M - H M ~ A h ~ ~ h ~ N M o ^ h M X X X X X X X wals~su~nw ® x Hfl4 o ~ g~ a3 o a q $ o •- n ° o o q ep o o_ q A o ~ N f ~ ~ A Pl ~ _ _ ~ .~ s V ~~~~ ~ E ~ S p~~ t~3 8 ~ 3 , o <~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ t J ~ ~ v c~ .- N Pf ~ O O A ~ ° t M ~ ~ N W m M .- ,; ~~~~ N r- ~ / 1 W N ~ a ~~~« U • ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ !1!1 A A~ r f ~` L._-_ N O d N o~ D. .G ~ 0 v ca 0 .L] 0 t/1 ~1 m Q 0 d LL C H .G O It-)uwOwe'n-rlol~aa y C ivnow~a a~wwoo3a 0 ~ ; ~ 1 N m 7 ~ > m m 7 8 > N ~ 7 a > ~ ~ = ~ ~ 1D o ~ e ~ N ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ Y a3a Sa33N r, w w a I~l) 2131VM Sa33N r • ^ r. ^ • r Is-t) asvas+a a~moo loos ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ m m N A /~ s ~ ~ x ~ x x ~ t¢L) aaaanoo a+rnoo loos a d e 19-L)Ad~34lINAal ~ • (S-t) QOO1N 010 v N ~ N N W m ° y m N 'f d1 r Is-L) 3SV3SlQ MN40a~ 33x1 y w ~ y y d IS-L) s~~~ r r • r M r r (s-t) rwaaad JMN11ad o 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ i a3Q33N 33191/) ,r~ ~ ,r~ Z 1HJf3M'ON3 3/-ONC~a ii i5 x x x x x x X ~wsrca ~unoaa Nouvaolsaa w~wao d o ~ o g ~ m _m ~NIlNNIHl wHOa~ 'C ~ y y M M W flNINV3l~ NMOa~ r r . r IS'~ ~JPGlda aavzvH o ~ 7S o o ~ $ m ° (OL-Z) ~JW11/21 NOWONO~ '~' ° "' a `~' ~ '~' ~ ~' ~' ~ ~D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ IS-L) aaruonats Pf a x C9 Ol x '. N rl x co b x N A x N x f x IS-4I H1lV3H N N N N avaaes ~ a ~ m ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ R ~ < e o o ~- m ~ . 1HJ13H ~ y n y ILf y ~ l09 m f .~~p ~~ [.vr a3~wrw m r m r N r O N tl A r ~ M O ~ N IL'l ~ r ~,,, C C C C C 7 H94 AO H9Q ^ N y O ~ N h N y G ~f N y O ^ N M ~ x x x ~ x x x x ~Iln~ X X X X H9a O N '° O ~ N .~ O N O ~ O '' N i O ~ N ~i O O A ,~ C C C C 3C H O t N (~ ~$ ~ it ~ c c c c p ~ LZ ~3 ~ 3 ~ ~ ` ~ ~~ ~ I m ~ ~ ~ O L ~ c V V U ~ • o •- n ~ ~ C O ~` C M R ~ a w m M C7 %'i G AA ~yNN J ^ ~ ^ W$~~ ~~ o ~~~~h U N~~ ~~~~~ Inn~~i~ L N O d o~ r ~ N t0 0 (A H `1 '~ Q 0 O ~. Q m F=. 0 Q ,. IrN nl~aoraa iveow~a __ __ € ivnowaa aNawwoo~a c ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ m > ~ aE . . aaaiua~ SQ33N ' ~ ' ~ N N ~ N O .I. ~ y (S-L) a311/M Sa33N ^ ^ r w w u r t~L) 3Sd3S10 aV710~ tOOa o y~ A e r- _ (4-L) a3a3n0~ avno~ 100a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X X X X X X X O ~ cs-L)Atl93Q NNnai cs-L) aooM avaa ~ ~ p m A $ m g N N f~ w9 N f ~ cs-L) asvasra NMOao mat N N N tS-L) S1~3SNi w w r w w w w (S-L) AtJaOtad ~lANnad ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 s aaa~N s~eva Z ~ 1N J13M-aN3 3now3a X X X X X x X a JNISTda NMOao NOLLVa0133a NMOa~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ornNNtFU NMOaa N N N N N ~ N ~ N Q N oraNrr~o NMOao ^ ^ M (~.) ~JNI1Va cavzvH ~ ~ ~ O- O O O p O p O C 'i (OL-Z) `JNLl1/a NOlLaNO~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"~ g 9 ~ "~ m ~ ~ ~ a "' m ~ ~ -a & ~ c9-L) 3aru~nals ''' o N N N ap l7 p Q m M x X x x x x x t~L) N11V3F1 - - av3aas Y ~ ~ p ~ p ~ N ~ r ~ R A m ~ O m ~ ~ m 11/`J13N m m ~ .'~i y ~ N ~ N c°o ~~ ~ a~wvna N ^ N « N w N II A ^ Y N- ^ E c c c c c c ,~ H84 w ~ ~ N94 M h N N N N ~ N .r h X X X X X X ~ X w~sxs-uinw x x H80 0 o N o ~ a, R° o H ~ o n ~ ~ o m ~ 0 ~ a, 0 jr ,~ c c Jc c ~ 'n O ~ e' ~ V ~ !9 ~ •, ~ t d p~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ O 3 oC a V ~ ~ S J ~ J ~ pm ~ ~ ~q r O ~- m r O r N h 0 N Q C 3 p a ~ a W m ^ y o bi a I W ~ ~ A ~ N N N ^ • ~ W ~f ~ g v W O ~ ~ N N U ~ ^ ~ ^ ~~~~~ ~AAAAA . ~ _ ,a-'. ~__: `_ _ .- o 0 N O o~ ~ ~; ~ ~ O ~ '-~ v 0 N .a O d] H N .a Q 0 0 G. Q W m 0 lrL) unatia ivnowaa - g n,-o~a ON3~NOJ3a o a ~ a ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ a ~ $g~ S " ~ ii~ S a3a"Nla3d S033N w ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y (~L) a31VM Sd33N • • ^ • r • ^ (S-L) 3SV3SId adllOd lOOa ~ ~ $ ~ o o ~ (~L) a3a3noo avi~ tooa ~ ~ ~ x ~ x ~ I~~ d (4-l)AdJ30 ~Nf1al • r ~ (~L) aooM dv3d ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ o A ~ N ~ d (S-L) 3S113S10 NMOad 33a1 y (S-L) S103SN1 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ r r (~L) uiadad ~JNN(tad ~ ~ ~ ~ x g ~ + v - f d3033N S3lBVd z 1H°J13M-dN3 3AOPfda X X X X X X X e ~ oNrsiva NMOao Nouvaolsaa NMOao 2 ~ A A d °JNINNIHl NMOad ° ° N ° ~ A N JNINV3ld NMOad r ^ ^ ^ r ^ (B-S) ~JNLLda OaV2VH $ y ~ O ~ $ .- $ ~- g yp ~ _ pn° (Ot-Z) ONLLda NOILONOd ~ ~ ~ ~ • j~ is ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m t ~ (s-L) 3aruonals N x "' x ~' x ~ x N x x ~' x dvaads f M ~ ~ a n h ~ ~ ~ 10+f ~ ea 1FNJi3H v O ~ O M p R o a9i O N ~ f y ~ A y l7 133 ~ a313Wd10 m n ^ e~ ^ ~ o ^ ~' ~ ^ ~n ^ eQi ~ ~ ~ ^ HBO c ~ ~ C ~ r. ~ C ~ o ° £ O ~ ~ . , ~ HBO O O N y O ~ N y N y ~ q N M NN M O A y O p^ N X X X " X X O X m X . N9LSASi1lfW1 x x x x x HBO ~ a7 ~ ao 0 0 ~ 'r. ~ ~ N a c c it c ~ c ,B W v g ~ w 0 t ~ W ! ~ ~ ! ~y N {~ N - N N p O A pj - N 0 ~ N ~ ~~ o 0 N d 0 0 .a 0 s~ O N d a 0 O a a ~- O ~_ ~ ivrww~a atawwos~a m O ~ ~ o N ~ ~ m , ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ N . Y a~ua~ SQ33N ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ., (4-i) 2t31VM Sa33N • • ^ r r ^ (s-iYasv~s~o arnoo l,ooa ~ ~ ~ ~ m $ (s-il a3a3noo armor tooa $ ~ ~ x x ~ ~ cs_i)J11/'J30 ~Nnat ~ (a~i) OOOM aV3a ° o O f~ as g cs-i) 3sv3s~a NN1o21~ mat N N N (S-l) S1~3SN1 ^ r ^ a u r (s-i) IWadad owNnad ~; p ~ ~ ~; ~ A • A i O3Q33N S37BVJ Z ~~~~ ~o~a X x X x x x e ~ ~N+srtra NMOa~ Nalvaois3a NMOao N ` o JNINNINl NMOa~ ~ ~ ~ a y ~JlNNV3l~ NN10a~ r r r r ^ r (6-f) ~JNLLYa oamN ~ ~ o o (4t-t) JNLLda NOI.UONO~ tO ~ "' ~ m ~ aD ~ v ~ ~ ~ v (s-L) 3a(LL~f1a1S "' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N X X X X X X {S'l) N1lV3N N +r ao -ar~ads w ~ N~ ~ N $ N A ap7 m N MNf CO O N O wf 1Nfl13N N a~i a4i N gi y ° $ N 133 Z~ a3131grAa eg°i r ~ N ~ ~ °r° r r ~ n n r e c ~ c c c ~ ~ ~ N8O O m A ~ O ~ A ~ A N O i° t. N n N A N x X X ~ X X X YY31SASilIfUN x x x N~ o O $ ~ o b : q ~ ~ o m en N c ~ ~ N o ~ ~ r c e ,~ c c c 0 (~ ~ ~~ ~ c CS,~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V o. ~ S ~i ~ io ~ e~ a~ 0 N '- Q v) ~ c ~ ~ O r C C r a ~ IA w u .~ ~ I p p ~l 8 ~ y N N ^ ^ ^qqq W ~~ ~~-~~o i ~ ~~~ ~~~~ U ~ r r o~ 1~N!- ~~~~.~.~ N O 0 O r ~ ~ O~ .a R 0 N O t%D . m a Q O Q tL c W m 0 trL1 umo~aa iv~o~a ~ iv~ow~a aNawwoaaa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 a3Dllla3d S033N N N o N N ~ (S-L) aaztlM SQ33N r Y r r (sL) 3Sd3Sla av-~io~ loos m m ~ m ~ x x a (S-L) a3a3no~ arn~o~ loon x x d (4-L)Atl930 NNAal 0 r (~L) DOOM aV30 ~ a N ~ Pl s ~ °r ~ l5-L) 3SK3S1~ NMOa9 33a1 N N a (9't) S193SPN p r r ^ (4-L) ALadaa ~JiiNnad ~; ~; g ~ ! Q3Q33N S319V9 o = 1N'JI3M-ON3 anow3a x x x x c a JNISlVa NMOa~ Y ~ NOLLVaO1S3a NMOaO ~ ~ ~ m m v ~ 2 N N ~ d ~NNI}il NMOaO ~ ~ N H N tJNINV370 NMOaa r r r r (e-£) ~JNLLVa aavzvFt ~ ~ ° 0 ~ 25 ~ ~° C (Ol-Z) °JNLLda NOWONOO v ~ ~ ° h a 1»~ W ~ y/ W ~ ,~ 'O V - (5-L) 3af110t1a1S ~' x ~ x X a x (~L) H1lV3H - 17V3aas N ~ N ~ R N ~ 1F(~. 3H A m N R q ~3j ~.®a3t3mno ~ r ~ r N r ~ r C C G C Nea ~ ~~ N N N N X X X X nolsAS+l~nn H80 o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o N ~ v o ~ ~- $ c e c e t ~ V < ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~~ ~ ~~ , a J ~ U ~ ~ ~ .~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ m r W ~ a W m n i ,, ~ ~ O W ~ ~- 1~ ~ N N N ~ ^ > a it ~ Z N ~p~ ,ID N M V a- ^ • ^ g" ~~~~ ~~~~~~ -- __. lam` ' f _ ~ 15 n' _~ 7 ~'~"' ~~ ~ ` ~ ~ Reiocase Qa~ fb • \ • ~ 4~ ~ ~. ~' ! .• '~ i.,4:; Construction Pcriod . / _ Preteetm Fens - 32 _ - - f ' I ;~~ o (2 ~ - ~Y' - "~ ~ ,- a.; _.. v • o.: - ~3 ' ~. -- r• - ~~ ` 8 _ .9a ~ r ~- , . ~. ! t __ 7 - .. -. ,'~ ~ t '~ 1 ~';= ,•'~ "':._ .~ -•i Construction Period ~ b ~, ' ..` Protective Fence -_ - ?g ~ ; r~ ~~ ~ ~ - ~ ,.,_. _ ...,_,.......1_ • _ i 5 ~2 ~ .ufseon+~a j//jff'~~-~-'~-'~..''^~~ ~ - ~Q ` - ' wo•m nG+i n.::df n.~ n•~ ~ `:•"^- __. '~ _ 1 .dMfll/~k MM~~fT l ~ w 3D .' A - ~, _ ~ ' ~~ ~j'. ' ~t~ ' 37 3 y ' '~' f __ ~ `. :~ ~ ss~ ~•-- / ~Re~ise - - \ T « ~' I onstruction Period b ~ ~j.; ; ; a . N ~ Protective Fence ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ' - SOBEY R 's • - ~ 5-25-00 Grace Sanfilippo l~ha enberg - A.S.L.A. ~~ = ~ " '"` "'°` ~rCOing tandaeape Architecture/Site Plaaaiae .e.:s:,~s Sobev Road ?IOn 878 Veieacia Schoo{ Horse Road ,~~ ~3 Aptoa. Glitornia 95009 Saratoga. Calif. t+oe- ees-i9za - - -'- -- - w. ~..e•.....e....n.. a..w.uaa ~ I ~i THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • n(lal(12~4 . Attachment 3 • • December 16, 2001 City of Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Re: Sanfilippo Residence DR-00-036 (397-OS-091) A R C H I T fi C T S Dear Planning Commission Members, Please consider below an outline that demonstrates how the design for the proposed Sanfilippo Residence utilized all applicable "Policies" and their corresponding "Techniques" of the City of Sazatoga's Residential Design Handbook Guidelines. Policy 1 Minimize perception of bulk, The purpose of this policy is to ensure the maximum integration of structures with their natural and built environments. Technique 1: The plans specifically call for the building to merge into the hillside with a minimum amount of cutting and filling. The foundation that will be exposed will be covered with a stone veneer. Technique 2: The home follows the contours of the slope using horizontal elements. The elevations of the roof changes as the ground slopes naturally and the building is terraced. No cantilevering or support poles have been utilized. Technique 3: Various materials have been used to soften the elevations including the stone on the walls and fireplaces, as well as added wood corbels and wooden trellis. The colors have been carefully selected to relate to the natural surroundings. No vertical orientation has been chosen as an exterior design feature. 000029 Page 2 ~- • Technique 4: The roof has various heights as the structure moves down the hill, and the roof is set back in places to minimize areas of maximum height. There is no lazge exposed under-floor azea and no exposed foundation. Technique 5: The home has been designed to be compatible with the. neighborhood, and the azchitectural style can be found in many neazby homes. In terms of size, mass and height, the home is on the same plane as the adjoining neighbor and is similaz in size. Technique 6: The roofline has been varied by cazeful changes in height and form. The home is articulated down the slope and incorporates extensive use of windows and doors to break up the expanses of wall. No long single-ridge roof element was planned and no blank walls are used. Policy 2 Integrate Structures with the environment. This policy focuses on the protection of Saratoga's unique environmental qualities and the design oJstructures that respect their natural surroundings. Technique 1: A cazefully chosen color palette has been selected to ensure that the home will blend with the natural environment. No bright colors or materials have been selected. Use of natural stone material is proposed for a horizontal wainscot element and ~~ chimneys. Technique 2: The form of the house has. a natural flow that integrates the home to the existing slope, fitting in with the hillside topography. Large geometric shapes have been avoided. Technique 3: The landscaping contactor has cazefully chosen native plants and trees, as well as incorporating the existing trees as recommended by the City Arborist report.- A minimum amount of grading and soil removal has been planned. Technique 4: The home and the cabana have a unifying architectural theme accented by the careful placement of the pool and decking. There aze only two structures planned on the property. Technique 5: The materials and colors were carefully chosen to match the natural '. surroundings, and the mechanical equipment will be housed out of sight behind the cabana. No highly reflective materials have been called for and no long unbroken roof surfaces will be used. Technique 6: Retaining walls aze kept to a minimum height and a cazefully planned ~~ landscaping design will integrate vegetation with the walls and fences. The solar panels on the roof aze screened with a parapet wall. A terraced roof has been also incorporated on the second level. No highly reflective materials are proposed. 000030 Page 3 Policy 3 Avoid interference with privacy. Particular attention should be given to privacy concerns on sub standard, small and infill lots. . Technique 1: We have eliminated the second story element over the garage on the east.elevation and we have also eliminated the tower vertical element of the front elevation. The home now reflects cone-story house stepping down the hill on the east elevation. It reflects aone-story house on the front elevation. Both of these elevations were previously mentioned to be of concern. We have concentrated all our second story elements towazds the west elevation and have provided a balcony element, which reduces greatly the appearance of mass and bulk on all elevations. There aze no upper floor balconies facing the closest neighbors. Technique 2: The-home has been sited cazefully to minimize the direct line-of site to the nearest residence. The living room/entry wing of the home sits at a higher elevation due to the existing topography so we have increased the setback by 20 feet. The second story portion of the structure has been all placed on the west side of the structure. Technique 3: The landscaping plan calls for extensive use of native and evergreen trees and shrubs to provide year-round privacy. Additional screening has been planned for the property line separating the eastern border of the property that is most sensitive to privacy. A solid wood and stucco fence to the design satisfaction of the adjacent neighbor is being proposed. Technique 4: A minimum amount of driveway and parking azea is planned directly adjacent to the nearest neighbors that enable access to the attached two-car garage. Additional parking and turn-azound areas have been provided neaz the street access. Technique 5: Landscape-lighting is cazefully planned and the light sources will be kept at ground level. No bright or reflective colors are planned to be used. Policy 4 Preserve Views and Access to Views. Structures should be designed to blend in with the hillsides, not project above ridgelines and hilltops, and to respect the view from neighboring or higher residences. Technique 1: No views are being blocked. Technique 2: The living areas have been orientated to the high quality view areas of the meadow, and is properly sited and landscaped to protect the neighbor's privacy. Technique 3: The height has been kept to a minimum and the structure has been located lower down the slope so as to reduce the feeling of height. Single story portion of the home has been placed on the higher slope area to best integrate to the site. 000031 Page 4 ~~ Policy 5 Design for Energy Eflciency. The purpose of this policy is to promote the use of such techniques to maximize energy efficiency and conservation in Saratoga. Technique 1: The structure is fitted to the grade to reduce wall exposure and provide wind protection. Covered terraces and.overhangs have been incorporated into the plan to provide shade. Technique 2: The natural landscape provides a wind buffer where outdoors living will take place. The landscape plan as specified by the City Arborist calls for appropriate species of trees to be used to control winter and summer exposure, as well as wind protection. Existing pines will remain at the south property line, which currently provide wind and shade to the property. Technique 3: The side setbacks were increased to the closest neighbor to the east. No light, air and solaz access have been affected to adjacent homes. Technique 4: The lot is naturally bermed, providing shelter from the wind. The best of insulation technology will be specified in terms of wall, floor and roof insulation as well as wood double pane windows and exterior doors will be used. Solar collectors will be used on the south facing flat roof area. These collectors will not only assist with the pool heating but will also work with the radiant floor heating system proposed for the home. Ms. Sanfilippo has met or exceeded the changes that have been requested by the Planning Commission by authorizing a major design change to the originally submitted plan. Input from the immediate neighbors has been addressed as well. All adjoining landowners were invited to attend an informal meeting to review the new changes and statements of approval from those persons attending are included in this package. We are prepared to answer any questions the Members of the Commission may have at the upcoming meeting. We trust the Members will find the considerable changes that have been made to these plans will meet with their approval. The positive input from the neighbors should serve as further proof of the compatibility this proposed plan has with the neighborhood. We appreciate your consideration and subsequent approval of this , project. , Sincerely, - O Maurice Camargo A.I.A. - nnnn~~ e -- -_ . • September 25, 2001 3:00 P.M. Meeting held at the City of Saratoga Planning Department Office with the adjoining landowners of APN # 397-OS-091, vacant lot on Sobey Road, to present the plans for the new construction of a single family residence, pool and cabana. Please sign in: Name Address ~/o ~ rc /$Gl/, e ~ ~' /8so~ /~Q,r^SLta.~l~ ~it . 1~MWQ~t~ ~$~1b~i Sob4y ~ < _ /I _ ., • ~~~~~~ September 25, 2001 I have reviewed the plans for he new construction of a single family residence, pool and cabana to be located on the vacant parcel on Sobey Road, APN # 307-OS-091 and have no objection to the project. CfanP~i• Name /~ Address y~~ ~AVu~'3g7-O.f-D~0 ., • • nnnn~w -- -_ ._. .. _. September 25, 2001 I have reviewed the plans for the new construction of a single family _ residence, pool and cabana to be located on the vacant parcel on Sobey Road, APN # 307-OS-091 and have no objection to the project. Signed: A _, _~ , , Address _37Q. City, State, dip Phone • LJ nnnn-~c September 25, 2001 I have reviewed the plans for the new construction of a single family residence, pool and cabana to be located on the vacant pazcel on Sobey Road, APN # 307-OS-091 and have no objection to the project. Signed: Name Address _ ~~/~!5~ rnone P/tR~el -3q7-as-oil :;- ~' • oooo~~ ,~ Y FROM RICK ZEA REMAX GS BAY FAX NO 1408 255 2627 Jan. 02 2002 04:09PM P1 • nn..«. ~ a ~,~ December 24, 2001 City of Saratoga Planning Department Attn. Mr. Sohn Livingstone 13777 Fruitvale Avezrue Sazatoga, Ca. 95070 Re: Sarrfilippo Residence DR-00-036 (397-OS-091) Dear Planning Commission Members, Pursuant to the request of ow assigned planner, Mr. John Livingstone, I would lice to add this infornnation to our application package. This information is in regards to the east side property line setback. On our previous application we had sited the living room wing of the house at 34 feet from the mininnum set back where 20 feet was the allowable minimum. During the process of the major dcsign changes that occurred, the property was relocated even further from the neighbor's current side property line set back and is now sited 39 feet from the property line. Sincerely, d Maurice Camargo A.LA. • nnnn~~ s THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • nnnn~s~ _ i ~ Y., T 1 I J~ ` :. ~ : v ~ h ,-~~ ~ ~ r -..~._ .. _ -.. i ._..._ ._ - - ' . _L..ry _ _ - . ...- ...--_ ._ - ~ ~ O. . r _ _._ -- _ o~di~~~u~s; aa~x~ .zo'~~ aqua isa ~4 tu~~ a ~u~ - ~ _ _ _ ~ ~ i ~ - ~+ ~ ~-U ~ ~1 <~ _ _ ~ ~d_~ YP s - __ i ~- __ .._ - N _ ~ ~ ~ L I - - _- ~.Y_ - + ~ ` - ~ ~ _ ~~~ i f i ,~ - .. _ - - _~ ,;.~. •- 8 U ...: _ '~ . `~ pp ?a` 1 _ _---~ _~._. Y --- - - --~ -~- ~ ~ .. _ ~___ ~ ~._ ~_s _..-__.__ ..~_-.__~_____ _.` J i o ~ W z w ~ ~ } IO A ~ b ~Z Rl LL F J j z~ ~ i x ~'" ~ ~ A a m W W z w ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~z LL ? ~, x g~ b ~j~~~~~~~~~3 Z~~ ~ ~ ~ LL ~ ~ .*~ ~Z Z W IL _ _ _ g _ fi.a~. >ms ma's ~~3~~~P~~d~ O -- n m ry4 ry~ry'! rym ryv, rtO~ m~ O a~ uO~ .Op F- J J < < < ( ( < < < < < < ~ < < < J U J u o $ ~ o t~~ C~ rt ~ o RRSt ~~ g`~a R $ j ~ O ea. v. riF d$ ~ ~ d"~x ~8 "nn a Y Y A ~ H w ~~ ti~ ~~ ~ ~ tt~ r jttt ~¢ ~~ ~ ~ V ai ~_ RRRa R o RR8 8~ R$_ 8 R FF • n ia•] IL~Z ~~y~y..°s °~~« ~3 .( p( CC I IO L Nar ~.O.1J V ~~ z~0 0G~ ~ < Y ~ ~_~ I Z R m•~~ <K 9y~ ~ ~f J V O O J S y V L" C 4 ~ < u :~ ,~ ~ F' < ~ c' 1 o rr ~ ~ = s - - - - - - -. - ~ I o ~ a r a _ j O ~ ~ 9 g s s V o V '~ Zza ~r~~ ~ 3s<~ z~~ ~~e F WW Z < m ~ vS V <OU YY' ~i ~~ d yl ~8 ~ 2w ~y~i. 1.1 S ~ F Z ~J ~ A ~~? ~~~~s ~ F~~~m ~x~~ fe~2. E U ~W t = =' z ~r IV ~~ " ~ '~ ~ ~ e~ x is o ~ ~ ~ € ~~ .v .. w z~ Pr a 1 i a ~ t ~ ~ .; ~ ~ G ~ . ~, z a~ o ~.~ :..: [G ;gaol ; 3 ~Cj - ~ -e- a a ;~ ' ~ ~ ~ sxvn3 ~ 0 U -~. '_~ a ~ _~ ~°_ ` ~ - x~ O 0 ~ ~ '~11/IM _ ~/ d(I1lM{H Q ~\"Y f~ < l Fr-'11 `° HILL 1 1] ;a,. 1 ~' ~ ~ N4 -- 1TM ~ ~~;-_ . - ~~ CR - t~05n~ T~v Y~~ ~~~ ~IBI3AMI ~ ~d' r.. ' ~~ orr ~ ~ "~J 1 ~~'~- W h g, 3 .~ ` -~ ~ • o-zz-o accs~-yna tit=d~ :3p t~tT-{{io-oi i £0098 aiaioJ~a~ 'so;dy (~ I '~LiE~ `8~0'}E.IEC~ p8o~ t~agos I~y co-a-z paog asnog ioogog eiaual$A BL9 '' ff T T TT -I o- b co-tz-[ 8urvuaid a71S/am'yoa'~rgo~y adeospua7 U~ I~ ~ ~. I~ ~I o d d l~ l~ U~ S a -~Z-OZ {.~ ~.7 - ~.za uaso Ta~TTat :a6ad :a~aQ • Y •~•~• Y Q l 't .It crooa Aaeos 1. '~~ - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -: _L__s__-~,"_ _ - - - - - - - - i ~_ _ ---- --- ----- ~_- ------ 1 - -------~-- ----- ~0 00 ---- -- ----- -- --~_ ------- -- I X ~' ~ i i I I ,~ ~ / I _ --- - -- .. _- i- ,, ~ 589'JO'OC"E 111.96' _ _ 1 - - - _ .. ~ i` % (589'30'OOjE it2.00') ~ - I ___ _ . PUDLIC SEFMCE EASEMENT /ri lI ~ ~ / ._ - / I i .. \, ~ ~~ ' I. I j I\ \ ~~~ I `\ i ~ ',\ ~ r~ ~ L = S I ~ I __ l7 / W H _ - ~' ~ I ~ I L -_- _ ~ ^ ~ .- ~ ' J3 -_! W I ~ h O ..._ -1 m ~ .~ II $ 8 i./ I ~ o j u /' N I s; ~ / . I o ~ / '~ ~ /~I / L " ~ ~ /~ = I d o ° ~ `n v ~ / ^ ~ 4 _ ` O ~ j. ~ d u L Y " ~ I rn ^n ^ C J ° / / I A ~ ~ ~ ~ +, ~ ~ Q ~ ,~, n~ N I ~ I w y N aD n n ~ /~ ~/ i ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ D- m N m ~ y < ~ ~ t9 m w ~ ~ ~ ~i j ~ l9 ij A m A m ~ < A / . Q a.+ / / ~ / ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.., ~ /, i ~~~ l s S ~ ~ a ~y a O O a u ^ N ~ ~ n N O A o ~ t1 O Q ~--- ~ / 1, 3/ ~ ~~ r Fr ~. ~it J U Q O~ ~ O m a ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ g ~ a a 1° ~ I b ~ ~ i I -, / ~o ~ i \ ~ a r 9 ~ I ~- q \ 'F - V N M 1 t Y ~ O X O Q \ Q. p O ~ = i• U 0 V A U p V d 0 0 0 ~ O > O N I Q ~ ~ ~ ~ .~~ \ ~ \ ^ O 3 ~ p O + U o ~ O t p ~ O ~ U j n ~ ~ ~ ~. O~ ~' ~ t \ n ~• p 4 1 ^ `lJ o `i q~ i 3 ~ i U ~ a ~ I I \ i i ~. I / ( \ \ / ' ' ' O O ~ /~ ~ ~^ ' / ~~ ~ I ' ~ E 82. (589'J0 OG 589'30'5' 75 ) .51' y /' D O - - ~ Q ,O ~ ~ \`i ~ \~ ® ^\~~ /~ ! i. -. / I i I ~ ~ l} ~ / < ~ ~ / \\ / . ~ ~ \ I \\ / -~------------ -- -~ ` v -L- - / -----~--' Q - ~~~~ ___-% ~ ---------' o ~~ I ~ o 9, 0 I \ ~i N / \ 1 ~ L t / ~\ ~ O ~ li / > O i \ % ~__ it I, i ~~~\ ~ W / / \~ i .. ~ `\ ~ ___ _ ' ~ ~\ / .. \ / 1 i I ~ ~ 1 , ® ~(~ ~ , ~ ~ ~( J~ j 1 ~ (-~ ~ 10 `~ ~ I I I g c \~ ' u~ //Q / `o j ~ ~~ I I~ I _ i ~ _ j i i a co' f `i , _ _ i ` ~ ~/ - ;~_ / ~ II .. __ ~ _ I I -__~--_- ~ -~ ~ (5 36'a4'E 63.25') O v • . ~. 10' SANRARY ~ ~ t~0 to-g-b 9ZBT-589 (T£B) ~ Z~ [o-oc-~ £005s BTIIlOJITE'J •so;dd ~uawaai?~da~ pU~ '3?Ie~ e~o~ea~es peog Lagos auolslnab paog asnog Toogas eiana~EA 9L9 ITT ~ 00-9Z_6 8acanald aatg ainlaa~Tgary aaEaspnE7 ~ ~J /~ Q ~,(-J a ~ a a .-.~ 1 O ~ I ~J u ~ s :a6Ed :a}ap ~tl"I'S'~ -- ~daquasog iaEL[~ijq[ b'oU ~..3~0 _ - -- - -- _ - - - - _ _ - - _- - - - - - -_ ~ - - _. - - - _ - - 1. 3 . X X X X x X X X X X x ----._ _ -------_.- - __- /~`~ -_ __- _--- --_ - -_ _- -_ _ _ -_ _ _ I O: O .,,, /aE :ipr N ~~~~ ~~pi9191~1~i~i~ '•~ N 50' ~iG': 19~9,~j~9j~Y~~9;~91~9v1'v .-oar, (~ i(7 IN 1C7 N N ~ Its i(7 N a - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - j ill i I .- __ - - 589-30'00'E !11.96' _ _ _ I i i Oi 1 _ _ -Fp-iRCrl dAP I i ~ ~ I (589'30'00'E t!z.oo') I UI I i =1 j•~I~ i I ~y ! t PUBUC SEHVIC" ElSE4ENT ' i I I~~ J1 '~ ~ ! ~ O. I OI-~ i ~; _ I I~ i ~`~~ I i - Q ~ ~ OI Ii c1.~6 ~ I i I i l' '. I v, S1 ~. ~I i Z ~I i1n (6 LI ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ \O E, Yr'E i~ ~ QE cj =I Qp NI x:91 c, O, ~ :~~~- ; Tn c ~j ~~ ~ i ~ 16- ~~ ~ L I /- ~ \ !- ~ N v Ci;Q.~C71~'QOL.U:UIIdO ' /v c~ I ,,` ~_ ~ ~ i I I ~ I I I ~ ~ ~ O ~i I NI r U ~ (O I ~i C (Q (~ ~I ~ ~I lll~ OI Li O~ I f ~ I N ~~ j~. O~ aJ~ ~~ h z o U >i N' 3 >i Oi LI ~I IOi NI l6. ? IE•' `~ J~-; - I I - I I I ~` ~j~;l II 11 = # ~ i l~ 1 1 1 >c Qimi.UQiw~~L!c51~'_i~ir ~ . I U ^ ,nE-1 r.ct ~~ .. ^ 1 ~ i c ^ _i m r~ C I ~ I I - ~ - 9-7 `D +~ ~ A A - - 161 - R ~ _ ^ * ~ •~ - - Q ~ ~; 03 C C". I L L L = I I ,~.I 'p O U ~: ~. N L ~ ~ N' I=1 y'. ~ O O. ~1 O. I io v x o It6;lo~al~:,o ~i`mo O'10101 N i•- c- ~I v-i E' E. ~i k_ wl Ei d d E D.' 1 -. ~ I C I l I ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ I ' ~' i 00I j I I I I i ~ ~\ O ~ I I I -I- . _ _ \ E~ I i I I I I i ~~~ _ a, wE O O ~ I I i- I i ~ I ~ w.-I-.r ra. T Q[ A ~' ~II ~ ~ ~ I E EI EI \~,~;~ 1~ ~~'~l'~'~r ~ ~ Lf ~ ~i ~ ~I ~! ~I I ~ ~I~I j~~ ~ I; ~ ~ O ~r~el,es~~i 9 ~i ! L ci ci cl ci c, ~I c~~~- c I I - - ~ 's -~IN~10 l6 >la 161; I E-16 E~ I % 3. - - O L -I-3 Ji j ~ I~j~L ~L I Lll I~L'._ N ~ ~ ~'3 - _ ~ 1. ': a Q ~ I OI N Vj V t)I U; U. ~I D! ~i~1 ~I U~+~, ~ \ ~/,2 Ec Gc ~I - Nu. +, N >I- I ~I ldj 10 la ~ I ~I O ~I c ~I ~! `O; 1?' ( ,\ ~ l6 m~J~ L~~ mj ~ ml ~m QI~~j~C~~{ y, ~ ~H Hi$H 0 .~t 0 \ ~ ~ N~Oi~~d- X1919 ~'~O ~If~~ ~ NiO ,6 ~ ~ o \ L C I J I \ p .-li\-+! ~;(~-Nit--I.-~INi~ •--I .-I-.-+N rl~.--I, ~~ o \ N # ,{~,i ~ I 101.E (~~i~l~,.--+;NI'` ~~ o * ^~ r O 16 ~ /I~t~lf~Il9.I~:dJ6-Iii.-~.-+.-+;NINI(`)'.(7i 0 ~•~2a WA~NLT ~ ,g-WC~^<UT I L I d ~-~ ~ .-1= ~ j / O + t . \ \ v ~ Q \ p~ \ \ - ~,., - i o ~\ ~ J / _7 (589'30'00'E 82.75') i ~ J l \ D 'UG j i / 0 = ff .. /r\,, ~ x;95 . E '~ .. 5 i0 / \ ~ ry ALNUT ~ -WALNUT se9.3o's3~ e2.s,' O ~ r-! ~ ~ O ~ 5 ~~ / o ~ \\ ~\ / / -\\ `\\ ~ ~ - ~ O - ~/ . \ ` II ~ wry, . - ~ ~ ~ I i - SUM O '~\~~%' 1 ~., ~ \ , '®`' i i ~ ~ ~ - \ i ~® /~ ~' ~/ OO `-\ ~ / ~ c _ - _h \ / - \ ~ ~ 20' P C SED t H 10' SRN6ARY 5 I f:If_-~: ~~ ' ~ -o v -? ( 36'a4'E 6325') S ~-~ ~ 1E-' kt9PIGE '-wOp l-.`' ~ ~-- ~- ~: ~.r-- r- -- -- a ~ )~ - ~ I W _~ - ~i s v~~ U f-i `o O _ ~~; _}o~ _ ~~ ~:. .. .. __..____. .. ` :J ~ ~ Q ~' _ 7 ~ rt1 m I Nm _ ________________-__ ~< ~ m I n O .\ ` \ _ O /' ~~ . \ / ~ .\ /~ . \ ~ \ /~ . \ / .\ ~~ /y `\ ~ '~ .\ ~ ~~ ~ `\ `\ ~1~ \\ ~ m m ~~ ,~ \ ~ ~ ~` ~ ~~ ~~ ~, ~, w -~. \\ '/~ a'0 ~ m Q~ ~ J l ~~ ~ ~ \~ /" ~ \ _ ~~ o /" ~~. / ~~ o ~~ ~ =49 ~ ,\ ry0 ~ ~ `\ ` \ ,h ~F \\ `\ / /, \ `\ ~~ ~ ~, ~~ ~~~ C ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ Y ~~ `~ /~ N N O / \ _ • • • 0 Q it ~ ~ o ~~ I a - i I - ~ 4 } ~ V m.~ ~~ LL i I _ ;$ • ?~ & J S a \ I ~ ~ ~ .~ i n /• /, z9`~ .A~ .\ o P Z " ~/, ~ `\ r /' .~ \ /. ~ P N - .. \ /- i~~-/ ~ j w- Q 4 v i m ~ } ~ o o_ ~ ~ ~s ~~ ~ 4 ~ +~ ~ d U ~ / Y a \ 40 ~ / ~~~ ,f~ / / ~~ /~ \ w //\ /~ P ~ ~ \ x ~j / / ~ ` ~\ // / ~ ~~ o .\ J LLp m P• O o a (3~ \ Y `\ < ~ U n ° ~ Z ~: 'C ~ / ' m ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~\, ~\ ~x ,~a /~ ~ ~ ~ y` ~ b 1~/ ~h ~ > P' mLLg / \ \ / ~ -$ • ~F ~ ~ y~~ ~ih ~~ s ~ ~~~ i a ~ ~/ \ \ / \ / / ~ ^ m \ \ ~/ ~~~ < F4' / . l , ~ i' \ mo \ / , \~ ~ ~ \ / ~ ~ 1 %o \` \ ~ \ M ~'8`~ ~ \ ~ / • ~0 0 • r I ~ i f ~ ~ ~ ~ i i ,~ 1 I ~ i i i i I ~ ~ ~ i ~ \~ iii/ ~ I I ~ i i ~ ~ I ~ i i / I ~ i i ~~ I I ~ i i i i I ~ i i ~ I ~ i i ~ ---~---- t ~,° I ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~~--~---- \~ I i ~ I i ~ \\~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ - \` I O. _.. ,~, "', 0 ~' ~ C~- c~- --~.. ~ s ~a~~ ; < ; ~ E~ , ~r c+ ~- ,~ ~ ~ ~, - -- - Q ,~ ~ ~ ~ i~Q ~- T :on ~~ 2 ~ ~ t ~ ~- .\ ,\ ~ I .. .. i \ / 000 \ / 0000 \\ / ~ \\ / 00 \ // `"0000000 \ \ / &~, / O a m 000 1 b /' 000 ~ ~ \.0000000 `\ 000pOOpOOpOOp00 ~ g X0000000 00000 / / I ~ ~ ~ ~ooo°oo°e ~~ ~ / i~ oooo\O°ooo 0000000 `\ / / / ~ ~ oo °0000000 / ~ ~ ~ o°o°o°°o\ ' / /~ ~ ~OOOO°o~o°°~ m~ -~ \ / \ / m \ / \ / it ~ I ~ ""-o I I ~ I 4 i z I ' I nl~ I I ~ ~ I i ~~ ~ ~ I I ~ I. 4 x L-- -- -- - ------J I I orrnau _ --- -~==-"`~- ~ o ~ ! - _ i 1 I c °. ry Q II I ~ s I ~I~ l ^/1~ ^~ • I ~ ~ I I I <Iz ~ ~~~ _ _ ~ _ _ _ - _ I Nf /~ / a y. / o. ~ i ~~ i .~ ~ \ /~ \ / `<ati;~ \ i ~ \ / ~ \ \ i \ \ / \ / \ \ \ \ ~J?O \ \ ~,, fi. \ \ \ ~ u r /O 0 \ \ \ /0 000 0000 0 0 \ / . 000 0000 \ / / ~ \ \ < \0p~~00 \ ~~' ~ ~ 0000000 00000 000000 O / / O 000000000000 ~ U ~' ~ ~ -. o -_ . . a { , ~ y / , i / d%. ~ - ~~ /./ // /,~ \ \ ~ti~ \ \ \ / \ / \ .~ / 0 \ J~o ~\ / 00000\ \ ~ . / 00000 /~ ro. / tip. (00000000 \ / \\ \00~0~0 \\\ / ~~' /// \ O \ / / ~,~ \ ~ i \ / \ / / / / \ \ 1~ 1 \ /~J2 /' N t IIII ry `\ o ~ ~ / \ e~ o ~ / \ ~ `\ / \ ~m ~m ~ I \\ ~ \ / \ ry0 / \ ~ / \ \ '~~ / \ \ \,/~ \ ~ / J \ ~ / \ \ / I /~ \ \ i I \ \ / ~ \ \ \ / I \ ((~J' -\ \/ /, f \ ~~ \\ ~' \ ~ \ /, \ ~ \ \ / \ / \ /~ / ~,~ . ~ ' \ v' o \\~/// ~`X / ~,r `\ // ~ ~ \ 1 • a I \\ ,~ \ t 1 1 ,1 1~{ i i' .~ II I I' i I • (~ -----------:~~Nt v V~_ _-_ ~- -~ ~ I F i m O V QILL ~°"s~ _?~ 3<~ ~- - ~~ -~' `. r u -~ '~'. -. ..- ~ `~ m y 3 ~ ~ ~: ~ o , f pDI b F i O b ~ ate~,' .~-.s .o-.e~ ! .o-. .o-.b~ I ~ ~ ~~ ~I j ~'~ xj~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~, I i sr ink Z '~ j ~ ~ p~ ~ ~ ~ ~/~ ~~~` k w w u ~~ Z- 33 1 ~~ ~ Ti ~; m m ~~ ,~,~ ~ 1 ~:4 ~ I `j ` `~ ~ ' WI ~ ~RF ` LL ~ ~ ~~` -~ i ~ W w~ ~ ~z ~ ~ i ~~ ~ =I w ~~ r ~ i rb-~ ~° ,, A ~ ~ z ,~,`' ~ ~ 0 ~~ 0 li ~ .o-. ~ ~~' '~ ~ ~ 0 ~ II ~.•`' i ~ Y w a ~ k. ® 4 m ~ I ~ n l ' I~m ~ ~1 W ~ m ' .~ i I a wl ' ~ ~ ~ w~ ~~ i 6` ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ Zi ~ ~ J ~ f J I , L19BH 3l0HAOTV XVW ~~ ~~~ - ~ ~ .g-.~ ~ 1 H 319N.YJTY 7NW z ~ ~ ~ ~ .o-.~ Z ~ ~1 J - - - - ~ ~ ~ .o-.e~ o n ~ Iii -- - - - - LL . ~ P -- - ~ -a~pj _ ~ o I i i I _ I ~-- 14 'n~ o V V Z. ~ 0 H W J W N Q W N ~~ Oi N W V 1 ~- -~ - - ~--~oddi~t;<u~e~c-~r.~-~tr.r a~~ian~~a~~ ~fi~r~~ nD, PPS ~~ oD PDI ~"'r a-s of ~ I .o-b '; .o-.E ~ I ~' y .ob ~* WWW W µ~ Q Y. ~ W I Ij~LL ~ ~D i O d~ ' i ~I 0 ~~ ~„ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~. '~ I K I s-.~z T I ~,' - Iy i k .~~ ~, 1 I ~ k ~ I ~ v ~ ® '~~ ~~ ~ `~ ~ i h, ~~~~ rk ® .~ 6~ 4~, I r ,~ ~ ~ i~~ F' rl . K ~kkr" ~~ ~ ® ~~ R % .9 k . ,~ ,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~I , ~ . ~ ~~ I R 0O - R :d :? .1 .o-.sr ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ - Y F;~ ri 'i ~ ~ . ~ .,~~~~ _ O ~ ~ ~~ ~I m ,::~~ _ ' ~~F ~ ~~ k ~ ~~ I ~ ~ yJ '~~1~~ ~i \ ~ ._~-_ I _ - P, _ - _._ -- -- ~~ b °~ hl ~~ , , ~K T `\ ~ ~ AA .~o,~z ` p Jy ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ i ~ i ~ ~ i ~ ~~ R ~~ i J_ ~ I .o-.e~ o~ ° ~ _ o D ~ .o-.~ - - - - - o _ - ~" ~ ~ o _ _ ~ ~, _~_ L7 ~ :~a"sue ~~~T~~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ _~~ -- ~ V O 1 W W V O W ._ .. O iF O w b h "D WI I I ~$ I I dF I ~ I a I ° 1 l l: ;~ 'II 4 ~ i I ~ ni a I ~~ ~~ m o P~ Pp~ I .0.6 , .P£ .O-b .Pl 4 - ~' a F I I cl ~ ~.~~ I ~ b I ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ,~, .' ~ ' I I I; « ~ ~ ~ i Ij I I it ~ i I I ~ ~ I I ~ I ~ FAT iii t d .b-.Sr ~ C C ~qc W ~ 4 - ~-;~~, ti :i ~ ~I i i ~' ' ~ ~ i C .o- ~ i i ~1 s "\ ,~ V 24 O NVNVNV J w V ~I ~I O 1 O W a w • ~ r _ _ ~ ~-- o ' - ©dd~ z - ~ io~ ~ ~ -~ ~ _ Q ~ o a a a- bD ~ ~ gD ~ ya q~{ ~1 oD oD ~~ .9-s i .o-b ~ = I ~ ~ I ~ c I ,n LL ~ iQ b ~ V i I ~. I ~ =~ ~/ i ~ m ~~ ~ W I a~ ~LL~ ~`~ I Zlg I I ° ~ '~ I O I I I ~~ ~ I ry ~ ~ ~~ ~ o a I ~ - } I n W I -t 6 i ®I w - - - - - , \ ~ ~ j , , ~I t. ~ ~ I o ~ ~I I I ! I ~I = I ~~ i ~ I , ~,~~, ~ o ~ I ~.o-b I ~ b V, _ ~ I ~ ~~ h J 4^~ Q I J k~, ~~ ~" R: F ~ (~ I ~ I I O t ~ I n I I I ~j ~RF I - a I .~~ ~ry n ~~ ~~~ ~ ~r, -~ ~d ~~ "~ w. I ~~~ , n I ~~ I ~ - i I - I ~- -- - - - - -- -- -~- - - - - _ - _-- __-- - ~~ - - - . - I _ - ~'Q -' - - --- '- -- - - - - - ._ ---- ------- J _. _, W I I ~;< I ~ I ~ nI~ I ~ I w~ I I ~~ " I ~~ I ~ I I I ~~ I I i "s I ~ i I ~ I I -~ ~ i I I 11 I I i I i ~I I H .o-.~ w d ~H~H~~ ~ °~ g~i z 4 d d ~, ~~ F LL ~ ~ " O z • I i I I ~j I I I ~~F I I i I i I ~1 a~ o ~~ gLL ~, Z l~ ~!D ,e} O I i 1 wl ~' ~" w~ ~~ V jl `O i w ~c ~. Wi 1M AH 31@VAq'I'N'%VW I I °~ gp w 6 ~ z4 ~a f O \ .(F.B AAL I ~~ ~" ' w I "~ " ~ I "~ ttw__~~ ..rn V~ 6 ~ ~' I II ~ a ~~ ~~~ ~~ a f - __ -- - - ~„ I ~~ o H <! „= v a ~ ~ c~ _ -- - t .•: ~ ~ w;~ < f F ~ . U .N ~~... "vi - _ . . .~ c J _ - C v ~ i J a ~ ~ { C ~ ) . oL < ZS y ~ d 4 9 ~ LL ~~ y m l a .U-.6 ~ P~i ~ u I I i ~ ~ I i ~ ; ~~ I _ i ~, _ -~ I ~ , I I I I .~.~ (~ 6 ww ~'? I~F~ I ~ I ~ K d ~ k Q I Vl I ~ i m I ~~ a .+ rtF ~ ~ ~ I ,~ ~. k~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~~. ~~'~" I I I I .~ ~,~. ~ . I .o-,sz I ~~ I ~'! ~ ~ I~~ I ~ ~~ ~~ I ~ I h ~E z~ ~~ I Y ~ r I O " I m K , " I I ~ ~, ~.,. ~ 1 ~ ~~ , 1 ~ o 1 m LL ~ A.8 ' I m~ -_°~/ I VVVVV~~~II ~ i i °~ i I ~~I ~ I ~ I I i ~ i~ ~®I I ~ I I~~c IL ~ I p[ (~/ I ~ I .vz d Z 4 i i ~ q ~~ ~m ~~ } I ~ I w W I I W I I m ~~ ~I ~ _~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ A; pl i - ~ O O i 'I w ~ I ~_ ~ I w I w I ~ I ® ~ I ~ ~ ,: ~~ ~~ ~ . ~ ~ I ~~ ~~ ~~ I o~ ~~ ~ I ~~ ~ I ~ ~ '' I I „ I ~ ~~ ~~ ~' m I ~ ~ "~ `~ I ~ ~ l d 4 1. i~ 1 1 ~ ~ I~ ~g~yV a ~M99N 37Bh.IP1"IY ~fYN * A9Z -i ~~ "s i .~ ~ - - i i /i ~ ~ 11 ~~ ~I ~/ I 1 r ~_ {-IQ LL.; w.~ ~~ `, ~ ~i Z, a ~.~~ ~ ~z ~~ J I sm ~` i w ~~ J w: Y fl ~• , h ~ ~L ~ ~ ~~~, ~ ~' ~ Q ~ . ~~ ~ ~~ b.~~ p~~ ~ k ~ , O i / ~ i e~~~ ~ ~ f O ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~~ ~ ~ ~ I ~q w iv ~ A I l~~ m ~W l ~ i ro-.v~ h~ n~ O~ ,;` ~~-~ 14._x.. l A.8 'Al ~ d CLLCquq C~qO ~I J) J L' LL ~~ ~~ i ~I ~I o i o~ o~ 8 ' 4 "i~L ~= r~J~ / ~ NF .~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ i / ry ~ / ~ ~ r l~ i' "~~ li ,! ;,:~ I \ ~ ~ r ' ' ~`J~ j ~ ~ J I ;~ 1~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ k~ h~ ~~ O'~ a 1 w~l w O w w /. -.~ `~ P f9 ~ V V._._ . _- ~i<s 4D o '^v~ o i h O Ot ~ 0 VI o zn L-.5 C i .Ot-1 LLI .O-.l l d \ LL~~ } F ~i J i ~ I W~ \ ~ n~ I Q~ Q IV~II I`/]I~ O a~ g ~ W ~ ~ ~, ~ ~i .o-.u ~ i " i ~~ j \,~' ~ ;/ \,, ~~ ~ ,~t I' / ~~ t M1~ Q m ~ 0 ~~ Y .L, T.S .(lb V .V.VI /, o _,~zy. v 8 o ~!~~,, ~ I T~~,` ~ h • i O _Dl ~~ ~~ v `` y~/' w } ,~ .A - --- - - ----- a LL ~ l ^n ~ ~ / V , b.b O O w '(\~ w 9 ~ ,iFY~ "~' l) °I ~ ~\ ry" Iryi ~ / V ~~:. f ~~ 0 7 ~ n~ .l J i ~ i _~ o~ ul w~~ w' z 71 .o-.o~ ~ z u; ~ a v F Y D D © D 0 o ~ ILL LLI gi I~ ~i D .s-.4 °D LL .o-b LL ~ .o-.o~ oD ~ gd ~ ~ 4 v ~ .. ~ ~ ~~ i ~~ i I ` /~ \ ff ~ f~ ~~ I I ~ ~~ ~ \; § ~ ~ _J ~ C A ~ I VI a~ ~~ _~ . '_ n ~ ~ I P o _ o .z-,e i .o- t m , ~I ~j ~~ ~. Id ~~ # I ~,~„~ I ' ~ i 0 1 ~ I y~. A I ~. '1 ~ ' \ ~ KKC/ ~ i T I I I ;~~~ y ~ Q I l I t o ~ j~X ~~~~ n- I ~ I `~ ~ ~~~ ,~/~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ I - I I 1 ~,~, ~ y j',\ O I ~1~~ 0 I, ~ 'x~ ^ 1~ I V M ~ ~~;, T~` z ~ > ~j~' }_ I ~ ~ \~ ~ I 1 ~ ~ ; \ , I I I i z ' ~\ O I ` I ~ ~~~ ~ I ~ g ~~ ~ ~ I ,!~ . I ' ~I ~ L I ~~ WJ ~ I, ~ I w ~', ,~ I ' - - - ~- ; ~ I '' ___ YI I r I d ~ I ~ I IL Rj I 1 S~ F ~; J Q ZI J _ I I b 7 .o~-.e °~ .o-z~ 5~ ~ i I I I ~' I I `~Q~' V O W ,`M V 4 Q i II v I III I~ . \~C i \~ ~ I a I \/ LL ~ ~4~ I Y ~I ~f ~I ~~ ~I ~;, ml .o-.o~ .o-b b d zn 4 8 P o ~~ I ( I l` w ~ I ~_ ~ _ -~ ~5 ~ ~i rv--, ~ to _~ ~ M u - =- ~ ~ ~ ~ v: ~~H ~ennorrr rruwxvw o- sz . , ~' p I ~ Qi : d I Q I ~I w 1 W ~ ~ ~ ! I / !`\ \ Y~ '~ ,. . . ~ z ~I ~ } ~ I •: \`C~ ~' `YC O ; I ~\ y O I li ~ ~. ~ I ~~ _ I t ~ / ~~ J ~ ~ i '~ f ~ I ~ r~ 1 I q~ I I ~L 0 p0 00 -_ P 0 zl I ~~ O Ii~~ ~''' ZI ' 1~ V Q a «., + ~; Q _ '~ S.J «. s- u e a ~y . .~. ~- .~ ;. _ - ~ G W ' „ _.. v; C J ~ ~~ U _ _ .. _... ._ . op <~ U + i • Z O v w N 4 4 d m z 0 v w m w z z ~C o ~~~~ ~ ~_~ ~ ~Z W d8W z U ~ x • y • W i i i I 0 ~, ~~ ~ I 1 V K Q A LL C t A $ ~ W O ~U m q i C .., Y x Y a c v ~((~j~~~ N Jt ~ ~ ao m v co r ,q N ~ N tlryl N m ~~ ~~ ~~ O m N 3~4p~pQ!~ 4 ~ 0 0 a 00 ~ ~ a LL ~ O ~ O Z ~ d w ~mp z a H ~ ~ ~ U O O u Z 0 V ~c 4v W d Z ~c 0 0 J 0. 4 Z d V Q N h N :~ • <^ Q O 0 V V Z Q W 1- OC d ~ Q ~ Q n g O O ~ ~ ~ Q v ~ z ~~~~ ~ g °°°N ~ Q r!~nm ff U Qm~n u ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ Q F ~~i~~LL F- li Z .~n~ c~ae~cia_ ei. g av~ ~ x x x a F"~ryvm '0 O O m mao0 ~N te 6 r1 J mOm 0 p r - Q ~~~ a ~~ .. ~ ~~ Z Q Q 4 ~~ ~ ~ X> N Q l ~ Q LLV x- m d v ~aa~ v ~ ~ ~F~~~~{-.~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~ a a a ~ a a ~ a a a a ~ a a 1 1 ! L a a a a LL a Z Q . Q ( ~ ~ ( '{ ( ~ ~ ( ~ ( ~ ( ~ ( ~ ( ( ' { ( ~ ( ( ~ ( ~ Jl J~1 dl ~~Jl U~1 ~(1 di J1 dS dt N Jl Jt J~1 J/ ~f1 t~Il N Jt i~(1 Jt ( ~ Jl ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ m dJ ~A V N Q' m ~ ~D ~D ~D m ~ a N m .o .q a'.ory~ ~ r'r~Opmm.t ryv, O06u!6 ~ m Q N ~mumi~~~~mm~.monm~ 7tll~ry~ N0 ~9 O mdi n 0 n rtj ? n n n n n n n n n u u u n n n n u u n u u 4 ~ Q m V ~ w a O x_ -, Y ~ f z O a 0 a m~~ O _~ n tl.l J V z 0 v J a 4U W g oc 0 J w 4 I 'a ~ J z O w J W F- z 0 uC O~, ~'' 0 0 0 i °. I U IN z O v IQ la I~ iw i~ IN a I zI O VI ~I N' ~:l 0! o~j v ~!, W +~ ~i • } ~_ ' , I I I II •! I ~ I p I O ! ' q ~ I I ~` ~ I i i >< o = I ! I I ns I a i ~ x3 I I I ~ i ~ ns ~ I I' fl fl ~ I I~(i! ~ ~ ~ ( 'r ,; li ~'•~ ~ ~ LI I I. ~ it ~ I'I ~I _o L ~ 'I ~ ~~ I I I IJ II ~n II II II ~ II I 'ill III I I ` II I I I I - ;7 II ~ .I ilE I I I I i I~~ i I I I I4 I I ,: II I II I. ~~ II III II :i ~I a: I I' I i ~ II I• I I" I '. I~ i "I If - I I I II - -i i- '' I ~~' I I` '-' II, III I I i I II :I II I. I 'i I i i~ i I ~ ~ II I I I I: I~ it I I II I II II I II~~ ~/i ~ ~\ ~. \ y ~~ \~ '~, ~ 4 `P J -- ~ i iw7aw I I ~_ 5 GY I s F _ ^r- ~ ~ 2g ~I ~''- ~I d~ II I I 1tit - -~'~ - : ~ a t0 f uY~'~'-- ~ ~~ W ~ Sri ~~ _ ~< _ - ro ' > ~ M; Gg sc r ;~ ~ $ L Q ~+ (mil ~.I~ F~ ~ ~4bQ ~ ~ J I • f I~ ; I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~j hj I ~, ~ / pE~ .4 -X ~ `- -~` ` `~ F ~+s a y ~~~~p onto K ~t ~ L"i Oak~~n o.~ ~~_-~ ~_; ~~°~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~! ~ ~ I 111 ~~ssa~~ q ~ Ea 0~1 p,, 11,^, ~ /~~, ~ ~~k~~i~_~~~~~4~~g1,y9~°a n..b 3 ~ _~ ( III zJ ~ 'E +•- O[i~ei VJk[J Jtd ~~~3~~F ~$ ~~Bw'qq`"i§ 2~"g `gi ~$P~ ~ Xg rC £oR ~/ /d// I ASS -I~~y ill y \ ~I•:~~ 1 ~~ .~ ~ =s S _ ~~ z~ ~+~ ~~a z ~~ ~c 4'~ I ~ ~ d I z - i.: - ~ J E # ~ / ~SR C > c 5s w u ? ~'• ;~ ~ • 2 J ~_c_ >, _ 3 i z ~ z` c ~ J r~ ~ J N ~ \ - ~ Z - L a'i Y O =. m b+~, t~- $ ~ z ~ a ~`: '~~~ Y.T. 8 € tl F I I I ; i ~I Ci I ~ i (: 3~°g~~6' m I ~ I I d',~ ,,~~ y 'y ~~S~~t~€g~° 6j ~:N ~~~~ !! £ ~G `6F g ~+ ~ ~~ c~ e sEI ~y~~s ~ e ~ >. - ro o ° ~ c L d c o ° ~ O m m m L O C m 3 L~ ~ N N I > ~ U w = Y m- L -C NO o` m t n V °~ O- m ~ O -_ m ~~ m ~~ m Z T~ • o v am oo° °~ O oNUa~ L~ .3_ ; ~ c NNm m ca °_Q ct+ m ° 9c ° a U E a ~-a m ~ N C° >~ a ... ro- D N ° p a a > L 0 O 00 C m o° -° m` "° fL' m W > a ,C ~ 'J ° I pp N m c ~ c m 0; c m ' d O ° a Q ° ro 3 v p ~~ U Z ~•~ z a` ~' c m 2 °~ i m a1OO ~ E n m m m o•->' ° ` m m ~ o~ ac a o ~ o~ ° nc a: E - ~ C ~~ c ° .n o- o L ~n ° _ - • o o ao m E o o~ m•- o N ~ _ o o w o o w u ~, m °ro m ,_ 3 ur ~-3 ~ Ib mo n ro m moon c m -° ~ +L. ro rood ~ O m C ro ' - °' L ao Z L° O o d C L 7 _ -c°'v n° L U a O_ ~ _o > a 0 m 'N _ U w °° m O m 3 w ? L U m _ Z O m _ -° G - m - ~ O O OL > a V N 01 ° ~ U U 3 'L - L W ~ n C m ILn C °O ~ ~ a _ ° nao_m: ° ~ m~ c d o c° y c rn w t o ~ o a ~ o ~ V° on ~~ °° ~ o moo~COC m N m C cm O~ c°oo m ~~ O ? rn~ U oN~a m ~ ro L U L ° C O L m N X~ 7 m ~ N~ m n m ~ C L m a, y C ~ ~ L '^ 17 __ I- N~ W _° Y m j ~ ' i G m 0 w ~ ° mL =mL ~ a~ t ~LE~ m c ° a~ cao ~ ° N~s=v r-~n d o,_ am m9Z ao 3~ m _ - 4/ L~ Ot Yi ~ U~- O- m m n v1 C _m __ C y O • V. 7 0 L V m m - ut D O ` } U ;' O N - N -O L Q C C O m W .- > ro m m j C O~ 6 n~ m p m O O a n L N 7 w° O L ~ ~ m U >, ~ > U n' 77 ° 3 L ~ ~ >~ro0 • T m O C~ ro t- U C N Vt 7• C O 'N "° ~° m ut ~ ) 3 N n a W i ~ 1 1i 6 "° m C N "° ° ~ Urn C O O' > C ~ V ° C y ro L ° •- L ` m° ~ m ` m ~ W ~ m m O cn n 0 i O a °~ ._ >. d m i o am~O ° ~°';rc n ro a o o_ ° ~ ~ 3 mT an o ~s~ mLL-°£ayi >, -° pmco ~r cUm ~ da wQooc om.` am~ ° n O O 7 _- p.~ nN ~ + C -> O ro ~ N° L O` C O O OL m O.~O W N t Z i '° N~ U "~ C d ° T o w o o m m o mt ~_ o C m ~ °` da O ~^ c° ao ~ ~~ m° E G .~~ ° _ n + C ~ C a m C° 3 C~ c o m V ~ O. 0 0 N m F- W O W m~ C -O ; °, m ° o~'m°oa av rno~cao o ro mm 1J L m o-°a~rn O N vE o a p ~n~a - oQ you H~ o ~ .~ o m c- o n L m ~ c 3 N o ~ a m~ c o i~ p U m a a ~ a _. E o ~ w m h c ~ -~ .N L - m ow o ~ O U O m oa O _._o TL - L° mC m N mss - C N D _ •'- m N ~ ° . d 3 v O Nm ~~ ~o m= ~° V ml dap L yN m~ C m m o 0: rn~v w O L mom' "~ n m ~~a o mom ° ' y mL°3`a °' m rn `~ 3£ m` ro roc>~ C m W Ww z rnsai-°~a wo L C ti o v i _- _-~ m m 1] .m- , ~ .0~1 •O 1] C m m C m O C O .` - _ _ S 01 m C~ C C i O j. ~ ro m p a p a a m ~ - ~ L p~ C y ~° ~ a _ 30 m VI ~ L ~~ 3 >~ N O Z w 77 a T J pp Z' ° m ~ m° m L a LO d m 0 0~ ~ air as ° ~ O_ ro n V y' m V 3 om= o °ro 01ro U c~ C N 1C o E n.- ~ ^ E E ' U OZ V O_ m J m U N L `L p o- o ~ O ° o - mao aornn~>.a ~ c m L°o vc -O`o ..: -Lrox _ smo m m LoGLO ~ _ 'oaoa w ` p z a v a o'La._a o -- G ~ nN a° G a m a a h ow ~- o_U ~-o,._ol a c my _ ~ o I ~$~~ 8~G "~~F ~•YgY@'°@° F~Gi 3 G ° YY$ Mt g " / wu a ~ I ~~ 3 •``, a s F~ I ~~ 1 ~• ;;; 4 ~~ ~I 4 ~s ~ z ~~ 4~ g,~ ' ~a~ ~~e ~ s C 4' S ~~~°- sl a.. ~ fa,-, g ~'- ~ Y ~ ~f ~ °~ ~. r_ j WI I ~i Z ~ .. I Li /''t I z I4 ~ 81 ~I I Y o z ~ ~ ~ I I ICI I~ i LL I I I ~I~I_! F= ad<~ ~Q ~za. a~~~ ~v:m~ Q Q z ~ ~ ~ ~v:n ~ :rF, a z +; z ~ Z Z -^d.v V i ~_ ~ J w O ~__ ~ Z a N ~ 2 [r F- W ~3 Flo ~ o ~! diw o 0 I Y Z o ~'a:-~ IQ ~ II xI~NJ U;=Ww i zZ ~ W Z ~ mlma~ "SJNIMVltO UNY SNY7d 03J:1U08d38 80+UNY Y1Y0 JIN08L73731I0.1 U31'tdNil t1U (13SS38dX3 SI .W7I8Y1'I 8U AL"I18ISNOdS38 ON 'SJNIMY80 UNY SNYId 09dtVYJS UNY 03N'JIS'IYNI7t80 S3J(137MUh71JY A"INO'Jhl JNM33NIJN3 "LLAI7 51 ~113NIY7:)S1U ,..._ ~_ ~. :~ 7r ~cM E.c~asec.292',:.,.5.c, gi-n~-•sax70i,2`.'N _ ~ _~ ~ ,.~ i ~I N N Y. w Niz~ IN ~;o I$; I Ivl;l~ I ~ I -" I `~ I z i~~~ O. i i s i~' I I< v I I: I ~, m: I !31~ __-_ _..__ J 13 ~ ~ _-- -- _- u ~ C '. --- - -- ---- I a ~ x I ---_-__ iPY~i`V~!tG ~iv ni,jJ -.. Q\••V'.~ :'.~~CS !h`~~~"`I~°•GO '. 7n!l7 -____ I i~ ~ ~~r.~ __ I _ _- _- ~ ~. -_ .. _._- __ . ~- .- - __ms.ro -.m v _ _ _ - 1 _ .~_ - - _ _ ~ _-_~_~ _ - - --._ _ --- --_.- .__.__. - I \. ' .. I -~- cR1--: ~n~P.'i~~cw l•~ Ir --' ] ' (vY-col--ii ~~. ~. I I - a I. - .N . _. ...I L L L L LR V ~~ A IF ~- _ L ( Q ~Qj ~... _ / i1 C.. 1" ~' I `E' I Ili - I ~ vy~' ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ _ ; ' ~ ¢I I I _ ~ - ~ Q III I YI _ ///y~~~ i I I ~I, i ~ _ N ~. aC Jb a I _ -- __ _..--_. __~ ~'' I _ _ _ _ ~~- ~ I' ~ j cc -;r ~ - ------ ; ~' it ~ ~ ~~ ~,_ I _ ~. OI r t- Ii ~ T - ,, l 3i U-U li _~~ - _ - I I III I - --'-- ---- ~ _. ;I c ~I ~ ~ I ~ I~;I I~ III;; ~ I j I ,II ^, ~ yl __ I. QI ~ ~ ~ I i ,..pl r ~ a \ I ~ II ~ ~ ~ I I - - I' ¢i ~ ~-v :I --t~ II-~ .. € :~~ .III x - ~~ ~ ~ ~ .•. - Ii F, ., m i~ ~I III II I 'I I - ~ ~ iz ~ ° i ~ ~ o~ t I ~Ir- =.{`-CC ~~7 I I I I I r ^~ i` ^ z~ .._ :I w: ~ m Z I' I a. - ~° - ~ - - --- "6- ~ I, ~ I ~;- ,I 3 ~, ~ z .. t ~ I I ~ I - "~.--0 lil F " ~ z ~~ ~ ~ ,f~~jV~7i c Y=~ F ' ` ---I ~ w - { ~ _. ~m`~l~ - .e•` ,-yam ~ \\ 3x '. i - -i ~ oc ' _ III \< ~~ .~~ .'~ \ ' ~~ z i ~ II I II `+~ ~ 8 4 ~~j\~ ~~~1, I, i I i ,1 ~~~ Y ~ _ ~ W` ~ ~ \ c ~ - - .. K `=i ~.: ~ / I ?. •'~ ~!/i i is = _ ~ `~ ~ l _ I I I j I .,I ~ a m x ~ i ~; ism ~ ~ ~~, ' ~ ~ I ' I - y ~ ~' ,•, a.:: >ngrc.s oraa~lna .cl / °~ ~ \~ J 1 ~ i \\\\`--! ; -'~ ~/ ~/ ' '~%~`/ I /~ I, I I I v- ~ I '~I 3Ml ;nsa:3s _nm~Ine sc -~~ ~I} Soil I ~ I ~ / ~' i °~i I I ' ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~• it I g '/2, / = crl `\ "_~_ ~'~ -_~~~I i sn':. 1111 1 0 ~j r r• V I v/ ~ ~ i I ) ~\ ~ ~!~ oza ~1 ti I - _- -- -- -- - -~-- I~,ol ,_, _, ~ , - ~ .. -- - - _ - i 83N3-~ ,9 r I I~ - T N~~'~ ^ I U JJ I I - - I ~~~„ I - RE~IDEIvT1A~~~" m I x ~; i _ a Z u°Gp - I ! - >.62 ACRES y L~ ..~ - I s __ I I I v, ~ 1._- ,,, - -- -- - ----- - . I ~ _ ,~ ~ ~ i ~ - i cn a `~ ,-~` rte, ~ - - - ----- I - ~ ~ I ~ V ~ ~ ~ i L~ ~ ~ ~J ~ M I ~ ~ __ ti ~ c0 2 ~ ~ w 3 ~'~No QIY Z O IQ ~ II '~' I ~ N :.~iSXW z`Z W mlma~ 'SJNLM VMO Oli V SA7'ld 03J.lOOMd3N IIU-ONV V1V0 JINOILJ373 MU! 09I7d1ti1 NO 03SS371d](H SI AJ1719VI7 NO A11719ISNOA538 ON 'S'JNGNVMO OAiV SN\"Id 03dttiY1S ONY O;~N`JIS 7VN171N0 53`JOBI:NONJIJF A7ti0'U\t'7NIi133N1'JNH 71AIJ Sl ~M3NifY7J510 IOr EP ~c Z7 10 ;.p c'T 5hea;ec-ZC202~~C+s`.2St-.-.C`. sc,!~000?`,?+ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ •~u.u~ I ~ ~1 - i k -L- g3a ~ ~ ~ _y ' I ~~ ~~ y y ` o LII I }s _. F a I I .\ ~\ i " I!~ ~ C o I I ~I ;aS 5 3g~ - ^s~ia Ali ~g ~°d ~~ c3~y j. °I ~6~ c i~, ,;'_BHBpSe ml TS `'' ~i6B~~8e ZI 1 ~• ~ Z I .\~J <I I ~ I z C~ ~_ ~ I ;I of LEI ~~ »: iw.. ' ~~ ~~ C ~ a. i I 's ~I ~ I ~ age _`_'~; I i :fie I ~ ai ~ 3o ye ~ ? a; 3 i' z¢: zl =; '~ _`sa use pl ~5~ S ref 2' £.~y~~k G~ ~~' ~6a 3=8864 ~`tN fig: g;~ .x~. n! :3 :$. i ' Z ~ a ~ i _ CI I ~ /N ~I ' ~ `m' ~ , ~I ~~ ,y i I - - I i ~, ~ ` I 11 'Il\ - I ;~;V - I ~~ I t: • ~ ~' '~~ - ~ ~--: _" i '~ i ~ w ~ I ,~ ~ _ - ~~ _ i ~~~ I ' r ~ - •!,, ;III . ~, , i , I "- I ~ -.. I I i •~ ~ , III I_ ?- I II ~' ~ I - i - ~i ; r = 1 :III ~~' I ~ "i I I i I~ 'I. 11 L, ~ II - ~~ ~ lu I - ~. ~~ - ' II AEI . I I , I - ilia ~{! Yltlp ~INONlJ373 NOd 03l'IdHI >!O U3SS37IdX3 S7 NU I ~ ~! ~ ~~im.., ~!'~ >, .111""""' ~ da _ I~~,~aa~~~ ~TpV ~__~ olo!o ~'~ a;w - a>a el' ec J ~..3ii ~ of a I ~I ^ ~ ~ ~ ~'`- - _ _ _ >~c _ > ~~i.e _ ` ~ _- -_ _ _ - _' ti a a ~ ; W ~_~. .z, ~, __ 31 W i '^> 3N~ >ow= -~> ~`; \ ~ ~',, \ ~`,.~ -.~„ ~I J rta,, ~_ i l ' m 3 S ;~- ..j Q '~ - _ ~ ~~__ ~ o ~ - w ~ x o ~ o U V >om _ __W m _ N~°~ Q _Q3oU 7IAIJ - N M J ~ I V ~, ` M ' ~ ~ j 8 ~ ' I r ~i ~; ; _ `~ J ~ ' ; I ~. ~)- ~!C ~!~: ,~ _ 'w.;i <'r~,>jw Q N U .o: ~1=.~ r' ~r y/ Q ~,zcav r~ yy.. 11~~ Q Yrl W V ~ ~ Q v ~i Q I:J ~ eS z ,;, ' z a ti~ I~ g / oe Im ;~ ~ ~ ~ Iz~a z a ~::ra _ ~- I~F~:; ~ ~ n i>~~ z ~zz ~ N ~~~ ~' j ~ ~ Ls: \J fay ~. i ~ I 'r II ~ g I ~ , i~ I _ 6 II I it ~~: ;-T-~ ~ i I „ i i II i l , I it Illljl I I lu !JC? BO'6 ~Si t: aa5 rye 6.G-;3"__•-Z52u:`,5.c129Z.7C`sCef`JpW2`: ea r _ 1 ~ \ LL ' 'i ._ zl ~c J' J e >`m f ' ` d -. J - ~ I - _ '~~- - \ w~ - ~ c i ,~ , ~~ ,N U -I ~p~ ~ tL _ I r Q ~~w I~ a ~ ,; 4~' - ~ '• ` o W z i fi., ~ WI a ,, • ~. m y j ( I I I _ _- ~> >£~ _ d a ~; a =o __ ~.- ITEM 5 REPORT TO THE PLANI~TIN~ COMMISSION Application No.: DR-O1-043 Location: 20461 Walnut Avenue Applicant/Owner: NEWFIELD/FTIT Staff Planner: Thomas Sullivan, AIC Community Developm t Dir for Date: January 9, 2002 APN: 397-28-005 Department Head: • • ~~ I I I I I ~ WILL IANI,S AVE. ~~ '~v WALNUT AVE. 0 0 00 0 Feet 20461 WALNUT AVENUE ;~ nnnnn~ File No. DR-O1-043, 20461 Walnut Avenue STAFF REPORT CASE HISTORY Application filed : 09/14/01 Application complete: 1U2U01 I~TOtice published: 12/26/01 Mailing completed: 12/26/01 Posting completed: 12/2U01 ZONING: R-1-10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density/M-10 MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 7,658 square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: No Slope GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 400cu. yds. Max. De th:10 ft. P Fill: None Max. Depth: 0 ft. LOT COVERAGE: Existing: 1,800 sq. ft. +/- Proposed:3,516 sq. ft./45.91% Allowed: 4,595 sq. ft. /b0% Proposal - Code Requirement/ - Allowance SETBACKS: Front: 43 ft. 25 ft. Left: 6 ft. 6 ft. Right Side: 6 ft. 6 ft. Reaz: 2 ft. 10 ft. HEIGHT: 24 ft. 26 ft. ; ' (above natural or existing grade) ' PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant request Design Review approval to add 360 square feet to the first floor, 334 square feet to the second floor and 360 squaze feet to the basement of an existing dwelling located at 20461 Walnut Avenue in the R-1-10,000 zone. The dwelling, originally constructed in 1906 is a classic Craftman style dwelling with square butt shingle exterior siding. The proposed File No. DR-O1-043, 20461 Walnut Avenue addition fits well with the original design. The applicant will be removing an existing dormer that serves a 330 square foot improved attic. The existing dwelling, while old, is not on the City's Historical list. The Municipal Code, Section 13-05.020 (h) states; "Heritage resource means any public or private property designated by the City, pursuant to this Chapter, as a historic landmark, heritage lane, or historic district, and those properties listed on the City's Heritage Resource Inventory." Walnut Avenue, over the past few years has experienced both remodel additions and demolish/reconstruct projects. The project proposes to match the color and material of the existing dwelling. The project will also install a new Class A shingle roof. The Saratoga Fire District has reviewed the plans and there are no requirements related to the proposed addition. Early in the review process, the applicant considered replacing the existing non-conforming garage, if that had continued to be part of the application, fire sprinklers in the garage would have been a requirement. There are no requirements or conditions from the Public Works Department. The project proposes to have second story windows on three sides, south, north and west. The window glazing on the south and north elevations do not create any privacy issues in Staff's opinion. However, the window glazing on the west side could create privacy issues which is inconsistent with the Policy 3 of the Residential Design Handbook. Staff suggest that these windows be of opaque material to obscure views to the neighbors house and property. Trees/Landscaping The project will involve the loss of one plum tree which is proposed to be replaced. The location of the replacement shall be noted on the plans submitted for Zone Clearance prior to the issuance of any Building Permit. The applicant shall also note on the plans submitted for Zone Clearance protective tree fencing around the two Ailanthus altissima (Tree-of-Heaven) located on the neighboring property to the west. Residential Design Handbook Findings The project is consistent with-the Policies of the Residential Design Handbook in the following ways: Policy 1, Technique #4 -The project minimizes the areas of maximum height, the project has varying height of roof elements, and the second story roof element is setback from the front elevation. ,; Policy 1, Technique #5 -The project is compatible with the existing neighborhood in terms of proportion, size, mass, height and architectural style. Policy 1, Technique #6 -The project uses architectural features to break up massing by varying roof lines. Policy 3, Technique #1 -The project controls view to adjacent properties in that it has File No. DR-O1-043, 20461 Walnut Avenue eliminated second story window glazing on the east elevation. Correspondence No written communications has been received as of this date. Conclusion Staff concludes that the proposed project is in keeping with the policies of the Residential Design Handbook. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-O1-043. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution DR-O1-043 2. Plan Set Exhibit "A" r • ~~ • File No. DR-O1-043, 20461 Walnut Avenue Attachment 1 • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-O1-043 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Sazatoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review for a second story addition; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heazd and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: Residential Design Handbook Findings: • Policy 1, Technique #4 -The project minimizes the areas of maximum height, the project has varying height of roof elements, and the second story roof element is setback from the front elevation. • Policy 1, Technique #5 -The project is compatible with the existing neighborhood in terms of proportion, size, mass, height and architectural style. • Policy 1, Technique #6 -The project uses architectural features to break up massing by varying roof lines. • Policy 3, Technique #1 -The project controls view to adjacent properties in that it has eliminated second story window on the east elevation. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After cazeful consideration of the site plan, acchitectural drawings, and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of NEWFIELD/FITT for Design. ~ ; ' Review Approval be 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. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning File No. DR-O1-043, 20461 Walnut Avenue 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. b. 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.° c. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered civil Engineer or a Licensed land Surveyor. 3. 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. Furthermore, that the fence along the westerly property line be repaired or replaced as needed. 4. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. S. That the windows located on the second story, west elevation be of a opaque material. 6. That protective tree fencing be shown of the plans submitted for Zone Clearance and be installed prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 7. That the addition be of the same color and material of the existing dwelling. CITY ATTORNEY Applicant agrees to hold the City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the City in connection with the 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. 6. 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 the date of adoption. ~~~~06 File No. DR-O1-043, 20461 Walnut Avenue PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California on January 9, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: - ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary to 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 Ciry Planning Commission. Applicant Date Property Owner or Authorized Agent • Date ~~0~~~ f' • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • ~, • 000008 9 5 I b 9-S L b- O 5 9 X d~ a ~ ~~ bt b9-SLb --059 ~NOHd `' ° ~ ~ I O S b 6 b~ r01 ~ d O ~ 'd d ~+~oi~xds ' . ` _~ _~ 1~3 ~ ZJ 1 S N 0 2J A 8 6 1 1 1 3t7h1 19GOZ 3fli~t3tl.~d :I:tlll ~~t'~ffis~x _ 4 _ '. Ntl'1d ~L~~` - ~ - - Y ~ Z Y - - F ~~~ HIS/ a731~M~N H1~8S~~ gg~~ T~ ~,: a ~ gap ~" $ m ~ .o a z-~a~ .~~SI - .- ~uncscsom .: -'. ~ _ ~ ,. - ~ac,s~a,~~~mom-smcma,.s ~ ~ - ~iu ~~ -3 ~ \i ~ r `~, !--_ ~. m 5- .r- ~ -___ ___ _. - . - ~ I ~ L -1--__ L ~e'V ~ .G-rG rrG~~G it 0_ I~Y ~.' q - f ~ `~ ~lav8~7s. z ~- s3' I< £~ ,II _ II _~; ,~-~ l _ i/ _ ® _ - . o air ,~ ~ z~. o y mat a ~.YY ~~-.__ rG,-. __._ ~ 1II, ~~ ~.~ ~ ~% c~z Y ~ ~ i I ~ ~ ~ 3 1- ~.. Y ~ i, - ~, r sly- ~:_ _ "- tk- ~ ~ `/ 1 ~ -~~~.a - m - mvamaffi ~ ~ w~,ss ~~ -~a~~,r~m~m s~.,..mnrsmse>v _ - . - arcs -®S _ ®~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1. ~~ a ` ``\ a b ~- ------- ~--=-----•[r- s ~ 1 r I ~ N I. r- ~ ~ ~ i ~ Z ~ z s ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ --- _ N_ _ i _.S _. _._. _ _ -.- -- --- -- ~ ~ l(: i ~ W. --, z z ~ _ - - --- --- - r ~- n -L ~ ~ -3 ~ ~ _ 9 ~ "~ Y ~ r ~ I F u7~ ~ O ~~ ~' ~ ~ ~ .°~ ~ ~ n e rb. _ ~ o ~ ~raL ~,~ ~ Z . - of ! > - .b Zn . ~.~ .~ x ?. ~i ~~ ~ ~ o t ~ ~ i ~ #- S i ;. ~ 3 ~ J? ~ r- aycsy.~avnAxwns - v'~o~vav~ ~ _ ,- I jI __ ~ ~ J ! I ~+ ~:; . ,i p >s _- ~__; v~r , ,~ _ '~' ~, ~ L 0 ~' r a~: f i ~ ; Z, I ~ ~_ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ tp - - - - Gi ~' k i r ~ !. ~ ~ ; ~~_- ~ ;. .13 ~ i `lf ~ I ~FpE'~ rI 1~ I~ I ~ i.. . -I ~== ~ __ _~~ `'•_ ;,J j - , : - ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ o ''. ~, t~ + ~ fL P ~. E' ` ~ ~ I \\ LZi! ~, ~ ~ ~ • _ ~~ ~ ~ o ~ + o ~ . ~ ~, $` a' I ~'- Is ~°~ ~ 8 }~~ ~~ a~ uE - - - - - x!w 3^~~ ~~ ~ I b9-SLb O ~ 9 Xd~ a~ ._ 17I b9-SL 17 _ O59 ~NOHd ~,~_ ;. ~- ' I O S -17.6 d O 'Ol l d. O d d , .. d~:~xds ~ cY? ` 1 3 3 Z.I 1 S N O~~ 9 6 1 1 1 anNand ~~dM iwoz ,_ - _, ~_ ~~~rr~ats~ta~.t~=_, -N'd~c! 1N~W3~~8` SNOIlt/A3~~ _. q ~ - - ,~ o ~ ~ (110 311 H O ~1 d ~ Y e .. _. _ ~_~ ~,g did Q~31~M~N N138S13 ~'€~ ~~ ~' F `If I ~ r i .= ~~ i 9~ i I i I { f ~_ , -- QI ( r i ~ E 1 is ' 3, ~ ~~ i ~ f Z n L. ~ 3 ~ ~ i i 3 ~ ~ ~~ " ~~ ,~ s N, I ~~ r ~ -L~ 1 EI; ~ ~ .~ Y . ~ ~1 ~~ €~__ - ( {~-~ y i i ~ ,___ ' ~ ~ , ~ ; ~ ~_ ~ -T ~=_; - Q ~' W ~ ~; i; ~ ' ~ ~, ~ ~. --~ _.; -------- ~ f . ~-~- DIRECTOR ITEM city of s~to~ Community Development Depar[rnent MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSIO FROM: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development DATE: January 9, 2002 RE: Mission Statement Please find below the comments provided to Staff regarding the draft Mission Statement that the Commission reviewed last month. I have offered another version for the Commission to consider. • Keep it brief and succinct • Encourages participation and expression of the Public • Provide opportunities for expression • Purposes and goals to follow?? • Keep concept of Saratoga as a `village" ..."supports the property owner and business owners in realizing their objectives and is consistent with..." ..."as set fourth by the General Plan and Ordinances'of the City" The mission of the Planning Commission is to foster the physical development of the Ciry that is consistent with the codes and General plan, and that supports the shared environmental, social and economic goals of all members of the Community "I am the steward of the shared vision of this Community" (Pacific Grove Mission Statement) Mission Statement The mission of the Saratoga Planning Commission is to maintain the unique character of Saratoga by ensuring that the physical development of the City is consistent the environmental, social and economic goals as set forth in the City's General Plan. •